Introduction To Ar 00 Whit

Jawtlff'
.^yyy^^îA^
k
o \o\o
>'
P^t<UK.
*i
dig
-^ ^
aJ&^
g_
-*'\
c^cuf^
A.
K-M
r/
'kCi
ÔJtU>ilU
,JU<iU<^
'
"'
n n
n n
1>
"4fl4i.r4i-^
%
'__
U U
jûtiXiCej^
3^ttnm *ftt MMcu
Intl.
Copyright
toctural
Piogrammi
1972 by Edward T. White
All Rights
Reserved
Primed
the United States of America
in
5".4<> *>Book
|.f>6_H*W'ostage and
iyt>0*^^^
i^...i
^^^^ Prepaid
Architectural Media
P.O. Box 4664

Tucson, Arizona 8571
o
N
s
<
U.
o
>H
cr
UJ
>
UJ
o
in
I-
z
o
ex
<
UJ
I
o
UJ
INTRODUCTION
TO
ARCHITECTURAL
PROGRAMMING
ONE APTS
uBRASy
INTRODUCTION 2
PREFACE
PROGRAMMING PARADIGM
(/)
3
5
BACKGROUND
SURVEY OF PROGRAMMING
RESEARCH
PHILOSOPHY AND FACTS
20
NON -TRADITIONAL FACTS
30
TRADITIONAL FACTS
35
10
UJ
11
25
^
#_J
PROGRAMMING 46 LL
INFORMATION GATHERING
ANALYSIS, EVALUATION
47
58
lU
71
^
"^
AND
ORGANIZATION OF FACTS
DESIGNING FROM
THE PROGRAM
PROGRAM AND
DESIGN EVALUATION
80
MrM-
^.--îiHo
iiii:;tg:iiiiil
Of)
t-ill^^H
/v___
pUiU^
jjp:
wt
iê^
||jl|^^-gf<.
^ ^
jj.
"^
*
"-t"
'
2
PREFACE
INTENT
SCOPE
ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
MODELS
RELATIONSHIPS VIEW OF
DESIGN TO PROGRAMMING
DEVELOPING A
:
VIEW OF DESIGN
PROGRAMMING -DESIGN MODEL
O
# %
^^
Q
O
PREFACE
Although
ject
its
FORM
ROLE may
and
vary from project to pro-
and from design method to design method,
IVIING
PROGRAM-
nevertheless an integral part of the planning of any
is
building. With the architect involved in projects of greater
and
program has grown from
greater complexity, the value of the
means of "getting to know the problem" to that of an
DIRECTS
instrument which LIMITS and
Whereas
in
involvement
superficial
functions
the planning process.
the past programming amounted to
which
had
with
more than
no direct influence on the
or
little
operations of design synthesis,
little
and uncomplicated
familiar
it
developing into a syste-
is
INTERFACE
matic, analytical discipline with ever increasing
number of firms
which specialize in this area is evidence of the new importance
placed on programming and its recognition as a distinct compowith
planning
operations.
The
increasing
nent of the design process.
INTENT
A. This
book
meant
is
1.
PROMOTE
2.
SERVE
3.
AID
the
II.
and
value
the practitioner as a guide
PROVIDE
ming
concept
as a text for introductory
programming
4.
to:
programming.
in
developing his
own
services.
clients with a general introduction to program-
needed service
as a
of
programming courses.
in facilities
planning.
SCOPE
A. Emphasis will be placed on the
aspects
of
programming,
the
VALUE
of the different
OPERATIONS
writing and responding to a program, and the
involved
in
RELATION-
Jljduti^
SHIPS between issues within programming, between programming and design synthesis, and between program and
i^^WW^
the final design.
B.
Only
TRADITIONAL
are discussed. There
is
programming operations
no treatment of mathematical models
architectural
The use of these more sophistidemands development of a clear understanding of BASIC programming concepts.
or
computer
applications.
cated techniques
C.
Aûa^
first
The contents offer an INTRODUCTORY overview of programming as an architectural activity. The book does not
claim to comprehensively cover ALL aspects and attitudes
~Ja<^J^<^^^^**^
AldUtlfilî^t^
of the field. There are
many TANGENTIAL
issues
which
have not been pursued because of the Introductory nature

of the book.
D.
Although there
an inevitable
is
PERSONAL
view of design
and programming which has served to provide the basic

organization of the contents, there has been an effort to
present the information in a
assembly of HIS
E.
The
matter
subject
PRACTICAL
III.
A.
OWN
way
that facilitates the reader's
programming paradigm.
includes
both
THEORETICAL
ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT

INTRODUCTORY
BACK-
The book
is
GROUND
concerns which provide a context for discussing
divided into
programming and considerations that apply
PROGRAMMING
B.
and
aspects of programming.
The text
in
is
issues,
directly to the
operations.
OUTLINE form
with accompanying explan-
atory diagrams where appropriate.
C.
table of
SUB-CONTENTS
occurs at the start of each of
the three major divisions.
D.
The subject matter
PARADIGM
is
organized around the
presented below.
PROGRAMMING
>
MODELS
I.
A.
are complex operations to be performed or a

body of Information to be presented, the use of
Where there
large
MODELS
often proves useful.
Models or paradigms
provide
WAY
oof
-
^fe^
^"^^
--Ttliii iiiiiiii i iiii i
^ffn"^
UA^Mia/tomi/^
understanding
of
information or operations and their relationships and so
MEANS
serve as
also
for organizing and presenting ideas
about both.
B.
OF DESIGN as a process often

ROLE of programming in that process.
The programmer's VIEW

helps to establish the
Role
turn assists
in
in
the determination of specific
RELATIONSHIPS and
ATIONS
and
NATURE
of the programming document.
in
*o*5ji~*îr'*'
*?

'*'
OPER-
establishing
the
RELATIONSHIPS: VIEW OF DESIGN TO
II.
PROGRAMMING
OPERATIONS
A. The
performed and their sequence
are largely a result of the designer's
PERSONAL
in
design
attitude
and values.
B.
As
PROGRAMMING
is
part of the
DESIGN
process,
it
is
reasonable to assume that the designer's view of design will

influence the programming phase just as any other phase.
If
the designer
is
not the programmer, he
is
-pttazfi/tMfu^_
nevertheless
often in a position to set the goals of the program and so,

in effect,
direct
C. Consistency
synthesis
is
in
vital
its
operations and final form.
values
regarding
to insuring a
programming and design

from
SMOOTH TRANSITION
problem statement to solution.
If
program
is
written with
a different
view of design than the designer has, he may have
difficulty
relating
to
it
in
trying
to solve the problem.
D. In order to insure this consistency, the designer
aware of
his
ATTITUDES
more complete
he
will
this
and
awareness
VALUES
must be
about design. The
in this regard,
the more able
be to tailor the programming phase to his particular
design problem.
III.
DEVELOPING A VIEW OF DESIGN
A. In
all
professions there
is
not only a concern for the quality
yf/Tii^tÔi^
PRODUCT
of the
PROCESS
the
but also a value placed on the quality of
that produced
it.
means it is important to not only

good BUILDING DESIGN but also continually
work to improve the PROCESS for ARRIVING at solutions.
B. In architectural design this
,'<'f**M^lê^>Kf\t'^.
arrive at a
made
This requires that an attempt be
as
PROCESS ISSUES even though

may EVOLVE and CHANGE.
to major design
When
MAKING
PROCESS
of production. This
as
It
product
attention
demands a "stepping back,"

Is done when designing.
VALUED?
an extension of a broader LIFE view.
Is
on our view of
sometimes we discover
design,
something about our value system
In
In
the same
issues
can be of
in general.
way, an awareness of our values on broader
E.
focussed on
Is
cannot also be focussed on the
It
things In design are
DESIGN
view of
In reflecting
help
time they
In
were, and reflecting upon what
What kinds of
D.
design."
It
"view of design" cannot occur
C. This self analysis to arrive at a
"doing
of
and attitudes with respect
also requires an analysis of values
while
much
possible.
to bring as
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS
the process to
analyzing our view of design.
always
Descriptions
NENTS
of what
the
Involve
we
COMPRISING COMPORELATION-
are describing and their
SHIPS to other things we know. Our knowledge of someis more complete the more we become aware of Its
thing
relationships or view
F.
it
from
For example, to attempt to

that
we know how
(talking,
under
acting
tendencies
he
DIFFERENT STANDPOINTS.
know
acts
stress,
In
a person better
different
his
respect to given Issues (foreign policy,

nasia,
women's
of
all
these
in
KNOWING
when
tendencies
when content) and what
demands
circumstances
depressed,
views are with
civil
rights,
eutha-
It Is
the accumulation
INDIVIDUAL and SPECIFIC
Items that result
lib.,
abortion, politics).
or describing the person.
Another example
Is
knowing or describing a building. It is

it as a WHOLE. Only through the
Impossible to describe
accumulation
building can
of
it
specific
individual
be described or
ASPECTS
known
about the
(structural system,
mechanical concept, form, light patterns, geometry, response

to context). In fact, even these categories are too broad to
WHOLES and would need

COMPONENTS within themselves in
describe as
to
make
reference to
order to arrive at an
aM0cC
adequate description.
H.
Our "view of design"
Is
a result of
our values and attitudes
with
many INDIVIDUAL and SPECIFIC AS-
respect to
PECTS
or issues regarding design. Tlie broader and
comprehensive the
list
more complete
design method, the
we
of aspects to which
will
more
relate
our
be our description
and the more thorough our knowledge and awareness of our

view of design.
I.
we hold
Just as
ings
as
being
certain issues or aspects of people or build-
important
particularly
DESCRIBING them, we
KNOWING
to
X44iAJL/
'^^'^'^^^^îSk-
or
also probably hold particular aspects
about design as being of more importance than others. The

identification of
ISSUES
IV.
what we consider to be these CRITICAL
key goal
is
in
expressing our view of design.
PROGRAMMING - DESIGN MODEL
A. This text was written with a view of design
model
essentially
RELATED
and
in
mind. The
DEPENDENT
SEQUENTIALLY
events
which lead to an architectural product. As programming
PART
for
B.
r-r-y^^^-^?^^-
involves the identification of a series of
is
of this sequence, the event chain provides a context
defining the
ROLE
of programming
The view of design sequence used
is
in
PLANNING.
^tyifi^ta^m^**'^^
as follows;
1.
Reality (laws, principles).
2.
Search for and discovery of laws and principles
(fact-
making).
3.
Known
4.
Gathering of facts.
5.
Analysis, evaluation and organization of facts into mean-
facts.
ingful patterns.
C.
6.
Response to facts
7.
Building product.
8.
Building consequences.
9.
Evaluation.
REALITY. Both
in
design synthesis.
research
programming assume the

