CTRL ALT DES

CTRL RAZAN IRAIFI ALT IGNING DES THE DESIGN PROCESS

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s Georgia Institute of Technology School of Architecture Arch 8866 GJ1 Spring 2019 Design + Research Studio II Advisor: George B. Johnston, Professor Special thanks to the following Georgia Tech School of Architecture Faculty for their input and support throughout this process.

Scott Marble, William H. Harrison Chair, Professor John Peponis, Professor James P. Cramer, Part-Time Lecturer

Razan Altiraifi

RA-02b

C

O

H E L LO, WORLD

N

T

E

N

T

S 7

A S SEM B LE 9 / / A RCH IGRA M 1 1 / / A RCH IT E CT URE MAC HIN E G ROU P 13 / / F LAT WRIT ER 1 5 / / DIGIT A L LAN D SC AP E 17 / / DE CODING <BUILD ING > C OD ES 19 COMPILE 2 1 / / F O RM + CODE 23 / / PROCES S ING THE P ROC ESS 29 / / A PI 31 DE VE LOP 33 / / POS IT IONIN G STATEMENT 35 / / T HE S IS S T ATEMENT 37 A UGME NT 39 / / DE VELOPER INP UT 45 / / A S S EM B LER INP UT 49 / / CLIENT INPU T/OUTP UT 53 / / A S S EM B LER OUTP UT 57

4

B Y E , WORLD

65

S O U RCE CODE

67

5

Razan Altiraifi

RA-01

6

HE L L O , W O R L D A few notes of introduction...

I arrived at this research project by way of a varied somewhat convoluted path. I began my college career searching for a profession that would satisfy my wideranging interests and allow my passion for tinkering to shine through on interesting projects. I attended a university that did not have an architecture program.

After bouncing around from civil engineering to electrical engineering, I found a home in the Information Technology program. This was a program that allowed me to pursue a wide array of interests from graphic design to software programming to information assurance and security to database management. Similar to a design program, this program provided students with the tools to enter a quickly changing workforce rather than focusing on teaching specific software tools. I exited this program as a person who values a scientific and creative approach to solving difficult problems.

As I have progressed through the Master of Architecture program at Georgia Tech I began to ask what lessons the AEC industry can learn from software project management and the startup approach of the technology industry. The most common analogy given in software development has been comparing the process to building a house. A quick internet search finds passionate reasons for why this analogy is accurate or not. There is no doubt the two industries have an intertwined history. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to embark on a research journey exploring the intersection between technology and the practice of architecture.

Thank you, Razan Altiraifi

I entered the workforce as a technology and management consultant working on large software projects for the federal government. These projects involved coordinating amongst large diverse teams of consultants and contractors. I was on the management team that developed the requirements, oversaw the process and ran risk management meetings. We provided the technical specifications to a team of software developers whose responsibility was the actual construction of the code driving the software tools. We worked with a telecommunications vendor and were responsible for supply chain management.

We met regularly with business stakeholders to review progress on these multi-year projects. It does not stretch the imagination to begin examining how this process compares to the traditional architecture design process.

7

Information Architect Software Developer Assemble Feedback

8

.................................. .................................. .................................. ..................................

................................. ................................. ................................. .................................

Architect Real Estate Developer Fabricate Post-Occupancy

ASSE MB L E

“A house is a machine for living in.”

Le Corbusier, 1921.

9

In my search for the historical relationship between technology and the built environment, I unsurprisingly gravitated towards the High Tech Architecture movement. I was quickly disabused of my preconceived notions regarding this movement. I thought, “Finally!

A group of people after my own heart!” Would this not be a movement of intellectuals who embraced wholeheartedly the potentials of technology rather than falling into the trap of fearing that which we do not understand? I came to appreciate this controversial movement in the context it was situated within as a decidedly political undertaking.

Another contributor to this movement included Archigram. The author paints Archigram’s approach High Tech Architecture as...

An article in Metropolis from June 2018 described an exhibition titled “Superstructures: The New Architecture: 1960-1990.” This exhibition explored the movement known as High Tech Architecture in the late twentieth century. However, this name change is indicative of the controversy with the term ‘High Tech.’

Modernists rejected this term claiming it indicated “stylistic associations above its purported impact.”1 The article quoted American architect Philip Johnson as having stated: “There isn’t anyone in America who can do something as good as the Sainsbury Centre. England has at once become the leader in the engineering and technology game.” The author argued that today’s version of the High Tech movement is more ephemeral with the notable exception of science fiction.

However, as the author reminds us, the High Tech movement sits within a volatile history which includes the Italian futurists who were also violent fascists.

1 Bose (2018) 2 Ibid.

10

“the psychedelic techno-utopianism of Archigram, in which feats of engineering are made more wonderful by the awesome—in the literal sense—achievements of mankind, emphasized by the palpable, visible, and exaggerated presence of technology.” 2

/ / AR CHIGR AM Archigram has the set the stage in their imaginative approach embracing the use of technology as a democratizing factor in a potentially dead world. The fears regarding climate change, global immigration crisises and international discord place Archigram closer to realism then the dystopian fears they projected on an unsuspecting audience.

Razan Altiraifi

This democratic imperative was a step towards the liberating technology that might allow everyone to one day be an architect or at least an interior designer. However, it should be remembered that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the privilege of the richâ&#x20AC;? that Archigram sought to spread had resulted in at least as many follies as architectural glories.1

The opening chapter of the Superstructures exhibition catalog quoted the Norwich-born author Reyner Banham but excluded the last sentence in bold below:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The architect who proposes to run with technology knows now that he will be in fast company, and that, in order to keep up, he may have to emulate the Futurists and discard his whole cultural load, including the professional garments by which he is recognized as an architect. If, on the other hand, he decides not to do this, he may find that a technological culture has decided to go on without him. 2 The omitted last sentence speaks to the necessity of technology as a core tenant of architecture, as relevant in 2019 as it was in 1960. If architects are to reflect the culture and society of which they are a part, then in an increasingly technological culture, architects cannot afford to be passed by the remainder of society.

