Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

Edited by
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser,
Aaron T. Davis,
Ashraf M. Salama and
Andrea Hardy
Architecture
Beyond Criticism
Expert judgement and performance evaluation
ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM
For the first time, this book demonstrates that the two paradigms of architectural criticism and
performance evaluation can not only co-exist but complement each other in the assessment
of built works.
As architecture takes more principled stances worldwide, from environmental sustainability
to social, cultural, and economic activism, this book examines the roles of perceived and measured quality in architecture. By exploring in tandem both subjective traditional architectural
criticism and environmental design and performance evaluation and its objective evaluation
criteria, the book argues that both methodologies and outcomes can achieve a comprehensive
assessment of quality in architecture.
Curated by a global editorial team, the book includes:
Contributions from international architects and critics based in the UK, USA, Brazil,
France, Qatar, Egypt, New Zealand, China, Japan and Germany
Global case studies which illustrate both perspectives addressed by the book and comparative analyses of the findings
A six part organization which includes introductions and conclusions from the editors, to
help guide the reader and further illuminate the contributions.
By presenting a systematic approach to assessing building performance, design professionals

will learn how to improve building design and performance with major stakeholders in mind,
especially end users/occupants.
Editors Preiser, Davis, Salama and Hardy represent an aggregate of cutting edge architectural
practice, consulting, research and lecturing on a global basis.They have a collective publication
record of 25 books with major publishing houses in the world. Senior editor Wolf Preiser has
chaired national committees in the US, among others, for the National Academy of Sciences;
Aaron Davis has become an expert in consulting on the design of building faades; Ashraf
Salama is editor of two international professional journals; and Andrea Hardy is an Architectin-Training exploring the concepts of developing the public realm in growing desert cities.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd i
9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ii
9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM
ARCHITECTURE
BEYOND CRITICISM
Expert Judgment and Performance
Evaluation
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis,

Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd iii
9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM
First published 2015

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
2015 Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy
The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
[CIP data]
ISBN: 978-0-415-72532-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-72533-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-74065-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Out of House Publishing
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd iv
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
CONTENTS
List of figures
List of tables
Notes on the editors
Notes on contributors
Preface
Acknowledgments
Foreword: Nigel Oseland
viii
xiv
xv
xvii
xxvii
xxix
xxx
PART I
Introduction
Introduction
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy
PART II
Evolution and role of architectural criticism
21
Identity crisis: estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism

Aaron T. Davis
23
The role of editors as critics

Michael J. Crosbie
37
Is curating the new criticism?

Pedro Gadanho
46
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd v
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
vi
Contents
5 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil

Jos T. Lira
53
6 Superficial material similitude

Galia Solomonoff
66
7 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics

Thomas Fisher
75
Reflections on Part II: Daniel S. Friedman
83
PART III
Plurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture

8 Media coverage and users reactions: Al Azhar Park in Cairo
re-examined
Ashraf M. Salama
9 The influence of the milieu on architectural criticism
Yann Nussaume
10 Architectural criticism and building performance evaluation in
Germany
Ursula Baus and Ulrich Schramm
89
91
104
111
11 An analytical critique of Cairene urban conservation projects

Remah Y. Gharib
121
12 Buildings and their use: the dog that didnt bark

Frank Duffy
128
13 Oblique alternatives: architectural advancement through performance

Paul Knox
133
Reflections on Part III: Daniel S. Friedman
140
PART IV
Historical review and types of building performance evaluation
145
14 Historical review of building performance evaluation

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser and Andrea E. Hardy
147
15 Building performance evaluation in the UK: so many false dawns

Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman
160
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vi
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
Contents
16 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai: the current state of the site of

Expo 2010
Clare Jacobson
17 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan
Akikazu Kato, Gen Taniguchi, and Shiho Mori
18 Architectural critics as another building stakeholder: a global
perspective
Chris Watson
Reflections on Part IV: Daniel S. Friedman
vii
171
183
193
200
PART V
Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation
205
19 Using scientific research methods in assessing visual aesthetic quality

Jack L. Nasar
207
20 Performing the urban form-based codes as a method of architectural

critique
Brenda C. Scheer
217
21 The socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation

Yasser Mahgoub
224
22 Quality assessments in health care environments

Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Clayton Boenecke
232
23 Building performance evaluations and universal design

Korydon H. Smith
244
24 Regenerative design: redefining the limits of architectural judgment

Elizabeth Walsh and Steven A. Moore
252
Reflections on Part V: Daniel S. Friedman
265
PART VI
Epilogue
269
25 Talking the talk: about architecture

Ike Ijeh
271
Index
278
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
FIGURES
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of

context, history, and overall architectural knowledge and education
Source: Andrea Hardy.
The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and
performance evaluations in architectural education
The habitability framework
Source: Hunter Byrnes.
Habitability research
The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO firms
Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation
Source: Amber Adams-Hill.
Elements of architectural criticism
Excerpt from Diderots Encyclopdie, ou dictionnaire raisonn des
sciences, des arts et des mtier showing the structure and machinery
involved in sugar production
Source: public domain image.
Kazimir Malevichs Modern Buildings (1924)
The Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center by Zaha Hadid
Source: photo by Sarah Le Clerc.
OMAs CCTV Tower, headquarters of China Central Television
Contents page of the January 1910 edition of Architectural Record
Source: photo by author.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd viii
4
8
10
13
14
16
25
28
29
30
38
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
List of gures
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
6.1
6.2
6.3
Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum

Progressive Architectures April 1994 issue.
Cover of 35th Annual P/A Awards issue, January 1988
9+1 Ways of Being Political exhibition at MoMA in 2012
Source: author.
Candido Portinari, Desbravamento da Mata (Entry Into the Forest),
mural painting, 316 431 cm, Library of Congress, Washington,
DC, USA, 1941
Source: Projeto Portinari.
Candido Portinari, Descoberta do Ouro (Discovery of Gold), mural
painting, 394 463 cm, Library of Congress, Washington, DC,
USA, 1941
Source: Projeto Portinari.
Oscar Niemeyer, Dance Hall in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil, 19401943
Source: photograph by Gustabo Neves da Rocha Filho. FAU-USPs
Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR
Oscar Nimeyer, Casino in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil,
19401943
Source: photograph by Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USPs
Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR
Joo Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture
and Urbanism at the University of So Paulo, So Paulo,
Brazil, 19611969
Source: SEF-USP.
and Urbanism at the University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil,
19611969
Source: photograph by Raul Garcez. FAU-USPs Library.
and Urbanism at the University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil,
19611969
Source: photograph Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USPs Library.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.pt_BR
Dia:Beacon entrance, with Walter De Marias Equal Areas, 1977.
Stainless steel on ground, 2003
Source: David Joseph.
Galia Solomonoff , Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space
Source: Lily Wang.
Galia Solomonoff , Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space
Source: Lily Wang.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ix
ix
41
42
43
50
56
57
58
58
60
61
62
68
69
70
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
List of gures
6.4 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB,

The Pavilion installation, 2011
Source: Alex Guerrero.
6.5 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB,
The Pavilion installation, 2011
Source: Alex Guerrero.
6.6 Galia Solomonoff , Solomonoff Architecture Studio. The Pavilion
interior, 2011
Source: Galia Solomonoff .
7.1 Architecture is less
Source: author.
7.2 The performance cycle
Source: author.
7.3 Performance characters
Source: author.
7.4 Performance roles
Source: author.
8.1 View of Al Azhar Park to the north
Source: photographer: Gary Otte; Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva.
8.2 View to the north of the park through the main spine
Source: author.
8.3 View to lakeside caf through the lake
Source: author.
8.4 Front view of hilltop restaurant showing outdoor terraces and the
Mamluk architectural motifs adapted to create a contemporary
image in harmony with the context
Source: author.
9.1 Azuma House by Tadao Ando in Osaka: (a) street faade; (b) floor
plan level 1; (c) floor plan level 2; (d) floor plan level 3
10.1 Development of the policy for energy-efficient and sustainable
buildings in Germany
Source: diagram by U. Schramm based on http://www.enevonline.de and http://www.nachhaltiges bauen.de
10.2 Example of an energy performance certificate, based on the real
energy consumption of a residential building during occupancy,
indicating a benchmark of 124.3 kWh/m2a
Source: U. Schramm with energy consultant U. Schreiner.
10.3 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2005 DGNB-Certificate:
Gold, RIBA award, Deutscher Architekturpreis: High
Commendation
Source: Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.
10.4 Demolition works and protest demonstration at the north wing of
Stuttgarts 100-year-old train station
Source: Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd x
70
71
71
76
78
79
81
92
93
93
94
107
114
115
116
118
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
List of gures
11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers Alam

El-Benaa and Medina Magazine
Source: author.
13.1 41 Cooper Square at the Cooper Union designed by Thom
Mayne of Morphosis
Source: author.
14.1 An in-house approach to the use of post-occupancy evaluations
14.2 Key components of a post-occupancy evaluation
14.3 Categories for post-occupancy evaluations, simpler indicative to
more complex diagnostic POE
14.4 In-house and external influences through the use of postoccupancy evaluations
14.5 People influence buildings and buildings influence people
14.6 POEs allow for a more direct interaction and influences between
clients, occupants, and buildings
14.7 Each examination room has a unique view some of the sky,
others the parking lot
Source: buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Iwan Baan.
14.8 Imagine having to wash windows after a sand storm
Source: buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Gehry
Partners LLP.
15.1 The cover illustration from Flying Blind (Bordass 2001)
Source: Louis Hellman.
16.1 Footprint of buildings during Expo 2010 Shanghai China
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.2 Footprint of buildings on July 12, 2013
16.3 Site map of five zones during Expo 2010 Shanghai China
16.4 Site map of future use of five zones, as defined by the Expo
Shanghai Group, March 2013
16.5 National pavilions in Pudong during Expo 2010 and during the
summer of 2013
summer of 2013
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xi
xi
123
137
150
151
151
153
155
155
156
156
164
172
173
175
175
177
178
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xii
List of gures
summer of 2013
17.1 A picture book on the journey of Marron Sister and Acorn
Brother
Source: Akikazu Kato.
17.2 Ward plan of Katta Public General Hospital (floor level 3)
Source: courtesy of Taro Ashihara Architects.
17.3 Single-bed room versus multi-bed room
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.4 Suggestion to make two inconsistent ideas possible in Japan
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.5 Ideal type of relations between privacy and communication
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.6 Example of adjusting interpersonal relationship
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.7 Schematic sketch of all single room inpatient ward
Source: Akikazu Kato.
19.1 Evaluative map of Knoxville by residents
Source: author.
19.2 Evaluative map of Chattanooga by visitors
Source: author.
19.3 Adjective checklist for qualities the new headquarters
should convey
Source: author.
20.1 Form-based codes, Columbia Pike,VA
Source: photo by Brett VA, licensed under CCx3.0.
20.2 Form-based codes architecture
Source: photo by D. Scheer.
21.1 Researcher and informant dialogue
Source: author.
21.2 Profession, criticism, and evaluation dialogue
Source: author.
22.1 Quality improvement POE levels
Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.
22.2 POE components informed by MHS world-class principles
Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.
22.3 Simplified performance concept to connect outcomes to facility
design
Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.
22.4 POE performance framework
Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.
22.5 POE phases and data collection tools
Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xii
179
185
187
188
189
189
190
190
213
213
214
220
222
229
229
234
235
236
237
239
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
List of gures
22.6 Example of metrics for access and wayfinding

