Design Decision Making in Architecture - Literature review Example

Analysis and Writing Name Institution Course Name Name of Instructor Due date Analysis and Writing Part 1b, (i): Design Decision Making Herfield’s view regarding the role played in design decision making is put forward by positioning the distinction between two categories of problems; the problem as given and the problem as a design goal. One of the available assumptions by other expert players that leads to the formation of Herfield’s claim is that the act of design is commenced by and predicated on problems but the author further states that regardless of this, definite analysis of the nature of problems in regard to design is hardly ever handled in the hypothetical literature. According to Hays (2009), conformist wisdom proposes that such problems are outwardly bred, that is, offered to the designer by some outside agency. Several important viewpoints have been put across by Herfield. To begin with, Herfield highlights that in order to understand the outlook of buildings, the idea of problem as a design goal is imperative (2007). He further states that the designer is the fundamental formalizing representative in the design procedure the reason why each designer constructs a different problem from any set of initial givens. Ever since the formulation of a number of theories in architecture, writer after writer always focused on the central role played by the designer in that without the designer there would be no design problem and solutions. This means that design problems were created based upon the designer claims, assumption and myths but at the same time guided by professionalism Consciously or inadvertently, there is a common claim by architectural designers and other theorists that each designer accepts the problem as a given perspective or a position, a set of prescribed and aesthetic and practical receptivity. All these is based on previous experiences and predilections and bigotries, which establishes not only solution to the problem, as if it is by some means impartially open for the most effectual solution, but just what problem the designer will choose to solve (Harfield, 2007). This argument is sustainable based on the fact that in architecture just like any other discipline, the general understanding of a problem facilitates the route towards different solutions. According to Herfield (2007), this is absolute certainty when it comes to design fields in question as well as many other design faculties. However, Herfield is very quick to mention that the view that design problem-solving is tantamount with cautious analysis and thorough use of apposite skill sets to the problem as given is not entirely true (2007). According to him architects create problems as design goals from the preliminary and more broad problems-as-given. It is therefore clear that various levels of determination are present or should be applied in design problem. This is where the sustainability of this argument is established; architecture is a popular faculty and therefore it must be guided by critical analysis and apposite skills when coming up with designs. According to the views of Hays (2009), a psychologist, a teacher and a doctor will confirm that a problem cannot be solved from the blues; it has got to be understood first. The same case applies to design in architecture where before a solution to a design problem is arrived at, the actual design ought to be deciphered first. This is backed up with Harfield’s view that where the problems offered for solution deduce a designed upshot, as disparate to, say, an intended one, it is acknowledged that such results will essentially be subject to the designer, and thus potentially varied (2007). Based on this fact, the initial argument of Harfield is persuasive and factual. The credibility of Harfield’s argument is also found in his view that the design solutions fall into the grouping of satisfying solutions; that is to mean, solutions whose evaluation is based comparatively on the extent to which some prearranged criteria are satisfied. Hence there is a correlation between this assertion and the one just mentioned above concerning knowledge of problem leading to solution. However, in this case the solution is based on some criteria which must satisfy a certain principle and therefore getting to the design solution involves specific courses of events. It can therefore be inferred that various designs are not similar because of the specific routes involved in generating them. Harfield’s argument is also persuasive from his preamble that architectural designs are very different from each other; that is, in any submitted designs, no two entries will be the same. Each individual scheme will be different from each other. This notwithstanding, all architectural design proposal will have some similarities in common. According to Hays (2009), throughout its years of development, the understanding of design problems has been based upon the architect’s own and unique design work out. That is, every architect is endowed with design skills that are unique from fellow architects. This view quite resembles that which the author has stated in the preamble that most or all of the design proposals are different from each other but he further states that similarities in some aspects of design exist. On the same note, Hays (2009) states that our present perception of design is still deficient as researchers and experts in architecture are fraught between two rather dissimilar paradigms of design for instance, design as a coherent problem solving versus design as a thoughtful practice. For this reason, we cannot comfortably ascertain