1 2

Anderson (2017) Banham (1960)

11

RA-04

“I therefore propose that we, architects and computer scientists, take advantage of the professional iconoclasms that exist in our day – a day of evolutionary revolution; that we build machines equipped with at least those devices that humans employ to design. Let us build machines that can learn, can grope, and can fumble, machines that will be architectural partners, architecture machines.”

Nicholas Negroponte, “The Architecture Machine”, 1970

The Architecture Machine Group, led by Nicholas simply help us design but physically embody us, serving Negroponte, is the precursor to what is now the MIT as machines we live in. Negroponte concludes by stating Media Lab. This group spent the 1970s experimenting with the idea of an ‘Architecture Machine.’ This “This notion of architecture, made manifest technology was meant to allow each individual to be his own architect. Negroponte emphasized the idea of through its interplay of computing, a learning period for the Architecture Machine, allowing engineering, and artificial intelligence, for today’s developments in Artificial Intelligence and produced an all encompassing interactive machine learning . He described the distant future of 1 architecture machines where this technology wont world.”

1

12

Negroponte (1970)

Using context in sketch recognition.

Author: Herot, Christopher Frederick Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Electrical Engineering. Thesis. 1974. M.S

//A R CHITE CTU R E MACHIN E GR O U P

13

In 1967, Yona Friedman proposed the ”Flatwriter” (literally write flats), a computer program conceived to enable the user to design the plan of his future home in the Ville Spatiale, or for a citizen to re-design his neighborhood in the Ville Spatiale. Friedman provided a detailed description of all the steps necessary to his imagined process.

to design his own residence to providing an architect with the tools to more efficiently serve a large number of clients. While the advancements provided by these experiments are indisputable, this ambiguity have seemed to lead to the development of smarter design tools for the design professional. What these experiments have not pursued is the use of artificial intelligence to ask smart questions and better understand a potential In 1973, the software was developed at the resident in a way that does presume technological or Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) through the design expertise.

Architecture Machine Group and named YONA in honor of its conceiver.

My proposal supplements these discrete procedures with a set of design games allowing the software to build This experiment as well as the others conducted by a behavioral and stylistic profile of the end user. The the Architecture Machine Group at the time followed layperson client participates only to adjust and refine a discrete and technical approach to the development proposed design solutions, but is not asked to translate of floor plans. The goal in these experiments seem to diagrammatic images to a floor plan. have volleyed back and forth from allowing a layperson

FLATWRITER STEPS1 1. MAKE SPACES: the user identifies which spaces he/she wishes to include in his home. He/she determines size. Cost was calculated immediately “to avoid later disappointments”.

2. LINK SPACES: The user determines the association between spaces.

3. ARRANGE GRAPH: An initial graph configuration of the specified “home” is displayed.

4. MOVE SPACES: the user can rearrange the graph.

5. PRE-SHAPE SPACES: After a satisfactory arrangement is achieved, “bubbles” of the appropriate areas are displayed over each node/space.

6. SKETCH SPACES: the user can use the area-bubbles as guides to make further adjustments.

1

14

Pertigkiozoglou (2017)

/ / F L ATW R ITE R

15

In a survey of the current technological landscape in AEC, we see a great deal of innovation around Artificial Intelligence, software advancements, modular and prefabricated construction. These innovations are leading to increased efficiencies. In surveying this digital landscape a few themes emerge: Pre-Design Client Surveys There are a slew of companies and firms developing in-house pre-design software tools. These tools allow a client to fill out a survey and provide initial information.

In some cases, clients can select from a series or prepopulated design options. The extent to which a client advances in this software-guided process varies from company to company. In most companies, at a certain point an architect will come out on a site visit and meet with the client, overseeing the remainder of the process.

16

Modular and Prefabricated Construction Several firms have either partnered with a fabricator or incorporated in-house factories for modular and pre-fabricated building components. This ownership of the supply chain process allows increased efficiency radically reducing the construction process from months to weeks.

Proprietary Approach However with all these innovations in software and hardware, another common theme is the proprietary nature of these endeavors. Each of these companies predicates the investment of the client into one system for the duration of the project from design to construction.

What can we learn from the tech boom of the 1990s?

How can we ensure we do not become an industry of innovation-stifling monopolies? How can we promote fair competition within the AEC industry? My proposal addresses these issues harnessing the power of innovation while mandating fair competition.

/ / DIGITAL L AN DSCAP E

17

A Case Study: Decoding Building Codes A readily apparent area for disruption is with building codes and regulations. The idea of thumbing through thick tones to distill the relevant building codes for a project feels quaint and recklessly archaic. Any technologist or technologically-savvy person entering the AEC industry would expect an easily searchable and sortable database of building codes by location, building type and other fields.

organization known as the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC creates model building codes used in all 50 states but only provides limited free access. The ICC licenses out its database to companies to fund the creation and updating of model building codes. This is currently an ongoing legal case, however the position each side is taking reflects the current struggle the AEC industry finds its within. Will the AEC industry accept innovation from within, or find itself victim to Unfortunately, as the startup UpCodes is discovering, the external forces as the technology industry spots the industry is resistant to change.1 The startup has opportunities for disruption, hammering its way into the found itself up against the non-profit membership methodical bubble we have created for ourselves.

1

Sisson (2019)

/ / DE CO DIN G <B U IL DIN G> CO DE S

https://www.iccsafe.org/codes-tech-support/codes/2018-i-codes/ibc/

The 1970s ushered in a revolution in personal computing, with the release of the Apple I computer in 1976, and release of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first general microprocessor, the Intel 4004, in November 1971, while the programming language C was originally developed at Bell Labs by Dennis Ritchie, between 1972 and 1973. 1

Archigram to the technological experimentations of the Architecture Machine Group, I embarked on a journey surveying the discourse around technology and the built environment. I focused on how these tools were meant to address the societal ills of the time. How did these groups encourage a more fair and equitable world.

With all these advances in technology, architectural thinkers imagined a future, sometimes dystopian, world predicting how technology would change the way we build and the way we live. From the fantastic musings of

The fields of computer science, information architecture and ui/ux design draw a great deal from architectural thought with respect to terminology and process.