They depend upon the fact
and
existence of objective reality.
that there are laws and principles which govern cause-effect

relationships and that these laws exist independently of our
awareness of them.
D.
RESEARCH.
It is
i4 .#T
.
the objective of research to uncover these
laws to allow us to predict and control the consequences of
'iyt4aayt'Â^
our design decisions.
E.
FACTS. Out
we are never
of research, facts are "produced." Although
absolutely certain of them,
us with a basis for
still
they provide
making choices with some assurance of
|p2JfiS5^'^==^=|
.rf
8
the outcome. There are
many
categories of facts.
They range
from natural or physical laws (those governing structural

design), to
F.
"man made"
facts (traffic laws).
GATHERING, ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF FACTS. These form the core of programming
in architecture.
that as
many
They
concerned with insuring
are essentially
of the important consequences of the building
design as possible are anticipated and planned for so that
the building
G.
is
successful in these critical respects.
RESPONSE TO FACTS
building
is
IN
DESIGN. The planning
of the
based upon the establishment of the desired build-
ing effects or
consequences
in
programming and the creation
of the physical product which will
most
effectively bring
about those consequences. The more comprehensive the

designer's program the more knowledgeably he can plan his
product.
H.
BUILDING. The
physical product of the design process
is
not the designer's final concern. The consequences of the

building are in the last analysis the critical issue in design.
I.
BUILDING CONSEQUENCES.
effects
been, considered in
it
J.
Buildings
will
whether planned for or not. Because
from having
its
EVALUATION.
programming or design
have
their
a fact has
will
not
not prohibit
consequences.
This
is
an effective method for expanding
our awareness of consequences of individual design decisions
and building
research
and
features.
serves
as
In
effect,
is a form of
mechanism to facts,
evaluation
feedback
programming and design. Evaluation and feedback loops

between every event in the sequence.
also occur
4^
l^^Â
-nL
/wce/iZi^
^:=^
,^
.aîuC^
\c=3
/cia :ic
_5c=>
^to
era
~^C3
en
1^
.^
" !lllltl M lt HMtltl M
miHsiHiii
u
UIIMIIIMMMII]
1^^^
aj^
^JIj^^
imMi ii
..i
i*
iiii ti
iii iiiiiii i iiil
/a
10
SURVEY OF PROGRAMMrNG
DEFINITIONS
PROGRAMMING ROLES
PROCESS
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS
RESEARCH
DISTINCTIONS
ASSUMPTIONS VALUES
AND ATTITUDES
RULES
,
METHODOLOGY
ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH

DISTINCTIONS

LEVEL OF FACTS
FACTS IN ARCHITECTURE
NON- TRADITIONAL FACTS

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
NON -TRADITIONAL FACTS

AREAS OF CONCERN
TRADITIONAL FACTS
TRADITIONAL FACTS
^^
^^
^^
cc
11
SURVEY OF PROGRAMMING
I.
DEFINITION
A.
A program usually takes the

GRAPHIC document wherein
and
analysis
project
B.
The
and
evaluation
and
organized
are
form of
conclusions
CONTENT AND FORMAT
specific
No matter what form
INTENT
the
D.
program
E.
F.
is
and
results
The program
INTENT may
operations or
facilities
better
of site
location.
be
addresses,
it
^îlliiil
and
yitÂ^Z.
orderly
effi-
informed choice
new
type
is
that
facility,
pro-
forms.
present conditions,
assesses
trends and
current
project.
building,
or
OTHER
A LONG RANGE PLAN

projects
program
defining
for
new
prepared for the design of
is
(consequences).
goals
environment
grams may also take several
1.
or project
TRADITIONAL programming
Although the
which
of
growth, improved operational
working
ciency,
always the same.
is
PLAN OF ACTION
to
the
of
nature
the
takes
it
program
of a
desired
achieving
pertinent
presented.
may change depending on

C.
WRITTEN AND
background information, fact
future
outlines
potentials
regarding a client's operation and building development.
2.
A FEASIBILITY STUDY may
involve
issues
such
as
phasing or advantages and disadvantages regard-
timing,
and acquisition or building expansion
ing site selection
versus remodeling.
3.
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
can
be
applied to overall
efficiency, cost-benefit issues, staffing projections, alter-
or
ation
4.
expansion
of
or
A PROGRAM
for a
recording
client
services,
environmental
quality control
new
needs,
equipment purchases,
inventories.
building serves as a tool for
insuring
that
needs are
these
met and evaluating the building design before construction begins.
G.
In
its
broadest definition as a "plan of action," program-
ming has existed for

ming
in
its
RECENT
as long as architecture itself.
present roles and forms, however,
is
ipSliiilipHiiliîiiiilly^
Program-
a relatively
development. There are several possible reasons
'1yii<fid^k/Hu^
12
why programming
.
has
lagged
in
maturation as a
its
dis-
cipline.
1.
building
"Primitive"
needs
personal
oc-
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
as construction techniques
Even
cated, they
W^Ê^tf"*'**^
The needs were those of the
and programming, design and construction
builder,
curred virtually
2.
immediate and
dealt with
largely
(shelter).
housed
still
became more
sophisti-
relatively simple functions with
which the designer-builder was often very FAMILIAR

(religious structures). There was no need to write down
what he already knew about what was to be housed
in
3.
the building.
As building tasks became
more complex, they were
often subjugated to the "formal" qualities of the build-
The functions were a reason to "make a work

The designer's knowledge of what was to
happen inside could be SUPERFICIAL.
ing.
of
4.
art."
The view of
relatively
small.
systematic
5.
Allied
"whoPe" kept the
a building as a
COMPLEXITY
and
of
This
individual
concerns
in
need
the
delayed
also
NUMBER
design
to
be
documenting the many variables involved.
in
such
fields
psychology
as
and
had
sociology
not developed to the point where they could add to

the
list
signer
of
CONSEQUENCES
building
must
aware
be
With
of.
which the de-
relatively
few
effects
to concern himself with, a program wasn't really necessary.
6.
have regarded the architectural
Architects
RESTRICTIVE. Many
7.
the
program
the
design
see
no
program as
between
direct correlation
document and
their
own
operations
in
"'"
,t!^4-c^fÛAJ^
i\^..
liiiliL..::^
process.
as a DISTINCT
FEE STRUCTURE.
Programming has not been considered

architectural
Many
service
terms
job.
H. Although there are
programming
is
still
many improvements
recognized today as an
planning process for
due to
is
largely
1.
Architects
several
factors.
now
faced with
are
must house
know
or nothing.
little
to be made,
ESSENTIAL
most design
buildings which
they
of
firms cannot afford to do a comprehensive pro-
gramming
of the
in
situations.
part
This
the task
of designing
FUNCTIONS
about which
-p'U^'Wu^ru^
/jjiiii
13
There
2.
an increased need for IVIULTI-FUNCTIONING
is
whose operations
buildings
whose
jjii iiiii i ii i iii ii i i i..

nii
;mnnJ.r.
complex and
are extremely
approach to plan-
variables defy an unsystematic
ning.
The
3.
architect
number of
more
The
becoming
required to take responsibility for
is
DETAILED
and more
planning
his
in
projects.
made
individual decisions to be
is
increasingly unwieldly.
Much more
4.
of
demanded
being
is
PERFORMANCE. An
or "pleasant composition"
fication
for
the
design,
by the
costs incurred
of
buildings
in
terms
"exciting piece of sculpture"
no longer sufficient
is
construction
Programming
client.
justi-
and maintenance
is
an impor-
tant step in insuring that the building "performs."
The growing view
SUBSYSTEMS
many
and
evaluated
buildings
resulted
"parts" of the
as
in
the
SYNTHESIS OF
of
identification
"whole" which can be studied,
designed
This
for.
has
provided
pro-
SUBJECT MATTER.
gramming with
6.
of
has
in
ALLIED FIELDS which
facts in
terms of man-environment
The rapid advances made
many
have established
relationships have greatly increased the scope of building
CONSEQUENCES
which the designer must take into
account.
7.
There
increasing recognition that the design process
is
solving
for
problem
ful
building
much
as
linked
and that the key to

in
having a good
with
the
a succes-
PROGRAM
good design SYNTHESIS.
as in
II.
lies
directly
is
PROBLEM STATEMENT
PROGRAMMING ROLES
A.
The most
it
the
in
serves
ROLE
critical
in
the
of
This
role
Introduction.
sections.
later
of
"view
Briefly,
in
programming
design"
will
is
the purpose
system outlined
in
be discussed more fully
terms of the design paradigm
mentioned, programming finds, selects and organizes pertinent
and
facts
GRAPHIC
translates
them from
expression so that they may,
in
VERBAL
to
turn, be trans-
lated into a physical expression.
Programming
is
vital
segment of the chain of events
PREDICTION and attempted REALIZATION

building CONSEQUENCES.
leading to the
of valued
B.
One convenient way of
organizing the roles of program-
j^tmmtRHiKu p'UaCcctcfiK/' Jwcmtiif HW
'
yi
14
ming
the
terms of their
in
is
act
planning
of
TEMPORAL
relationship
Generally
building.
to
programming
PRE-DESIGN, DESIGN and POST-DESIGN.

