Designing with natural algorithms and artificial ecologies: Some notes on a new constructivism.

AbstractThis paper scrutinises examples of computation in design culture through a constructivist philosophy, it

asks how we ‘know’ design or space differently through algorithmically intensive design processes? The

point of departure for this enquiry is Rivka and Robert Oxman’s The New Structuralism, which uses

fabrication and materialism as a focus for considering computation in design. Here, we speculate

computational processes are implicated in the ‘knowing’ of design and space. Constructivism advances the

structuralist position, providing a framework to interrogate computations influence on design. Using

examples from a design studio grounded with contemporary theory, this paper extends current

computational paradigms of geometric or material process; it investigates how these processes—in the

extreme—can shift understanding. While there is little originality in claiming computation changes our

perception of design, a constructivist ideology provides a framework to scrutinise its effects. Findings point

to designers’ shifting away from geometrically complicated architecture; as we mine into the granular DNA

of the built environment through artificial systems, we ask how computation disrupts or enhances design

culture and how designers ‘know’ place?

1. INTRODUCTIONThere is an increasing recognition that space is implicated in thought. Cognitive scientist Andrew Clark

supports this position and draws on compelling examples to support the argument [1, 2]. His claims are

illustrated with examples of species using augmentations, what he calls ‘environmental scaffolds’ to tune

spatial conditions for assisting cognition. Architectural theorist Richard Coyne has drawn on Clarks work

to critique virtual environments as place that affect thought [3]. Coyne argues, for example, virtual worlds

function like ‘non-places’ as conceived by anthropologist Augé [4], suggesting they restrict rather than

encourage thought. Most recently an article in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology [5]

documents experiments that reveal memory as being affected when we move from one space to another;

deemed sufficiently important to the discipline of architecture that it was even featured in archdaily [6].

This article draws the discussion regarding computation in design away from a structuralist focus on form

and software. If indeed space influences thought, we ask what influence does a contemporary appropriation

of computation have on the relationship between designers and their construction of space?

We begin with examples from a design studio focusing on natural algorithms for the simulation of

architecture, to advance the organisation of complex buildings and urban spaces. We then move onto a

second set of design examples, where the city is interrogated to expose its multitude of inter-related

systems and ecologies. These ecologies are modeled, creating a data intensive representation of place. We

hypothesise this design process of programming has different cultural origins to traditional architectural

design; as such it warrants consideration in regard to the designers ‘knowing’ of space and the city.

2. WAYS OF SEEINGFirstly, let us look at the contemporary framing of technology within design and architecture. Branko

Kolarevic [7, 8] has written several comprehensive anthologies that serve as timely barometers’ of the

evolving relationship between computation and design. More recently Rivka and Robert Oxman guest

edited Architectural Design: The New Structuralism [9]; where they use a structuralist ideology to explore

structures such as computing methodologies, digital/analogue systems and programming languages that

seem to currently drive a popular aspect of architecture. Here, we posit structuralism only interrogates part

of the spatial equation. By proposing a constructivist ideology, which focuses on the question of

knowledge, we complicate the Oxmans’ discourse. Designers’ are becoming more immersed in the

granularity of computation through software such as Rhino, Grasshopper and Generative Components.

Consequently they engage in creative practices that are markedly different from geometric drawing, which

historically dominated computer aided design [10, 11]. This paper is an exhortation to reframe the

questions surrounding the use of technology, as it moves beyond appropriation for solely geometric

operations.

2.1. The New StructuralismStructuralism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the 20th Century, which claims human

behaviour is determined by various structures. In 1962 Thomas Kuhn—one of its notable proponents—

used structuralism to undermine the established view that science was progressed through a gradual

increase in established facts and theories. In his seminal text The Structures of Scientific Revolutions [12]

Kuhn argues the process of enquiry is the important factor in scientific revolution, then revisits historical

examples illustrating their adherence to a structure. Structuralism also emerged as an architectural

movement in the middle of the 20th Century; it also privileged systems and structures as underling

architectural design. Typically these were structures of function, space or circulation, The New

Structuralism substitutes these with systems of parametric and algorithmic computation (Figure 1).

Figure 1: A parametric computing structure that produces geometry.