that designs from different designers are similar or different. The question that arises from this argument is that; what criterion is used in determining the similarity or dissimilarity of architectural designs from different designs? The other one would be; what if one architectural designer designs one design several times or different designs originate from the same designer? Therefore, the point raised by Harfield as regards similarity and dissimilarity of a number of designs is a basis for argument of architectural design that furthers our understanding about the theories of design in architecture and how decision are made based on design. While some scholars have made their focus in problem creation, Harfield maintains that problem analysis is very imperative because addressing the problem and problem solving in general, discussions of issues like problem space as well as key factors of problem finding only objectify the problem itself. Harfield concludes by saying that all designers are guided by a set of lenses in order to view the world, brief and the specific designs they are working on. The things that determine our identity and our thought pattern are the lenses that the author is referring to. Part 1b (ii): What is Architecture? It is no doubt that the mention of the word architecture draws an individual’s mind, thought and imaginations to incredibly good looking and attractive buildings that exist out there, but there is more to architecture than meets the eye. The wing of architecture exists ubiquitously. It has been one of the foremost invasions of the human race to design structures to convey the ecstasy of lasting magnificence to the eye of the beholder. The definition of architecture is a matter of mere formality if not entirely work of supererogation. Architecture is in the middle of one of the most captivating elements of man’s work ever since the commencement of time. It involves a timeline and an expression of life, the social order, and the faculty of scores of people. It is a constructive art and such as painting and monument, it can as well be a fine art that appeals to all our lives. With no architecture, building or art of any kind would not be in existence and the architects are the ones responsible for creating and designing visible structures from their imagination. Based on the many theories formulated concerning the subject, there is no one single definition of architecture; rather it can be looked at different angles so that all theories find relevance in this subject. This is because since time immemorial, architecture resulted from number theories formulated by both artists and the then architects as well players from other disciplines. According to Nathan (2005), architecture could imply the art and science of design and put up buildings and other physical structures. It is an art because art is associated with making things look good or appealing to the eyes of people. Same with architecture the objective of complex designs for building or structures is that the end result would look very appealing to the people. This assertion in some sense corresponds with the material presented for the lecture which states that architecture combines both art and design in its overall outlook. In the ancient times, players and other stakeholders could not find the thin line between architecture and art. The many structures that were put up involved several pieces of art work as well as nice and very captivating designs. This was particularly common in religious building such as basilicas and temples as well as kings’ thrones. In fact ancient architects included as part of their design work artistic feel of structures. Architecture is a very extraordinary functional art; it precincts space so we can reside in it, constructs the framework just about our lives. According to Frank (2007), the discrepancy between sculpture and architecture is not that the former is concerned with more organic forms, the latter with more abstract. This is backed up with lecturer’s view that even the most conceptual piece of sculpture, restricted to entirely geometrical shape does not become architecture as it lacks utility which is a significant factor. On the other hand, the assertion by Nathan (2007) that architecture is a science could be substantiated by the fact theories and hypothesis are formulated prior to the generation of a particular design. These theories are to be supported by ascertain scientific facts to ascertain their suitability and credibility. The whole basic of building requirements and proportionality of materials are scientific oriented. The lectures view is in absolute concurrence with this view point as they both involve substantiation of theories based on scientific facts and principles. According to the lecturers argument as well those of Cloise and Joan (2008), architecture implies the practice of an architect. In this case architecture implies offering or rendering specialized or expert services in relation to the design and construction of buildings that have as their primary function human habitation or use. This is a very imperative point as one would not talk of architecture and fail to mention an architect. In fact without an architect there would be no architecture. Therefore, with combination of the profession and the professional, service delivery is indispensable. I think this point of view is brought into the fore based on the fact that most current professions are geared towards service delivery and architecture being an important profession coupled with very rich history cannot be left untouched. So whenever one is talking of building and construction of structures, architecture