There are many simultaneous roles that a program may
play. Widely differing roles become mutually exclusive
or detrimental when the program becomes specially tailroles
may
be
'
lllljjfi llllllllllllK
'
^^î^î'^^^T^l
ored for very unique purposes.
1.
Pre-design
PRIOR
a
the
to
start
of
the
PROMOTIONAL
Serve as a
b.
Be used to promote client

Function
as
approval
client.
MORALE.
for
discussions before
boards.
COMMUNICATIVE TOOL
Serve as a
between the
and the design firm.
client
e.
package for the
staff
CATALYST
governmental
d.
process,
program may:
a.
c.
design
building
Define
the
NEEDS
client's
terms that
in
can
be
translated into design issues during building planning.

f.
PRESENTATIONS
Provide the basis for
to interested
civic groups.
g.
Help to organize the
h.
the
of
bilities
DOCUMENT
client
the
DECISION-MAKING
responsi-
related
to building
planning.
budget,
organiza-
client's project
and operational structure and record recom-
tional
mended improvements.
i.
Provide the client with a
FRAMEWORK
for outlining
needs and requirements.
his future
framework for
j.
Serve
k.
UNDERSTANDING the client's operation.

EDUCATE the client regarding the planning
the
firm
design
as
process
and provide him with an understanding of the reasons

behind design decisions to be made.
I.
OVERESTIMATION
Avoid
of furniture, equipment
and space needs.
2.
Design
DURING
the planning process a program may:
Direct the building
Aid
in
generating
PLANNING PROCESS.
ALTERNATIVE
viable
building
designs.
Serve as a vehicle for active
TION
in
CLIENT PARTICIPA-
Help insure a
GOOD
FIT between
client operations
and the building.

Determine building
BUDGET
Promote
and
a
TIME
QUALITY
and
SCOPE
based on
limitations.
THOROUGH PLANNING RESPONSE
to
jff
Itulhc
\p^:
..ch^.
15
needs
the
large
the
of
especially
client,
in
projects
of
scope or great complexity,
Function as an EVALUATIVE tool for investigating

and testing different planning approaches,
Give the designer an INSIGHT into the "spirit"
g.
h.
probienn.
the
of
CREATIVE
in fostering a
Serve as a catalyst
i.
approach
to the problem,
RESOLUTION
Provide a basis for
j.
of differences with
the client during planning,

k.
Function as
in
3.
CONTROL
mechanism for design
who
architectural principals
for
are not actively involved
Postdesign
AFTER
the design process
is
Provide the client with a
a.
complete,
program may:
TOOL FOR EVALUATING
the design proposal.

Insure the
b.
ECONOMICAL
most
building design within
the problem requirements.

Result
c.
In
facility
planned
GROWTH AND
for
CHANGE.
d.
new
Allow the
e.
USE AND OPERATION
Serve as a manual for the

of the
facility.
client
to
ORGANIZE
and
DIRECT
his
future rather than merely reacting to situations and
needs as they occur.

Insure maximum
PRODUCTIVITY
f.
EFFICIENCY
operational
for
functions
client
in
and
the
new
facility.
Maximize the opportunity for the new building to
g.
contribute
to
its
URBAN
and
ECOLOGICAL
sur-
roundings.
C.
One
role
not mentioned above
EDUCATIONAL
and
as
is
PROMOTIONAL
programming or design
tool for the
firm.
D.
program may or may not be put into
form depending on
of the
document
the program.
in
different
for
III.
different
in
its
PURPOSES.
its
respective roles
PUBLISHABLE
Simulation of the use

is
vital in
Oftentimes the very same data
FORMS
and
FORMATS
designing
will
because of
appear
its
use
TASKS.
PROCESS
A.
The
process
of
programming
is
composed
basically
of
GATHERING, ANALYZING, EVALUATING, ORGANIZING and PRESENTING information pertinent to the design
problem.
trigHC^
16
B.
PROCEDURES
The
intended
predicted
to
FORMATS
and
and
organize
to
programming
in
the
outline
factors
are
relevant
BUILDING CONSEOUENCES and

in a way that the designer may
desired
to present these factors
UNDERSTAND
easily
C.
and USE.
PROGRAMMING
The
need
firm
not
be
DESIGN
the
firm.
D.
.
The
performed
operations
specific
programming the programming
E. In building facilities
composed
is
programming
in
will
TYPE and PURPOSE.
depend upon the program
TEAM
of representatives of the client and program-
ming firm.
To insure effective programming and expedite the process,

team members must have AUTHORITY to make deci-
1.
sions.
The
2.
client
group
responsible for providing information
is
about their operational NEEDS.
The programming firm
3.
GATHERING,
ORGANIZING per-
responsible for
is
ANALYZING, EVALUATING
and
tinent Information.
4. Together, the
organizational
team members review the functional and
IMPLICATIONS
The team approach
5.
INNOVATIVE
of
facilitates the evolution
changes
The team approach
6.
JOINT EFFORT
of the information.
in
insures
and testing
the client's operations.
program
that the
of the client and
will
programming
be
firm.
Zly^<C^
F.
Many work
carried
tasks
within
the
programming process
SIMULTANEOUSLY
out
Tfe
are
rather than sequentially
to shorten total programming time.
G. In
addition
the
to
program
various
format
other
basically
introductory
includes
information,
GOALS, FACTS,
2.
GOALS
include
and
user
The
FACTS
goals
involve
information and
3.
QUANTITATIVE
codes,
the
utilities,
purpose
and the
of
project
the
project,
client
description.
both quantitative and qualitative
issues.
data
zoning,
may encompass
project
site,
scheduling,
climate,
space
re-
.J^
ir7r-v JM^?*a*^j|jj
lltiSSiiiii
PRECEPTS and CONCEPTS.

1.
rm CHI OjZÎ
17
quirements and building quality and scope
relation
in
to budget.
4.
QUALITATIVE
mental
5.
pertain
and
to
activity
environ-
desired
IIVIIVIEDIATELY available
are
facts
client
(space
6.
may
considerations
qualities.
Some
of
information
sensory
analysis,
while others must
operation)
(description
DERIVED
be
needs).
PRECEPTS
commitments
are individual planning
dealing
with important quantitative and qualitiative factual
7.
The precepts
with
the
EVALUATING
serve as criteria for
ELIMINATING
and
alternatives
design
those not in sympathy
and
programmatic
initial
issues.
ASSUMP-
design
TIONS.
8.
The precepts
are
members and
arriving
9.
Some
at
reasonable
are
while
for
them
and
on
FACE
logical
STUDY
f
"spirit of the
problem" and other difficult-to-document
factors.
the
are
IMPLICATIONS
direction-giving
part
Taken
together,
overall
planning
cepts
suggested
precepts or an
CONCEPTS
by the
may
There
that
answer
the
They
commitments.
precepts
directions
general
facts
be
the
meant
are
to
suggest
or
planning
directions
suggested
and precepts.
SEVERAL
viable
concepts
possible
precepts.
The
program should clearly indicate which seems the
MOST
critical
issues
and
VALID.
15.
At the conclusion of the development of
TIVE
concepts,
and
of these be selected,
ALTERNA-
recommendation that
the program is complete.
the
pgag
program
ARCHITECTURAL
CONCEPTS. The conmay be a LITERAL extension of the

INTERPRETIVE one.
are
goals,
of the
of the goals and facts might be.
are in essence mini-design
JS^"
VALUE JUDGMENTS made
and suggest to the designers what the
14.
issues.
by the programming firm based on the
11. Precepts
13.
and
project
assumptions.
design
as
10. Precepts inevitably contain
12.
discussing
critical
demand considerable
others
accepting
before
method
DECISIONS about
precepts
VALUE
generated by the programming team
provide
ONE
jT
|fiir"iiiin
SM..,i
;.^WMt^
^2^^^
18
16.
The
responsibility
concept into
the
for
from the programming

H.
FURTHER
development of
BUILDING DESIGN
SEPARATE
is
responsibility.
good program should include more than an accumulaof NEUTRAL facts and actually extend into the
realm of DESIGN commitments and recommendations.
tion
IV.
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS
A. The definition of programming as an
ARCHITECTURAL
how
the architect should
SERVICE and
the description of
COMPENSATED
be
for
this
task
what constitutes a "basic" proand what constitutes an "additional"
regarding
profession
gramming
service
service.
(Basic
services
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
EXTRA
B.
Some
are
performed
part
as
Additional
fee.
services
the
of
warrant
compensation).
architects believe that
all
services should
programming
be performed as part of their responsibility to design and

build the BEST building possible. For them, there is
NO
additional compensation for programming. Others feel
that the increased complexity of buildings and the growing
amount of
details
which an architect must design for make
unreasonable to assume that the ever increasing programming time should be ABSORBED into the basic fee.
it
These architects often write

for the
for
this
SEPARATE CONTRACT
programming phase of the job with compensation
work being
in
ADDITION
to the basic fee for
design.
often
are
C. Clients
programming
almost
their
to
taining
percentage
value
of
to the
able
programs
largely
organization and
his
D. In a
of
all
architect.
on the
ability
survey,
it
the
needed
are
capable
programming work
the
however,
Generally,
done by
The success
MEANINGFUL
limited
much of
Some
themselves.
operation.
program depends
which are
supply
to
information
executing
of
are
clients
of
perlarge
NOT
of
client-executed
client's
knowledge of
to state his needs
in
his
terms
to the architect.
was found that the average cost

is between % and Vz percent
of programming to the client
of the construction cost of the building. This, of course,
may
vary
of the
can
with the SIZE of the job, the
CLIENT
manner in
work. Methods include
Programming firms vary
which they contract to do their

a
COMPLEXITY
needs and the amount of data that the
supply.
t^C^tXKilS^
the
in
lack of agreement in
profession. This reflects the general
the
unclear
still
is
in
the
percentage of the estimated construction cost, cost plus
expenses, and predetermined total amount.
WP^^^^^P^^
4" iljij
19
E.
programming
Because
demanding greater and greater
is
techsophistication in terms of gatlnering and organization

of firms that
niques, there is an increasing number
SPECIALIZE in programming. Many of these limit their
work to SPECIFIC building types (hospitals, schools) while

others are more general and diverse in their work.
LARGER
firms are able
architectural
programming
comprehensive
offer
to
the
only
F. Usually,
to
services
clients
complex organizations.
representing
G. The qualifications of a programmer vary from firm to firm.
Some
feel
he
be
should
ARCHITECT
an
must communicate with DESIGNERS. Others
NOT
be an architect because he
gramming.
because
be biased
will
he
he should
feel
in his pro-
programming firms use psychologists,
Several
O'uJlî^^^^^^^^ -pWlî/tfi^fiUl^
sociologists, anthropologists, engineers, operations research-
and systems analysts.
ers,
It
can be assumed that
with
architecture
of
tion
any
combina-
would be
these
of
advantageous.
programming
H. As
becoming
is
QUANTITATIVE
more
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiJiy'.ga^
discipline,
it
would be
for
beneficial
prospective pro-
grammer to have as much exposure as possible to statistics,

computer science, principles of basic research and systems
analysis.
I.
Some
the
of
developing
people
who
very
currently
are
programming
architectural
as
active
in
DISCIPLINE
are:
1.
William Pena
2.
W.
R.
Matthews
3.
Lester
Gorsline
Caudill,
Rowlett and Scott, Architects
- Matthews
Lester
and Associates, Architects
and
Gorsline
Associates,
Programmers
The
Agostini
4.
Gerald
5.
Edward
6.
Christopher
7.
E.
Todd Wheeler -
8.
C.
Herbert
9.
Ben
Davis
Environmental
Becker
and
Analysis
Group
Planning
Becker,
Consultants
Alexander
Center
for
Environmental
Structure
H.
Wheeler
Evans
Perkins
and
Will,
Pennsylvania
Building
Research
Architects
State
University
Institute
"^"
&
20
RESEARCH
I.
DISTINCTIONS
A. Research:
systematic, patient study and investiga-
careful,
some field of knowledge undertaken