22.7 Example of data collection tools and metrics for access and
wayfinding
23.1 Illustration of discriminatory design practice
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
23.2 Illustration of universal design practice
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
23.3 Conceptual diagram of the complementary paradigms of
universal design
Source: Korydon Smith.
24.1 The Interrelated Concepts of Regenerative Design. From Beyond
LEED, exhibition at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2012.
Elizabeth Walsh, designer, produced through http://www.wordle.net
24.2 Public conversation as a driver of changing social, ecological, and
material conditions
24.3 Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue
Source: BNIM, BNIM.
24.4 Greensburg Regenerative Rebuild, LEED-Platinum high school
Source: BNIM, Assassi.
24.5 Regenerative tourism at Playa Viva
Source: courtesy of Playa Viva; photo by Randolph Langenbach.
24.6 Participatory process for the Potty Project
Source: Julia King.
24.7 A decentralized sewerage system in the making
Source: Julia King.
25.1 Example of Eisenmans use of sloping windows and ground planes
at the Greater Columbus Convention Center
Source: Mark Olson.
25.2 The shattered building style of Libeskinds addition at
the Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work of
Gehry at MITs Stata Center
Source: Wikipedia.
25.3 The shattered building style of Libeskinds addition at
the Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work of
Gehry at MITs Stata Center
Source: Wikipedia.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiii
xiii
239
240
245
246
249
253
256
258
259
260
260
261
272
274
275
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
TABLES
1.1
1.2
A1.1
2.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
14.1
15.1
19.1
19.2
19.3
Milestones in the evolution of habitability research

Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy
Core bibliography
Major phases in the evolution of architectural criticism in the
United States and its European antecedents in aesthetic criticism
Categories of concepts/terms utilized in the content analysis of
media coverage of Al Azhar Park
Compelling titles used by the media to project and depict Al
Azhar Park
Reasons for users ratings of the park design as excellent or good
Activities people perform when visiting the park
Milestones in the evolution of POE/BPE
Elements of a new professionalism: ten points developed
with the Edge
Salient physical characteristics of environments
Strengths and weakness of various modes of presentation
Items for use in assessing salient aspects of emotional appraisals
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiv
7
11
17
32
96
97
99
101
148
168
210
210
211
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
NOTES ON THE EDITORS
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, University of Cincinnati and Arizona State University, holds a

PhD in ManEnvironment Relations from Penn State, and several architecture degrees from
Virginia Tech, Karlsruhe Tech (Germany), and Vienna Tech (Austria). He has over 40 years of
experience in teaching, research, and consulting in the evaluation and programming of environments, including health care facilities, public housing, public libraries, cross-cultural and
universal design, as well as design research in general.
He has published 18 books and over 130 chapters, monographs and articles. His most
recent books include: Enhancing Building Performance (Wiley, 2012); Universal Design Handbook
(McGraw-Hill, 2010); and Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned From Schools of Architecture
(Fairchild, 2007). Preiser has lectured worldwide at 69 venues and conferences in the United
States and Canada, as well as 86 overseas. He has served on national committees with the
American Institute of Architects, the Building Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences, and the National Institute for Disability Rehabilitation Research.
Preiser has received many awards, including: two Progressive Architecture Awards; two
Professional Fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts; The Career Award from
the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA); two EDRA Achievement Awards;
as well as other awards while at the University of Cincinnati.
Aaron Davis holds a Masters degree in Architecture from Columbia University (2009). His
undergraduate degree in Architecture is from the University of Cincinnati (2004).
He has been practicing in architecture for the past ten years with Foster + Partners in
London and New York, and Rafael Vinoly Architects in New York and Cleveland, Ohio. Davis
is currently a Partner at PRE-OFFICE.
Aaron has served as a guest critic at Columbia University, the University of Cincinnati, and
The Rhode Island School of Design where he was also a Graduate Thesis Critic in 2009
2010. Davis has been published in numerous journals, including: Art & Education, Volume,
Urban China, Test Pattern, and The International Journal of Architecture Research.
Ashraf M. Salama, PhD, FRSA, FHEA is a licensed architect in Egypt, and received his
BSc, MSc, and PhD from Al Azhar University, Egypt and North Carolina State University,
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xv
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xvi
Notes on the editors
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. He is Professor and Chair of Department of Architecture at

the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Dr. Salama has written over 100 articles and papers
in local and international conferences, archival journals, and trade magazines; contributed 14
book chapters; and authored and co-edited seven books: New Trends in Architectural Education:
Designing the Design Studio (Tailor Text Publishers, 1995); Human Factors in Environmental Design
(Anglo-Egyptian Publishers, 1998); Architectural Education Today (Comportements, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2002); Architecture as Language of Peace (Intra-Moenia, 2005), Design Studio
Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future (Urban International Press, 2007); Transformative Pedagogy in
Architecture and Urbanism (Umbau-Verlag, 2009); and Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and
Urbanism in an Emerging City (Ashgate, 2013). He is currently working on a book entitled
Spatial Design Education (Ashgate, 2015). Professor Salama was the recipient of the first award
of the International Architecture Design Studio, University of Montreal, Canada, 1990, and in
1998 he won the Paul Chemetove Prize for his project on Architecture and the Eradication
of Poverty, a United Nations International Ideas Competition. Dr. Salama has been appointed
Technical Reviewer for the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in Geneva, 8th Cycle (1998
2001). He has chaired the jury team for the International Students Competitions organized by the IAHH the International Association for Humane Habitat Mumbai, India in
20062007. In 2012, he served as a jury member in the international limited competition
for designing an eco-villa organized by Gulf Organization for Research and Development
(GORD), and sat on the panel of Jurors in CityScape Awards in Qatar.
Andrea Hardy, Arizona State University, Creo Architects, holds a Masters degree in
Architecture from Arizona State University (2012). Her undergraduate degree in Architectural
Engineering Technology is from Wentworth Institute of Technology (2007).
She has been practicing in architecture offices for the past ten years both during and
between obtaining her degrees. After working professionally in Boston and Phoenix, and
studying public architecture through Arizona State University in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
Hardy is currently working at Creo Architects in Phoenix and is working towards getting her
architectural license.
While at Arizona State University, Hardy was a member of the American Institute of
Architecture Students, served one term as Secretary for the American Institute of Architecture
Students, was a teaching assistant for a design studio and history class, received multiple scholarships, and participated in non-academic activities such as volunteer work for Habitat for
Humanity and working on multiple design competitions.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvi
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Dina Battisto, PhD, is Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at Clemson University
where she teaches in the Architecture + Health Program and leads the Built Environment and
Health concentration area in the PhD program. She conducts environmental research with a
goal of improving the design of health care facilities using a building performance approach.
As Principal Investigator, Dr. Battisto has been awarded a total of $3.5 million of external
research funding since 2008. In addition, she has won numerous national design awards, is
highly recruited to speak at conference venues, and is widely published.
Ursula Baus studied art history, philosophy, classical archaeology, as well as architecture, in
Stuttgart, Germany and Paris, France. Her studies culminated in her doctorate in architectural
history in Stuttgart in 1999. For over two decades, she has been working as publisher, first as
editor of an architectural magazine and subsequently as independent critic and researcher in
architecture. Until 2011, she taught architectural theory and criticism at several universities,
published textbooks on a variety of topics, and lectured both nationally and internationally. In
2004, she co-founded the partnership frei04 publizistik, for both national and international
architectural publications. Until 2012, she served as vice-president of the advisory board for
the Bundesstiftung Baukultur (Federal Foundation for Architectural Culture). Since 2010, she
has been a scientific advisor to the IBA Basel 2020 (International Building Exhibition). She
serves as a member of the advisory board for the Schelling Architecture Foundation and as
expert for the Mies van der Rohe Award. As an editor, she was a member of the internet portal www.german-architects.com until 2013. Currently, she is owner of a new internet portal
for architectural criticism.
Clayton Boenecke, MHA, serves as the Chief, Portfolio Management, in the Defense Health
Agency. Clay leads a team of civilian health care planners and collaborates with colleagues
from the army, navy, and air force to identify the most important medical facility investments
for the Department of Defense. Clay actively supports EBD principles and research and their
inclusion in military medical facility construction and renovation. Clay is a Fellow of the
Health Facilities Institute and member of ASHE.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xviii
Bill Bordass, William Bordass Associates and the Usable Buildings Trust, is a scientist who
moved to the designers RMJM London, going on to lead its building services and energy
groups. He now studies technical and environmental performance of buildings in use and
works closely with human factors specialists. He was a member of the team that undertook the
published PROBE series of post-occupancy evaluations. With co-author Adrian Leaman, he
helped to set up the Usable Buildings Trust charity which seeks to make building performance
evaluation a routine activity for design and building teams and their clients.
Michael J. Crosbie, PhD, FAIA, has made significant contributions in the fields of architectural
journalism, research, teaching, and practice. He studied architecture and received his Doctor
of Philosophy degree from Catholic University. He has served as an editor at Architecture: The
AIA Journal, Progressive Architecture, and ArchitectureWeek.com, and since 2001 he has served as
editor-in-chief of Faith & Form, a quarterly interfaith journal on religious art and architecture.
He is also a frequent contributor to Oculus magazine, Architectural Record, and writes about
architecture and design for the Hartford Courant. He is the author of more than 20 books on
architecture, including five books for children. Dr. Crosbie is a Professor of Architecture and
Chair of the Department of Architecture, and Associate Dean of the College of Engineering,
Technology, and Architecture at the University of Hartford, and has served as an adjunct
professor at Roger Williams University and Catholic University. He has lectured and served
as a visiting critic at architecture schools in North America and abroad, among them the
University of California (Berkeley), the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and the
Moscow Architectural Institute. Dr. Crosbie has practiced with Centerbrook Architects and
Steven Winter Associates, is a registered architect in the State of Connecticut, and is a member
of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects.
Frank Duffy trained as an architect at the Architectural Association School in London from
1959 to 1964. He became interested in office design in the fourth year when his class was
given the brief to design an office building that, unlike briefs for more socially committed
projects, was extremely abbreviated. Coincidentally, his imagination was stimulated by a novel
form of office planning in Germany called Buerolandschaft, or office landscaping, based on
studies of internal patterns of communication. In 1967 Duffy went to the USA as a Harkness
Fellow, first to Berkeley then to Princeton, where the focus of his doctoral research was the
study of how several sociological dimensions, complexity of hierarchical structures, as well
as the frequency and intensity of internal interactions related to varying degrees of differentiation and openness in office layouts.In 1971 Duffy returned to London, initially working on a series of office projects across Europe for IBM. These projects were the foundation
of DEGW, the international architectural and space planning practice he helped to found.
DEGW has published widely in architecture and interior design and has conducted many
research studies, most notably the ORBIT series on the impact of information technology
on the workplace.Duffy has been much involved in professional politics, serving as President
of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and of the Architects Council of Europe.
In 1997 he was appointed a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) by Her Majesty the
Queen.
Thomas Fisher is a Professor in the School of Architecture and Dean of the College of Design
at the University of Minnesota. A graduate of Cornell University in Architecture and Case
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xviii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xix
Western Reserve University in Intellectual History, he was recognized in 2005 as the fifth
most published writer about architecture in the United States. He has written seven books, 47
book chapters or introductions, and over 325 articles in professional journals and major publications. Named a top-25 design educator four times by Design Intelligence, he has lectured at
36 universities and over 150 professional and public meetings in the US.He has written extensively about architectural design, practice, and ethics. His books include In the Scheme of Things:
Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture (Minnesota, 2000), Architectural Design and Ethics,
Tools for Survival (Architectural Press, 2008), Ethics for Architects: 50 Dilemmas of Professional
Practice (Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), two monographs on the work of architect David
Salmela (Minnesota, 2005, 2011), a book on the work of Lake Flato (Rockport, 2005), and a
book on system design entitled Designing to Avoid Disaster:The Nature of Fracture-Critical Design
(Routledge, 2013). He has also co-edited a book with Wolfgang Preiser and Jack Nasar entitled Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture (Fairchild, 2007). Some
recent chapters he has written include one on the history of ethics education in Architecture
School:Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America (MIT, 2012) and one on ethics for
the next edition of The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice (AIA, 2013).
Deborah Franqui, AIA, is currently a PhD candidate in the Planning, Design and Built
Environment PhD Program in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities at Clemson
University. Her experience as a licensed architect and owner of SPACES architects in Puerto
Rico focused on the programming, planning, design, and construction management of workplace environments. Her recent experience has focused on developing pathways to assess the
performance of ambulatory care clinic environments.
Daniel S. Friedman is Dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Hawaii at
Manoa. Prior to joining the faculty at UHM, Friedman served as Dean of the College of
Built Environments at the University of Washington, director of the School of Architecture at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, and director of the School of Architecture and Interior
Design at the University of Cincinnati. Friedman lectures and writes on professional education, public architecture, ethics, and contemporary theory. He earned advanced degrees
in architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, where he completed his doctoral dissertation on the history and design of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla. He was
elevated to the AIA College of Fellows in 2001.
Pedro Gadanho is the Curator of Contemporary Architecture in the Department of
Architecture and Design at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Previously, he divided
his activity between architecture, teaching, writing, and curating. Gadanho holds an MA in
art and architecture and PhD in architecture and mass media. He is the author of Arquitetura
em Pblico, and recipient of the FAD Prize for Thought and Criticism in 2012. He was the
editor of BEYOND bookazine, writes the Shrapnel Contemporary blog, and contributes
regularly to international publications. He curated Metaflux at the 2004 Venice Architecture
Biennale and exhibitions such as Post.Rotterdam, Space Invaders, and Pancho Guedes, An
Alternative Modernist. He was also a chief curator of ExperimentaDesign between 2001
and 2003. Amongst exhibition layouts, galleries, and refurbishments, his designs included the
Ellipse Foundation in Lisbon, and the widely published Orange House, in Carreo, Family
Home, in Oporto, and GMG House, in Torres Vedras.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xix
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xx
Remah Y. Gharib received his PhD in Architecture and Urban Design from the University
of Nottingham, where he developed his knowledge of revitalization of historic quarters. His