Space and structure are increasingly being designed through the type of visual programming interface

illustrated in Figure 1. This is the ‘grasshopper’ parametric interface plug-in for the Rhino 3D modelling

software. This type of interface has been used for sometime in computationally intensive software used by

multimedia artists and composers such as Max/MSP (http://cycling74.com/) and Pure Data

(http://puredata.info/). Although it is relatively new within architectural design, the modular methodology

has already been taken to the extreme by Burry et. al. [13] on the Sagrada Familia. Burry is exploring a

modular approach to parametric design much like the modular approach to programming. The advantage of

this modular approach to a complex design is in enabling a general holistic understanding through having

an overview of several smaller—easier to understand—modules. This provides an architecture that allows

for a better understanding of the overall system; enables multiple people to work on the system in clearly

defined areas with minimal conflict and confusion; makes it easier to change a module and thus develop

and evolve the system.

Arguably structuralist methodologies privilege the architectonics and structure of space rather than space

itself. As such it perhaps has limitations as a lens to scrutinise spatial design. To look beyond design as

simply making geometric forms we need to look beyond structuralism towards the tenets of constructivism.

2.2. ConstructivismConstructivism’s perspective on knowledge is that a reality cannot be ‘known’. Where a structuralist might

claim the structure of a phenomenon is its reality, a constructivist would argue it is a construction of reality,

but not reality itself. Constructivist learning theory has particular currency here, which claims new

knowledge is constructed from experience. Thus how we experience spatial design informs our individual

and unique understanding of place.

Returning to the implications of computation for the domain of architecture, when Frank Gehry was

famously intervied by the BBC he claimed not to use computers for design but as a checking system [14].

In What Designers Know [15] we find a proliferation of architects hand-drawn sketches, as Bryan Lawson

seeks to demystify how designers ‘know’ design. The sketch and drawing are romanticised in creative

discourse, marginalising computation and adding currency to the notion that it may somehow interfere or

adversely affect spatial design. Computation has historically not been considered a ‘creative’ activity in the

same way we might consider painting or sculpture. While there are suggestions that his might be changing,

a tension between analogue and digital processes remains within design culture. Whether or not we choose

to subscribe to this proposition, emerging designers are equally comfortable creating with a pen or through

programming. How do they know space, place and design through these emerging processes?

2.3. Test cases in computationally assisted spatial designTo help answer this question we will discuss two intensive architectural design studios’, which specialise in

intensive computation. The first design studio pluraform focuses on systems and the generation of

geometric form. Inspiration was drawn from natural algorithms such as L-systems, which are branching

structures similar to how trees or rivers subdivide. Only once a system was thoroughly investigated was an

architectural form generated. The second studio, futureChristchurch, advanced ideas of naturally occurring

organisation to conceive of the city as inter-weaving systems that create a complex urban ecology. We use

these studios’, the designers’ processes and expert critique to gain insights into the knowledge and skills

being obtained by the designers and the attention—or lack of it—being focused on spatial concerns.

3. PLURAFORM & NATURAL ALGORITHMS Let us turn our attention to the first design studio and the notion of natural algorithms. We will illustrate

our discourse with examples of course work and then reflect on its assessment by a panel of expert

architects. The pluraform design studio takes place within the third year of an undergraduate Bachelor of

Architecture course. With a central focus on complexity, typologies, morphological processes and the

scope to work at a variety of scales the course looks at how systems might be represented physically and

computationally using manual techniques and software. The first part of the course focuses on

understanding and representing systems, the second part focuses on how this might be applied to a design

problem.

3.1. Natural Computation‘Natural computation’ is interpreted as taking inspiration from nature to develop problem-solving

techniques, achieved through the synthesis of natural phenomenon. There are various applications of this

type of computation, such as synthesising water flow, cellular growth or predicting river patterns.

Relevance for architecture can be seen through the use of ‘swarm’ behaviour to simulate and study crowd

flow in new sports stadia design [16]. The presumption is that nature has already arrived at certain optimum

solutions, if those solutions can be applied to the built environment then certain benefits will be gained.

3.2. Artificial SystemsFor the purposes of the design studio several systems were chosen and scrutinised by the class.

Lindenmayer or L-systems are one example of a formal grammar simulating growth patterns of plants.

Different shapes of plants emerge in different environmental conditions from identical seeds. Similarly

different variables and conditions can be changed throughout the L-system; the resultant process can

produce a vast array of different possible geometries. The left portion of Figure 2 illustrates such a system

described in the Rhino 3D modelling software through the Grasshopper parametric interface. The right

portion of Figure 2 illustrates the resultant geometry; this geometry is manipulated by changing variables in

the parametric interface not by editing points of the geometric form.

Figure 2: An L-system branching parametric structure and the resulting geometry. Project by Justin Baatjes.

Having understood and modelled the system, students then investigate how it might be applied to a design

problem. In our first example the branching L-system was seen as being applicable to dispersal; thus is

could have application to airport design.

Figure 3: Airport design derived from L-system grammar. Project by Justin Baatjes.

