Between specificity and openness: How architects deal with design-use complexities

Abstract Design-use relations are complex: architects influence social outcomes through design without having control over them. Making this complexity explicit during design is important, but difficult. Promising is work on human-technology relations in science and technology studies (STS) and philosophy of technology. With an eye to connecting this theoretical work to design practice, we study what architects already do: how design-use complexities figure during design processes and how architects deal with them. Based on a case study of the design competition for a new media building, we show two lines of reasoning in architects’ anticipation of use: specificity and openness. In doing so, we aim to provide insight into when, where and why they can benefit from STS and philosophical theory.

[1]  Stewart Brand,et al.  How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built , 1997 .

[2]  Karen Barad.  Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter , 2003, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[3]  Leslie Haddon,et al.  Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life , 1996 .

[4]  A. Pickering.  The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[5]  Wouter Eggink,et al.  Philosophy of Technology x Design: The Practical Turn , 2018 .

[6]  Ann Heylighen.  In case of architectural design , 1997 .

[7]  Yvonne Denier,et al.  QUAGOL: a guide for qualitative data analysis. , 2012, International journal of nursing studies.

[8]  W. Reichmann,et al.  Architecture, materiality and society : connecting sociology of architecture with science and technology studies , 2015 .

[9]  Joan Ockman,et al.  The Architecture of the City , 1982 .

[10]  M. Larson,et al.  Architecture: The Story of Practice. , 1992 .

[11]  Albena Yaneva,et al.  Mapping Controversies in Architecture , 2012 .

[12]  Kjetil Fallan.  Architecture in action: Traveling with actor-network theory in the land of architectural research , 2008 .

[13]  T. Gieryn,et al.  What buildings do , 2002 .

[14]  Philippe Boudon,et al.  Lived-in architecture: Le Corbusier's Pessac revisited , 1972 .

[15]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[16]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Generic abstraction in design creativity: the case of Staatsgalerie by James Stirling , 2010 .

[17]  Peter G. Rowe.  A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural Design. , 1982 .

[18]  Trevor Pinch,et al.  How users matter : The co-construction of users and technologies , 2003 .

[19]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Ambiguity and Open-Endedness in Behavioural Design , 2018, DRS2018: Catalyst.

[20]  D. Ihde.  Technology and the lifeworld : from garden to earth , 1991 .

[21]  Albena Yaneva,et al.  Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design , 2009 .

[22]  Rob Imrie,et al.  Architects' Conceptions of the Human Body , 2003 .

[23]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[24]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Winning by design: the methods of Gordon Murray, racing car designer , 1996 .

[25]  M. Stender.  Towards an Architectural Anthropology—What Architects can Learn from Anthropology and vice versa , 2017 .

[26]  Ann Heylighen,et al.  Whom do architects have in mind during design when users are absent? Observations from a design competition , 2016 .

[27]  B. Latour.  On Technical Mediation , 1994 .

[28]  Jonathan Hill,et al.  Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users , 2003 .

[29]  R. G. Studer,et al.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1965 .

[30]  Johan Redström,et al.  RE:Definitions of use , 2008 .

[31]  Albena Yaneva,et al.  The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture , 2009 .

[32]  Jeremy Till,et al.  Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture , 2011 .

[33]  P. Verbeek.  What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design , 2005 .

[34]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .