Grounded Approaches to 'Design for Time' in Architecture
[ A B S T R A C T ]
[ A B S T R A C T ]
" The research has explored 'design for time' in the contexts of architectural practice and education. Previous research and scholarship has either focused on: observations of change in building and building use through case studies to support the development of theoretical frames; or the expression of theoretical ideas through conceptual design projects.
These provide a partial and fragmented insight for architects and students of architecture. Case study looks to prior experience which is a sensible learning strategy but has tended to an expansion of competing frames which express a pattern rather than a resolution to fundamental temporal principles which acknowledge causality. Previous conceptual projects have acknowledged design as a forward thinking, causal and contingent process but similarly avoid comprehensive mapping further adding to a fragmented outlook in the topic.
This raises the research question, is there a comprehensive and coherent frame for ‘design for time’? Consequently how can we find it, what can it look like, and what are its components? The research seeks to close this gap by more directly examining the design process in application through a program of grounded approaches.
If design thinking is embedded in the design process, then this is where ‘design for time’ must also be found. Therefore this research uses ‘research by design (RbD)’ through which a frame for temporal theory in architecture is extended.
The frame has potential as an adaptable mapping tool: for architects to develop their own practice in ‘design for time’; for academics to do causal analysis between the episodic lives of buildings and context composed of natural causes and human agency; and similarly a tool for students. The frame also has the potential to be adapted to any architectural design project.
If ‘design for time’ is embedded in temporally rich projects then participation, observation and reflection of temporally rich projects can enable principles of ‘design for time’ to emerge.
This is achieved through a grounded approach consisting of a multi-modal program of participatory ‘research by design’ projects. There are three project modes: prototyping and implementing; interviewing and mapping; and a dialogic workshop. Each mode reflects a leg of architecture: design research; professional practice; and learning by talking and doing.
Ultimately the research evidence shows that ‘design for time’ cannot often be a leading strategy, and can promote ambiguity/illegibility. Where it is an equal partner to other architectural strategies there is a link to the planned custodianship over time. Architects need to understand their clients attitude to custodianship over time even if it is absent as it often is. Architects are cognisant and sensitive to time but avoid explicit ‘design for time methods’ preferring a quality approach to design which facilitates a capacity to respond to change whatever that may be. Architects will rarely use explicit ‘design for time’ methods such as scenarios mapped in time unless this is driven by client values.
Further to the comprehensive frame the research supplies novel insights to research methods such as the ‘temporal pavilion’ concept, rich visual and narrative data sets and insights such as nascent theory making. This richness opens out the potential for further research, practice and learning which can more knowingly attach the agency of design to the vagaries of time. "
These provide a partial and fragmented insight for architects and students of architecture. Case study looks to prior experience which is a sensible learning strategy but has tended to an expansion of competing frames which express a pattern rather than a resolution to fundamental temporal principles which acknowledge causality. Previous conceptual projects have acknowledged design as a forward thinking, causal and contingent process but similarly avoid comprehensive mapping further adding to a fragmented outlook in the topic.
This raises the research question, is there a comprehensive and coherent frame for ‘design for time’? Consequently how can we find it, what can it look like, and what are its components? The research seeks to close this gap by more directly examining the design process in application through a program of grounded approaches.
If design thinking is embedded in the design process, then this is where ‘design for time’ must also be found. Therefore this research uses ‘research by design (RbD)’ through which a frame for temporal theory in architecture is extended.
The frame has potential as an adaptable mapping tool: for architects to develop their own practice in ‘design for time’; for academics to do causal analysis between the episodic lives of buildings and context composed of natural causes and human agency; and similarly a tool for students. The frame also has the potential to be adapted to any architectural design project.
If ‘design for time’ is embedded in temporally rich projects then participation, observation and reflection of temporally rich projects can enable principles of ‘design for time’ to emerge.
This is achieved through a grounded approach consisting of a multi-modal program of participatory ‘research by design’ projects. There are three project modes: prototyping and implementing; interviewing and mapping; and a dialogic workshop. Each mode reflects a leg of architecture: design research; professional practice; and learning by talking and doing.
Ultimately the research evidence shows that ‘design for time’ cannot often be a leading strategy, and can promote ambiguity/illegibility. Where it is an equal partner to other architectural strategies there is a link to the planned custodianship over time. Architects need to understand their clients attitude to custodianship over time even if it is absent as it often is. Architects are cognisant and sensitive to time but avoid explicit ‘design for time methods’ preferring a quality approach to design which facilitates a capacity to respond to change whatever that may be. Architects will rarely use explicit ‘design for time’ methods such as scenarios mapped in time unless this is driven by client values.
Further to the comprehensive frame the research supplies novel insights to research methods such as the ‘temporal pavilion’ concept, rich visual and narrative data sets and insights such as nascent theory making. This richness opens out the potential for further research, practice and learning which can more knowingly attach the agency of design to the vagaries of time. "