20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_in_science_and_technology

Razan Altiraifi

1

Richard Saul Wurman, founder of the TED Conferences, claims to have coined the term ‘information architecture.’ An architect, he spoke at great length regarding this topic at the 1976 American Institute of Architects Conference, saying:

CO MP IL E “I thought the explosion of data needed an architecture, needed a series of systems, needed systemic design, a series of performance criteria to measure it.”

Wurman, 1976

That’s why I’ve chosen to call myself an information architect. I don’t mean a bricks and mortar architect. I mean architect as used in the words architect of foreign policy.

I mean architect as in the creating of systemic, structural, and orderly principles to make something work- the thoughtful making of artifact, idea, or policy that informs because it is clear. I use the word information in its truest sense. Because most of the word information contains the word inform, I call things information only if they inform me, not if they are just collections of data, of stuff.

Wurman, 1997

The common thought is that architects build buildings. No, architects make instructions for having someone else build them. So basically architects… they give instructions

Klyn, 2009

A thought leader promoting an equitable reimagining of the architecture profession, Peggy Deamer questions the changing roles within the AEC industries. She writes “Here, the traditional definitions of designer, architect, and builder come under attack as the relationship of each to the other shifts. Designer is not longer equated with architect; fabricators, engineers, and software programmers can lay equal claim to authorial designation.”1 She examines the ideas of labor and the profession with the advent of technologies in digital fabrication and parametric design.

1 2

Deamer and Bernstein (2010) Steenson (2017)

Molly Wright Steenson traces the fear of technology rendering the architect obsolete as far back as Marvin Minsky in the 1960s. She writes “Architects remained -and do still remain- concerned that computers might render them obsolete.”2 While she explains that other professionals faced similar threats to the way they practiced, she considers architecture as uniquely positioned in the need for a three-dimensional form. In her book ‘Architectural Intelligence,’ she examines the answer architects and researchers have had to the still relevant question “But could computers ever develop creative capacity?”

21

In the book, Form + Code, the author promotes a world where architects become computer scientists, designing and building the custom software tools they need to push the arbitrary boundaries of design set by existing software publishers.1 Of course, this implies the need for a set of people that are proficient in the fields of architecture and computer science. This vision hopes to prevent a situation where the technology industry disrupts AEC based on a superficial understanding of the design professional. I am not convinced this is a legitimate fear. We have seen advancements in technology and AI in other creative fields, including music and creative writing.

1

Reas (2010)

Often to realize a new or unique vision requires that artists and designers exceed limitations of existing tools. Proprietary software products are general tools designed for the production of specific types of forms.

To go beyond these limitations, it is necessary to customize existing applications through programming or to write your own software.

Form + Code

Of course, I believe there is a place and need for people that straddle the worlds of technology and architecture.

However, this is by no means a prerequisite to run an innovative and efficient architecture firm. I believe in encouraging an ecosystem where software publishers are able to compete fairly, resulting in many competitive software programs giving architects a wide variety of affordable choices. An industry-wide consensus regarding software standardizations (ex. an agreed-upon standard file type ensuring cross-compatibility) allows firms to select the best tool for their specific way of working. Every firm should rest assured the output from their software would result in a standardized BIM file that can be transferred to contractors and engineers.

22

/ / F O R M + CO DE

23

HOW DOES INTERACTION DESIGN DIFFER FROM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING? Architects are concerned with the people and their interactions with each other and with the house being built...In contrast, engineers are interested in issues to do with realizing the project.1 Just as there is a difference between designing and building a house, so too there is a distinction between designing an interactive product and engineering the software for it.2 In the textbook ‘Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction,’ the authors situate the field of Interaction design between technology, psychology and design fields such as industrial design and architecture.

We can gleam useful information from understanding the processes embodied in these industries.

SOFTWARE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT Just as it makes sense to create a set of blueprints before you begin building a house, it makes sense to create an architecture and design before you begin building a software system.3 In the textbook ‘Rapid Development’ published by Microsoft, there are numerous analogies comparing software management with architecture . The book then proceeds to describe the Design and Construction phases of Software Project Management as seen in the image across from this text.

1 Sharp (2007) 2 Ibid.

3 McConnell (1996)

24

McConnell p.137 (1996)

25

26

<Architect eliminated by technology>

Instead of an Artisan architect or systems designer be in the middle, embedded form of agency

<Architect creates custom software to further their designs>

Archigram Architecture Machine Group

Samuel Stewart-Halevy

Form + Code 27

Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC)

PLANNING

DEFINING REQUIREMENTS

and requirements analysis

software requirement specification

Conceptual Design

Schematic Design

Architectural Design Phases

Architectural Design Phases 28

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Design Document Specification

Design Development

/ / P R O CE SSIN G THE P R O CE SS

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS & SPECS

Construction Documents

IMPLEMENTATION

MAINTENANCE

BUILDING PERMITS

Construction Bidding

Construction Administration

29

API: APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE In computer programming, an application programming interface is a set of subroutine definitions, communication protocols, and tools for building software. In general terms, it is a set of clearly defined methods of communication among various components. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface

30

/ / AP I

API: ARCHITECTURE PROGRAMMING INTERFACE In architecture and construction, the architectural programming interface will be a set of construction definitions, communication protocols, and tools for building compatible building components. In general terms, it is a set of clearly defined methods of communication among various building components.

31

PLACE The process begins with the Developer-Architect.

This actor owns the properties on which development can take place. This actor adds their available plots of land to the Property Database. The DeveloperArchitect enters all the relevant information about each property. Relevant information ranges from basic geographical properties such as address and dimensions of the plot to information typically gathered in a site survey. This database will capture topographic information which will dictate allowable building on this site. The combination of geographic information and topography allows the database to pull relevant codes and regulations including zoning requirements.

