two evolutionary models for reconceptualizing architectural ideas and the architectural design ...

311 Pages·2008·14.95 MB·English

TWO EVOLUTIONARY MODELS FOR RECONCEPTUALIZING
ARCHITECTURAL IDEAS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
PROCESS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

HAKAN ANAY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
ARCHITECTURE

SEPTEMBER 2008
Approval of the Thesis:

TWO EVOLUTIONARY MODELS FOR RECONCEPTUALIZING
ARCHITECTURAL IDEAS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
PROCESS
Submitted by HAKAN ANAY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture Department, Middle East
Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen
Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences _______________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Güven Arif Sargın
Head of Department, Architecture _______________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emel Aközer
Supervisor, Architecture Dept., METU _______________

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Vacit İmamoğlu
Architecture Dept., METU _______________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emel Aközer
Architecture Dept., METU _______________

Prof. Dr. Atilla Yücel
M.Arch in Architectural Design, İstanbul Bilgi University _______________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Berin F. Gür
Architecture Dept., METU _______________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Fehmi Doğan
Architecture Dept., İzmir Institute of Technology _______________

Date: 01.09.2008
ii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained
and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I
also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited
and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name : Hakan Anay

Signature :
iii
ABSTRACT
TWO EVOLUTIONARY MODELS FOR RECONCEPTUALIZING
ARCHITECTURAL IDEAS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
PROCESS

Anay, Hakan
PhD., Department of Architecture
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emel Aközer

September 2008, 296 pages

This study puts forward two complementary evolutionary models and explores
the potential of the proposed models and the related theses by employing two
case studies. The theoretical/conceptual framework of the study refers to
architectural theory, design research, and evolutionary epistemology. The study
mainly involves application of some key ideas from evolutionary
epistemology, Popper’s three-world ontology, and the theory of evolution to
the field of architecture.
The first model is about the nature of the architectural ideas or “thought
contents” and it introduces the idea of “conceptual inheritance” and an
“evolutionary conception of architectural ideas.” The model proposes a
framework that offers an understanding of the life and existence of
architectural ideas and their inheritance. It also puts forward an expanded view
of architectural ideas that conceives all the “thought contents,” which
architectural designs (or works) and the architectural design process might
concern, as architectural ideas. In order to illustrate and discuss the model,
some of the architectural ideas carried by Mario Botta’s single-family house in
iv
Breganzona are selected and the evolutionary lineage of these ideas have been
identified and examined in their instances in some of Botta’s own designs and
in some designs from architectural tradition.
The second model is an “evolutionary model of the architectural design
process.” While emphasizing the evolutionary or “selectionist” character of
architectural design in terms of process and inner dynamics, the model
conceives architectural design as a process consisting of the two stages of
“forming/making,” and “evaluation/selection” where in the first stage
formative ideas, in the second, selective conditions are operational. In order to
illustrate the potentialities of the model, the sketches and the drawings
produced during the design process of Mario Botta’s single-family house in
Breganzona are examined.
Keywords: Architectural idea, Architectural design process, Conceptual
inheritance, Three-world ontology, Evolutionary epistemology
v
ÖZ
MİMARİ DÜŞÜNCELERİN VE MİMARİ TASARIM SÜRECİNİN
YENİDEN KAVRAMSALLAŞTIRILMASINA YÖNELİK İKİ EVRİMSEL
MODEL

Anay, Hakan
Doktora, Mimarlık Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Emel Aközer

Eylül 2008, 296 sayfa

Bu çalışma, birbirini tamamlayan iki evrimsel model önerir ve önerilen model
ve ilgili tezlerin potansiyellerini iki örnek bağlamında araştırır. Çalışmanın
kuramsal/kavramsal çerçevesi Mimarlık Teorisi, Tasarım Araştırması, ve
Evrimsel Epistemoloji’ye dayanmaktadır. Çalışma, evrimsel epistemoloji, Karl
R. Popper’in “üç-dünya ontolojisi” ve evrim teorisi’nden bazı temel
düşüncelerin mimarlık alanına uygulanmasını içerir.
İlk model mimari düşüncelerin (ideaların) ya da “düşünce içeriklerinin”
doğasına ilişkindir ve “kavramsal kalıtım” düşüncesinin yanı sıra mimari
düşüncelerin evrimsel bir kavrayışını ortaya koyar. Model, mimari
düşüncelerin yaşamlarını ve varlıklarını anlamaya yönelik bir çerçeve, ve
mimari tasarımlarla ve mimari tasarım süreciyle ilgili olan ve olabilecek tüm
düşünce içeriklerini mimari düşünceler olarak nitelendiren, mimari düşüncelere
ilişkin kapsayıcı bir kavram sunar. Modeli örneklemek ve tartışmak için, Mario
Botta’nın Breganzona’daki ev tasarımının taşıdığı bazı mimari düşünceler
seçilmiş ve bu düşüncelerin evrimsel “nesli” gerek Botta’nın kendi
tasarımlarında gerekse mimarlık geleneğinden bazı tasarımlarda belirlenmiş ve
izlenmiştir.
vi
İkinci model ise mimari tasarım sürecinin evrimsel bir modelini önerir. Model,
mimari tasarımın, hem süreç hem de iç dinamikleri bağlamında evrimsel ve
seçmeci niteliğini vurgular ve mimari tasarım sürecini “biçimlendirme/yapma”
ve “değerlendirme/seçme” olarak adlandırılan, biçimlendirici düşüncelerin ve
seçmeci şartların operasyonel olduğu, iki aşamalı bir süreç olarak
kavramsallaştırır. Modelin potansiyellerini örneklemek için, Mario Botta’nın
Breganzona’daki ev tasarımının tasarım süreci boyunca üretilmiş eskiz ve
çizimleri incelenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mimari düşünce, Mimari tasarım süreci, Kavramsal
kalıtım, Üç dünya ontolojisi, Evrimsel epistemoloji
vii
To Meltem

viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I want to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Emel Aközer for her continuous guidance and support in the development
of the present study. I also want to thank to Prof. Dr. Vacit İmamoğlu for his
constructive criticisms and positive and encouraging attitude during my study,
and to Prof.Dr. Atilla Yücel, Prof.Dr. Haluk Pamir, Prof.Dr. Ömer Akın,
Assist.Prof.Dr. Fehmi Doğan and Assist.Prof.Dr. Berin F. Gür for their
valuable criticisms and suggestions.
I am grateful to my family, especially to Ülkü Özten and Hasan Anay. Finally,
special thanks must go to Meltem Anay to whom I dedicated this study, for
always standing by me.
Finally, I should note that during my thesis study, I had the opportunity to
study various issues that took place in the present study earlier in some
occasions, and presented and published them as conference/symposium
proceedings. These studies helped me to clarify my ideas and to develop my
thesis.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... IV 
ÖZ ..................................................................................................................................... VI 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... IX 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... X 
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... XII 
CHAPTER 
1.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 5 
1.2 THE PROBLEM SITUATION .................................................................................................. 11 
1.3 THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 18 
1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 25 
1.5 THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................... 26 
2.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY, PART I .................................................... 27 
2.1 KARL POPPER: EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY AND THREE‐WORLD ONTOLOGY .......................... 28 
2.1.1 EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY ....................................................................................... 28 
2.1.2 AN EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTION OF PROGRESS .................................................................. 31 
2.1.3 EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTION OF TELEOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND ENDS‐GUIDED PROCESSES .. 37 
2.1.4 THREE WORLDS ............................................................................................................ 43 
2.1.5 AN EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH TO WORLD THREE ............................................................... 50 
2.1.6 MEMETICS ................................................................................................................... 52 
2.2 DONALD CAMPBELL: THE “BLIND‐VARIATION‐AND‐SELECTIVE‐RETENTION” PROCESS ................... 55 
2.3 STEPHEN TOULMIN: CONCEPTUAL INHERITANCE AND CONCEPTUAL CHANGE ............................... 61 
2.3.1 REVOLUTION VERSUS EVOLUTION ..................................................................................... 66 
2.4 EVALUATION OF THE CHAPTER ............................................................................................ 69 
3.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY, PART II ................................................... 71 
3.1 SECTION ONE: THE TWO PARADIGMATIC INTERPRETATIONS OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE .............. 72 
3.1.1 REYNER BANHAM ON TRADITION AND PROGRAM ................................................................ 72 
3.1.2 JOHN SUMMERSON ON PROGRAM .................................................................................... 79 
3.1.3 STANFORD ANDERSON ON TRADITION ............................................................................... 90 
3.1.4 ALAN COLQUHOUN ON TRADITION AND DESIGN METHOD .................................................... 98 
3.1.5 COLIN ROWE ON PROGRAM AND PARADIGM .................................................................... 107 
3.1.6 COLIN ROWE AND FRED KOETTER ON TRADITION AND UTOPIA ............................................. 111 
3.2 EVALUATION OF THE SECTION ONE .................................................................................... 114 
3.3 SECTION TWO: CONJECTURE/ANALYSIS MODEL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ............................. 115 
3.3.1 BILL HILLIER, JOHN MUSGROVE AND PAT O'SULLIVAN ON CONJECTURE/ANALYSIS MODEL OF 
DESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 115 
3.3.2 JANE DARKE ON THE PRIMARY GENERATOR ...................................................................... 123 
3.4 EVALUATION OF THE SECTION TWO ................................................................................... 124 
x