research focuses on aspects of public policy formulation and implementation. Prior to receiving his PhD, he earned his Masters within the field of managing historic cities. He received his
Bachelor in Architectural Engineering from Misr International University in Cairo. Dr. Gharib
is currently coordinating the Urban Design and Architecture in Muslim Societies program at
Hamad Bin Khalifa University and teaching four courses at the Masters level. He published in
several refereed journals, participated in international peer-reviewed conferences, and is currently a collaborating editor for the International Journal of Architectural Research-Archnet.
Ike Ijeh is a practicing architect and is architecture critic for Building and BD magazines, two
of the UKs leading architecture publications. Ike also founded London Architecture Walks,
Londons original architectural guided walks company. He is also a senior partner at Blackstone
Architects and is a specialist on Londons architecture, planning, and public spaces.At Building
and BD magazines Ike has become one of the UKs foremost architecture critics. He is also a
judge for the Building Awards, one of the UKs most prestigious construction industry awards
and the Carbuncle Cup, the irreverent annual prize for the UKs worst building.Through
London Architecture Walks Ike has pursued his aim of making architecture more accessible to
the public and has hosted acclaimed walks and presentations for a wide range of lay and professional audiences.Blackstone Architects specializes in residential, community work as well as
academic research in the UK and abroad. Previously Ike has been employed by some of the
UKs foremost architectural practices including Foster + Partners where he worked on the
successful part-pedestrianization of Londons Trafalgar Square.He has also prepared extensive
masterplans for major mixed-use urban regeneration projects and has worked on the design
of several residential and commercial buildings across the UK.Ike is an inaugural member of
the Hackney Design Review Panel and has been a trustee of the Hackney Historic Buildings
Trust and contributor to the St Giles Regeneration Forum. He is also preparing a manuscript
for a book on new public spaces in London.
Clare Jacobson is a Shanghai-based design writer and editor. She is the author of the book
New Museums in China (Princeton Architectural Press, 2013) and co-author of Karlssonwilker
Inc.s Tell Me Why: The First 24 Months of a New York Design Company (Princeton Architectural
Press, 2003). Jacobson is a contributing editor to Architectural Record, and her articles have
also appeared in Engineering News Record, Randian, Architectural Review Asia Pacific, Landscape
Architecture, and other magazines. As editor and editorial director at Princeton Architectural
Press for 21 years, she originated, acquired, and developed more than 120 books on architecture, graphic design, landscape architecture, photography, and visual culture. She has a BArts
and BArch in architecture from Penn State University.
Akikazu Kato is Professor of Architecture at Mie University Graduate School of Engineering,
Japan. His appointment includes teaching and research responsibilities in the fields of architectural planning and facility management. Previous positions include faculty member of other
national universities, and licensed architect at Kume Architects. He received his doctorate
in Engineering from Nagoya University. He has published a number of books and refereed
papers, and presented at various international symposiums. Also, he planned and designed a
number of architecture works mostly in the health care field including those winning prizes as
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xx
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxi
1991 Minister of Health Award for Hekinan City Hospital and 2001 Minister of Construction
Award for Asahi-honmachi Housing for Elderly.
Paul Knox holds a Master of Architecture degree from Columbia Universitys Graduate School
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. He is currently a faade consultant in New York

City. He has previously worked for the Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture,
Rafael Vinoly Architects, and Gensler. He has received awards from Columbia Universitys
GSAPP and the American Institute of Architects.
Adrian Leaman, Building Use Studies Ltd and the Usable Buildings Trust, specializes in
understanding buildings from the point of view of their users and managers. He is best known
for his work with Building Use Studies, and has been involved with pioneering projects
including Space Syntax, the PROBE series of post-occupancy studies, and studies of sick
building syndrome, and workplace productivity. With co-author Bill Bordass, he helped to set
up the Usable Buildings Trust, a charity devoted to disseminating independent and objective
findings about building performance and to influence the industry, its clients, building managers, and government.
Jos T. Lira, University of So Paulo, graduated in Architecture (1989) and Philosophy (1999).
Lira is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the University
of So Paulo (FAU-USP), where he has got his Doctorate (1997) and Livre Docencia (2008)
degrees. Since 1998, he has been in charge of several research projects on the history, historiography, and criticism of architecture, planning and housing, and acted as full advisor
in the Masters and PhD programs at FAU-USP. He is a research affiliate of the Brazilian
National Council of Research (CNPq) since 1999 and in 2009 has developed a post-doctorate
research program at Columbia University. Between 2010 and 2014 he was the director of
the Center for Cultural Preservation at the University of So Paulo (CPC-USP). He has
lectured at several universities, taking part in different seminars and conferences in Brazil and
elsewhere. He has authored and co-edited nine books and over 70 articles, chapters, papers,
and book introductions in academic journals, books, and other publications. His most recent
books include Memria, Trabalho e Arquitetura (Editora da Universidade de So Paolo, 2013),
So Paulo, os estrangeiros e a construo das cidades (Alameda, 2011), and Warchavchik: fraturas da
vanguarda (Cosac & Nafy, 2011), which has received a book award at the 7th Ibero-American
Architecture and Planning Biennale and a Jabuti Prize.
Yasser Mahgoub is an architect, academic, and scholar. He received his BSc in Architectural
Engineering from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt in 1978 and a Doctorate in Architecture
from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA in 1990. He has held several academic positions since 1990 at Ain Shams University, United Arab Emirates University, Kuwait University,
and Qatar University. He has practiced as a professional architect in Egypt and was a founding
member in 1980 of The Egyptian Designers architectural firm in Cairo, Egypt. He has participated as an architect consultant from 1990 to date. Mahgoub teaches architectural design
studios, architectural research, environment and behavior studies in architecture and architectural professional practice. His research interests include social and cultural aspects of architecture, sustainable architecture, architectural education, and the impact of globalization on
architecture. He has published refereed research papers and book chapters, and attended and
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxi
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxii
presented papers in several international and regional conferences. He is a member of many

conferences and journal scientific committees/editorial boards.
Steven A. Moore is Bartlett Cocke Regents Professor of Architecture and Planning at the
University of Texas at Austin where he teaches design and interdisciplinary courses related
to the philosophy, history, and application of sustainable technology. He is Director of the
Graduate Program in Sustainable Design and Co-founder of the University of Texas Center
for Sustainable Development. Moore is a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Arts, a
Loeb Fellow of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and the recipient of an Individual
Scholar Award from the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many articles and
book chapters and six books on the topic of sustainable architecture and urbanism. Moores
most recent book, co-authored with Barbara B. Wilson, is Questioning Architectural Judgment:
The Problem of Codes in the United States (Routledge, 2014)
Shiho Mori is Assistant Professor of Architecture at Mie University Graduate School of
Engineering, Japan. She carries out consulting on master plans in medical and welfare facilities,
to focus on the relation between the management and the space planning. She has presented
at international congresses, and worked as a lecturer in training courses for facility directors of
nursing homes. Her previous position was the planner of a housing equipment office. Using
the experience of her previous post, she is participating in several projects, from detached
houses to a large-scale housing complex planned to realize universal design.
Jack L. Nasar, PhD, FAICP, is a Professor of city and regional planning at the Knowlton School
and editor of Journal of Planning Literature. He has published more than 80 scholarly articles on
meaning, cognition, fear, crime, and spatial behavior in relation to the environment. Nasar served as
architectural critic for The Columbus Dispatch and guest critic for Landscape Architecture. His books
include Environmental Aesthetics:Theory, Research, & Applications (Cambridge, 1988); The Evaluative
Image of the City (Sage, 1997); Design by Competition: Making Design Competitions Work (Cambridge,
1999); Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning (with J. Evans-Cowley) (Ohio
State University Press, 2007); and Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture
(with W. F. E. Preiser, and T. Fisher) (Fairchild, 2007). An invited lecturer around the world, Nasar
has received the EDRA Career Achievement Award, Lumley Award for Excellence in Research
at Ohio State, Ethel Chattel Fellowship from University of Sydney, and the Distinguished Alumni
Award from the School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis.
Yann Nussaume, French architect is Professor and co-director of the research team AMP
UMR LAVUE CNRS 7218 at the Ecole Nationale Suprieure darchitecture de Paris La
Villette in Paris. He is an architect and the author, editor, or co-editor of publications on
architecture and landscape, such as Tadao And (Hazan/Birkaser/Jaca, 2009); Toyo It: Dtails
de structures lgres (Le Moniteur, 2003); Construire en Chine (Le Moniteur, 2005); La Maison
Individuelle (Le Moniteur, 2006); La Maison individuelle vers des paysages soutenables? (La Villette,
2012); and Teaching Landscape in Architecture (La Villette, 2009). He was also one of the organizers of the international conference Landscape and Imagination on 24 May 2013, the
proceedings of which have been published as C. Newman,Y. Nussaume, and B. Pedroli (eds),
Landscape & Imagination:Towards a New Baseline for Education in a Changing World (UNISCAPE,
Florence / Baldecchi & Vivaldi, Pontedera, 2013).
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxiii
Nigel Oseland is a workplace strategist, change manager, environmental psychologist, and