FACTS or PRINCIPLES.
tion
B.
to establish
in
Research may be BASIC (above definition), or APPLIED,

APPLIED research attempts to take facts uncovered by
BASIC research and find useful applications for them.
Research
the
and
in
organizing
fact gathering
is
which
to knowledge while the other
done
KNOWN,
are
discovery of
the
attempting to make
is
(as
that the latter involves
facts
former
of the
goal
The one
facts.
programming)
in
accumulating
while
from data or
distinct
is
example
for
NEW
CONTRIBUTION
making use of EXISTING
is
knowledge.
II.
assumes
Man
"immersed"
is
them
the
existence
INDEPENDENT
principles) as
in
with
the task
The
"facts"
certainties.
TIES
C.
We
of
and
(laws
facts
u/iiMfinoh/-
/&n4un^~^
U/t^Ji''Ûn\y
of our awareness of them.
and
laws
these
governed
is
discovered
They
are
at
laws but
natural
basic
of finding
by
out what they
by
research
never
are
statements of
best,
is
faced
are.
absolute
PROBABILI-
for certain effects, given certain situations.
value
research
because
cause-effect relationships
PREDICT
and
M4eî/ic4^
that they determine the consequences of actions.
in
Man does not "make"
B.
r\ t
cv^^^^ffî^^
AND ATTITUDES
ASSUMPTIONS, VALUES
A. Research
.^-n^^/^jfl
we
and
identifying
are better able to
CONTROL
by
isolating
those effects which
we
value and depend
upon.
D. Research
generally
QUANTITATIVE
is
in
nature.
Rela-
more exactly in this way. Probabilities can be expressed more precisely with the use of
numbers. Research in some fields lends itself to mathematical
models more readily than others. Many researchers
tionships can be stated
that
feel
have
not
this
mathematical
E.
is
because the qualitatively-oriented fields
developed
far
enough
The invention and refinement

us
to
success
EXTEND
of
to
be able to use the
mode.
our
research
senses
of techniques which
are
(microscope,
vital
to
telescope,
the
allow
continued
spacecraft).
^::::::::===:====:=:.
SHJH?1(ft!tiJ:::::;
-^
21
F.
VALUES
There are some general
1.
ATTITUDES
charac-
flexible in their beliefs
conclusions
2. tentative in their
based on evidence and not authority
beliefs
3.
knowledge of underlying reasons for phenomena
4. value
5.
and
group:
teristic of researchers as a
skeptical
6. tolerant
7.
value honesty and accuracy
8.
detached emotionally
reporting data
in
much
as
from
possible
as
their
work
individualists
9.
10. dedicated
knowledge
11. value
many
There are
research which
of ambiguity and uncertainty
from boredom of everyday experience
aesthetic pleasure
of exercising the intellect
6. joy
STATUS
the
in
1.
stage of
2.
role
development of the
played
research
and
3. originality
dependent upon
is
SlilllHIBI
discipline
ranks
(theorist
higher
influence
higher
than applied
than
research
on others (including impact
contributions to the field)
of
with which the scientist
4. institution
concepts
G. Scientific
An important
themselves
issue
to
world's
of
free will
the
many
researchers
FREE WILL
research.
objects
associated
Since
of control
vs.
human
it
to
content.
resolve
for
DETERMINISM
action
is
part
not be included as
and predictability? Does
and unfettered choice diminish with the growth
human mind?
"Certain results are destined to happen no matter
what
determinist:
for
of
is
INTRINSIC moral
no
phenomena, should
of data about the
fatalist:
have
that
is
relates
it
of the
one
research
in
basic
scientist,
as
community
research
factors:
several
H.
of
scientist.
contest with nature
4. escape
5.
PLEASURES
curiosity
2. delights
3.
intrinsic
itself
in
maturation of the
relate to the
1.
end
as an
a person does."
"There are functional relations between variables
and
this
future
knowledge can be used to predict the

predict the consequences of design
(to
22
decisons
some
must be
There
architecture).
in
degree of determinism for an individual to have
among
I.
predictable behaviors."
"Scientific
laws are
don't
HOW
say
not
people
PRESCRIPTIVE -
OUGHT
to act.
is,
they
Scientific
laws
that
DESCRIPTIVE. They DESCRIBE how people and

DO ACT."
are
III.
from
since he has to be able to choose
free will,
things
RULES
A.
no DECISIONS
In research,
are
made on
the basis of faith,
power, monetary rewards or self-protection.
B. Science
C.
is
actual
"fact"
the
is
and
singular
dogma
distinguished from
is
on FACT. Dogma
happens
given
gone forever. "Data"
it
is
some SYMBOLIC form.
After
time.
the
is
recording
It
is
occurs
it
of that fact
FACTS:
D. Criteria for accepting events as
Must be
based
is
EVENT.
occurrence of an
at
in
1.
that science
in
based on BELIEF.
singular.
2. Available
to public scrutiny.
3. Different individuals
know what
can
the event was that
being described.
is
laws
E. Scientific
Laws
between
kinds
any
certain
constant
relatively
phenomena.
kinds of
by the consistent repetition of
are established
tions
of
descriptions
are
RELATIONSHIPS between
of
events
and
by
not
rela-
singular
occurrence
of
CRITERIA
for accepting a statement as a scientific law:
succession
of
events.
Must be about kinds of events and not
1.
directly
about
any singular event.
Must be
2.
and
3.
little
Must show
large
amount of data supporting the law
or none discounting
a functional
it.
relation
between two or more
kinds of events.
4.
F.
Relation should
An important
be applicable to very different events.
goal in research
hypotheses
set
of
the
GREATEST
variety
any
science
G. For
rests
law
in
or
is
to develop the
principles
on INDUCTION. An
which
will
SMALLEST
account for
of events.
we
find
some level it
made that since
that at
ASSUMPTION
is
ailiill
23
the event has occurred before on several occasions, under
SIMILAR
not
conditions
guarantee
happen
will
it
and
certainty,
Regularity does
again.
induction
all
based on
is
regularity.
IV.
METHODOLOGY
A. Sequence
observation
1.
casual
2.
identification
3. suspicion
uncovered
4.
of
6.
B.
hypothesis
of concern
area
cause-effect
hypothesis
of
not
relationships
previously
experiment
through
formulation
5. testing
of
of
or
theory
tentative
hypothesis
or
accepted
basic
formal
disproved
theory
as
Remarks
1.
A THEORY
is
account
observation.
is
for
describe
to
PREDICT what
the
theory
events and to
and
explain
will
be observed under certain specified
observable
conditions.
2.
tentative theory
with
scientist
3.
Experimental
a.
needed
is
research to provide the
in
FRAMEWORK
design
consists
independent variables
of
experimentation.
for
three
factors:
directly manipulated
by the
experimenter to effect dependent variables

b.
dependent
variables
experimental
c.
control
measures
4.
variables
should
be
develop or modify
confirmed
PREDICTED
in
getting"
actual
if
(constants)
theory.
is
used to con-
theory tends to
observations agree with
those
phenomena we
play an
important
of scientists.
"Concept-
at the heart of research progress
and points
directing
is
the
by the theory.
Theories about
role
during
not vary systematically
Experimental results provide data that

firm,
5.
taken
process
from condition to condition
the
research
to the need for
CREATIVITY
mentation
begin,
can
been formulated. This
an
is
see
in science.
hypothesis
Before experi-
must
first
have
the point at which "discoveries"
begin.
V.
system developed to
The purpose of
ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH
A. The rules and methodology of research
in
general apply
^m
Wmm
'^^^
24
ARCHITECTURAL
to
B.
development
The
research as well.
research
of
architecture
in
fields
more advanced
is
largely
involvement into
due to the broadening of architectural
as scientific disciplines.
These provide
the subject matter and rigor needed for research.