DESIGN The core of the process is the Design Client. This proposal operates under the assumption that the Design Client does not need to be an expert in design or technology to be a beneficiary of this process. The Design Client first selects a lot from the Property Database. The Design Client then participates in a series of activities allowing the AI to build a detailed profile of them. At the end of this iterative process, the AI proposes a set of designs. The Design Client then collaborates with the AI, modifying the design until satisfied. A live invoice is updated as changes are made, allowing the Design Client to be aware of the cost to their decisions. The Design Client is also made aware of how many factories might be involved in their proposed design.

32

DE V E L O P FABRICATE Democratization of the Factory role is crucial to this process. The workflow is dependent on the adherence to a set of standardized connections between components and modules. Each factory adds their components or modules to the Factory Database. The standardized connections allow various components from diverse factories to coexist in one structure.

LOOP Every AI-designed building includes sensors that collect usage data facilitating the goal of data-driven design.

The building occupants are also asked to regularly complete post-occupancy surveys providing a human measure of satisfaction with the process and final design. This allows the AI to engage in machine learning in order provide better solutions with every subsequent client.

ASSEMBLE The AI outputs a complex BIM Model and sends it to a local Assembly Partner. These trained and skilled local builders will generally pour a foundation and assemble prefabricated components above, resulting in a fast and efficient process.

33

ARCHITECTURAL INTELLIGENCE DEMOCRATIZING ARCHITECTURE INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY

34

/ / P O SITIO N IN G STATE ME N T

Architecture is an elite profession both internally within the industry and externally in who the field interacts with as far as clients. Internally, the field of architecture struggles with issues of diversity and equity. The path to licensure is long and arduous, losing many in the journey, while the control over the protected title of â&#x20AC;&#x153;architectâ&#x20AC;? presents a vision of an unattainable trophy. Externally, the average American has no cause to ever directly interact with an architect, while living and working within the work of architects.

Nowhere is this clearer then within residential architecture. A mere two percent of houses are designed by architects.

There have been many software companies which have tried to fill this need by providing design software for the layperson. However, these software programs fail to educate the user about design while assuming a technological proficiency. In this era of DIY, these programs are tempting to homeowners who can then produce floorplans and take them to a builder.

I propose an intelligent design program that builds a profile of the user through a variety of activities. This technology would then use Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to propose a design solution. This software simulates the activities of an architect, serving to educate the user in the complexity of design while exposing them to a field they would never encounter otherwise. This software merely emulates an architect but could never completely replace the less tangible years of experience and education in theory, history, culture and philosophy that an architect would bring to a project. However, such a professional is out of reach for most people. This software also provides a user with a measure of agency allowing them to modify their design until they are satisfied. Software will never lose patience with endless changes and back and forth.

The industry is in dire need of democratization through a reimagined approach to supply chain management. I propose a standardized connection for building construction. This will allow manufacturers of everything from Integrated Wall Panels to modular bathrooms to rest assured that their products fit into an existing and agreed upon system. Just as the USB interface means any device manufacturer who adheres to the standards can be assured their device or product will connect to any computer.

Architecture is at the intersection of science and art. More than any field, architecture is positioned to utilize technology to build a more beautiful and equitable world. This means looking inward first to how we function as an industry. Then we need to take a hard look at who we service (everyone) and who we report to (clients with money).

35

As the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workflow becomes increasingly digital, the end product has become an information model. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning will revolutionize the work of the architect as design knowledge becomes codified within technology. Likewise, technology holds the potential to democratize design for the masses from a world where architects design only 2% of houses. Comparing and contrasting the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) with the Architecture Design Process, I propose the intervention of an intelligent architectural software program into the traditional design and construction workflow. 36

/ / THE SIS STATE ME N T

37

BUILDING TYPOLOGY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional BUILDING STYLE Modern High Tech Deconstructivist Parametricism PROPERTY LOCATION CODES & REGULATIONS Location-based regulations Codes Setbacks Regulations

Address Street Zipcode Site Description Lot Size Buildable Size Site Survey Topography

PROPERTY DATABASE

DEVELOPER INPUT

PRICING Cost Breakdown

PRE-PERMITTING

data driven design

A

ARCHIT INTEL

CLIENT INPUT/OUTPUT BUILD PROFILE Numbers & Adjacencies Lifestyle Quiz Design Games Scenario Roleplay Precedent Play

PROPOSED DESIGN

38

PRESENTATION DOCS

EDITS & ADJUSTMENTS

FINALIZE DESIGN

AU GME N T standardized connection

BUILDING CHASSIS Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional INTERIOR INFILL

PREFABRICATED COMPONENTS DATABASE

Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional RESPONSIVE FACADE Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional

ASSEMBLER INPUT

I

components ordered & shipped

TECTURAL LLIGENCE

building sensors collect data POST-OCCUPANCY DATA COLLECTION

ASSEMBLER OUTPUT

BIM MODEL: CONSTRUCTION DOCS

PERMITTING

blockchain contracts FACTORY Components arrive from fabricator flatpacked & shipped flatbed ruck

ASSEMBLE ON SITE Trained Assemblers Crane

39

BUILDING TYPOLOGY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional BUILDING STYLE Modern High Tech Deconstructivist Parametricism PROPERTY LOCATION CODES & REGULATIONS Location-based regulations Codes Setbacks Regulations

Address Street Zipcode Site Description Lot Size Buildable Size Site Survey Topography

PROPERTY DATABASE

DEVELOPER INPUT

PRICING Cost Breakdown

PRE-PERMITTING

data driven design

A

ARCHIT INTEL

CLIENT INPUT/OUTPUT BUILD PROFILE Numbers & Adjacencies Lifestyle Quiz Design Games Scenario Roleplay Precedent Play

PROPOSED DESIGN

42

PRESENTATION DOCS

EDITS & ADJUSTMENTS

FINALIZE DESIGN

standardized connection

BUILDING CHASSIS Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional INTERIOR INFILL

PREFABRICATED COMPONENTS DATABASE

Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional RESPONSIVE FACADE Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional

ASSEMBLER INPUT

I

components ordered & shipped

TECTURAL LLIGENCE

building sensors collect data POST-OCCUPANCY DATA COLLECTION

ASSEMBLER OUTPUT

BIM MODEL: CONSTRUCTION DOCS

PERMITTING

blockchain contracts FACTORY Components arrive from fabricator flatpacked & shipped flatbed ruck

ASSEMBLE ON SITE Trained Assemblers Crane

43

The process begins with the DeveloperArchitect. This actor owns the properties on which development can take place. This actor adds their available plots of land to the Property Database. The Developer-Architect enters all the relevant information about each property.