3.3. Analysis of space and formThe airport design in Figure 3 developed from the system illustrated in Figure 2, at first glance the

geometric form seems to be privileged in the representation over spatial development. Space is only

represented in the three small images embedded in the top right corner of Figure 3. During discussions with

the student, tutor and expert panel the limited spatial development was attributed to running out of time.

Readers of this article engaged in teaching will recognise this as a common exhortion for underdeveloped

work and it is not without some grounding in fact.

However, this type of reasoning deflects attention from a more pressing problem concerning technology

and design. Which architect Juhani Pallasmaa summarises as avant-garde approaches to design not

engaging with what it means to be human [17], a position he has held for fifteen years. Yet the architect

and futurist Buckminster Fuller, in his manifesto Critical Path written in 1981 champions technology. In

particular he singles out the potential of computation to free humanity from the need to earn a living and

“work at tasks of its own choosing” [18].

Both theorists’—in their own way—claim humanity should be central where we are considering technology

and architecture. This essentially paraphrases the philosopher Martin Heidegger’s claim that reflection on

technology must be from a different realm [19]. Heidegger argues when technology “banishes man into that

kind of revealing which is ordering” that it “drives out every other possibility of revealing” [19]. Thus a

human centred analysis of computing in architecture is essential if something pertinent or of interest has the

possibility to be—in the words of Heidegger—brought forth.

Returning the design studio, couched within this theory, perhaps what is of interest is the imbalance

between technology and humanity. The word humanity is used here in a very general sense, to mean giving

consideration to human activity. The computation of pluraform takes centre stage and the design process

ends before any socio-cultural or phenomenological consideration of space is broached. Lack of concern

for the phenomenological was echoed during the final design review by a panel of architectural experts.

Two consistent themes emerged from the review, under-developed spatial consideration and under-

developed relation to the urban context. These are not uncommon critiques of geometrically and

computationally complex designs [20]. Buildings by Gehry, Eisenmann and Zaha Hadid have, at different

times, faced criticisms from a utilitarian or spatial perspective. However, we would argue this is

symptomatic of a problem that has taken root deeper within contemporary design culture; humanity is

subservient to over-intellectualisation and computation. Arguably, in both educational and commercial

design environments, there is never enough time. It would appear from our observations of design that

humanity does not command the strong position found in the mandates of Fuller and Pallasmaa,

consequently there is a limited meditation by students on the human condition. This imbalance can be seen

established as a pedagogical norm and later reinforced through the constraints of commercial design

practice.

Judging by our study of the pluraform design studio, from a purely structuralist perspective computation

produces exciting form. This resonates with Donald Norman’s differentiation between complicated and

complexity [21], which contends we do not actually like ‘simple’. Instead Norman suggests we require a

degree of complexity to maintain our engagement and interest. So although the creative process we have

described here was complicated, the design lacked complexity and thus did not engage a panel of experts

for long. Using constructivism as a lens to scrutinise design reveals the problematic of the process, which

Pallasma [17] or Fuller [18] would claim is devaluing human and spatial consideration. This perhaps adds

currency to the claims of computing adversely affecting design. While it can superficially be framed in

terms of ‘not enough time’, it is symptomatic of a situation grounded much deeper in the intellectual

culture of design and technology; emergent designers are being obstructed from engaging with both

technology and humanity.

The pluraform studio perhaps provides insight into why computing, specifically programming, is perceived

as creatively problematic. However, we will now turn our attention to the second studio—

futureChristchurch—where the primary course underpinnings remained focused on humanity and place.

Observational evidence perhaps provides some insight into the opportunities intensive computing might

offer design culture.

4. ARTIFICIAL ECOLOGIESThe futureChristchurch design studio took place in the first year of a postgraduate Master of Architecture

course and advanced the themes from the pluraform design studio discussed in the previous section.

futureChristchurch asked students to consider the city as a complex ecology of many intertwined and

interrelated systems. This is markedly different to current methods of city analysis, where aspects of the

city are singled out and removed from their complex multifaceted context. Although this abstraction makes

it simpler to understand a particular aspect of the city, it prohibits any sensitisation to the manifold of

attractions, flows and resistances that occur between the city’s multitude of systems. To paraphrase Donald

Norman, paradoxically, simplifying can render understanding complex systems more difficult.

In this section we expand on futureChrustchurch, which focuses on mapping complex ‘data whirlwinds’

that make up a city’s natural and artificial ecologies. We go on to analyse examples of this process, again

with the help of expert critique we reflect on the implications for design practices.