C. Architectural
research
tainty about the

cisions
The
list
versities
tecture
of topics
is
which
research.
are
1.
Architectural
History
felt
more
predictability.
doctoral
of
research
those
to have enough
areas
in
at uniarchi-
"substance" for
Design
and Design Process
and Philosophy of Architecture

Building Technology
4. Behavioral
Science
5.
Urban Design
6.
Facilities
Design (specialty
7. Architectural
8.
possible
made
be
Representative categories are:
2.
3.
for
greater
good indication
of specific design de-
may
decisions
and with
knowledgeably
D.
those
that
so
intended to establish greater cer-
is
CONSEQUENCES
in
Operations
Man-Environment Relationships
specific
building type)
f^
25
I.
DISTINCTIONS
ARE:
A. Fact: "the state of things as they actually
reality,
actuality, truth."
B. In
between
What
about.
the
level
what
we
lying,
causative
we
scientist
facts
To
perceived.
involved
under-
in
METAPHORS.
as
This
in
terms of
have no relationship to
here
Facts
"truth" but serve simply as a system
or
REFERENTS.
of
The
we know
facts
D. Facts,
the
as
cause-effect
pressed
as,
term
"IF
METAPHOR IC
composed of both
relationships.
used
is
relationships.
here
principles
always
will
connote
These relationships can be ex-
THEN
a given situation,
laws and
Basic
are
CAUSE-EFFECT
and actual
a resulting effect."
by our
not altered
are
failure
to discover or understand them.
E.
The
that
belief
pendent
It
our
of
there
an
exists
awareness
of
objective
it
is
an
reality
inde-
ASSUMPTION.
cannot be proven with absolute certainty. The assump-
tion
in
is
will
based on the fact that
we can
identify repetition
the effects of certain actions, but repetition does not
assure
that
result.
the
given
All
independent
same
the
situation
same
effect
choice and action are based on a predicted
outcome and so
II.
\\ J\
GOVERN
actually
is
the
removed from
new phenomena
perceived
phenomena.
"reality"
and
"facts" as expedient means for explaining
sees
and categorizing
any
RESULT
is
-^ffnâ^
them
relationships.
Another viewpoint defines
KNOWN
distin-
conditions
For example, to a layman,
perceive which
The
perceive.
definition
"surface"
the
those deeper principles
of what
we can
DESIRABLE
experienced
is
are
facts
on
relationships.
what
are
scientist
things are,"
past
principles or laws that brought
seen
is
of cause-effect
facts
or
existing
UNDERLYING
and
C.
way
defining facts as "the
guish
DEPEND upon
the
assumption of an
reality.

A. Philosophy:
"theory or investigation of the principles or
laws that regulate the universe and
Philosophy
deals
why
things
plain
with
UNDERLIE
all
reality."
hypotheses which attempt to ex-
are the
way they
are,
not
in
terms of
'i&^"
26
research but by constructing broad explanatory
empirical
frameworks based on
B.
Man seems
need
to
and reason.
logic
EXPLAIN
to
of that which
possession
or
valued
is
form of control
often evident
is
the prevalent philosophies of different periods
The TYPES of things
provide
culture.
of a
philosophy
recorded
C. Earliest
good and
with
deals
pleasure,
pain,
and the laws and principles which must be
evil
followed to achieve what

of a philosophy,
goal
oo
NATURE
the values
into
insight
in
in history.
that are explained and the
proposed
causes
the
of
of those
causes
the
things he values and depends upon. This
No
valued.
is
matter what the
SYSTEM
always sets forth a
it
of
cause-effect, action-consequence relationships, a system for
explaining the "nature of reality."
proposing
D. In
begins
explanations
beyond the
just
At any given point

and
way
proposes the
to empirically
domain,
science
at
is
discovery.
scientific
is
able to trace cause-
The INTERFACE between
effect relationships only so far.
philosophy
of
time, research
in
philosophy usually
of events,
frontier
Philosophy
frontier.
this
beyond where science
things are
is
able
As science widens and deepens
probe.
assumptions
philosophical
proven
are
true
its
or
otherwise.
explanations
If
more removed
the
Because
causes,
this
existing
as
on
way
of describing
religion
and science.
provides a
between
has claimed
it
of
ranging from immediate causes to deeper,
"conflict"
so-called
thought
are
(facts)
LEVELS
different
^. ^
H^Srg^
Wc^ .eA^j^
explanation of causes "near the
surface" of observed events, religion has appeared to have

retreated
has
science
as
advanced.
not meant
This has
Ju ""
l
that
religion
the
NUMBER
events
is
invalid,
of
levels
it
has
underestimated
of discoverable causation behind
concept of
the
before
only that
"first-cause"
can
be
dis-
f^
-4ciayft<e^
.Ûîîhi^
cussed.
III.
LEVEL OF FACTS
A. Depending upon our viewpoint, there are different levels
at
which
BASIC
facts
REMOVED
One method
1.
exist.
cause-effect
from
Each
"surface
as
to
facts
do with more
become more
events."
for outlining these
facts laws
UNDISCOVERED
has
level
relationships
levels
Unknown
and
yet
(aspects
follows:
principles
of
which are
brain
as
chemistry,
molecular structure, astronomy and physics). The devel-
iliBr"
D-Q-Etrtli
27
opment of our
2.
Emerging facts
extend our senses
to
ability
instrumental
largely
new
in
principles
be
will
discoveries.
which are
of being tested for their validity.
in
PROCESS
the
these prove to be
If
EXPLANATIONS, they will become known and usable

We can then use these as a basis for making
decisions with some assurance of PREDICTABLE outfacts.
Emerging
comes.
3.
been
science
has
surface
events.
Known
facts
to
these are
the
represent
facts
able
all
probe
into
furthest
the
that
causes
of
the unchanging or "natural"
we have been able to discover. They

DECISIONS. There are many
basis for
known facts due to the receding nature
relationships that
serve
as
"levels"
of
of
cause-effect
there
Each "link"
4.
relationships.
any
For
surface
event
chain of events which led to and caused
is
in
the chain
Is
It.
__J
a fact.
Man-made facts the levels of facts up to and including "known facts" have all pertained to relationships
which have no dependence upon our awareness of
them. "Man-made facts" are our REACTION to them.
Man-made facts are principles or laws that we institute
to
regulate
structural
Man-made laws
or facts must be based
the
of
effects of
DESIRED
known
based
facts
upon
CORRECT
consequences of "known facts"
they are to produce
made
facts are neutral.
on
laws." Whether pain
In a
is
We make man-
VALUE JUDGMENT
considered
may depend upon
complex
society, the
if
results.
these effects. (The causes of physical pain are
experience
-.yyy-^^^n^'.yH^^h!Ce^
formulas and traffic laws).
assessment
The
our behavior with respect to known facts
codes,
(building
about
"natural
a positive or negative
the
man-made
cultural
^4**^f^cl^t*C'
(fC^j/ioSt>c
I
Q-^:*
...
situation).
facts that are based
on the consequences of natural laws sometimes become

so
REMOVED
far
becomes
from
their
original
difficult to find their real
intent
that
it
meaning. Man-made
become "layered" where new laws are instituted

based on existing man-made laws which can ultimately
be traced to the effects. Values begin to rest upon
these removed concerns as they used to rest on the
laws
ACTUAL
which are
natural consequences.
in
essence
New
the
ruptcy).
consequences
themselves
_M.
ill
needs are created
ARTIFICIAL. We
begin to deal
with the symbols of the consequences as though they
were
liiiBll ****^ jâ^
(suicide
at
bank-
v#iifâ)-J^J&i^
jliiiiili
28
IV.
FACTS
ARCHITECTURE
IN
A. In gathering the facts which relate to a given design problem,

only
a key issue is that of RELEVANCE. A fact is
to
relevant
to an effect or consequence that
MAN-MADE
and
All
facts.
part of
is
we judge
as
are faced with both
we
B. In architectural design
it
if
may
lead
that
relationships
cause-effect
or
events
of
chain
important.
NATURAL
be viewed as "if
.-**3ttl'****'*TLr
then" situations. As a designer becomes more aware of

the consequences or effects of his design decisions he
enables himself to make his decisions more knowledge-
C.
The
more
to
predetermines
he
that
result
and
confidently
and
ably
as
the
achieve
easily
desirable.
between design DECISIONS and building

programming
vital to architectural
is
relationship
CONSEQUENCES
and design. Programming serves to gather the
eval-
facts,
uate their relevance to the situation, identify the effects

they may have on each other and organize them for the
designer's use in design synthesis. Design synthesis attempts
to
make
product whose consequences are those
a physical
called for in the program.
D.
The
facts
can
be
pertinent
classified
as
to
an
design
architectural
TRADITIONAL
situation
NON-TRADI-
and
*}5S^
TIONAL.
Traditional
on our
These
facts
list
may
which we customarily include

when programming or designing.
are those
of concerns
include
activity
people
patterns,
involved,
furniture and equipment needed, site information, climate
and
information
form
and
environment
on
its
of our decisions with respect to

feel
perhaps desired effects of the building
confident about. For others
inhabitants.
SOME
The
effects
of these facts
we
we may know what we
want the consequences to be but are not sure of the WAY

to produce them. This is especially true in matters that
we
involve psychological reactions to the environment
create.
It
may
even be true for some of the areas that
we
consider familiar (functional efficiency).
Non-traditional
PERTINENT
architectural
facts
are
those
that
are
to design (they involve building consequences)
but not ordinarily considered
The growth of
in
programming or
synthesis.
non-traditional architectural facts
is
largely
due to research in ALLIED FIELDS such as psychology,

sociology, anthropology and physics. They may involve
relationships such as light level-work efficiency, desk orien-
tation
reduction.
psychological security or glass additives
glare
ûa^.
29
may seem too
These
designer to concern
sions
he makes
in
"detailed"
for
If
it
is
of value to
then
it
is
non-traditional
architectural
RESULT in
CONSEQUENCES.
an environment that has these types of
are,
the
himself with. Nevertheless, the deci-
know what
the
EFFECTS
of our designs
important to become more familiar with

architectural facts.
30
NON-TRADITIONAL FACTS
I.
C&fi&ilt-i^
any
A. For
there
building
given
CONSEQUENCES
that are relevant to the
and that
ing will have
B.
pedestrian
property,
adjacent
image,
scale,
For some, there
of these situations.
others are altered

to
these
to
live
with
systems
or
patterns
One
the
of
also
"existing
in
of
the
to
existing
document
to
is
broadest sense. The program
its
REACTION
is
the
to
different
help to the designer
great
of
what building
setting his objectives (determining
would be
important
is
terms of the value of preserving
in
them. This
altering
It
programming
of
some
include
building
events.
situation" in
situations"
many
of
change, while
little
may ALTER
"addition"
functions
the "existing
PART
be likened to a relative coming
permanently.
family
the
activity
work or
to
driving
is
noise,
sunlight,
functions,
The addition of
drastically.
situations can
know how
or
foilage,
as
and
drainage
site
site,
client
to an
(existing car
The building becomes
lunch).
to
should
existing
tempo,
activity
of clients' workers such
patterns
going
on and around the
traffic
facts
that the build-
ADDITION
an
as
of
have on the building.
will
set of cause-effect relationships
existing
C.
context
its
The building can be thought of
to
spectrum
is
effects
desirable).
D. Generally, facts have a twofold importance in
programming
and design:
1.
The omission
of
fact
in
programming about the