author with ten years research and 15 years consulting experience. Nigel is an internationally
recognized expert in occupant feedback methods, performance and productivity, agile working, environmental conditions, and the psychology of the workplace.Nigel established his
own consulting practice, Workplace Unlimited, several years ago. His approach to workplace
consulting is to apply his knowledge, obtained through both academic research and practical experience. He advises occupiers on how to redefine their workstyles to provide spaceefficient and cost-effective workplaces that enhance business performance. Nigel specializes
in workplace strategies that improve collaboration, enhance creativity, facilitate concentration,
meet psychological needs, respond to changing organizational structure, and deliver maximum value.Nigel mostly focuses on his consulting practice but occasionally carries out client funded research projects, for example on behalf of the British Council for Offices, Office
Productivity Network, the MOD, and Herman Miller. He is also the Chair of the Workplace
Consulting Organization and co-founder of the Office Productivity Network. He continues
to write articles and guidance, present regularly at international conferences, and organizes the
annual Workplace Trends and the Learning Environments conferences. He was the lead author
of the BCOs Guide to POE.
Brenda C. Scheer, AIA, FAICP, is a Professor at the College of Architecture + Planning at the
University of Utah, where she was dean for 11 years. She is a nationally recognized authority
on urban design and the development of cities. She was a Loeb Fellow at the Harvard Graduate
School of Design, and is a registered architect and planner. As dean, she made environmental
and civic concerns her hallmark, creating an innovative metropolitan planning program and
emphasizing community and environmental engagement. Professor Scheer serves on multiple
civic boards, including Envision Utah. She has served on the editorial boards of the Journal
of the American Planning Association, Housing Policy Debate, and Urban Morphology. Scheer is the
author of three books, including her most recent book: The Evolution of Urban Form: Typology
for Planners and Architects (American Planning Association, 2010). She is also the author of multiple journal articles on the role of urban design in urban policy.
Ulrich Schramm is Professor in the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the
University of Applied Sciences in Bielefeld, Germany. His appointment includes teaching and
research responsibilities in the field of facility programming and building performance evaluation. He received his Doctorate in Architecture from the University of Stuttgart and a postdoctoral fellowship from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
DFG) for his stay at the University of Cincinnati as Visiting Professor of Architecture. Results
of his research within the International Building Performance Evaluation (IBPE) consortium
have been presented at EDRA and IAPS conferences since 1995 and published in several articles and book chapters.
Korydon H. Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture at the University
at Buffalo, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in architectural design and
conducts research on design and social justice. Smith is the lead author of Just Below the Line:
Disability, Housing, and Equity in the South (University of Arkansas Press, 2010), co-editor of the
Universal Design Handbook, 2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill, 2010), and editor of Introducing Architectural
Theory: Debating a Discipline (Routledge, 2012). Smith holds an Ed.D. in higher education
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxiv
leadership from the University of Arkansas and a professional M.Arch. with a concentration in
architectural theory and design from the University at Buffalo.
Galia Solomonoff is the founder and director of Solomonoff Architecture Studio. She received
her Masters in Architecture from Columbia University, and was awarded the McKim Prize for
Excellence in Design. Prior to founding SAS, Solomonoff founded OpenOffice. She has taught
at Princeton University, The Cooper Union,Yale, and currently is a Professor of Architectural
Practice at Columbia University.Solomonoff is the recipient of several design awards, and art
grants. Her work appeared in The New York Times, The New Yorker, W, ARTNews, Artforum, and
Domus. New York Magazine called Dia: Beacon, which Solomonoff designed, one of todays
most compelling museums, and named Solomonoff part of the Next Wave of Designers in
2009. Solomonoff collaborated in several books including: Latin American Architecture: Six Voices
(Texas A&M Press, 2000) and Post Ductility: Metals in Architecture and Engineering (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2012); and is working on Documenting Latin American Architecture, a
documentary and book project. Her writing aims at the recognition of Latin American architectures cultural relevance and the advancement of architecture as a discipline significant to
everyone.
Gen Taniguchi is Presidential Advisor on Facility Management at Nagoya University, Japan,
Head of Facility Management Office, and Professor of Architecture. He is currently involved
in the development of a campus master plan and town-hood management and also the asset
management of public facilities. His previous positions include professors at various universities and was a licensed architect at INA Architects. He has published a number of books and
refereed papers, and has planned and designed a number of hospitals and welfare facilities.
Elizabeth Walsh is a doctoral candidate in the Community and Regional Planning Program
and the Indoor Environmental Sciences and Engineering Program at the University of Texas at
Austin. Her dissertation research investigates how the design of low-income home renovation
programs might enhance capacity for environmental justice, sustainability, and resilience in
centrally located, gentrifying neighborhoods. Walsh is the co-founder of the Holly Neighbors
Helping Neighbors program, a neighborhood, volunteer-based green home renovation program. As the Vice Chair of the Austin Housing Repair Coalition,Walsh works with a group of
17 public, non-profit, and private organizations dedicated to improving the health and environmental performance of low-income housing through home repair. Walsh also serves on the
Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) Working Group
with the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University and leads LENSES
pilot projects related to park planning efforts in Austin.
Chris Watson is Director of C Watson Consultancy Limited providing architectural services
to government, commercial, and private clients in Australasia and Europe from small simple
alterations to large complex campuses. He has conducted approximately 180 POEs of schools,
universities, courts, police stations, military and correction facilities, offices, museums, retail,
private, social and institutional housing, and Sydney Opera House facilities.He has contributed to the development of the POE method in New Zealand since 1984. His use of POE has
been developed into a model whereby robust and systematic POE techniques are applied in
different ways at various stages in the building life-cycle. Briefing (programming) incorporates
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiv
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxv
evaluation methodology, then sketch designs are assessed by interest groups using their own
performance criteria. A POE allows stakeholders to negotiate design and use. Lastly, proposed
buildings are reviewed in terms of occupant experience in similar buildings that have been
evaluated.Chris Watson has evaluated buildings in Scotland, England, Portugal, Australia, and
New Zealand. He contributed to OECD Programme on Education Buildings conferences
and publications on evaluating education facilities including a Lisbon demonstration of evaluation. Internationally, he has published and presented at conferences of industry and design
research organizations. He co-edited Enhancing Building Performance (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).
He has described his work to architecture and environmental psychology students in Asia,
Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Oceania.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxv
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxvi
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
PREFACE
The idea for this book originated with co-editors Wolf Preiser and Aaron Davis when they
were discussing trends in emerging practices in architecture. Davis had been compiling a
two-volume Conversations with Architects series, comprised of interviews of notable architects
reflecting on the founding, guiding principles, and economic strategies of their practices during the recession. Preiser had published six books on post-occupancy evaluation/building
performance evaluation and sought to bridge the gap between that field and architectural
criticism, as we know it in major newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal
and architectural magazines. Previous collaborations with co-editor Ashraf Salama, editor of
the International Journal for Architectural Research (IJAR), led to an invitation for him to join the
editorial team. Salama had published books six books on architectural and urban pedagogy
and his latest book is entitled Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and Urbanism in an Emerging
City, and so it was important that he take part, which eventually led to the inclusion of
architectural writings from the Middle East. Andrea Hardy was originally brought on as an
Editorial Assistant through grants awarded by Arizona State University. As Hardy continued
her work on the book structure, writing, research and illustrations for the book, she was then
invited to contribute as co-author in Chapters 1 and 14, and also as co-Editor.
Interrogating perceived and measured quality in architecture this book establishes a responsive and unbiased discourse on these two paradigms. This is taking place by acknowledging
and revealing commonalities between the two and by instituting areas within the ontological
agendas of each capable of supporting the differences. Nonetheless, one the one hand, contemporary architectural criticism appears to be in a continuous search for a role that seriously
contributes to informing the architect directly or indirectly and consequently affect the work
he or she produces. On the other hand, building performance evaluation seems to have developed into a mature area of research and an integral component of architecture in the academy
as well as in professional practice.
The book aims to reveal the history and evolution of both architectural criticism and
building performance evaluation while chronicling their fields.The book contains six sections,
sequenced to introduce what are disparate fields of investigation. Through theoretical discussions, journalistic contributions, and empirical findings and case study investigations, these
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxvii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxviii
Preface
sections cover the world in various regions from the Americans to the Middle East and from
Europe to Australasia. The challenge of instigating a new paradigm is demonstrated through
comprehensive but diverse approaches to building performance evaluation as a complement
to traditional architectural criticism.
Three unique features, typically not found in similar contributions, characterize this book:
international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational. The international coverage, where most
corners of the globe are represented, offers the reader a cross-cultural perspective and an
opportunity to know more about different contexts and how both criticism and performance
evaluation are understood and practiced. The interdisciplinary nature of the book is reflected
in the diversity of its contributors academics with different specializations, such as curators,
critics, and professional architects who all contribute insights that give the reader glimpses of
the two paradigms from various perspectives including art and aesthetics, architecture, urban
design, and environmental psychology. The book is also characterized by being intergenerational in the sense that it includes thoughtful writings from academics and practitioners with
little experience in the field and theoretical underpinnings, analytical interpretations, and case
examples written by prominent professionals in academic and professional realms.The preceding three features make this contribution appealing to students of architecture, academics, critics, building industry professionals, and those who make decisions about the built environment
or have an influence on shaping it. Additionally, the book will serve as a point of reference for
the general public when trying to understand what architects do today by speaking about their
experience in their fields in their own voice.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxviii
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our editorial team, although spread out geographically between Arizona (Wolf Preiser and
Andrea Hardy), New York City (Aaron Davis) and Qatar (Ashraf Salama), worked extremely
well together in bringing this book project to a successful conclusion.
This book would not have been written and edited without working in teaching and conducting research in various contexts, while experiencing the multifaceted nature of the built
environment in those contexts. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly to this
book. We are indebted to our current and former colleagues and students alike who throughout the years have contributed to our visions and views on examining different aspects of
assessing a wide spectrum of building types, settings, and spaces.
We thank our authors whose profiles in terms of experience and cultural background have
made this contribution unique. Their collaborative endeavors in meeting stringent deadlines
and in following well-tested guidelines are much appreciated.The result is a book that reaches
across the boundaries of culture and regions, reflected in the way in which it was developed
and in the way in which it accommodates a diverse array of thoughts and visions.
Thanks are due to our editors at Routledge, Jennifer Birtill and Trudy Varcianna, in assisting
us in developing the original book proposal, and throughout the three draft rounds to ready
the manuscript for publication. Joanna North guided us through the copy editing process, and
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ through the page proof phase of the project.
Lastly, we thank our spouses and significant others for enduring many lonely hours and
days, while we were going through the very labor-intensive task of working our way through
rounds of correcting and editing manuscripts, communicating with authors from around the
globe, and at last, putting final touches to the present book. We owe our colleagues and families special thanks for their support and patience during times when the demands of the work
often interfered with personal obligations and professional responsibilities.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxix
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
FOREWORD
Nigel Oseland
As an environmental psychologist my interests lie in how the built environment affects peoples
behaviour, attitudes, comfort and performance. Le Corbusier famously claimed une maison
est une machine--habiter, that is, a house is a machine for living in, so to me it logically
follows that an office is a machine for working in (Le Corbusier 1924). I firmly believe that
the core objective of the office building is, and has always been, to facilitate the business of the
occupier. The analogy extends to other buildings, other workplaces such as museums, theatres, factories and schools. Their primary purpose is to enable the activities of the occupying
organization. How the building looks, its aesthetic appeal, its relationship to its surroundings,
its iconic status and so on, I consider secondary functions.
My viewpoint corresponds directly with advocates of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE);
for example Preiser and Vischer (2005) explain that POE:
addresses the needs, activities, and goals of the people and organizations using a facility,
including maintenance, building operations, and design-related questions. Measures used
in POEs include indices related to organizational and occupant performance, worker
satisfaction and productivity, as well as the measures of building performance.
In POE we adopt a systematic and rigorous approach to test whether the building supports
the objectives of the occupying organization, assess whether it is fit for purpose, and whether
it achieves its primary purpose. As we are essentially testing the functionality of the building,
we can develop objective evaluation metrics. In contrast, a review of whether we find the
building aesthetically appealing or not is more akin to treating the building as a sculpture, as
art, and as such is wholly subjective.
