Research

 Methods  and  Design  Strategies  

Patricio  Simbana  Escobar  
#4326385  
 

COMPLEXITY  THROUGH  COMPUTATIONAL  PARAMETRIC  TYPOLOGY  AND  PHENOMENOLOGY  

“The  use  of  computers  in  architecture  has  not  only  become  
a  technological  advantage  in  design  and  construction,  but  
also  modified  the  epistemes  of  typology,  making  hard  to  
determine  the  compositional  ideas  behind  some  buildings.  
A  smart  combination  of  computational  technology  with  
logical  sense  apply  in  phenomenological  epistemes  could  
result  in  thoughtful  and  coherent  design  strategies”.      

INTRODUCTION    

In  the  current  days  Architecture  has  experienced  a  vast  convergences  of  theories,  styles  technologies  and  
experimentations.  This  epistemological  confrontation  has  created  many  currents  of  design  strategies  as  
well  as  criticism.  More  than  ever,  especially  with  globalize  architecture,  every  architecture  needs  to  
determine  its  own  approach  towards  his  designs  and  be  aware  of  the  different  styles.    For  that,  Charles  
Jencks  states  that  “several  epistemes  function  at  once  within  architecture  culture.  They  are  simultaneous  
and  complementary”.  It  can  be  argued  that  with  the  use  of  technology,  many  epistemes  are,  intertwining,  
even  maybe  merging,  making  hard  to  separate  them  and  understand  completely  the  intentions  of  many  
architects.  Therefore,  an  episteme  that  could  not  be  easily  manipulated  by  computers  should  become  the  
main  element  in  the  design  process.  In  fact,  phenomenological  episteme,  this  sensorial  design  method  
could  develop  thoughtful  buildings  that  can  easily  be  understood.  Using  the  model  of  Imre  Lakatos,  the  
Phenomenological  Episteme  would  be  positioned  as  the  hard  core,  always  in  accordance  to  the  specific  
necessities  of  the  client.  In  fact,  if  the  client  tells  you  specifically  how  he  envisions  or  what  he  wants  in  the  
space  it  will  never  be  a  false  premise,  and  through  the  strengthened  of  sensorial  emotions  with  his  desires  
the  result  will  be  a  thoughtful  and  strong  concept  per  see.  If  then,  computational  architecture,  or  any  other  
episteme  are  added  as  the  protective  belt,  by  default  complexity  and  deepness  in  the  project  are  also  
incorporated.  Finally,  an  understanding  of  computational  architecture  and  different  epistemes  such  us  
typology,  semiology,  morphology,  materiality  and  phenomenology  are  explained    to  determined  whether  
computational  technology  or  phenomenology  are  more  representative  in  the  architectural  design.    

TYPOLOGY    

The  first  episteme  is  typology,  and  was  mentioned  by  Jean  Nicolas  Louis  Durand.  He  did  not  start  through  a  
programmatic  analysis,  as  the  tendency  of  that  time  and  instead  was  focused  on  grouping  building  by  its  
type.  For  instance,  he  explored  the  different  typology  of  churches  and  classified  them  according  to  the  
similarities  they  shared.  In  fact,  typology  then  became  the  main  design  strategy  in  the  20th  century,  with  the  
main  contribution  of  Aldo  Rossi,  in  where  he  attacked  functionalism  and  mentioned  that  the  only  way  to  
create  architecture  is  through  “compositional  Design  techniques  ”  as  the  only  research  approach.    

In  the  same  way,  computational  architecture  even  when  could  not  necessarily  be  catalogued  as  an  
episteme,  started  as  a  negation  of  the  conventional  Architecture  in  the  quest  for  new  typology  episteme  
and  architecture  building  that  would  adapt  to  the  new  life  style  of  people.  However,  instead  of  looking  for  
new  design  ideas  in  functionalism  it  explores  the  advantages  of  using  data  and  computer  software  in  order  
to  create  new  organic  spaces  through  algorithms.  For  instance,  through  the  program  Grasshopper,  some  of  
these  new  design  techniques  had  switched  from  geometric  forms  displayed  on  the  screen,  to  dragging  
components  into  a  canvas;  the  output  of  these  components  would  then  be  processed  by  the  computer  and  
would  generate  an  organic  geometric  form.  Meaning  this  new  typological  epistemes  come  from  processing  
algorithmically  equations  which  generate  architecture  spaces.    