4.1. Data GatheringThere are vast amounts of information available on the urban environment: suburb population densities;

domestic, industrial and commercial land usage; soil type, depth and acidity; pollution indexes and air

quality, to name but a few. This information is typically stored in a variety of analogue and digital media,

such as databases secured by different government or council offices or annual reports. Access is

bureaucratic and time consuming, when obtained the information usually requires reformatting before it

can be reused. The political situation that existed in Christchurch New Zealand following a series of

devastating earthquakes resulted in the political will to make this information available. Underpinning the

futureChristchurch design studio was the question, ‘what can we do with this data to benefit the design

process and the future of the city?’

For the design theorist this situation is coupled to the realisation online inhabitants are populating public

and semi-public databases with information about daily routine and activities. From web services like flickr

and twitter it is possible to harvest information and glean insight into the life of a city on a particular day or

over an hour. In parallel, advancements with computing simulation have resulted in the production of

optimised design solutions and deterministic decision-making. Where computational power is used to

provide a simplified answer to, for example, energy consumption. The FP7 funded BRIDGE project, a tool

for city planners, is one such application [22] which computes which design option will be selected based

on energy efficiency. How can, or should, the profession leverage information technology to advance

design beyond deterministic decision-making?

4.2. Processing micro-urban placeOne group of students, the micro-urban group approached this problem by mapping some of the available

information into computation software. In the absence of an obvious design solution at an early stage, the

group opted not to invest time translating the data into rigid 3D form. Rather they devoted time and effort

to encoding the data so it could be repurposed in the future, in this case using the Processing software

(http://processing.org/). Micro-urban had access to a vast array of data, 25 datasets were available on

Christchurch covering a wide spectrum of environmental data from soil acidity, soil type and depth to

pollution and wind direction. To give some idea of the intensity and information density available, one

single dataset is illustrated in Figure 4. High-resolution photos of the city were also made available, which

the group exposed to pattern recognition algorithms. Through this process it was possible to identify and

encode land usage and foliage configurations.

Figure 4: Processing encoded data set for 'soil rooting depth'.

At this point it might be argued that futureChristchurch is unfolding the same as pluraform. However, in

this instance by way of the described computational processes, the students gained a considerable

knowledge of the city’s intimate workings. For example, when questioned on smog, the micro-urban group

was able to articulate the combination of environmental conditions needed to align for its creation. The

potential then exists to configure a city, using this complex model, to avoid or minimize the probability of

these conditions aligning. At this stage programming methodology and data manipulation overwhelmed

spatial consideration. However, by programming environmental city ecologies the group gained a deep

understanding of these systems and the influence they exert on the city and each other.

4.3. Agents of changeAdded to this environmental data whirlwind the group also had access to pre-earthquake configuration of

the Christchurch built environment. Data was available on the amounts of commercial, domestic and

industrial floor areas in each city zone. Working with software that privileged processing rather than form,

they now deployed independent intelligent ‘agents,’ which represented particular typologies of land usage,

such as parks, commercial buildings and domestic houses. In a departure from current ideologies on

simulation, the agents did not seek optimal conditions. Instead they were looking for better or inferior

conditions, from which they would iteratively move either towards or away from. A domestic building

agent, for example, was given a series of conditions such as distance from other domestic or commercial

agents, good soil quality, close proximity to parks and so on. The agents were positioned conforming to the

pre-earthquake makeup of Christchurch and activated to seek out better conditions for futureChristchurch;

a resultant ecology is illustrated in Figure 5. This is a morphological model that was ever changing, a

choice that was informed by an opposition to the deterministic nature of technology within contemporary

design. With a newfound sensitivity to the complexity of Christchurch this recursive model afforded

observation of the affect their decisions would have on the shape of a new city. This in turn enabled the

group to reflect on the decisions, choices and preferences they were privileging through their programming

process; causing a deeper reconsideration of values rather than a superficial consideration of geometry or

aesthetics.

Figure 5: Future Christchurch agent simulation by Micro-urban.

Couching our examples within the theories of Pallasmaa and Fuller, there are a number of notable

differences between pluraform and futureChristchurch. Unlike pluraform, from the beginning of the

Christchurch project issues of humanity were as present as issues of computation. In the micro-urban group

this resulted in a constant questioning and tension between the two. Which strongly resonates with

philosopher Martin Heidegger’s assertions that technology must always be critiqued through another

discipline [19].