As an advocate of POE, I clearly subscribe to the design concept of form follows function.
Louis Sullivan coined the phrase in the late nineteenth century (1896):
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and
metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxx
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
Foreword
xxxi
of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that
form ever follows function. This is the law.
Whilst Sullivans concept extends way beyond architecture, he freely admitted he was influenced by De Architectura Libri Decem (c.27 BC ). This historic book by Roman architect Vitruvius
identified three elements necessary for a well-designed building: firmitas, utilitas and venustas, i.e.
firmness, utility and delight. Firmness relates to the buildings structural integrity and the basic
requirement of shelter. Utility (or commodity) refers to the realm of POE; it relates to providing spaces and mechanical systems to meet the functional needs of its occupants. Finally, delight
relates to the aesthetic quality, style, proportion and visual beauty of the building. So it seems that,
for completeness, a wider appraisal of buildings might include a review of the aesthetic quality of the building as well as its functionality this is more in line with Building Performance
Evaluation (BPE). I concur that how the building contributes to placemaking, i.e. creating good
public spaces that promote peoples happiness and well-being, is a worthy purpose.
However, I maintain that in terms of the success of the building its function takes precedence over its form. I also believe a good building evaluation considers the views of all
stakeholders, usually occupants and occasionally visitors. So, like Elizabeth Walsh and Steven
Moore in Chapter 24, I would prefer that this broader evaluation, including aesthetic quality,
considers the views and experience of all stakeholders such as neighbours and passers-by, i.e.
public opinion, rather than be based on a single, personal, subjective critique.
UK professional bodies, such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(CABE) and the British Council for Offices (BCO), consider building performance in terms
of the three Es: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Expression (CABE and BCO 2005). Efficiency
refers to space and cost efficiencies whereas effectiveness relates to how the building effectively supports the occupying business. The first two Es are covered under a standard POE or
BPE, but the expression refers to how well the building reflects the brand and values of the
occupying organization. Since the early skyscrapers, businesses have commissioned their own
uniquely identifiable buildings, and prior to the credit crunch these symbolic buildings were
becoming increasingly popular. It could be argued that an expressive building supports the
business by acting as an advert or perhaps by motivating the workforce by being associated
with a successful company. Like Aaron Davis in Chapter 2, I would rather that buildings are
evaluated against more relevant criteria than how they are used as a marketing campaign.
Despite the many benefits of POE and BPE outlined by Wolfgang Preiser and Andrea
Hardy in Chapter 14, the stark reality is that buildings are rarely evaluated. We are more likely
to hear a subjective critique of the building aesthetic than see a full systematic evaluation of
the buildings functionality. In his influential report Rethinking Construction, Sir John Egan
(1998) commented on the state of the UK construction industry and noted that:
the construction industry tends not to think about the customer Companies do little systematic research on what the end-user actually wants, nor do they seek to raise
customers aspirations and educate them to become more discerning. The industry has
no objective process for auditing client satisfaction.
There are very few industries that do not actively seek customer feedback with a view to
improving their service or product in order to gain commercial advantage. It seems that
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxi
9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM
xxxii
Foreword
architecture and construction are one of those industries. As Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman
point out in Chapter 15, whilst the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work
originally included a Stage M on Feedback, it was soon dropped and not referred to.
Actively not seeking feedback on architecture is most probably rooted in exaggerated fears
of litigation. But the downside to lack of evaluation and customer feedback is, as Ian Cooper
(2001) puts it: without a feedback loop every building, to some extent is a prototype spaces
and systems put together in new ways, with potentially unpredictable outcomes. Whilst we
should not stifle creativity and originality in building design, we do need to ensure that the
design works and mistakes are not repeated in future buildings. Bordass and Leaman provide
a recent example of the consequences of a lack of feedback and unmonitored building prototypes: the UKs recent Building Schools for the Future programme, where eye-catching architectural design (and sometimes banal contractor-design) has too often trumped functionality,
with poor environmental performance and high capital and running costs.
Fortunately, the latest version of RIBAs Plan of Work includes a Stage 7, In Use which
includes POE and a review of project performance. Unfortunately, even when POEs are
conducted and candid customer feedback obtained, it tends to be the positive aspects of the
evaluation that are shared. Occupiers, architects and interior designers are less likely to highlight their mistakes or share those ever so important lessons learned.
Over the last few years austerity measures have meant that the design and use of the office
space is fundamentally driven by cost. The office is considered by many within the property
industry, and across broader business, to be a cost burden. It is perceived as an overhead rather
than as a means of improving business performance, an investment with potentially lucrative
returns. So office layout and design has been very much focused on space efficiency, increasing
occupational densities and reducing property costs.When buildings are formally evaluated the
focus is predominantly on measuring cost and space with little regard for how the building
impacts individual or business performance.
Nevertheless, the key asset and most expensive element of any organization is its people.To
get the most out of our workforce we provide them with the best technology, training, business processes and management; we provide them with an organizational infrastructure that
supports their needs. The workplace is a core component of that infrastructure; its a tool for
the job, and should be treated so.We should therefore consider our office buildings in terms of
the return on investment of our people rather than as a cost burden to the business. Therefore
I think, and I hope for the sake of the economy, that the focus of the future office will shift
away from property costs to people investment property is a people business.
The number of flexible workers is increasing and our workforce is more mobile than in
previous years. They may be employed by a global organization, or a recently merged businesses, and work across several of their locations. They may be expected to spend more time
on client sites than in their own offices. It is likely that they are also working on the move
between these locations. Likewise organizations may be recruiting from a wider geographical
pool to acquire the best talent, allowing occasional home-working and flexible working. The
workplace therefore stretches beyond the confines of the office building. We need to understand how this broader workplace, and corresponding infrastructure, supports the business.
Some economists believe that there is an emerging creative and innovative economy.
Indeed, the notion of a quaternary economic sector of industry has been discussed for some
time. It builds upon the tertiary economic sector of knowledge work, the service industries,
and principally concerns intellectual activities such as handling information, providing advice,
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxii
9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM
Foreword
xxxiii
entertainment, research and information technology. Business Week magazine reported the
knowledge economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new call it the creativity
economy the game is changing, it isnt just about math and science anymore, its about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation (Nussbaum 2005). The more creative organizations recognize that business is shifting towards this new economic age. These organizations
understand the value of an idea and will be seeking to attract and retain innovative people and
capitalize on their ideas. Going forward, the measure of success of a building will shift away
from efficiency and focus on effectiveness. We will need to better understand how our office
spaces are facilitating innovation and creativity, how they foster collaboration but also offer
concentration, how they attract and retain the best people, and how they lead to improved
business.
There has been a debate raging in the press recently around open plan office design. The
UKs leading newspapers as well as Business Week reported that we cant get anything done in
an open-plan office as it affects our concentration, our performance and our health (Bennett
2013). These news items are all pretty damning but not as damming as the Wikipedia entry on
open plan offices which states:
A systematic survey of research upon the effects of open plan offices found frequent
negative effects in some traditional workplaces: high levels of noise, stress, conflict, high
blood pressure and a high staff turnover Most people prefer closed offices there
is a dearth of studies confirming positive impacts on productivity from open plan office
designs.
The attack on open plan is predominantly the consequence of a study of absenteeism in
Danish workers and a recent re-analysis of a survey of US office workers. Personally I believe
that open plan is a sound design concept, but it is the interpretation and implementation of
it that is poor and often results in high density, overcrowded, noisy and unimaginative work
environments. The important point is that we need to test whether our workplaces actually
facilitate innovation and collaboration, required to underpin the new economic age, or if
they merely create distraction and disruption. We also need to understand the roles and psychological make-up of our workforce, and recognize that many will require spaces for quiet,
concentration and solitude.
In Chapter 23 Korydon Smith explains the importance of universal design. Many commentators on workplace design have pointed out that we have four generations working in
the workplace. There has been much discussion on how to design offices to accommodate
Generation Y digital natives that are more independent and ambitious but team orientated.
We also need to ensure we create spaces that accommodate the older generations, many of
whom have to retire at a later age. Consideration must be given to basic design factors such
as lighting and noise levels as well as privacy and access. Again good occupant feedback is
required to assess whether our buildings support all generations.
Of course, good buildings will outlive the occupants and most certainly outlast the occupancy of many organizations. Our office buildings therefore need to be sufficiently flexible
and adaptable to accommodate different businesses and even change function to, say, accommodation or retail. Carl Elefante is credited for saying the greenest building is the one that is
already built (Elefante 2007). Adaptive reuse plays an important role in sustainability, but again
the functionality of such buildings requires testing.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiii
9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM
xxxiv
Foreword
In the opening chapter, Wolfgang Preiser explains that this book aims to establish a dialogue between perceived and measured quality in architecture, to address the juxtaposition
between criticism and performance evaluation. In an ever changing world where buildings must respond to new technologies, new economic markets and a new workforce, both
approaches have value. The important point is that buildings are subjected to evaluation and
the lessons learned from those evaluations are communicated and shared throughout our
industry. Only by sharing feedback and evaluations can we continuously improve the quality
of our buildings.
References
Bennett, Drake (2013) Why We Cant Get Anything Done in an Open-Plan Office. Business Week, 10
October. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/why-we-cant-get-anything-donein-an-open-plan-office
CABE and BCO (2005) The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance. London: Commission for
Architecture & the Built Environment and the British Council for Offices.
Cooper, Ian (2001) Post-Occupancy Evaluation Where Are You? Building Research & Information 29(2):
15863.
Egan, Sir John (1998) Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force. London: HMSO.
Elefante, Carl (2007) The Greenest Building Is One That Is Already Built. Forum Journal 21(4):
2638.
Le Corbusier (1924) Vers une Architecture. Paris: G. Crs et Cie.
Nussbaum, Bruce (2005) Get creative! How to build innovative companies. Business Week, 1 August.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945401.htm
Preiser, Wolfgang F. E. and Jacqueline C. Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance. Burlington,
MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sullivan, Louis H. (1896) The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincotts Magazine,
March: 4039.
Vitruvius, Pollio (c.27 BC ) De Architectura Libri Decem.
9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiv
9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM
PART I
Introduction
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 1
9/6/2014 4:49:53 PM
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 2
9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM
1
INTRODUCTION
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and
Andrea Hardy
Synopsis
This book aims to establish a dialogue between perceived and measured quality in architecture
in two ways: first by recognizing and illuminating commonalities between the two; second
by finding areas within the ontological frameworks of each capable of supporting the differences. The habitability framework presented later in this chapter is one such structure to be
expounded upon that shows how aesthetic and the performative aspects can in some cases
even complement each other.With few exceptions, architectural criticism has been carried out
by and large by expert critics employing subjective methods of assessment focused primarily
on the aesthetic properties of buildings; rightly so, the understanding of buildings as composed
formal objects traces back to the beginnings of the profession. In contrast, traditional environmental design evaluation uses objective criteria and methods of measuring the performance
of buildings, using metrics focused on health, safety, functionality, psychological, social, and
cultural satisfaction of the building occupants. The development of criticism in architecture
over time admittedly did not keep pace with the technological improvements and innovations
radically changing the way buildings were being conceived of and built. In other words, as
the facility to understand buildings from the design-side evolved, criticism based in the same
scientific inquiry did not also evolve as a clear discipline with its own boundaries. Whether
this is because critics identify primarily as journalists and are not typically building professionals is up for discussion, especially since there is an increasing need of the combination of
evaluation, journalist, and criticism, as shown in Figure 1.1. Nevertheless, the technological
developments in the production of buildings, the rise of big data, optimization, focus groups,
and the use of commissioning and building performance evaluations (BPE) are increasingly
included as part of the project delivery method and life-cycle analysis. These requirements of
building performance, and the time lag between their regulation and integration, only exacerbate the schism between professional practice, discourse, and pedagogy. Architectural practice
has the responsibility to engage criticism more directly and intelligently than the mere supply
of marketing images. The academy is tasked with providing a creative environment in which
creativity can flourish within the bounds of technical reality.The discourse and criticism must
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 3
9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM
Part I: Introduction
Increasing architectural analysis,
description, understanding of
context, history and
overall architectural
knowledge and
education
Criticism
Journalism
Building performance evalution
Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history, and