SEMIOLOGY.  

Secondly,  the  process  of  design  itself  has  switched  from  conventional  2d  design,  drawing  in  two-­‐
dimensions,  which  was  going  along  with  the  design  process  that  since  Palladio  has  been  implemented.  The  
use  of  plan,  section  and  elevations  (façades)  to  design  and  represent  a  building  still  occurring  nowadays,  
however,  they  were  more  popular  before.  Within  the  next  years,  more  and  more  programs  were  developed  
and  three-­‐dimensional  design  software  became  the  main  source  of  composition.  Furthermore,  the  last  
years,  the  use  of  diagrams  have  become  the  new  way  of  researching  and  communicating  concepts  in  
architecture,  almost  replacing  the  methods  of  volumetric  compositions  or  even  physical  models.  Famous  
firms  have  made  diagrams  their  trends  and  emblem  with  Bjarke  Ingels  Group  as  the  most  famous  one.  
Although,  diagrams  are  a  good  story  tellers  and  easy  to  assimilate  for  the  clients,  there  might  be  a  lot  of  
information  that  is  not  being  presented  and  just  can  only  be  understood  through  physical  models  and  
spatial  representations  such  as  perspectives  and  renders.  

In  contrast,  in  Grasshopper  the  main  design  process  switched  from  a  visual  three-­‐dimensional  geometry  
design  process  into  an  algorithmically  equations  and  data  development;  the  3d  model  becomes  a  
secondary  element  because  it  is  just  the  result  of  the  connections  and  parameters  created  in  the  canvas.  
Every  time  the  parameters  are  adjusted,  new  components  introduced,  or  any  connection  between  the  
components  broken,  the  whole  3d  model  changes.  Sometimes  due  to  a  different  equation  or  a  new  link  
between  parameter  is  created,  the  initial  geometry  changes  completely,  meaning  different  models  appear  
every  time  a  simple  change  is  done  in  the  canvas.  (Van  den  Heuvel  &  Komosa,  2013,  p.  235).  

However  what  makes  this  approach  valuable  is  the  real  grasp  of  space  reality  because  it  centers  in  the  
constant  evolving  3d  volume.  This  means  that  the  building  is  not  a  compilation  of  sections  plans  and  
elevations  that  all  together  bring  to  life  the  building  but  instead  a  design  made  from  a  whole  three-­‐
dimensional  mass  that  architects  start  manipulating  until  the  desired  volumetry  is  reached.  Only  afterwards  
are  floor,  sections  and  plans  from  the  frozen  2d  image  of  model  is  obtained.  This  in  addition,  is  one  of  the  
justifications  of  the  use  of  parametric  software  in  where  when  you  change  one  parameter  the  whole  
building  changes  and  adapts  to  the  new  set  of  data,  even  when  that  data  is  just  the  change  in  dimensions.  
Something  that  really  does  not  happens  in  conventional  architecture  in  where  changing  one  dimension  or  
changing  something  my  just  affect  a  particular  part  in  the  building  or  in  just  one  axis  of  it  but  not  the  entire  
building.  (Van  den  Heuvel  &  Komosa,  2013,  p.  241-­‐242  
MORPHOLOGY  