Relevant information ranges from basic geographical properties such as address and dimensions of the plot to information typically gathered in a site survey. This database will capture topographic information which will dictate allowable building on this site. The combination of geographic information and topography allows the database to pull relevant codes and regulations including zoning requirements. [ex. For this lot you can build up to 4 stories.

You are permitted to have a basement.]

[For this example, the Developer-Architect has made available some neighborhood lots zoned for residential for single-family houses. The Developer-Architect has chosen not to set stylistic restrictions.]

44

/ / DE V E L O P E R IN P U T

473-439 Lynch Ave NW Atlanta, GA 30318 9 Lots Available Lot Size: 100â&#x20AC;&#x2122; x 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Zoning: Single-Family Residential Stylistic Restrictions: None Site Survey Zoning Information

The Developer-Architect, as the manager of the process, also sets the building typology and stylistic ecosystem within which this process occurs. The DeveloperArchitect might decide they have a set of developable lots on which a modernist mid-rise mixed-use building may be developed.

Price Information

45

BUILDING TYPOLOGY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional BUILDING STYLE Modern High Tech Deconstructivist Parametricism PROPERTY LOCATION CODES & REGULATIONS Location-based regulations Codes Setbacks Regulations

Address Street Zipcode Site Description Lot Size Buildable Size Site Survey Topography

PROPERTY DATABASE

DEVELOPER INPUT

PRICING Cost Breakdown

PRE-PERMITTING

data driven design

A

ARCHIT INTEL

CLIENT INPUT/OUTPUT BUILD PROFILE Numbers & Adjacencies Lifestyle Quiz Design Games Scenario Roleplay Precedent Play

PROPOSED DESIGN

46

PRESENTATION DOCS

EDITS & ADJUSTMENTS

FINALIZE DESIGN

standardized connection

BUILDING CHASSIS Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional INTERIOR INFILL

PREFABRICATED COMPONENTS DATABASE

Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional RESPONSIVE FACADE Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional

ASSEMBLER INPUT

I

components ordered & shipped

TECTURAL LLIGENCE

building sensors collect data POST-OCCUPANCY DATA COLLECTION

ASSEMBLER OUTPUT

BIM MODEL: CONSTRUCTION DOCS

PERMITTING

blockchain contracts FACTORY Components arrive from fabricator flatpacked & shipped flatbed ruck

ASSEMBLE ON SITE Trained Assemblers Crane

47

The Factory role is crucial to this process. The workflow is dependent on the adherence to a set of standardized connections between components and modules. Each factory adds their components or modules to the Factory Database. One factory might produce modular bathrooms, while another might add their series of integrated wall panels. The standardized connections allow various components from diverse factories to coexist in one structure.

48

/ / ASSE MB L E R IN P U T

FACTORY Integrated Wall Panels

Bathroom Modules [For this example, above is the database of parts provide by the two participating manufacturers and fabricators]

Modular Units Wall Panels Floor Panels

49

BUILDING TYPOLOGY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional BUILDING STYLE Modern High Tech Deconstructivist Parametricism PROPERTY LOCATION CODES & REGULATIONS Location-based regulations Codes Setbacks Regulations

Address Street Zipcode Site Description Lot Size Buildable Size Site Survey Topography

PROPERTY DATABASE

DEVELOPER INPUT

PRICING Cost Breakdown

PRE-PERMITTING

data driven design

A

ARCHIT INTEL

CLIENT INPUT/OUTPUT BUILD PROFILE Numbers & Adjacencies Lifestyle Quiz Design Games Scenario Roleplay Precedent Play

PROPOSED DESIGN

50

PRESENTATION DOCS

EDITS & ADJUSTMENTS

FINALIZE DESIGN

standardized connection

BUILDING CHASSIS Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional INTERIOR INFILL

PREFABRICATED COMPONENTS DATABASE

Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional RESPONSIVE FACADE Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional

ASSEMBLER INPUT

I

components ordered & shipped

TECTURAL LLIGENCE

building sensors collect data POST-OCCUPANCY DATA COLLECTION

ASSEMBLER OUTPUT

BIM MODEL: CONSTRUCTION DOCS

PERMITTING

blockchain contracts FACTORY Components arrive from fabricator flatpacked & shipped flatbed ruck

ASSEMBLE ON SITE Trained Assemblers Crane

51

The core of the process is the Design Client. This proposal operates under the assumption that the Design Client does not need to be an expert in design or technology to be a beneficiary of this process. The Design Client first selects a lot from the Property Database. The Design Client then participates in a series of activities allowing the AI to build a detailed profile of them. At the end of this iterative process, the AI proposes a set of designs. The Design Client then collaborates with the AI, modifying the design until satisfied. A live invoice is updated as changes are made, allowing the Design Client to be aware if the cost to their decisions. The Design Client also understand how many factories might be involved in their proposed design.

52

/ / CL IE N T IN P U T/ O U TP U T

Once the design is finalized and the Design Client accepts the invoice, the components are ordered from factory and construction documents are sent to the local assemblers.