overall architectural knowledge and education
FIGURE 1.1
Criticism
Goal of
architectural
education
Building
performance
evaluations
FIGURE 1.2 The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and performance evaluations in architectural education
mediate between the two by providing an educational platform of technical innovation vis-vis the history of the built environment, but also present the aspirational qualities that make
architecture unique to a given time and place, as shown in Figure 1.2. In a market saturated
with unreal images and the tin-ringing of sycophantic praise, nothing less is demanded than
a built environment rooted in the manifold definitions of quality, or permanence, of accountability in the face of slick rhetoric; an Architecture Beyond Criticism.
Juxtaposing criticism and performance evaluation

Criticism is defined as the the art of judging the qualities and values of an aesthetic object
(Sharp 1989). In his classical writing Art as Experience (1934), John Dewey states that criticism is judgment as an act of intelligence performed upon the matter of direct perception
in the interest of a more adequate perception (Dewey 1934). This underscores the subjective
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 4
9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM
Introduction
nature of criticism as the dialogue between a perceiver and a thing-perceived. Sharp argues for
this personal interpretation and notes that most criticism is written for popular or specialist
consumption (Sharp 1989). However, he attempts to elevate the status of criticism by introducing objectivity as the ultimate goal, and responsibility, of the critic. In Sharps words, the
importance of objectivity has to be stressed. A lot is demanded of the critic in the judicious
administration of this goal. It has to be allied to good sense and clear judgment, to sagacity and
it must be in the hands of someone who can hold their own against the spread of mediocre
mass cultural values (Sharp, 1984). The objectivity of the clear judgment and sagacity of
an individual is debatable; if no criteria are available for comparison, it seems that merely the
attempt would suffice. How would these criteria be established, however, if not by consensus,
in part, from the mediocre mass cultural values (i.e. the audience criticism is supposed to be
insulated from but also consumed by)? Furthermore, true objectivity of criticism in the traditional architectural model would be to presume that Architecture with a capital A has been
unadulterated by the race to broad-base mediocrity in popular culture; a claim that, surveying
the pseudo-diversity amalgam of style and rhetoric available today, is comically untenable.
Unlike contemporary criticism in architecture, which tends toward style, a significant segment of building performance evaluations (Preiser and Schramm 1997; Preiser and Vischer
2005; Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Watson, 2012) has evolved after the fact, from Post-Occupancy
Evaluations, or POE studies. These are regarded as a branch of environment-behavior studies and they are conducted on a building or a portion of a built environment for different
purposes. In some cases, they are performed to solve problems that might occur in buildings
after they are occupied. In other cases, results are used to improve specific spaces within a
built environment through continued users feedback, including that of sustainability of the
building, and the need of thorough analysis of the building sector in order to understand
its situation in relationship to the social demand for sustainability (Casals et al. 2009). Other
reasons for conducting performance evaluation include documenting successes and failures of
performance in order to justify requests for renovations, additions, or new construction.
An important feature in the majority of performance evaluation studies (both measured and
perceived) is that it involves systematic investigation of opinions, perceptions, and viewpoints
about built environments in use, and from the perspective of those who use them. However, in
all cases, POEs respond to the habitability of a building, designing while acknowledging and
understanding human needs and thus designing for more meaningful and richer life experiences (Rowley-Balas 2006).The habitability of a programmed, designed, and evaluated building can lead to the question, Are designers and architects really asking the right questions?
(Rowley-Balas 2006). This question and the subject of habitability is one of the main links
between building aesthetics and building analysis. Who is it designed for, how does it perform
as an integrated system, and then how is it used?
The answers to the above questions lie in an integrative conceptual framework presented
in the following section on Elements of the habitability framework. The term habitability
means that the designed and built environment is intended for human habitation, with different levels of priority and performance regarding human needs. For example, King Hammurabi
reminded builders that if people were harmed by buildings, those who were responsible for
their construction were to be put to death (Preiser 2003).Vitruvius coined the famous words
firmness, commodity and delight, which equate to three expected and basic levels of performance in buildings (Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Watson 2012).When seen from this perspective, aesthetic performance falls within the category of delight, namely the psychological,
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 5
9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM
social, and cultural appropriateness and satisfaction of the building occupants. In other words,
architectural criticism in this integrated worldview is subsumed in the domain of delight
with its three constituent parts and categories. How is the integrated framework used? It
applies to the entire building delivery and life-cycle, as outlined in the Building Performance
Process Model (Preiser and Vischer 2005).
Elements of the habitability framework

Starting in the 1960s, habitability research referred to the US Navy, NASA, and US Army
Corps of Engineers efforts (Shibley 1974; Meere and Grieco 1997; Kitmacher 2002; Riola
and de Arboleya 2006; Howe and Sherwood 2009; Harrison 2010) to improve the quality
of environments and respective personenvironment relationships, for example in shipboard
habitability research. A working definition for the term habitability is offered by the editors: Habitability refers to those qualitative and quantitative aspects of the built environment
which support human activities in terms of individual and communal goals. A chronology of
habitability is presented in Table 1.1.
The term habitability is derived from the original meaning of the word habitat, i.e. the
species natural home that is comfortable and fit for human use. In essence, then, habitability
is the quality of the designed and built environment.
A philosophical base and a set of objectives for environmental design with adequate habitability include the following considerations, according to the editors: Habitability defines the
degree of fit between individuals or groups and their environment, both natural and man-made,
in terms of an ecologically sound and humane, built environment. Habitability is not an absolute but a relativistic concept, subject to different interpretations in different cultures and in
different occupations. As the term was used historically by the US Navy, NASA, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, it references the spatial volume and fitness of a habitat, such as a
space station, for human occupancy (Lantrip 1986). A future-oriented, evolutionary approach
to environmental design should consider worldwide equitable resource allocation, in the interest of long-term survival. In simpler terms, habitability directly relates to the popular topic of
sustainability. By analyzing all scales ranging from small-scale dwellings to much larger urban
service structures of the building sector (Casals et al. 2009), the variety of research then informs
design of the humanistic needs of comfort, flexibility, control, and informational quality as a
Habitability Index (Mahdavi 1998: 24). Habitability further implies the objective of minimizing adverse effects of the environment on its users, e.g. discomfort, stress, distraction, inefficiency, sickness, as well as injury and death through accidents, radiation, toxic substances, etc.
The habitability framework relates buildings and settings to occupants and their respective needs versus the environment. This framework does not claim to be a theory of person
environment relationships. Rather, it represents a conceptual, process-oriented approach,
which accommodates social science concepts in applications such as performance evaluation
in any type of building or setting. The habitability framework further permits concepts concerning personenvironment relationships to be plugged in where appropriate. In a matrixlike fashion the habitability framework serves systematically to relate pertinent information
and elements in personenvironment relationships in the kinds of applications already mentioned.The framework can be transformed into a checklist format to permit systematic handling in step-by-step or procedural fashion in information gathering and analysis concerning
personenvironment relationships. The framework elements are presented in hierarchies from
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 6
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Introduction
TABLE 1.1 Milestones in the evolution of habitability research
Year
Author(s)
Building type(s)
Contribution to the field
1963
Celentano,
Amorelli, and Freeman
Space habitats, space

architecture,
surrounding
environment
1974
Shibley
Military construction and

installations
1983
Preiser
Greater context of built

environment
1986
Lantrip
Space stations, space

habitats
1997
Meere and Grieco
Naval ship design and

habitability
1998
Mahdavi
Greater context of built

environment
2002
Kitmacher
Space habitats, space

modules
2006
Riola and de Arboleya
Ship design, high speed

vessel habitability
2009
Bluyssen, Bayon, and

Hamilton
Interior environments
2009
Casals, Arcas, and Cuch
Global habitability/
sustainability
2009
Howe and Sherwood
Space architecture, space

stations, extraterrestrial
bases
Examines the criteria and factors

that contribute to the habitability
index and requirements in
relationship to space habitats and
the built environment.
Military research with the Army
Corps of Engineers to improve
and identify building systems of
military construction and models
of quality environment design.
Examines the history and
elements of the habitability
framework and its relationship
with the interaction between
human behavior and the built
environment.
Examines and explains the
ergonomics and design of space
habitats around the various
activities performed within the
tight constraints of space stations.
Illuminates the flaws and solutions
to the living conditions aboard
US naval ships.
How surrounding environment
affects a persons built
environment and then how they
in turn affect the surrounding
systems.
Examines the development
and design of habitable space
modules.
Researches how the external forces
and operability of a ship affect
the comfort of the crew and
passengers aboard, especially
those on high-speed vessels.
Examines the human requirements
for a healthy and comfortable
indoor environment.
Proposes habitability on a global
scale as the only viable form of
sustainability.
Provides a comprehensive guide to
the design of various forms of
space architecture, focusing on
human habitability.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 7
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
TABLE 1.1 (cont.)
Year
Author(s)
Building type(s)
Contribution to the field
2010
Harrison
Space architecture
2010
Preiser and Smith
Universal design
2012
Steinfeld and Maisel
Universal design
Discusses how the collaboration

between architects and
psychologists can help with the
design of building environments
and space architecture.
Contains policies and guidelines for
making buildings, infrastructure,
products, and the internet
accessible to all without regard to
any disabilities.
Explores the benefits universal
design has on various aspects of
buildings and consumer products,
including social interaction and
usefulness.
Source: Authors.
Building
+
Setting
Workspace
room
building
Occupants
Organization
group
individual
Occupant Needs
Health+safety
functional performance
psychological comfort
+ satisfaction
The habitability framework

FIGURE 1.3
smaller to larger scales or numbers, or from lower to higher levels of abstraction, respectively
(see Figure 1.3).
Habitability framework elements are building/settings, occupants, and occupant needs.The
physical environment is dealt with on a setting-by-setting basis, and it is built up in scale from
the proximate environment. Each higher-order scale of the environment is comprised of
aggregates of units at lower scales. Thus, the built environment is addressed using the following hierarchy of scales:
region: an assembly of communities at the geographic scale

community: an assembly of city blocks or neighborhoods
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 8
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Introduction
facility: a complex of buildings such as a military base, a campus, etc

building: an assembly of rooms or spaces
room: an assembly of work stations or activity/behavior settings
activity setting: the proximate environment in which behavior occurs, e.g. a workstation.
The work station-proximate environment scale can be equated with behavior settings (Barker
1968) or archetypal places as described by Spivack (1973). These are places that accommodate needs and activities, which are generic and applicable to most populations. Since environmental design relates behavior to space and time, Spivacks categories of basic places and
people types appear to be appropriate for adaptation in the proposed habitability framework.
Archetypal places are designated to provide for shelter, sleep, mating, grooming, feeding, excretion, storage, territory, play, routing, meeting, competition, and work.
For each setting, each occupant group and its respective habitability level, a pertinent sensory environment and its quality performance criteria are devised, e.g. for the acoustic, luminous, gustatory, olfactory, visual, tactile, thermal, and gravitational environments. Included is
the effect of radiation on the health and well-being of people, from both short-term and
long-term perspectives.
Occupants of settings are differentiated according to life-cycle phases and special requirements they may have in the use of the environment, based on physical or mental impairments, for example, or cultural heritage and other differences. Life- cycle stages as described
by Spivack (1973) include infancy, childhood, adolescence, courting-mating, reproduction/
childcare, middle life, and ageing. For example, disabilities of the elderly and handicapped may
consist of impaired vision, as well as physical and mental handicaps. Fine differentiations are
made within some of the life-cycle phases where warranted, e.g. concerning developmental
phases of children and their special environmental needs.
Occupant needs in the built environment are conceived of as so-called habitability levels.
Grossly analogous to the human needs hierarchy (Maslow 1948) of self-actualization, love,
esteem, safety, and physiological needs, a three-level breakdown of habitability levels reflecting
occupant needs in the physical environment has been devised. This breakdown also parallels
the three basic requirements buildings should meet according to Vitruvius: firmness, commodity, and delight. The habitability levels refer to the following elements:
health and safety level

preventing accidents and injury, disease, vandalism, etc. in the built environment
functional and task performance level
providing conditions conductive to the efficient performance of a job; for the proper
functioning of living environments, adequate amount of space, etc.
psychological comfort and satisfaction level:
providing environmental conditions conducive to territorial integrity; speech and
visual privacy; access to valued resources; expression of individuality; status; identity,
cultural fit, etc.
Behavioral science research specializing in personenvironment relationships provides data for

potential use in guidance literature at all three levels of habitability, including research applications into human factors and concerns of environmental psychology. Figure 1.4 depicts the
elements and phases of such habitability research.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 9
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
10 Part I: Introduction
Person-Environment Research
Research Measurement Habitability

on facility
technology information
prototypes
system
Architectural process research
Performance
criteria
Planning
Programming
Design
Design evaluation
Construction
Facility evaluation
Habitability
Habitability research
FIGURE 1.4
It is at the psychological comfort and satisfaction level of habitability that most concepts dealing with personenvironment relationships can be identified, categorized, and
applied. It is also true that at this level more qualitative than quantitative data exist, a fact that
should not obviate the importance of analyzing the effects of the physical environment on
its occupants.
Spatial characteristics such as those manipulated by environmental designers, for example,
include aspects of location, dimensions, proportions, distributions, and orientation.These serve
to further such phenomena as communication, expression of status and sociopetality versus
sociofugality. They are summarized in Table 1.2 (see also appendix Table A1.1).
Occupants needs are not always easy to separate into neat levels and categories. Further, as
the work of Dewey and Humber (1966) implies, there is a complex interaction of a variety
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 10
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Introduction
11
TABLE 1.2 Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy
Spatial/human behavioral concept