Thirdly,  parametric  architecture  in  his  search  for  new  building’s  identity  looks  to  connect  directly  buildings  
to  nature  through  curves  and  meshes  instead  of  straight  sharp  angles.  In  addition,  buildings  should  not  
have  different  systems  layers  such  as  installations,  structure  or  finishes;  instead,  this  new  architecture  tries  
to  have  entities  that  are  organism,  buildings  that  have  the  façade  the  structure  and  the  details  all  combined  
in  one  geometry,  as  in  a  mammal  species  where  the  skin  is  connected  with  bones  and  tissues  all  along  with  
the  veins  conforming  the  limbs.  (Oosterhuis,  2011,  pg.  22).  This  is  a  radical  position  against  the  vision  of  Le  
Corbusier,  where  as  a  machine,  buildings  were  conformed  by  different  and  separable  elements  
prefabricated  by  distinct  factories.  In  the  same  context,  Mathias  Ungers  mentioned  that  modern  cities  are  
no  longer  uniform  systems,  the  complexity  of  them  can  be  understood  by  analyzing  their  different  layers  
such  us:  transport,  green  spaces,  water,  sewage,  electricity,  public  spaces,  and  pedestrian  routes.  It  is  
important  the  isolation  of  each  layer  for  operational  proposes.  In  the  same  spectrum,  a  building  is  a  
zooming  of  a  component  of  the  city,  meaning  it  can  also  be  analyzed  through  layers:  such  us  structure,  
installations,  walls,  finishes,  among  others.  The  isolation  of  layers  could  be  important  in  the  design  process  
and  especially  in  the  adaptation  of  the  building  in  the  future  if  the  owner  requires  it,  in  contrast  with  
parametric  buildings  where  is  almost  impossible  to  made  adaptations  to  a  fix  entity.    

MATERIALITY.    

Despite  the  advantages  of  using  computers  in  parametric  architecture  were  noticeable  at  the  beginning,  it  
is  becoming  more  and  more  controversial  with  the  years  because  the  abstract  models  are  hard  and  
expensive  to  build  or  still  need  optimization  to  acquire  a  more  rational  and  living  volumetry.  However,  one  
of  the  main  advantages  is  the  customization  of  materials  in  Grasshoper  and  its  directly  production  on  the  
factories.  In  fact,  the  construction  could  greatly  benefit  from  this  by  the  easy  manipulation  of  any  
parameter  in  the  computer,  in  where  the  real-­‐time  virtual  changes  can  be  applied  and  immediately  appear  
in  the  factory  file;  meaning  that  any  piece  is  monitored  from  the  office  and  the  factory  at  the  same  time  
and  can  be  produced  with  100%  accuracy.  This  will  result  in  less  production  time  and  waste  due  to  any  
mistake  found  could  be  corrected  immediately  right  after  a  quick  review  from  the  technicians  involved..  
(Oosterhuis,  2011,  pg.  13).  However,  one  of  the  downside  of  this  is  the  lack  of  essence  of  materials,  
because  they  all  have  the  same  texture.        

 On  the  other  hand,  a  more  subtle  but  consistent  approach  is  the  materiality  explored  by  Peter  Zumthor,  in  
fact  he  continues  the  vernacular  approach  and  focused  on  trying  to  highlight  the  essence  of  the  material.  
Even,  taking  in  a  poetic  way,  he  says:  “  Materials  reacts  with  each  other  and  have  their  radiance,  so  that  the  
material  composition  gives  rise  to  something  unique”    (Zumthor,  2006,  25).    He  mentions  the  importance  of  
letting  a  material  become  what  it  needs  in  a  building;  letting  the  age  of  material  appears  and  the  patina  of  
them  become  a  signature  for  building.  In  fact,  he  also  mentions  :“I  have  seen  it  again  and  again,  that  
atmospheric  energy  you  find  in  Palladio  especially.  And  I’ll  just  mention  that  all  the  same,  because  I’ve  
always  had  the  feeling  that  as  an  architect,  as  a  master  builder,  he  must  have  had  an  extraordinary  sense  of  
the  presence  and  weight  of  materials”.  (Zumthor,  2006,  28).  Therefore  this  simpler  but  more  thoughtful  
approach  can  give  a  real  distinction  and  identity  to  a  building  and  not  become  jusf  one  of  the  many  
buildings  using  the  same  customize  material.    