53

BUILDING TYPOLOGY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional BUILDING STYLE Modern High Tech Deconstructivist Parametricism PROPERTY LOCATION CODES & REGULATIONS Location-based regulations Codes Setbacks Regulations

Address Street Zipcode Site Description Lot Size Buildable Size Site Survey Topography

PROPERTY DATABASE

DEVELOPER INPUT

PRICING Cost Breakdown

PRE-PERMITTING

data driven design

A

ARCHIT INTEL

CLIENT INPUT/OUTPUT BUILD PROFILE Numbers & Adjacencies Lifestyle Quiz Design Games Scenario Roleplay Precedent Play

PROPOSED DESIGN

54

PRESENTATION DOCS

EDITS & ADJUSTMENTS

FINALIZE DESIGN

standardized connection

BUILDING CHASSIS Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional INTERIOR INFILL

PREFABRICATED COMPONENTS DATABASE

Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional RESPONSIVE FACADE Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Institutional

ASSEMBLER INPUT

I

components ordered & shipped

TECTURAL LLIGENCE

building sensors collect data POST-OCCUPANCY DATA COLLECTION

ASSEMBLER OUTPUT

BIM MODEL: CONSTRUCTION DOCS

PERMITTING

blockchain contracts FACTORY Components arrive from fabricator flatpacked & shipped flatbed ruck

ASSEMBLE ON SITE Trained Assemblers Crane

55

FEEDBACK LOOP Every AI-designed building includes sensors that collect usage data. This facilitates the goal of data-driven design. The building occupants are asked to regularly complete post-occupancy surveys providing a human response of satisfaction with the process and final design. This allows the AI to engage in machine learning in order provide better solutions with every subsequent client.

BLOCKCHAIN CONTRACTS Contract law currently presents one of the largest barriers to a full embrace of BIM technology and processes.

Contract law mandates that architects provide a full set of 2D construction drawings stamped by the architect who accepts full liability for their designs and the implementation of said designs.

As John Cerone, Director of Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) at SHoP Architects, speculated, the technology to digitally â&#x20AC;&#x153;stampâ&#x20AC;? a building information model at different stages of the design process exists. He suggests the use of blockchain technology, where every user who interacts the digital model leaves their digital signature on the model, approving it and sending it onwards to fabricators and contractors.1 Currently architects may use BIM to develop their designs in a digital model but must then produce the 2D drawing set to protect themselves. This step backwards is inefficient and costly, prohibitively so for all but the largest firms.

1

56

Archispeak (2018)

/ / ASSE MB L E R O U TP U T

FEEDBACK LOOP Every AI-designed building includes sensors that collect usage data. This facilitates the goal of data-driven design. The building occupants are asked to regularly complete post-occupancy surveys providing a human response of satisfaction with the process and final design. This allows the AI to engage in machine learning in order provide better solutions with every subsequent client.

ON-SITE ASSEMBLY The AI outputs a complex BIM Model and sends it a local Assembly Partner. These trained and skilled local builders will generally pour a foundation and assemble prefabricated components above, resulting in a fast and efficient process. The Developer-Architect serves as the Project Manager overseeing the process and available should any problems arise.

57

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Let us consider an augmented architect at work. He sits at a working station that has a visual display screen some three feet on a side, this is his working surface, controlled by a computer with which he can communicate by means of small keyboards and various other devices.â&#x20AC;?

Douglas Engelbart, Augmenting Human Intellect, 1962

58

Yes there once was a dogmatic and dogged figure called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; who collaged rectilinear industrial plates and sticks via contractual (in)tolerance! But this figure dissolved into a swirl of digits, his very definition blurring in depth with/in variant systems. And the newly malleable, hermaphrodite figure will doubtless evolve a ranging, liquid intellect, dis-focused as to the material actuality of a work, but sentient to the manipulation of a normative range of immergence itself. Authority, now diffuse, lies in the code, no longer in the architecture.

Mark Goulthorpe, The Possibility of (an) Architecture, 2008

59

The Next Revolution: Robotics In a 1991 article published in Scientific American, Mark Weiser wrote:

“Hundreds of computers in a room could seem intimidating at first, just as hundreds of volts coursing through wire in the walls once did. But like the wires in the walls.

These hundreds of computers will come to be invisible to common awareness. People will simply use them unconsciously to accomplish everyday tasks.”1 1

Hohenstein (2017)

Just as computers were intimidating in their onset, CAD and BIM are becoming everyday tools used to accomplish design tasks. The next new thing is ubiquitous computing and robotics, with a potentially large impact on architecture. We have evolved from Le Corbusier referring to the house as a “machine for living in,” through Constant’s New Babylon describing a “camp for nomads on the planetary scale,” to Ron Herron’s concept for a moving metropolis of intelligent robotic structures. In ‘Hello, Robot,’ Hohenstein proposes thinking of certain designs as robotic interfaces themselves.1 In this way, it is how we as a culture think of robotics and technology that affects architectural design, rather than the technology itself.

60

1 2

Hohenstein (2017) Morel (2014)

In ‘Computation or Revolution,’ Morel describes architecture-related robotics as potentially being split into ‘architectural robotics’ and ‘robotic architecture.’2 He questions whether architectural robotics exists, stating that if logistics and transport have led to the development of new kinds of robots, the same process of innovation seems much slower in architecture. He concludes that no specific area of robotics has been adapted for use in architecture.

While Morel speaks specifically regarding robotics and architecture, much of what he proposes can be abstracted more generally to the intersection between technology and architecture.

Morel describes several criteria that distinguish between advanced architectural research and the simple opportunistic applications used by industry: 1. Steps should be taken to combine a revolution of architectural and constructive language with a revolution of social organization which is now out of step with the general transformations taking place in science and technology 2. There should be a clear awareness that robotics in architecture cannot be isolated from this same society - that, despite appearances and obviously beyond what it represents as a specific area of a science, robotics constitutes neither a procedural problem, nor a discipline problem, nor even a work problem, but rather an aspect of the generic problem of our era: computation.

3. Awareness that there are specifically architectural problems related to robotics.

The incompatibility of construction materials and techniques from a pre-robotics era presents its own difficulties, as does large-scale construction using robots most of which were not developed for this purpose.

4. The romantic associations between architecture and technology deflect industrial economy problems onto an aesthetic theory of widespread creativity. Rather than wondering how robotics can play a part in an architectural discipline that is still romantically defined by a focus on ornament or architectural composition.

61

Morel argues that we have come full circle from Le Corbusier’s ‘machine for living’ stating that homes will not simply be objects built by robots but part of a class of the ‘robots for living.’ Morel believe the process started

by Le Corbusier and the Russian productionists would be completed. He also believes the process started by the Futurists, and constantly restarting, confirms “the extent to which futurism is the unspoken and unwritten doctrine of our civilization.”1

social context. But who determines the unsuitability of the social context? Technologists will always be ahead of architects and rightfully so when experimenting with emerging tools. Architects must necessarily slow down and understand the implications of their work from preserving safety and well-being to considering the long-term impacts of a building. While a software engineer is satisfied with a Minimally Viable Product, the architect must methodically develop a holistic design.