j|i!s!!<npHfcEH<
"existing situation," whether due
to
negligence,
perience or because the relationship has not been
covered
(is
not a
consequences that
known
are
may
fact),
dis-
building
in
UNANTICIPATED
both
UNDESIRABLE. (Unhappy
result
inex-
and
design accidents usually far
outweigh the happy ones when designing from incomplete data).
2.
Assuming the
aware of
all
situation,
intended
of
the
if
or
rare situation
where the designer
the networks of relationships
he
is
AFFECT
to
desired,
in
fully
those relationships as
he must also have a
CONSEQUENCES
is
the existing
knowledge
of specific design
decisions
about the physical building (effect of scale on existing

area
of
image, effect of space on
workers,
effect
of
psychological
reaction
layout on client function
effi-
31
ciency
on
materials combinations
of
effect
or
visual
unity).
The need
for this
ON
building
the
on
materials,
knowledge also applies to the effects

by
the
(climate
situation
existing
on maintenance, snow load on
activities
structure or sunlight on thermal comfort).
E.
^
illilt^
ipilillllllijpi
Although the number and types of "building on situation"

and "situation on building" effects are many, the general
CATEGORIES
of these effects are fairly traditional (func-
tion, site, climate,
many
of
form,
Some
of these
really
knowing the
we
others
of these
cause-effect
individual
we assume
relationships
"rules of
as
we
groups
UNDERLYING
aware
are
or
"facts."
thumb" without
principles involved. For
aware of the principles to
are
openings,
light, materials, structure,
Within each
mechanical).
a certain
depth
which are
perti-
ooi:n!!!Z3l
Ip^
^ _^
'
beyond the surface event.

discussing the broad spectrum of facts
F. In
nent to building design,

a
it
sometimes helpful to make
is
between "traditional" and "non-traditional"
distinction
facts.
we CUSTOMARILY include
when programming and designing.
^3tac^^^^n^
Traditional facts are those that
on our
of concerns
list
/'
Non-traditional architectural facts are those that are rele-
vant to design
NOT
are
(they
involve building consequences),
considered
ordinarily
in
but
CZ=3i:i
programming and syn-
thesis.
II.
NON-TRADITIONAL FACTS
A. There
no clearcut division that can be made between
is
and nontraditional architectural
traditional
of
sification
upon
the
fact
degree
of
one
as
or
the
other
will
required for the building type in question, the
NESS
the
of
of the
KNOWLEDGE
of the designer.
What
is
depend
DETAIL
UNIQUE-
in
responsible
tural
facts
engineering,
the
in
title
fields
for
ALLIED
the discovery
(psychology,
systems
to
of
architecture
MutUMl^Mûny^
common
primarily
architec-
sociology, anthropology, physics,
engineering,
business
computer technology,
"architectural
these fields.
is
non-traditional
The discovery of cause-effect

of
]^n^n.-i^.
iû^^--
finance, economics,
essing).
\
j
non-tradi-
for another.
B. Research
^^,
clas-
and the depth and breadth
one building or designer may be very
for
tional
building type
The
facts.
management,
industrial
proc-
relationships under
research" has occurred largely
32
C.
When
dealing
issue
of
with facts generated by another
becomes important. There is a

to apply the whole field to architecture
temptation to try
much
though
even
the
field,
RELEVANCE
of
may
it
SCREEN
important to
not
from
facts
be
pertinent.
It
is
related fields in terms
of their relevance to building consequences.
D. Because
these
APPLYING
important
related
not
implications
tural
tinued
generation
largely
depends
HIDDEN
E. Non-traditional
only
to
of
on
the
facts
equally
is
The con-
evident.
architectural
facts
sometimes
these
to
sensitivity
relationships.
architectural
BY
may
facts
and
ON
be applicable not
but
building
PROGRAMMING
to the process of
it
because their architec-
non-traditional
our
effects
architecture,
immediately
aren't
REMOTE
or
to
overlook
to
seldom concerned with
are
fields
findings
their
and
also
DESIGNING
it
(systems analysis, computers, decision theory).
III.
AREAS OF CONCERN
A. With
the
respect to
traditional
"levels"
at
which
facts
exist,
non-
unknown, emerging, known and man-
facts are
made.
B. Related to the traditional architectural
site,
1.
whole new
CATEGORIES
of cause-effect relationships
moon
(radiation protection system for
2.
concerns (function,
climate) non-traditional facts include:
new developments
within
structures)
TRADITIONAL
areas of con-
cern (plastics, adhesives, office landscaping)
3.
remote
UNDERLYING
of
levels
of "rules of
thumb"
laws
or
principles
within traditional fact categories
(molecular causes of paint deterioration)
4.
minute or subtle building
CONSEQUENCES
programmer
seldom
himself with.
on the
or
designer
Though they may
effects
of the
is
able
in fact
building,
which the
to
-îih/i^^
concern
have an impact
there are
many
facts
which have so little to do with the important building

consequences that they warrant no consideration. Taken
they may be relevant. The judgment of the
programmer or designer may render them irrelevant.
alone
C. Areas
where research
plicable
to
is
architecture
discovering
include
RELATIONSHIPS
ap-
man-environment, build-
ing materials, techniques of assembly,
economics and design
r^^^^
A/l^Jlh^
33
Example
process.
as
1.
relationships
non-traditional
role
to
might
that
architecture
be
classified
are:
of physical environment in learning
of visual order versus complexity on learning
2. effects
3. effects of centralization vs.
decentralization of workers
on efficiency
worker group
4. effect of
5.
size
on performance
relationship between topic of conversation
and conver-
sion distance
background brightness on
6. effect of
visual acuity
7. effect
of specific colors on visual comfort
8. effect
of visual clutter on visual efficiency
9.
sound frequency
between
relationship
frequency-sonic annoyance
10. noise
of
speech
and
receiver
at
intelligibility
relationships
between continuous and random noise and
11. relationship
performance
random
12. effects of
noise on
boredom
between exterior image and customer buying
13. relationship
patterns
14. relationships
between natural land features and
ment patterns of
of government involvement
15. effects
settle-
income families
high'
in
housing on con-
struction techniques
new shopping
16. effects
of
17. effects
of
CBD
new
centers on surrounding areas
construction
on the
municipal
budget
18. physical
19. actual
walls
20. effects
of
effects
effects
on
of
of
on
architectural
amounts of glass
equipment costs
large
mechanical
fire
sunlight
on architectural
materials
at
surfaces
exterior
34
on
machines
washing
of
21. effects
sewerage
individual
systems
disposal
22. effects of exterior plastics on interior thermal comfort
new
of
23. effects
adhesives
on
traditional
architectural
materials
24. relationship
cerns
D. Given
new
of
25. effects
between the use of mathematical models
and building programming
design
in
design
in
recognition that non-traditional
the
vant to building design,

designer
insofar
possible.
Ideally,
developments these facts
much
is
as
our
traditional
important to at
may
there
They
should
should
as the traditional
can
will
their awareness of
be
become
facts
have
NO
and
become.
largely
SOURCES
It
that
arises.
non-traditional architectural
FAMILIAR
predicted
IN
III
SECOND NATURE,
be familiar with
as
-pU^fiJ^m*K/Ulj.
them
to
the
designer
ones so that the effects of our buildings
controlled
comprehensively.
be
be
rele-
by staying abreast of current
be used for specific projects as the need
E. Ideally,
facts.
least
facts are
behooves the programmer and
it
expand and deepen
to
as
theory on sequence of con-
decision
synthesis
more
accurately
and
JUîfyiMy
35
TRADITIONAL FACTS
I.
^^fa;^
we
A. Traditional architectural facts are those that
CONSCIOUSLY
a
B.
with
deal
"usually"
programming and designing
in
building.
The requirement of
designer to be involved with
than the traditional architectural facts
largely
is
upon the degree of DETAIL required
UNIQUENESS
the
more
The
more
dependent
planning and
in
of the project.
terms
of
PERFORMANCE and the more important

to
ACCURATE in predicting the building consequences,
be
that
required
is
of
building
in
is
it
less
is
the
adequate traditional architectural facts become. This
programmer
to say that the "usual" involvement of the
and
designer
consequences
building
in
relatively
is
SUPERFICIAL.
any
C. Like
architectural
traditional
facts,
determine
facts
the effects of the building on the existing situation and
They
vice versa.
are important in directing and controlling
BUILDING CONSEQUENCES.
D. Failure to consider a fact
consequences
potential
on
may
by
or
the
NEGATIVE
result not only in
building,
POSITIVE consequence not
but also
being
in
brought
some
to
fruition.
E. Traditional
facts
situation, an
situation
FUTURE
When
may
statement about the existing
iiil
ill
(preserve or alter) or a statement as to desirable

situations or consequences.
statement serves as
EXISTING
be descriptions of the
EVALUATIVE
RULE
for
making design
decisions and for evaluating those decisions after synthesis,

it is
Precept:
In
PRECEPT.
called a
rule or
programming
a precept
to strive to achieve
F.
It
is
sometimes
maxim
some
to
is
DIRECT
actions or decisions.
a directive for the
DESIGNER
f^rmm^mt/^^^
mmw
building consequences or situation.
convenient model
in
organizing our design
experience to think of the synthesis process as a progressive
"response to the existing situation."
It
begins
in
ming with the documentation of the "situation"

to the
ARCHITECT
by the CLIENT. Through
program-
as
brought
his
evalua-
A.^!>&r4l^
36
reaction to the client's situation,
tive
PROGRAIVIIVIER
tine
adds to the "existing situation" that which the DESIGNER

must respond to. The designer's first conceptual responses
to the program expand the "existing situation" even further.
As design decisons
made they become
are
the
existing
to which subsequent responses must
"facts"
or
situation
UNDO
be made. Feedback and evaluation loops allow us to
G.
the
"existing
the
process
It
begin
anew when needed.
seems clear then that the evaluative responses of the
programmer to the
instrumental
DETERMINANTS
Even
with
design
critical.
beginning
the
the
to
DIRECTIONS
of
chosen
highly
are
of design synthe-
become
come later.
early stages of synthesis
those decisions which
for
recycling
are
situation
existing
client's
setting the
in
same way, the
In the
sis.
H.
and
degrees
different
to
situation"
and feedback, the early stages of

