Architectural Design

1.11 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, Meaning, Nature & Methods Architectural Design is a prescription or model of the solution of architectural problem, for implementation. As it is obligation on language to deliver meaning, it is duty of architecture to deliver space. It delivers space through materials. Design, therefore primarily relate to space and materials, and the use or abuse of both. The solution is expected to be built with materials to express the abstraction of the expectations of client, architect or both. For our (standardised) academic environment the design is a proposal for development of a site or plot including the building (interior & exterior) and its surroundings in our jurisdiction, within the legal framework. Generally, all buildings are architectural products but not necessarily a piece of architecture. The economy of space and materials has to compromise with the spatial qualities unique to architecture. Architecture (and design) deals with two elements, the space and the materials. The design process is synthesis of three parameters of architecture, viz. Theory (i.e. soul, purpose), Expression (function) and Technology (body- materials & structure). The design is influenced by four factors or data, viz. anatomical, geophysical, personality (sociocultural) & technological. Design starts and ends with logical and physical premises, which are bridged by a process of abstraction, now referred to as concept. Architectural design is an intelligent expression of the individual abstractions of totality of its components, bound in their functional commitments and limitations of physical properties of the space and materials involved. An architectural design achieves excellence, if the complexities of function and limitations of space and materials become assets of the abstraction. Design is a process of subdivision and not addition. We don’t add body parts to assemble a human body. Additive process leads to assemblage. Though each of the parts may be best in its class, but as a group, they don’t complement (or adjust) each other, because they have different purpose and origins. The entire body is conceived and the parts are created by dividing the body. All living creations start with the head and spine, and all body parts develop out of them through growth and separation. Hence, they belong to body & complement each other. Many students use additive method of design. They keep drawings rooms, one after another in straight line and add corridor on side. When the assemblage is long, they take right turn and start again. Three right turns make a courtyard type design. Outer periphery appears interesting to them as it dances to the tune of uneven room sizes. Some students start attaching rooms to the outer periphery of the setback line, and whatever space remains inside is termed as circulation area. Both are examples of additive designs. They should take area or volume, in a desired form equal in quantity to the total space required and divide the same in to the component as per their logical requirement.

Some architects believe that design is a mysterious and individual activity, which is beyond description; it happens but is not amenable to analysis. It is important at this stage to make a very clear distinction between design theories, design methodologies and design tools. A theory is, at least initially, a non-prescriptive explanation which does not have an architectural end in view. Design methodology, on the other hand, describes specific operations which are believed to be helpful in the design sequence. Design abstraction or conceptualisation is an individual intuitive tool. Some designers by virtue of abstracting the process itself, (due to repetitive nature of design), pretend to skip some of the stages consciously or on record, and thus evolve their individual mysterious or magical activity. Some architects having either mastered logical process or perceived it as insignificant, dwell totally on the novelty of form. Crumbling a piece of paper, or cutting across a capsicum or tomato and developing a form of building from it, are neither methods nor processes of design. These are tools for searching new ideas, and should for used for such abstractions only. This in fact, is second stage of design. Design process consists of certain stages in sequence. It is properly followed and well documented in case of bigger projects or designer being a team and not individual. It is similar to planning process and being well defined is objective in approach and results. Being a logical process, results from all the designers, who follow the process, should be similar, in nature and contents, though not same. When an authentic process is followed honestly, the success is assured. Individual contribution is limited to honest application of process. In case of intuitive design the success is accidental and depends on the individual using the technique. It is therefore a tool. Tools don’t assure success. Success depends on the skill of the handler, but in case of design, yet it is accidental. Design methodology therefore, has two parts. One is logical process and the other is magical abstraction; first is functional and second is intuitive; first is easy to reason and explain and the second is easy to philosophise and pronounce. Which should come first is a matter of debate and hence choice. When you are conscious (rather proud) of being a great designer, you prefer to start with abstraction. In case you are an average designer like me start with logical process. Keep it in subconscious and search for abstraction. With logic in subconscious, the tools of abstraction generally give you the ‘Tectonic’ of design. It includes form and the organisational structure of the object. Therefore capsicum or tomato sometime makes better role model. Analogy, metaphor, graphic design, themes, typology, etc., are some of the tools that are used for abstraction. Analogy is a potent source of creative ideas in architecture. Fastfood centre in shape of burger is typical example of romantic analogy. The word ‘architecture’ has been used as analogy by computer science, and the terms like microprocessor architecture have gained more popularity than the core architecture. (Refer 1.12 for Design Process and 1.21 for tools of Design)