Even in this modest project the data became complex and occasionally beyond the programmers. The

micro-urban group found themselves watching unexpected organisational patterns emerge. Resulting in

intense debates amongst the expert panel of reviewers’ to understand why the agents were flocking in

particular ways. The investigation did not result in spatial design; rather it produced a starting point for

design or debate. A series of city organisational outputs were generated that used the existing ecologies of

Christchurch as their starting point. In principle futureChristchurch used natural ecological systems as the

starting point for the city. Which is ideologically in opposition to modernist approaches to city plans,

romanticised by many architects of which Corbusier is perhaps the example par-excellence. Corbusier

perceives buildings as machines [23], suggesting they operate under a set of distinct internal operations,

separate from external forces. For the social critic Marx the process of technological change or automation

is also less about the potential prosperity it might facilitate in the form of more cost effective products,

rather he argues that automation “transforms the worker’s operations more and more into mechanical

operations, so that, at a certain point, the mechanism can step into his place” [24]. By appropriating the

‘machine’ micro-urban have subverted a central tenet to modernist design culture and a current concern

regarding the implication of computational optimisation for the design profession. Instead they created a

platform to leverage data processing to advance their design process and used computation to create built

environments that resonate effectively with natural environments.

In the appraisal of the design, even without a spatial design solution, a deep understanding of the

complexities of place, if not space, were observed by the panel of experts. An understanding of the city’s

dynamic nature and the manifold of variables that exert influence on created spaces. In futureChristchurch

any claims of ‘not enough time’ became redundant. Although considerable time was invested in learning

and computation, it was time spent on programming environmental conditions, values and specifications.

The subsequent decisions and behaviors the group deployed in their intelligent agents did not merely

change geometries, it reorganized a city; within their design and computational processes the group were

never far removed from the city of Christchurch.

5. SUMMARYWhile the first pluraform studio focused on systems and methodology, the second futureChristchurch

studio focused on a real place, the city of Christchurch. While the first projects seemed to result in

geometric exercises the second studio produced compelling city plans. There is perhaps credence here to

the often-quoted Frank Lloyd Wright who said never design a house until you see the site and meet the

clients. In our future Christchurch examples the site literally provided the data that became the starting

point for design. Rather than city plans being driven by arbitrary geometrical or political motivations, here

the natural ecology of place becomes the starting point for prototypical computational design processes

aimed at creating an artificial urban ecology that resonates with its natural environment.

Whether or not the simulated systems were accurate representations of the city ecologies is perhaps—from

a constructivist ideology—not as important as the designers ‘knowing’ of the complex inter-relationships of

the city and its occupants, a knowledge gained through intensive programming. Small changes to the

system produced dramatic changes to the macro-scale ecology and organizational geometries. In the first

studio this was a novelty, however by the second studio this pointed to the dramatic influence small

decisions can exert on city infrastructure and the impact on spatial design factors. Causing the designers to

reconsider their decisions and logic of their value framework. The software created by micro-urban is

granular enough to continue to refine the conditions and rules. While the results of the first studio were

overtly deterministic, the same could not be said for the micro-urban project that emerged from the second

studio. The computation did not output designed space but rather produced a richer representation of place

providing a potentially deeper understanding of Christchurch. Future work being discussed could include

individual ‘agent’ buildings redistributing themselves in response to shifting population density or

changing environmental conditions, or proposing potential interim organizational options to assist decision

making in evolving from an existing city configuration into the desired future city. Such design decision

support systems—to be meaningful—would continue to be contingent on the designers ‘knowing’ of the

intimate workings of the city and its spaces; knowledge that was gained, in our examples, through

computation.

Observational evidence suggests there is a need to retain focus on real space and place to ensure designers

continue to ‘know’ place and the ways computation can be leveraged to enable design. In the micro-urban

project this knowledge was gained through intensive computing and programming. The result was neither a

naive deterministic design solutions nor the supposition of total creative freedom with computation

ameliorating the brittle practicalities. This evolving design culture has instead revealed a more challenging

relationship being consolidated between design and computing. It has revealed where design might be

constrained to ensure the longevity of the city as a safe and sustainable proposition and—perhaps

importantly for design and computing culture—where the opportunities for design freedoms lie that won’t

compromise these objectives. While there may not be a prescription here for a computational methodology

for assisted design, it perhaps points to a shift in the dominant paradigm of design computing. It did not

follow Marx’ ideology to simply automate and takeover established design activity. Instead it has embraced

Buckminster Fullers’ challenge and provided some insight into how technology might augment designers

and leverage their knowledge in the creation of future spaces.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to extend their gratitude to the designers of the work used to illustrate this paper,

Justin Baatjes, Jordan Saunders, Adrian Kumar and Yun Kong Sung. They would also like to thank Erich

Prem and Julian Padget, would informed some of the themes in this paper.

References