The first "view of the problem" is
CONVERGENCE
the
process
leading
solution.
The more comprehensively aware of not only GENERAL

but SPECIFIC details in traditional facts, the
more thorough and efficient the designer can be. He can
categories
avoid the
also
wasn't aware
I.
is
more
intrinsically belong to
Depending upon which of
important
in
situation,
The choice of how to group
EVALUATIVE
the
see
design
it.
Specific facts
than
to
is
con-
facts
in
QUALITIES
differently.
programming
is
an
"how we
prelude to how we will go
GROUPINGS may be a more
itself.
It
reflects
the conceptual
stages
syn-
of
themselves.
pertinent to conceptualization
development or vice
versa.
while others are
which form the
facts"
any "family"
their
we group them
facts
may be more
design
K. "Background
in
individual
PRIME ORGANIZERS,
are
in
Information
determinant
thesis than the
J.
act
problem" and
about solving
important
REDESIGN
detailed, "fact" that he simply
of.
facts don't
Individual
or category.
of having to
frustration
ceptually because of a
Some
facts
SECONDARY.
governing
context
of the design situation (client goals) often prove important

in
making
specific
design
decisions.
These are especially
where there seems to be no immediate criterion

making a decision. These types of facts which at
may seem remote from the "front line" of synthesis
useful
for
first
decisions
may
often
be the only BASIS for making im-
portant judgments about very specific building issues.
37
II.
TRADITIONAL FACTS
A. Different
may
facts
be
we
screen facts
consequences,
in
terms of their
we
also
the different types
of
the
in
architecture are:
1.
master plan
2.
long range plan
3.
site
4.
building program
5.
comprehensive plan
of
to building
PERTINENCE
their
of
same way that
RELEVANCE
document where they
the purpose of the
Some
evaluate
In
types
different
to
pertinent
PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS.
to
be contained.
will
programming documents
feasibility
6. project definition.
B.
Below
are
some TYPICAL
traditional
architectural
fact
For any specific situation some are more relevant than others. Groupings may also be different depending on the problem (pertain to and involve important
categories.
building
1.
consequences).
Similar
projects
and
past
projects
of similar function,
a.
critical
issues.
circumstance and
scope
2.
issues
involved in the building type
b.
critical
c.
trends in the field
Client
a.
client goals
b.
philosophy of the organization
c.
goals
of the client's process
main goals
d. staff
sub-goals to achieve
user goals
organization and framework
personnel diagram
e.
rank and role of personnel
f.
major departmental divisions within the organization

role of each goals and sub-goals within the overall
process
g.
(people to
issues involved in the organization
critical
people relationships, "channels")

h.
does organization actually operate the
way
it
is
struc-
tured?
i.
divergence of present operations from expressed goals
j.
k.
possible
improvements
degree of achievement of sub-goals

individuals
with
or
committees
architect role
making
and
responsible
responsibility
for
planning
in
decision-
38
I.
(non-client) organizations
related
which might affect
planning
m. impact of change or growth of related organization
3.
Financial
a.
budget
b.
funding methods
c.
timing
d.
construction phasing prices, local construction mar-
firmness, degree of flexibility
bonds, loans, fund raising
construction costs, escalation, interest rates,
concurrent similar projects taxing public support
ket,
weak
strong and
trades,
local
incremental con-
struction
e.
design requirements of lending institutions
f.
comparative cost data on similar projects which have
been constructed
4.
Building Codes
a.
occupancy allowed
b.
structural loads allowed
c.
exits required
d. stairs
(number, type, access,
fire rating, size,
minimum
distances to reach stairs)

e.
fire ratings
required of materials
f.
ventilation
g.
toilets
openings
(number and fixtures of each)
h. fire sprinklers
i.
5.
Planning by related organizations
a.
6.
alarm systems
duplication of services
b.
review boards
c.
approval boards (regulations, by-laws, planning criteria)
d.
projected construction of similar projects
Function
a.
operational systemsincluding links
beyond the
build-
ing
issues in insuring success in systems' operation
b. critical
c.
needs
which
waiting,
d.
are
toilet,
supporting
to
main operational sequences

which support main sequence
or
operation
(lounge,
janitor)
departments
e.
divisions
f.
general
g.
number and type
departmental
in
the
relationship
"feeder
sequences"
system
affinities
of people involved (task categories)
h.
operations performed by each type of person
1.
systems of people movement
39
(1
(2)
points of origin and destination
frequency and pattern
(continual
or intermit-
tent)
(3)
j.
degree of urgency
the overall operation
(4)
role
(5)
peak loads
in
systems of information movement
(1)
(2)
frequency
and
(continual
pattern
or
inter-
mittent)
(3)
degree
(4)
role
(5)
form
of
In
urgency
the
(speed
overall
required)
operation
implications
(6)
storage
(7)
operations performed on information (including
production and removal of trash)

(8)
k.
peak loads
systems of material movement
(1)
(2)
(including de-
and pickup)
livery
(continual
or intermit-
tent)
(3)
degree of urgency
the overall operation
(4)
role
(5)
form
(6)
special
(7)
operations performed on material
in
(size,
weight)
considerations (fragile)
(including
unpacking and disposal of waste)
I.
(8)
storage implications
(9)
peak loads
work nodes
where work
(stations
is
performed)
(1)
number, type and relationships
(2)
number and type
(3)
nature of tasks performed
(a)
key
issues
of people at each
in
performance of
successful
tasks
(b)
identification of possible sources of strain

in
(4)
performing tasks
furniture and equipment required for each per-
son (including
visitors, clients)
(5)
accessories required for each person
(6)
sizes,
electrical
siderations
accessories
requirements
regarding
and
furniture,
other
con-
equipment or
40
requirements
area
circulation
material,
information)
(9)
security
requirements
node
node (people,
each
of
(7)
(8)
patterns within each
(open,
locked)
closed,
requirements
(10)
general
electrical
(11)
criteria
for selecting architectural
each
at
node
surfaces and
detailing
(12)
(14)
other
work nodes
control)
(visual
(13)
with
relationships
special
lighting
requirements
required
(a)
intensity
(b)
incandescent
(c)
direct
(d)
skylight
(e)
need
for
total
(f)
need
for
controlled
and
intensity
sun
indirect
vs.
vs.
task
at
fluorescent
vs.
window
darkness
lighting
sensory
(a)
type
of
stimuli
produced
(noise, odors, vibration, dust, electro-mag-
netism, bacteria)
(b)
type and intensity of stimuli which must

be excluded or screened (including visual
privacy)
(c)
important
(mood,
(15)
air
environmental
situations
atmosphere)
conditioning
requirements
(a)
heat generated by equipment and people
(b)
special
air
circulation
or ventilation
|-e-
quirements (isolation, 100% exhaust, decontamination)
temperature requirements
(c)
special
(d)
air
(e)
special
(f)
grouping
additives
controls over
of
similar
air
conditioning
air
conditioning
re-
quirements
7.
needs
(g)
total
(h)
space
(i)
vibration
(j)
heating
required for mechanical

control
and cooling seasons
Site
legal
description of property (boundaries, dimensions,
rights of
way, deed
restrictions, easements, curbs,
cuts, hydrants, poles)
curb
41
b.
zoning
(1
c.
setbacks
(3)
access points
(4)
relation to street lights
(5)
density
(6)
heights allowed
(7)
parking required
and median breaks
utilities
(1)
locations
(2)
distances to site
(3)
depths
(4)
telephone, gas, water, sewer, electrical
(5)
capacities (present
d. soil
(1)
e.
present allowable uses
(2)
and projected)
conditions
percolation
(2)
bearing
(3)
chemicals
(4)
density
land contours
(1)
elevations
(2)
drainage patterns (including from and to adja-
cent land)
(3)
f.
g.
due to mounds and
blocked
(5)
points of visual emphasis
visual access
ridges
(6)
flat areas
(7)
slope orientation to surrounding areas (visually)
significant features
(1)
rock outcroppings
(2)
existing buildings
(3)
ditches
(4)
water
(5)
trees
existing foliage
(1)
h.
flood basins (tides)
(4)
tree types
(2)
limb spread
(3)
height
(4)
ground cover (where drainage may be affected)
sensory
42
(1)
noise
(direction,
frequency, pattern,
intensity,
probability of continuance)
(2)
odors (direction, intensity, pattern, type, proba-
(3)
visual
bility for
continuance)
(poor
good
views,
public
views,
and
private zones, reliability of continuance of view)
i.
time-distance
pedestrian
(1)
car
(2)
to and from significant points on and around
(3)
time-distance on site
site
j.
existing pedestrian traffic
(1)
on and around
site
volume
(2)
location
(3)
frequency and pattern (time of day, continual,
(4)
nature (to work, school, lunch,
(5)
possible contribution to these activities
intermittent)
k. existing
(1)
I.
random
stroll)
vehicular traffic on and around the site
volume
(2)
location
(3)
(4)
nature
(5)
possible contributions to these activities
surrounding physical environment
(1)
surrounding zoning
(2)
possible development on adjacent
and surround-
ing property
(3)
profile (skyline)
(4)
scale
(5)
image
(6)
materials
(7)
forms
(8)
density
(9)
light (shade
and shadow)
(10)
orientation
(views of site from
(11)
landscaping forms
(12)
details
(13)
geometry
and
rhythms)
edges
m. surrounding
(existing
heights,
social
paving
axes,
environment
other points)
patterns,
walls,
building
modules and
43
patterns
(1)
identifiable
(2)
ethnic
(3)
relationships
groups and values
between groups
n.
shadow patterns on the
o.
parking
and
i-d)
needs
H2)
area
(present and
projected)
required
required
at
entry
lighting
^(4)
I
adjacent buildings)
circulation
site
dropoffs
(3)
(trees,
site
(restricted
controls
parking)
(5)
special
(6)
on-site circulation
(7)
supporting circulation (to lunch, to work)
(8)
volume and frequency patterns (peak
(9)
patterns
(people and
loads)
entry approach and
cars)
roads
existing
of
points
'^(11)
of
direction
of
departure
>(10)
required (between buildings)
access-egress
logical
types
(all
of
traffic)
surrounding
(12)
8.
(frequency, volume, patterns)
a. rainfall
b. sunlight (critical vertical
and horizontal angles)
c.
temperature (seasons, extremes)
d.
wind, breezes (seasons, directions, velocity, extremes)
e.
snow
f.
humidity (seasons, percentages)
g.
potential
(seasons, volume, patterns)
Growth and
a.
present
catastrophes
natural
earthquake,
9.
values
land
Climate
(tornado,
hurricane,
flood)
Change
and projected supporting market or public
served
b.
projected staffing (number and type)
c.
projected goals and supporting sub-goals
d.
anticipated
of
e.
deletion
of
departments
and
addition
new departments
areas of expected changes in operations (layout
and
building perimeter implications)