becomes the point of reference. However, (Rudolf, 2010) argued that in connection with buildings, architecture involves the scheduling, designing and putting up form and space depicting the practical, nominal, social, ecological, and artistic considerations. With this point of view which is factual, the class material goes further to claim that architecture calls for the resourceful exploitation and organization of resources and expertise. There is also the aspect of management where architecture takes in the practical elements of accomplishing buildings and structures such as scheduling, cost approximation and construction management. The basis with which this opinion is claimed rests on the idea that as credentials created by architects, characteristically drawings, plans and methodological stipulations, architecture delineates the structure and conduct of a building and structural systems that is to be or has been put up. The depiction that architecture involves building which should portray certain qualities such as durability, convenience and beauty according Vitruvius is dependent upon the architect. Rudolf argues that the architect is a sort of theoretical producer, the man who plans the setting our lives (2010). Inestimable state of affairs is reliant on the way he display this setting for us. When his intentions succeed, he is like the perfect host who provides every comfort for his guests so that living with him is a happy experience. However, the producer job of an architect is difficult for a number of reasons. To begin with the actors are quite ordinary people hence must be aware of their natural way of acting or else the whole design process will be a fiasco. The point of view by Vitruvius is currently the subject of debate in the field of architecture. This debate helps to further our understanding of what architecture really is as well as what really are the features of architecture in the current world of modernization. The debate is basically about what a good building is. Undeniably, tremendous progress has been made in the field of architecture owing to the technological advancement the field has benefited from. There have improvement in the materials used for building which directly impacts on the outcome of the design of structures. Obviously majority of these impacts are positive. As a result, the qualities of durability convenience and beauty of a building as put across by Vitruvius is easily met although there are other parameters and quality standards of building that have been introduced to the field. Frank (2007) stated that the field of architecture does not exist autonomously. This implies that just like any other field architecture depends on the principles of other disciplines. For instance once an architect as designed a building he is not expected to undertake the actual process of building. This aspect forms the theory that an architect is a vision bearer while a builder is a vision implementer. For this reason an architect will heavily rely on construction workers and even customers in order that their designs attract them. Other than the customers and the construction workers, an architect will also need craftsmen and interior designers so that their design is well outlined in the actual design of a building. The aspect of architectural drawing is a feature of architecture that helps particularly to draw the line between architecture and fine art. This is sometimes referred to as graphics or images of architecture. According to Cloise and Joan (2008), these are basically practical drawing of a building or structure that cascades within the description of architecture. When considering this subsection of architecture we need to focus on a number of aspects to ensure that the question of architectural images is dealt with. The foremost aspect is to consider the use of these drawings and images. They are therefore used by architects as well as other relevant professionals for several purposes; one is to build up a design plan a logical proposal, secondly to communicate thoughts and perceptions. They could also be used to influence clients of the intrinsic worth of a design, to make it possible for a contractor to put up the building or structure, to act as a proof of finished work as well as creating a record of existing piece of structure. Additionally, there is room for development in the field of architecture. As mentioned above, progresses in technology is the key to development in the field of architecture since many software for coming up with architectural designs are constantly being invented as opposed to the past where architects used outdated methods to come up with their designs. Development in materials for building geared towards achieving stability of structures and the overall beauty is also enormous steps towards ascertaining development in the field. Hay (2009) forecasted that the number of practicing architects will increase because many higher learning institutions have incorporated it as part of their curriculum. References Clois, EK and Joan, CK 2008, Architecture: Residential Drafting And Design, Goodheart-Willcox Publisher: Tinley Park Frank, C 2007, Architecture: Form, Space, & Order, John Wiley: New York Hays, MK 2009, Architecture Theory since 1968, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts. Harfield, Steve 2007, “On Design ‘Problematization’: Theorising Differences in Designed Outcomes,” Design Studies Vol 28 No. 2 Nathan, BW 2005, Architecture is Elementary: Visual Thinking through Architectural, Gibbs Smith, Publisher: North Carlina Rudolf, S 2010, “Architecture: An Introductory Reader,” The Buildre, vol. 4 no 456: 345-356 Read More