DESIGN PROBLEMATIZATION: the role of the individual preferences and beliefs in the design process
Several factors are to be taken into consideration in designing a structure. Among other things, the problem solving of the given “initial” problem, the usage of the structure and the aesthetic outcome of the design are given the most importance when designing. What are usually placed at the bottom of the priority in designing are those that deal with the qualitative qualities in designing. These left out qualities ranges from the intellectual to the emotional. This goes the same for the decision-making process, more often than not, what is given more focus by both architecture professionals and students is the process in answering or giving solution to the design problem and the actualization of the design concept.
In a given scenario of a design competition consisting of different individuals given with the same problem, the design schemes that would result would vary between the firms. Although they were given the same problem, each gave their own individualized scheme. The question now is how their beliefs, inclination and assumptions affected their design schematics. What role did it played when it came to the problem solving?
In Stevie Harfield’s paper on “design problematization”, He claimed that in a similar scenario as the one mentioned above, there is a different solution to different problems, instead of the widespread idea of having different solutions to the same problem. By this he meant that the initial given problem is not the actual problem, rather it is a prerequisite in order to obtain the “proto-solution” which in turn is the requirement for the design problem. For example, in designing a three bedroom house un...
... middle of paper ...
...f the environment (PRICE, Travis and DAVIS, Wade, 2006).
The designing process is a structured, methodical and creative process; it is the process where the designer creates a completely different and innovative idea. Thus it is necessary for the design to be individualized and personalized. By imposing their own view on the problem at hand, architects are able to set their own design goal and thus they are able define the appropriate design approach to solve the problem.
Works Cited
FREDERICK, Matthew. 2007. 101 Things I learned from Architecture School. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
HARFIELD, Steve. 2007. ‘On design ‘problematization’: Theorising differences in designed outcome. Design Studies. 28(2), pp.159-173.
PRICE, Travis and Wade DAVIS. 2006. The archaeology of tomorrow: architecture and the spirit of place. Earth Aware Editions: Earth Aware Editions.
“Design is the method of putting form and content together. Design, just as art, has multiple definitions, there is no single definition. Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that’s why it is so complicated.”(Rand, Paul)
Abstract: New forms in current world have been testimony to the contemporary style of postmodern architecture and are the strength of today’s generation for creating significant architectural standards. Post modernism has blurred the borders between contemporary and traditional construction classical concepts and simply in the field of art and literature. The architectural elements like domes, arches, and classical shapes have lost their identity but the post modernism tries to bridge between these historical forms and contemporary styles. The related architects not only struggled to achieve the image for the buildings but also rejected oversimplified diagrams for living. The post modernism here tries to achieve theoretical base for their designs that creates the excitement in the design program.
In this paper I will present two differing views on the topic of the design argument. In particular, I will explain William Paley's view supporting the design argument and Bertrand Russell's view against the design argument. After a presentation of the differing views, I will then evaluate the arguments to show that William Paley has a stronger argument.
Computer aided design (CAD) is used in design offices around the world because speed and efficiency is extremely valuable. The idea of Concurrent Design Engineering is a relatively new concept that has improved the speed that designers produce a product. Concurrent Design Engineering is a way to integrate all the processes in design back to a three-dimensional geometric data base or a CAD model. All the steps in designing a product have an opportunity to contribute to and be actively informed of decisions and changes throughout the process of design. CAD has the ability to generate fast, easy to understand models that can be altered with ease and with concurrent design engineering, any changes would be known by everybody involved. Each of the different areas of product design are equally important and some parts of the process may be able to aid another which is why concurrent design engineering is so important. Computer software and hardware is becoming so sophisticated that it may eventually eliminate the need for any analog drawing. With the improving technology the ability to transfer graphic information across the globe has become easy.
In conclusion, the debate between aesthetics and functionalism has been around for a long time. It becomes clear however, through research, that the first thing architects consider is function, and then aesthetics. It is because of this approach that aesthetics becomes somewhat of a by-product of the whole design process. By looking at examples of various buildings, it is apparent that aesthetics is important to structure and in many instances has been successfully coupled with function. But in no circumstance should aesthetics take precedence over the function and practicality of a building. It seems more likely that a happy medium between function and aesthetics can be reached, on a project by project basis, and then applied to the design process of creating the building.
Lorsch, J. W. (1987), “Organisation Design: A Situational Perspective”, Academy of Management Review, January Issue, pp. 117 – 132.
are used as the integral components of the architectural design, this reflecting a conceptual cohesion that is missed in previous architecture.
Creswell, J., 2003, A framework for design, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 3-26.
With the interaction between the development of computational approaches in architecture and the contemporary forms of spatial design intelligence, some new architectural design theories emerged to make differences between architects and control designing processes. These theories are almost employed in all designing realms, from architecture to urban design to provide fields of ideas and solutions that privilege by complexity. Most of these theories are oriented to relay on understanding and using computational methods to generate exotic and complex geometries. In this respect, three of these theories will discussed and tested against three buildings. The theories are: parametric design, genetic architecture and emergence, which characterize some of the contemporary architectural design approaches.
Experimental designs are viewed as the most accurate, and most demanding of research designs, requiring strict attention to rules and procedures. Researchers use these research designs to manipulate and control testing procedures as a way to understand a cause and effect relationship. Commonly, independent variables are manipulated to judge or decide their effect on a dependent variable (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008).
There are 25 major specialties in engineering that are recognized by professional societies. In any one of those 25 specialties, the goal of the engineer is the same. The goal is to be able to come up with a cost effective design that aids people in the tasks they face each day. Whether it be the coffee machine in the morning or the roads and highways we travel, or even the cars we travel in, it was all an idea that started with an engineer. Someone engineered each idea to make it the best solution to a problem. Even though engineer’s goals are similar, there are many different things that engineers do within their selected field of engineering. This paper will focus on the architectural field of engineering.
Constantly judged and evolving, the practice of architecture is forever plagued by the future. The future of people, of culture, technology and its resulting implications on the built environment that more often than not, outlives their creators. Much of the conversation surrounding this future architecture currently hinges itself on the creation of new experiences, forms and spatial relationships brought about by technological innovation.
This paper will exam aspects of correlational design. According to Fabiano-Smith (2011), correlational designs are non-experimental research designs that focus on observing variables as they naturally exist. Since this design type is non-experimental, one of its major disadvantages is the focus on the relationship of the variables and not is cause and effect between the variables. Despite this weakness, correlational design does have several strengths. It observes the variables as they occur in a natural setting without manipulation. Researchers often use the initial establishment of correlational relationships between variables to identify what variables should be further studied for cause and effect utilizing experimental designs.
Behind every architectural work there is an architect, whether the architect is one man or woman, a small group, or an entire people. The structure created by any of these architects conveys a message about the architect: their culture, their identity, their struggles. Because of the human element architects offer to their work not just a building is made, but a work of art, a symbol of a people, a representation, is also created.
According to Mouton, research designs are tailored to address different kinds of research questions. Thus, when attempts are made to classify different kinds of research studies to different design types, they are classified by the kind of research questions they are able to answer. Research designs can be mapped out to the types of research questions (research problem) using four dimensions: 1) empirical versus non-empirical dimension, 2) using primary versus using secondary data, 3) the nature of the data (numerical versus textual data) and 4) the degree of control (structured (laboratory) conditions versus natural field settings)