1
Design concept
Territorial space
Dominance hierarchy; status
expression
Personal space
Privacy; maintenance of integrity
of individuals
Space boundaries
Territorial defense; social order,
security
Proxemic space
Communication; access to valued
resources
Spatial density
Crowding; distribution of
resources
Spatial scale
Functionality in relationship to
relative size
Sociofugal vs. sociopetal space
Relevant articles
Iwamoto (2004)
Fuller (2011)
Size and location of spaces

Iwamoto (2004)
Walls, enclosures; white
noise
Iwamoto (2004)
Foster (1989)
Barrier; gates; signage
Blum (2012)
Signals: audio, smell, tactile,
visual
Ozaki and Lewis (2006)
Cultural relativity of space,
e.g. office size in sq. ft. in
Japan vs. the US
Oldrup (2009)
High- vs. low-rise; Innerurban vs. suburban
Stauskis and Eckhart (2011)
Traganou, Architecture
Di Masso (2012)
Dispersion or attraction of people; Layout and connector

control
variants, e.g. ring vs. tree
Source: Authors.
of forces at work on occupants, their attributes, and those of the environment. According to
their framework, interacting processes and forces in the human organism are grouped into
four categories:
Biological heritage includes a persons given cognitive and emotional characteristics, motor
and sensory potentials, biogenic impulses, health, race, sex, somatotype, and stature.
Environment is constituted by the physical (geographic, geological, and meteorological),
the biological (human and non-human), and cultural (material and non-material) factors
which impinge upon people.
Acquired personal attributes refer to peoples covert attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, concepts and skills, and overt motor habits, such as speaking, writing, walking, and idiosyncratic mannerisms.
Social-psychological processes considered essential in interactions with the human and
non-human environment (Dewey and Humber 1966) seek to facilitate accommodation, communication, compensation, learning projection, role-playing, and rationalization. Furthermore, they address the visual-aesthetic quality of the designed and built
environment.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 11
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Interacting forces in personenvironment relationships in Dewey and Humbers (1966) work

and the habitability framework presented here correspond in the following ways:
Dewey and Humbers interacting forces refer to the above habitability framework
(Preiser 1983).
Environment refers to buildings and settings.
Biological heritage/acquired personal attributes refers to occupant types in
buildings.
Social-psychological processes refer to occupant needs and relational concepts in
buildings.
The reason for citing various researchers theoretical frameworks in their context is to demonstrate that certain consistencies and overlaps exist concerning categories in what are very
complex interactions between people and environments (Pastalan 1974). This is true despite
apparently disparate terminologies. For example, there is no agreement on the use of the
terms users, occupants, and people types, or concerning the term user needs, etc. The
development of a concise and clear terminology and framework with regard to building types
and characteristics and occupant types and their needs is of prime importance for the future
evolution of the design and behavior field. Further, the need exists to operationalize relational
concepts for purposes of applications in programming, design, and evaluation.
A conceptual approach towards linking human behavior and

physical environment
This section presents the background, rationale, and elements of the habitability framework
which links human behavior to various aspects of the physical environment. The conceptual
framework is accompanied by examples of applications, including human needs and behaviorbased performance evaluations.
The emergence of the field of personenvironment relations dates back to the mid-1960s.
To date, no general agreement exists as to the proper name for this field which has been called
environmental psychology, architectural psychology, ecological psychology, socio-physical
technology, personenvironment relations, manenvironment relations, etc., depending upon
which discipline or agency is the sponsor of activity. The personal choice of the editors is to
use the term personenvironment research to signify its relevance and utility to architecture
and planning, and to a lesser degree to the idiosyncrasies of the social sciences.
Manifestations of the field of personenvironment research abound. There are numerous
journals, textbooks, conference proceedings, and topical books (Preiser 1978) primarily aimed
at consumption by academic persons. New job opportunities have opened up in research,
education, and consulting, especially with government agencies and large corporations.
Has the profession of architecture taken notice of the developing personenvironment
research? The answer is not yet affirmative. Few enlightened architects avail themselves of research
and even fewer from behavioral science-related research, possibly for the good reason that most
of the information generated by this field is not easily accessible or able to be used directly by
architects. On the other hand, some of the observations below may point to more positive developments in the future. It is hoped that the applications of behavioral science in architecture and
environmental design will improve the quality of our everyday environment in the long run.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 12
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Introduction
13
OMA AMO
D
E
S
I
G
N
C R I T I C I S M
I N V E S T I G AT I O N
PERFORMANCE
The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO firms

FIGURE 1.5
An example of an office that has found a balance between design and research is the Office for
Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), with its counterpart AMO. It may seem counterintuitive to
separate the design portion of their work, OMA, from the research and performance-based work
of AMO, but these two companies complement each other and AMO supports OMA as a think
tank and research-based operation. Their mirrored structure is shown in Figure 1.5.
From the editors perspective, some qualifications for the design and behavior field are
in order: emphasis in this field is on interrelationships, rather than causeeffect relationships,
between environmental influences and people. Thus, architectural determinism is ruled out.
The systems approach appears appropriate for this field, linking in holistic fashion diverse
phenomena which influence commonly found and understood relationships between people
and their surroundings, including the human social environment. The systems theoretical
approach proposed by J. G. Miller (Miller 1966) appears particularly appropriate in this context. Like any other living species (plants and animals) humans are thought of as organisms
that are seeking equilibrium with a dynamic, ever-changing environment. The interactive
nature of relationships between people and their surroundings is also recognized in that line
of research that studies the impact of human actions on the physical environment, both manmade and natural (Jain 1974).
Key observations regarding contextual changes

Socio-political changes in context and developments, environmental crises, and the failures of
purely technological approaches to solve humanenvironment problems provide the justification
for behavioral science response and input into the environmental design disciplines. This input is
needed in selected areas of applications described below. As a result, the general level of awareness
has been raised among the public and in the relevant professions during the past five decades.
Highly differentiated viewpoints are emerging in fields of environmental design including architecture and planning. In response to failures of universal architecture as propagated by the Bauhaus movement, it is necessary to permit further differentiation in the built
environment. This is the key to solving problems in the future. Differentiations include the
recognition that there are different user types, each with special requirements in the built
environment. Also, there are different types of places, each setting with specific requirements.
Cultural niches are required to accommodate sub-cultural and group differences, which
are constantly proliferating. For example, when buildings or housing for Navajo Indians are
planned, minimum standards and HUD guidelines and codes should be variable to respond to
local/cultural conditions.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 13
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Effectiveness
review
Market/
needs
analysis
Planning
Recycling
Programming
Building
performance
Program
review
Design
Feedforward
into next
building cycle
PostOccupancy
Evaluation
Occupancy
Construction
Design
review
Commissioning
Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation

Source: Amber Adams-Hill.
FIGURE 1.6
Complexities in the building delivery process are constantly increasing, especially regarding
information content and the formats of documents used in the programming and design of
buildings today.The ever more cumbersome and lengthy building delivery process (Figure 1.6)
takes five years for large corporations and governments agencies engaged in building.
Life-cycle cost and the rising cost of energy need to be considered in building concept
development through an understanding of macro- and micro-climatic conditions and how
they relate to the governing codes and standards. Adaptive reuse and recycling of buildings
have also become more important considerations in recent years as the green building movement points out that the most environmentally sustainable building is the one that is already
built. Furthermore, access for persons with disabilities (Preiser and Smith 2010; Steinfeld and
Maisel 2012) has been legislated as a requirement in new construction, as well as in existing
buildings of certain federally supported institutions. User participation in planning and design
is now a major challenge in this context, and the argument can be made that building energy
requirements share the same imperative.
In that regard, advances in research methodology are also emerging (Federal Construction
Council 2001). Identification of problems in the built environment, as well as quantitative and
qualitative assessments, etc., are being carried out (Preiser and Wang 2008). A methodology of
particular relevance to this book is the balanced scorecard approach to post-occupancy evaluation (Heerwagen 2001). Furthermore, Nasar in Chapter 19 elaborates on ways of measuring
aesthetic quality as perceived by various stakeholders in buildings.
The originally called post-occupancy evaluation (POE) has evolved into building performance evaluation (BPE), which seeks to obtain feedback for design criteria and guidance
literature, as well as information systems and holistic building performance. It may also serve
as the basis for possible litigation and testimony in court in case of architectural malpractice.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 14
9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM
Introduction
15
Environmental impact assessments have been legislated to raise the level of accountability to
the public and to ensure compatibility of land uses and built forms. Covenants and regulatory devices have resulted, including those dealing with emergency egress procedures, etc., for
which building operators, managers, and users require operating procedures. Very much like
automobile operating manuals, training manuals, materials, and courses may be devised for
buildings in the future.
Public and environmental education needs to be reinforced. The general public needs
information about the mitigation of hazards to life, for use in natural disasters and in those
caused by humans. Long-term environmental education is being developed for dissemination
by universities, the schools, and the public media. What is more, conceptual and theoretical
innovations and advances are on the horizon.
Future prospects
Since the mid-1960s the architectural and environmental design community has been discussing the value of both criticism and evaluation studies. Continuously, while not so confrontationally, fundamental disagreements have been noted but remain unresolved. Many theorists
and critics do not seem to appreciate the value of objective evaluation studies and instead tend
to favor traditional criticism, and the leeway of interpretation, over evaluation; researchers and
scholars do not seem to place enough value on criticism precisely because of its lack of objectivity and anecdotal presentation, and because of how easily it can be influenced by politics and
culture (Figure 1.7). Critics therefore merely provide hypotheses to, at best, push the boundaries
of a given discipline or, at worst, to promote a cultural, stylistic, or economic market position.
To posit that these are avoidable entirely is an exercise in self-delusion; the critic or theorist
does not work in a vacuum. Similarly, the researcher, too, must understand that it is not enough
merely to present data if there is no synthesis to a larger critical arc; what good is a data set with
no interpretation or extrapolation in service of an improvement to the status quo? It remains
as abstract and impotent as the empty criticism. Therefore, it is the position of this book that
both criticism and performance evaluation research have recognized skill sets of value to the
evolution of architectural practice, but as yet have no common means of communication that
will allow a synthesis of the two.The combination and collaboration of criticism and evaluation
generates greater habitability in designs while also bridging the gap between different fields
and methodologies, integrating new approaches to exiting problems all within the framework of promoting more humane and habitable environments (Rowley-Balas 2006). While
performance evaluations may influence the quality of future decisions at the technical level
involving physical and socio-behavioral aspects, criticism may influence decision-making at the
political level, involving an educated public and greater institutional awareness.
What is at stake here is not the fate of either approach; there will always be markets for all
kinds of criticism, and demands for mere data-driven design.What is at stake is an opportunity
to unite the perceived and the real in a way that is rarely attempted, and even less frequently
done well. What is at stake is an unbiased discussion about the development of architectural
practice at a global scale, essential to a unified understanding of the role of the built environment on this planet. What is at stake is the promise of a profession training professionals, with
a combined expertise beyond the printed, projected, or displayed image of an imagined reality.
What is at stake is the ability to create that reality. As such, this book is unprecedented and a
unique contribution to the field.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 15
9/6/2014 4:49:56 PM
Architectural criticism
Politics
Aesthetics
Sociology
Culture
Elements of architectural criticism