Morel states correctly that we are approaching a time when architectural design and construction must be entirely automated and verified by a computer. Morel believes the discipline should already be reviewing its practices and its bases to correct the deficit in scientific knowledge.

Back to the Future

Robotics will irreversibly affect the AEC industry. The question is whether a ‘robotic urbanism’ will trickle down from engineering or bottom up from research labs and educational institutions or laterally through business and technology startups spotting a need and Morel describes three challenges facing automation in innovating. architecture: 1. To ensure that digital and computational Regardless, urbanization will be driven by the need to house millions. The best tools will be used to solve these literacy is properly integrated into complex problems. As technology processes larger teaching at architecture schools amounts of data, IoT and digital networks will lead to a 2. To test and develop new types of robot redefining of the field of architecture.

which would not only allow such a work to be replicated but which would move architecture forward 3. Imply a general understanding of the nature of robotics as computation applied to objects.

Were the Futurists correct in their assertions?

Technology has always influenced culture and society.

Architects have translated societal needs and expectations into their designs of the built environment.

Technology is one of the many tools architects and builders have used to solve problems within the societal context of which they are a part. Yesterday it was the invention of steel and concrete driving the modernist Morel laments the refusal to adopt a wider application movement. Today BIM and computational design provide of computation in architecture blaming a pragmatic us with parametricism. Tomorrow robotic urbanism use of the latest technological advances in an unsuited may be indistinguishable from the prior world of architecture.

1

62

Morel (2014)

63

YOUR ARCHITECTURE RAN INTO A PROBLEM THAT IT COULDNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;T HANDLE, AND NOW IT NEEDS TO RESTART

64

Parting Notes...

In this work, I sought to reconcile my process-oriented background in technology and management with my pursuit of a Master of Architecture. My presentation of this thesis proposal at my final studio review of my academic career resulted in a thrilling discussion of the future of the architecture profession within an increasingly technological context. These discussions return to the question posed earlier about whether design and creativity can be automated. I believe this is not the question we should be asking, but rather how can we as designers develop the technological tools to advance our industry while promoting social justice.

B YE , W O R L D provide increased efficiency of process and allow for fair competition for software publishers, modular manufacturers, digital fabricators and others. These standardizations leave room for highly specialized companies to produce propriety work as well, however the goal is to level the playing field generally.

Let us project our musings a year after this consortium meets and sets the standards for our industry. There are numerous manufacturers of modular and prefabricated building components. A new part of the market opens up where the middle class is able to design custom or semi-custom residences and accessory dwelling units.

Scott Marble, the Chair of the School of Architecture This segment of the market might make due with an at Georgia Tech (my soon to be alma mater!), wrote augmented architect. This allows architects to service “The optimists see [automation] as positive, freeing up more clients, and clients to purchase affordable ‘lite’ designers to focus exclusively on high-level creative architectural services. It is not a stretch to imagine tasks, and the pessimists see robots rendering humans advances in affordable housing resulting from the obsolete.”1 increased efficiencies.

With this work, I have passed optimism in an excited pursuit of an architecture profession that has successfully harnessed the power of technology to address many of the issues within the industry and externally to the general public. Architecture, much like technology, tends to be a field that produces generalists.

Both fields are wide with endless possibilities.

On the software side, consider a newly established firm determining the software products they will license.

This young firm has the choice of dozens of modeling softwares ranging from the parametric-driven to ones arriving from gaming or movie production. The firm purchases the software that reflects their vision, while confident their outputted files can easily translate into a BIM file for all the requisite testing and construction Imagine for a moment, a consortium of the top needs.

AEC companies and firms meet in a snazzy hotel ballroom. The thought leaders of the industry engage This world where fear is replaced by potentiality in a series of workshops and sessions to develop a provides the opportunity for architecture to lead all consensus regarding a set of hardware and software industries in the embrace of technology to revolutionize standardizations. The hardware standardizations the way we practice and serve our communities. I look address the free-for-all developments within forward to living in this world. modular and prefabricated construction. Software standardizations seek to promote cross-compatibility Thank you, and interoperability. These standardizations will Razan Altiraifi 1

Marble (2018)

65

Anderson, Darran. 2017. The Prophetic Side of Archigram. Citylab.

“Archispeak,” 2018, in SHoP Class, 74 min.

Bachman, Leonard R. 2003. Integrated buildings : the systems basis of architecture. New York: New York : J. Wiley & Sons.

Banham, Reyner. 1960. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.

Berkel, Ben van. 1999. Move. Edited by Caroline Bos. Amsterdam: Amsterdam : UN Studio & Goose Press.

Borasi, Giovanna, d Centre canadien, and organizer issuing body host institution architecture. 2015. The other architect : another way of building architecture. First edition.. ed.: Montréal, Québec, Canada : Canadian Centre for Architecture ; Leipzig : Spector Books.

Bose, Shumi. 2018. “Revisiting the True Meaning of “High Tech” Architecture.” Metropolis.

Boyer, M. Christine. 1996. CyberCities : visual perception in the age of electronic communication. 1st ed.. ed. New York: New York : Princeton Architectural Press.

“CAD - The greatest advance in construction history”. 2012. In “Architects’ Journal.” https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/cad-the-greatest-advancein-construction-history/1996442.article.

Cheshire, Tom. 2017. “BIM’s ‘Google Docs for buildings’ is transforming architecture – but could it kill creativity?” In “Wired.” https://www.wired.co.uk/ article/architecture-software-creativity.

Cilento, Karen. 2010. “Parametricist Manifesto / Patrik Schumacher” https://www.archdaily.com/64581/parametricist-manifesto-patrik-schumacher.