 
PHENOMENOLOGY    

One  of  the  main  developers  of  phenomenology  episteme  is  Auguste  Choisy  and  his  studies  of  the  acropolis  
of  Athens,  in  where  he  was  not  focused  on  the  actual  built  form,  but  instead  in  the  perception  of  the  
approach  towards  the  site,  and  how  you  experience  the  buildings.    (Avermaete,  2014.  3).  The  main  
elements  of  compositions  were  not  the  form  but  the  whole  journey;  how  people  move  through  space  and  
perceive  it,  feel  different  things.  In  this  context,  Peter  Zumthor  has  become  an  important  phenomenology  
architect  not  only  for  his  modest  and  thoughtful  projects,  but  also  for  his  writings  in  where  he  describes  his  
way  of  seeing  architecture  and  designing  through  the  spectrum  of  senses.  In  fact  in  his  book  Atmospheres  
he  mentions:  “  Architecture  is  a  spatial  art,  as  people  always  say.  But  Architecture  is  also  a  temporal  art.  My  
experience  of  it  is  not  limited  to  a  single  second…that  means  thinking  about  the  way  people  move  into  a  
building.  As  in  his  project  thermal  baths  in  where  he  induced  this  sense  of  freedom  of  movement,  seducing  
people  to  go  from  one  space  to  another”  (2006,  pg.  28).  This  phenomenological  episteme  gives  a  deeper  
feeling  of  appropriation  of  the  space  to  people  and  not  only  a  feeling  of  being  in  a  cold  boring  room.  
Describing  sensorial  experiences  depends  on  every  person  and  more  than  that  on  being  present  in  the  
space.  Therefore,  this  episteme  would  be  unique  for  every  project  and  also  different  for  every  client  or  
user.  

CONCLUSION  

As  Thomas  Kuhn  stated,  “  Science  progresses  through  cycles  of  scientific  revolutions,  alterned  to  periods  of  
consolidation  that  are  called  “calm  science”.  I  consider  nowadays  architecture  is  on  a  crisis  in  where  the  
modern  style  or  postmodern  style  are  on  decay  and  new  tendencies  such  us  Parametric  Architecture  is  on  
the  rise”.  However,  the  use  of  computers  and  data  should  not  become  the  center  of  the  design.  It  could  be  
use  as  tool  as  the  protecting  belt  that  complement  the  main  concept  in  the  design  but  should  not  replace  or  
contaminate  the  core  which  should  be  an  episteme  that  has  its  own  identity  and  its  different  for  every  
project.  Therefore  the  importance  of  phenomenology  episteme  becomes  this  pure  core  as  the  basic  
concept  in  design.  I  could  conclude  that  the  design  of  every  architect  should  not  only  combine  different  
epistemes  but  also  add  some  logic  with  technology  at  the  end.  I  could  even  say  it  is  not  anymore  “Less  is  
more”  but  instead,  “phenomenological  technology  is  more”.    

REFERENCES:  

• Zumthor,  Peter.  (2006).  Atmospheres,  Architectural  Enviroments,  Surrounding  Objects.    Barcelona    

 
• Oosterhuis,  Kas.  (2011).  Towards  a  New  Kind  of  Building.  Rotterdam,  Nai  Publishers.  
 

• Van  den  Heuvel,  Dirk;  Komosa  Susanne  (2013).  “Towards  a  new  kind  of  building”.  Delft  lecture  
series  on  Architectural  Design.  2  :  233  
 

Bibliography:    
 
• Jabi,  Wassim.  (2013).  Parametric  Design  for  Architecture.  King.  
 
• Oosterhuis,  Kas.  (2002).  Programmable  Architecture.  Arca  Edizioni.  
 
• Jones,  J.C.  (1992).  Design  Methods.  New  York,  2nd  Ed.