FIGURE 1.7
Book structure and content

This book is structured to elucidate the history and evolution of both architectural criticism and building performance evaluation, and the history and evolution of these fields are
chronicled.The book contains six sections, sequenced to introduce what are disparate fields of
investigation: I: Introduction; II: Evolution and role of architectural criticism; III: Plurality of
perspectives on criticism in architecture; IV: Historical review and types of building performance evaluation;V: Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation;VI: Epilogue.
The sections that follow cover the world in various regions, through both theoretical and
journalistic contributions, but also a variety of case study examples. The regions covered are:
the Americas; Europe; the Middle East; and Australasia. Lastly, the challenge of creating a new
paradigm is exemplified through inclusive yet diverse approaches to building performance
evaluation as a complement to traditional architectural criticism.
This introductory section sets the stage for the discussions and thrust of the book and
involves a critical argument on juxtaposing the two paradigms of criticism and performance
evaluation. It introduces the habitability framework, which aims to cross the boundaries of
both while addressing the missing component in criticism exemplified by people needs. Part II
includes six chapters that offer highlights on the evolution, nature, and role of criticism in architecture. In the context of the Americas, issues that pertain to identity crisis, curating, radicalism,
and materiality are explored.The role of editors of architectural and design magazines as critics,
and the performance of buildings, architects, and critics are debated. With a more global perspective, Part III contains six chapters. It critically demonstrates different perceptions and standpoints, which are unveiled to manifest the plurality in conceiving, perceiving, and experiencing
architectural criticism in the context of Egypt, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the
United States. Issues relevant to media, milieu, usability, performance, and the way in which
they influence criticism and evaluation are investigated.While some chapters attempt to induce
generalities through positional interpretations, reviews, and analyses of media and literature to
elucidate key characteristics of criticism, others attempt to deduce particularities regarding the
contribution of each paradigm through reference to empirical evaluation studies.
Part IV contains five chapters and offers a historical review of building performance evaluation while underscoring different types of building performance evaluations. An in-depth
analysis is undertaken too of the evolution of Post Occupancy Evaluation POE into a
more comprehensive field of investigation about buildings, environments, settings, and their
use, i.e. Building Performance Evaluation BPE.Types of performance studies are explored in
various contexts including China, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United
States. They all aim to discern the unique nature and benefits that could be gained through
the establishment of links between the two paradigms. Part V contains six chapters offering
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 16
9/6/2014 4:49:56 PM
Introduction
17
TABLE A1.1 Core bibliography
Source
Description
Fuller (2011)
Iwamoto (2004)
Foster (1989)
Blum (2012)
Ozaki and Lewis (2006)
Oldrup (2009)
Stauskis and Eckardt

(2011)
Hierarchy of influences on space between people, animals, and

machines, and also, how space is influenced by our cyber existence.
The experimentation, in three projects, of thresholds and how
they define, influence, and work into our personal space as we
move through space.
Comparison of form and function through the analysis of spaces
and peoples relationships with space.
How personal media influence our spatial experiences and
how digital media have the potential to interact with spatial
dynamics.
How a house form creates boundaries and defines spaces and the
differences between Japanese and British homes.
The history of research for both urban and suburban
environments and how our culture of consumption is affecting
the relationship between these two spaces and the spaces within
them.
The social and political influences on space, which then influence
the people, but also how the people influence space as a
representation of the culture and politics.
a closer look at some architectural analyses and investigations that recount potential mechanisms that link criticism to building performance evaluation in education, research, and practice. Issues related to visual aesthetics, form-based codes, environmental quality, socio-cultural
contexts, universal design, and regenerative design, are explored to foster a more responsive
approach that challenges traditional notions and assumptions about criticism in architecture.
The Epilogue involves a discussion that invigorates the message of the book about the need
for the integration of the two.
References
Barker, R. G. (1968) Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human
Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Blum, A. (2012) Here But Not Here. Metropolis, April.
Bluyssen, P. M., R. Bayon, and K. Hamilton (2009) The Indoor Environment Handbook: How to Make
Buildings Healthy and Comfortable. London: Earthscan.
Casals, M., J. Arcas, and A. Cuch (2009) Habitability, the Scale of Sustainability. In CISBAT, CISBAT
2009: Renewables in Changing Climate Proceedings. Lausanne: cole polytechnique fdrale de
Lausanne, pp. 40914.
Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.
Dewey, S. and J. Humber (1966) An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Di Masso, A. (2012) Grounding Citizenship: Toward a Political Psychology of Public Space. Political
Psychology 33(1): 12343.
Federal Construction Council (2001) Learning From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of PostOccupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Foster, S. M. (1989) Analysis of Spatial Patterns in Buildings (Access Analysis) as an Insight into Social
Structure: Examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Antiquity 63(238): 4050.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 17
9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM
Fuller, S. (2011) Designs for Life in Humanity 2.0. Architectural Review, October 31.
Harrison, A. A. (2010) Humanizing Outer Space: Architecture, Habitability, and Behavioral Health.
Acta Astronautica 66: 89096, Dept. of Psychology, University of California, USA.
Heerwagen, J. (2001) A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Using the Tools
of Business to Evaluate Facilities. In Federal Construction Council, Learning From Our Buildings: A
State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
pp. 7987.
Howe, A. S. and B. Sherwood (2009) Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture. Reston, VA:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Iwamoto, L. (2004) Translations: Fabricating Space. Journal of Architectural Education 58(1): 3538.
Jain, R. K. (1974) Handbook for Environmental Impact Analysis. Champaign, IL: Department of the Army,
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.
Kitmacher, G. H. (2002) Design of the Space Station Habitable Modules. The Architecture of Space:
A Multi-Disciplined Approach. The 53rd International Astronautical Congress, The World Space
Congress, IAC-02-IAA.8.2.04.
Lantrip, D. B. (1986) Isokin: A Quantitative Model of the Kinesthetic Aspects of Spatial Habitability.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 30(1): 3337.
Mahdavi, A. (1998) Steps to a General Theory of Habitability. Human Ecology Review 5(1): 2330.
Mallory-Hill, S., W. F. E. Preiser, and C. G. Watson (2012) Enhancing Building Performance. London: WileyBlackwell.
Maslow, H. (1948) A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50(4): 37096.
Meere, E. P. and L. Grieco (1997) Ship Habitability: Preparing for the 21st Century. Naval Engineers
Journal 109(6): 2127.
Miller, J. G. (1966) Towards a General Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. American Psychologist 10:
51331.
Oldrup, H. H. (2009) Suburban Socialities: Between Everyday Life and Urban Leisure Space in the
Metropolitan Region. Home Cultures 6(3): 31132.
Ozaki, R. and J. R. Lewis (2006) Boundaries and the Meaning of Social Space: A Study of Japanese
House Plans. Society and Space 24: 91104.
Pastalan, L. A. (1974). Man Environment Reference: Environmental Abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1975) Programming for Habitability. Proceedings of the 1974 symposium, co-sponsored by the US Army CERL-FHA, the American Institute of Architects, and the Department of
Architecture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Department of Architecture, March.
Preiser, W. F. E. (ed.) (1978) Facility Programming: Methods and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1983) The Habitability Framework: A Conceptual Approach Towards Linking Human
Behavior and Physical Environment. Design Studies 4(2): 8491.
Preiser,W.W. E. (2003) Improving Building Performance.Washington, DC: National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards (NCARB).
Preiser, W. F. E. and U. Schramm (1997) Building Performance Evaluation. In D. Watson, M. J. Crosbie,
and J. H. Callender (eds), Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Design Data (7th edn). New York:
McGraw-Hill, pp. 23338.
Preiser, W. F. E. and K. Smith (2010) Universal Design Handbook (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preiser, W. F. E. and J. C. Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Preiser, W. F. E. and X. Wang (2008) Quantitative (GIS) and Qualitative (BPE) Assessments of Library
Performance. International Journal of Architectural Research 2(1).
Riola, J. M. and M. G. de Arboleya (2006) Habitability and Personal Space in Seakeeping Behaviour.
Journal of Maritime Research 3(1): 4154.
Rowley-Balas, S. (2006) Pioneering Habitability: The Work of Wolfgang F. E. Preiser. Montreal: University of
Montreal Press.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 18
9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM
Introduction
19
Sharp, D. (1984) The New Role of the Architect, Historian, and Critic in the World of Ideas. Keynote
Address, National Conference, National Conference of Architectural Historians in Australia,
University of Adelaide, August 12 (published in Architectural History Papers: Australia and New Zealand,
1984, pp. 1123).
Sharp, D. (1989) Criticism in Architecture. Proceedings of the Regional Seminar of the Aga Khan Award for
Architecture. Concept Media Ltd, Singapore, pp. 815.
Shibley, R. (1974) Toward a Military Construction Model for Quality Architectural Design: A Long
Range Corps of Engineers Architectural Research Plan. Journal of Architectural Education 26(4):
8689.
Spivack, M. (1973) Archetypal Place. In EDRA 4: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Environmental Design
Research Association Conference, ed. W. F. E. Preiser. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,
vol. 1.
Stauskis, G. and F. Eckardt (2011) Empowering Public Spaces as Catalysers of Social Interactions in
urban Communities. Town Planning and Architecture 35(2): 11728.
Steinfeld, E. and J. Maisel (2012) Universal Design: Designing Inclusive Environments. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 19
9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM
9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 20
9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM

Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited by

ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM

By presenting a systematic approach to assessing building performance, design professionals

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis,

First published 2015

Evolution and role of architectural criticism

Identity crisis: estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism

The role of editors as critics

Is curating the new criticism?

5 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil

6 Superficial material similitude

7 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics

Reflections on Part II: Daniel S. Friedman

Plurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture

11 An analytical critique of Cairene urban conservation projects

12 Buildings and their use: the dog that didnt bark

13 Oblique alternatives: architectural advancement through performance

Reflections on Part III: Daniel S. Friedman

Historical review and types of building performance evaluation

14 Historical review of building performance evaluation

15 Building performance evaluation in the UK: so many false dawns

16 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai: the current state of the site of

Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation

19 Using scientific research methods in assessing visual aesthetic quality

20 Performing the urban form-based codes as a method of architectural

21 The socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation

22 Quality assessments in health care environments

23 Building performance evaluations and universal design

24 Regenerative design: redefining the limits of architectural judgment

Reflections on Part V: Daniel S. Friedman

25 Talking the talk: about architecture

Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of

Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum

6.4 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB,

11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers Alam

22.6 Example of metrics for access and wayfinding

Milestones in the evolution of habitability research

NOTES ON THE EDITORS

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, University of Cincinnati and Arizona State University, holds a

Notes on the editors

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. He is Professor and Chair of Department of Architecture at

at the University of Minnesota. A graduate of Cornell University in Architecture and Case

of Nottingham, where he developed his knowledge of revitalization of historic quarters. His

of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. He is currently a faade consultant in New York

presented papers in several international and regional conferences. He is a member of many

Nigel Oseland is a workplace strategist, change manager, environmental psychologist, and

Building performance evalution

Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history, and

Juxtaposing criticism and performance evaluation

Elements of the habitability framework

TABLE 1.1 Milestones in the evolution of habitability research

Contribution to the field

Space habitats, space

Military construction and

Greater context of built

Space stations, space

Meere and Grieco

Naval ship design and

Greater context of built

Space habitats, space

Riola and de Arboleya

Ship design, high speed

Bluyssen, Bayon, and

Casals, Arcas, and Cuch