Daniels, Klaus. 1998. Low-tech light-tech high-tech : building in the information age. Edited by Elizabeth Schwaiger. Building in the information age. Basel ; Boston ;: Basel ; Boston ; Berlin : Birkhauser Publishers.

Davis, Daniel. 2013. “A History of Parametric” http://www.danieldavis.com/a-history-of-parametric/.

Deamer, Peggy, and Phillip Bernstein. 2010. Building (in) the future : recasting labor in architecture. Recasting labor in architecture. New Haven [Conn.] : New York: New Haven Conn. : Yale School of Architecture ; New York : Princeton Architectural Press.

Engelbart, Douglas C. 1962. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Stanford Research Institute (Menlo Park, CA).

Engelbart, Douglas C., and William K. English. 1968. “A research center for augmenting human intellect.” Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I, San Francisco, California.

Flowers, Benjamin. 2014. Architecture in an age of uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey ; Burlington : Ashgate.

Friedman, Yona. 1971. “The Flatwriter: Choice by Computer.” Progressive Architecture, 03/1971, 4.

Gideon, Siegfried. 1941. Space, Time and Architecture. Harvard University Press.

Goulthorpe, M. 2009. The Possibility of (an) Architecture: Collected Essays by Mark Goulthorpe, dECOi Architects. Taylor & Francis.

Gramazio, Fabio, Matthias Kohler, Antoine Picon, François Roche, and Tom Verebes. 2014. Made by robots : challenging architecture at a larger scale.

London : John Wiley & Sons.

Gwendolen. 2015. “Zeitgeist” In “A DICTIONARY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE.” University of Chicago. https://voices.uchicago.edu/201504arth1570901a2/2015/11/16/z/.

Hirschman, Sarah. 2011. Testing to Failure: Design and Research in MIT’s Department of Architecture. 1st ed.: SA+P Press.

Hohenstein, Christoph. 2017. Hello, robot : design between human and machine. Weil am Rhein: Vitra Design Museum.

Hwang, Irene, Evelyn Ting, Elizabeth Yarina, Dennis Cheung, George Lin, Carolyn Jenkins, Alexander Marshall, Kelly Shaw, Sasa Zivkovic, David Costanza, Yushiro Okamoto, Curtis Roth, Nadya Volicer, Natsuki Maeda, Ekachai Pattamsattayasonthi, Lisa Pauli, Pamela Ritchot, Buck Sleeper, Charles Curran, Rafael Luna, Duncan McIlvaine, John Pugh, Andrea Brennen, James Graham, Mary Hale, Simon Schleicher, and John Snavely. 2014. Building Discourse:

66

SO U R CE CO DE Proposition and Proof. 1st ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: SA+P Press.

Jacobi, Per. 1973. The computer and architectural design. Two experiments. København: København, Polyteknisk Forlag, Eksp.: DBK. Marble, Scott. 2012. Digital workflows in architecture : designing design -- designing assembly -- designing industry. Basel: Basel : Birkhäuser.

---. 2018. “Everything That Can Be Measured Will Be Measured.” Technology|Architecture + Design 2 (2): 127-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2018 .1497355. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2018.1497355.

McConnell, Steve. 1996. Rapid development taming wild software schedules. Redmond, Wash.: Redmond, Wash. : Microsoft Press.

Moore, Steven A. 2001. Technology and place : sustainable architecture and the Blueprint Farm. 1st ed.. ed. Austin: Austin : University of Texas Press.

Morel, Philippe. 2014. “Computation or Revolution.” Architectural Design (Made By Robots: Challenging Achitecture at a Larger Scale): 76-87.

Negroponte, Nicholas. 1970. The architecture machine. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.

---. 1975. Soft architecture machines. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press.

Ockman, Joan. September 2001. “What’s New about the “New” Pragmatism.” A+U. Pertigkiozoglou, Eliza. 2017. “1976: Architecture Machine Group MIT.” https://medium.com/designscience/1976-852a377855fe.

Reas, Casey. 2010. Form+code in design, art, and architecture. Edited by Chandler McWilliams, Jeroen Barendse and Program Illinois. Environmental Protection Agency. Leaking Underground Storage Tank.Form and code in design, art, and architecture. New York: New York : Princeton Architectural Press.

Resmini, Andrea. 2011. Pervasive information architecture designing cross-channel user experiences. Edited by Luca Rosati. Burlington, MA: Burlington, MA : Morgan Kaufmann.

Rowe, Colin. 1987. “Neo-Classicism” and Modern Architecture.” In The mathematics of the ideal villa, and other essays. MIT Press.

Schön, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New York: New York : Basic Books.

Schumacher, Patrik. 2008. “Parametricism as Style - Parametricist Manifesto.” 11th Architecture Biennale, Vencice.

Sharp, Helen. 2007. Interaction design : beyond human-computer interaction. Edited by Yvonne Rogers and Jenny Preece. 2nd ed.. ed.Interaction Design.

Chichester ; Hoboken, NJ: Chichester ; Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.

Sisson, Patrick. 2019. Why an AI ‘spellcheck for buildings’ may be sunk by copyright law.

Steenson, Molly Wright. 2017. Architectural intelligence : how designers and architects created the digital landscape. Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press.

Susskind, Richard. 2015. The future of the professions : how technology will transform the work of human experts. Edited by Daniel Susskind. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.

Thun-Hohenstein, Christoph, Mateo Kries, Amelie Klein, host institution Gewerbemuseum Winterthur, host institution Design Museum Gent, host institution Österreichisches Museum für Angewandte Kunst, and issuing body host institution Vitra Design Museum. 2017. Hello, robot : design between human and machine. English edition.. ed.Design between human and machine: Weil am Rhein : Vitra Design Museum.

Vardouli, Theodora. 2011. ““Architecture-by-yourself”: Early studies in computer-aided participatory design.” History Theory and Criticism

Research in Progress Symposium MIT, 224 Albany Street,

Cambridge, MA 02139. https://openarchitectures.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/literature-review_thvardouli.pdf.

Wang, G. 2018. Artful Design: Technology in Search of the Sublime, a Musicomic Manifesto. Stanford University Press.

Winograd, T., F. Flores, and F.F. Flores. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

67