f.
projected changes
information or materials systems
in
(disposables)
g.
influence
on
all
,^h. future
area
parking
i.
of growth and change of one department
others
projected
needs
(construction,
cost,
design
and
implications)
utility
needs
comparison with present
and projected supply capacities
44
C.
Each
of
more
DETAIL
these
categories
fact
depending
on
may
the
be
EXPANDED
design
There are also many other fact categories not

pertain
that
to
some
to
requirements.
listed
of the other
programming
and
fact
here
FORMS
(long range plan).
Every
its
fact
category
has on
its
specific
CONSEQUENCES
contained
under
which the building

environment and contained functions and which
heading involves
the environment has
upon the
building.
r-L-irr
hdi^
"~' *^'
>\ph
i_ki
<*.ii!^<*Sf >-vv r\y^
ciiâavM^
^^îF^^^m CSiii
J^
,l
^ ,U*^. ^
u^l.^^***-^
it;3;;3
^^;id6^4l^
;fi
'fUa^y^
'irJr
t(/ivgXi^^
46
CONTEXT
PLANNING OF PROCEDURES
OUTLINING DATA TO BE COLLECTED
DESIGN OF FORMS AND FORMATS
OF SOURCES
AND EXECUTION
DEFINITION
ANALYSIS EVALUATION AND

,
CONTEXT
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
EVALUATION OF FACTS
DESIGNING
FROM THE PROGRAM
PROGRAM -DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS

SYNTHESIS OPERATIONS
PROGRAM AND DESIGN EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
EVALUATION IN PROGRAMMING
AND DESIGN
PROGRAM AS AN
EVALUATIVE TOOL
47
I.
CONTEXT
,
The quality of
PRODUCT
PROCESS
the
operations performed
tions
determined by the quality of
is
that produced
it.
is
the result of
Its
actual limita-
building
the design process.
in
and achievements are "prescribed" before construction
begins.
If
thought of
simply one end of
as
a series
of actions
and decisions performed through time, we can see the value

of not only studying buildings as
OPERATIONS
B.
The
performed
operations
specific
PRODUCTS
but also the
make them.
that
programming and
in
design that finally describe the future physical product to
BROADER
be built are limited or influenced by the

held
by
the
His
designer.
framework
views
ordering
for
his
EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL has implications on his models

for IDENTIFYING and MANIPULATING the elements of
design.
C. Information gathering
is
the start of the "formal" program-
ming process. Although possibly remote from

design in time,
of the
building.
resulting
values, operations
as a
link
in
final
and relationships involved
in
"gathering"
the chain of design events that prescribe the
CONSEQUENCES
II.
the
upon the character

Included here are some of the
has a very real effect
it
on and by the
resulting building.
FACTS
A. In relation to our design model

as
wherein
the
AFFECTS
building
what surrounds
B.
it
The gathering of
and what
facts
in
making the building
designer
on
ALLOWS
his design
may
FORM
and
is
AFFECTED BY
contains.
it
programming assumes there
EXISTING DATA which must

in
can be thought of
"consequence categories." They are the areas of concern
are
be allowed to be influential
design.
The degree to which the
the facts to form the building will depend
philosophy. In the same way, the programmer

his gathering
format and collected facts to
greater or lesser degree depending on his attitudes about his

role
in
ITSELF"
the
design
versus
"it
process
is
("let
the
the function
problem SOLVE
programmer
of the
and designer to GIVE the problem order").

C.
Although the particular approach or model for gathering

information
is
essentially
product of the programmer's
48
DESIGN VIEW,
1.
Relevance
Completeness
data at hand
result
Accuracy
to
gathering,
in
p2MZ<f/u
omissions
This quality
ALL the
pertinent
An incomplete program can
designing.
and erroneous conclusions

fyifî/ta'pyt^
BUILDING TASKS.
regarding the required
3.
confusion
and
important to have
It is
when
design
in
PERTINENT
and evaluation.
analysis, design
2.
this opera-
on or by the building. Irrelevant
inefficiency
causes
data
about
qualities
desirable.
Facts gathered should be
CONSEQUENCES
the
some
there are
seem to generally be
tion that
is
especially important
when
there
are surveys or other statistical studies that will be used

later
making other design
in
sions).
from
also applies to the
It
and
4. Clarity
users.
Clarity
is
vital
we
the designer a
giving
to
5.
CLEAR
statement of
UNDERSTAND
AGREE UPON.
Usability
The gathering sequence and the forms used
when and how
for recording data should relate to
be used
in
programming
analysis, organization,
it
Efficiency
Wasted motion, materials and time and
tracing of steps should be
D. In
it
discussing
is
re-
MINIMAL.
data gathering as a programming operation,
convenient to divide
it
into
FOUR
general groups of
concerns.
1.
planning of procedures.
2.
outlining of data to be collected.
3. design of
forms and formats.
4. definition of sources
III.
and execution.
PLANNING OF PROCEDURES
A. This operation
is
for the program."
sometimes called "defining the program

It
is
the design of
HOW
we
plan to go
about gathering our information.
B.
As
in
largely
all
design operations the planning of procedures
dependent upon the DESIGN
VIEW
will
and design
synthesis.
6.
C&it*ct
see them. This also
determinants that both he and the client
and
communication
to insuring good
with the client about the facts as

relates
(precepts, conclu-
recording of information
sources including qualitative statements by the
all
client
FACTS
is
of the program-
\o
49
mer. There are, however, some concerns that can apply to
data gathering in general.
1.
procedure for gathering information must
of
plan
relate to the
FRAMEWORK
TIME
overall
for the job.
Information analysis, organization and presentation, schematics, design development, construction
construction,
They
step.
all
come
documents and
and depend upon
after
this first
have their time allotments based on the
all
job organization and budget. The success of the
overall
project for the
architect
depends on execution of
ASSIGNED
well
as
all
as
the client largely
the design steps within their
time frame. Planning of data gathering cannot
be separated from the planning of the
WHOLE
project.
Intermediate dates for the completion of different gather-
and the use of
ing tasks
critical
path planning
may
be
helpful.
2.
Before
a plan of
procedure can be undertaken, the pro-
grammer should first know HOW MANY people will be

assisting him and what their QUALIFICATIONS are for
certain tasks. A complex project requiring many "gatherers" creates yet another need: that of organizing the
communication between the
STAFF
during the gathering
process.
3.
A
It
plan of procedure deals with
should be stated
This
by
is
in
what must be DONE.
terms that describe
OPERATIONS.
absolutely essential where gathering
people.
several
"how do you know
start?" and
to be
is
done
Questions such as "where do you

you're finished?" must
be answered by the plan of procedure.
4.
It
is
sometimes helpful to begin
projecting
or
FORMAT
of the final
a plan of procedure by
what the CONTENTS and
document will be and working
anticipating
backwards to methods for getting the needed information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The definition of
for the program
usually an excellent
is
detailed
way
to organize
gathering tasks.
5.
In
are
any data gathering situation there are some facts that

FIXED and others that are TENTATIVE. In the inter-
may be
est of efficiency
it
"hard data"
This type of information often provides
first.
helpful to gather fixed or
the basis for "firming up" the tentative facts and usually
constitutes
many
This
relates to the
issue
between
RAW
of the critical determinants
in
distinction that can be
data or facts and facts that are
REACTIONS
SIONS
or
uative
statements) which
DESIGN.
made
CONCLU-
to the raw data (precepts, evalresult
in
secondary or once-
.yt^^HX <*^ lA^^VÛA*,^

.

50
removed information. The programmer must be careful
in his document between what isFIRST
to distinguish
HAND
raw
C.
The use of
is
REACTION
or
MODELS
ing information
what
and
Information
OPINION about
effect,
in
is,
his
to information.
or "concepts of approach" for gather-
one of the clearest
illustrations of
how
view of design affects specific operations. Four issues that
model for data gathering
relate to the formation of a
are:
1.
particulars to generalities versus generalities to particulars.
2.
segregated gathering versus integrated gathering.
3.
immediate fact evaluation versus deferred fact evaluation.
4. atomistic synthesis versus wholistic synthesis.
D.
The
PARTICULARS TO GENERALITIES
and specific
individual
larger categories until
composed
except
as
of
the pertinent "particulars"
all
TITLES
is
ahead
no meaning
have
for particulars that possess similar quali-
must be known before broad conceptual
frameworks can be constructed. To

gories
that "generalities" are
Generalities
"specifics."
Individual facts
ties.
after
The assumption here
are gathered.
approach gathers
and makes no groupings or
facts
of time
artificially set
the cate-
would jeopardize possible linkages

I
between
facts that have
ARBITRARILY
been put
in diff-
erent categories.
In
GENERALITIES TO PARTICULARS
made
that since
we should
that
we
will
the assumption
STRUCTURE
eventually
is
the facts
be able to establish these broad categories
ahead of time. This point of view assumes that the program-
mer
an active "form giver" to the information and that
is
the giving of that form
may occur
at
any
level
of facts,
general or particular.
E. Facts
or
1.
may be
AFTER
In
evaluated
AS
they are gathered (immediate)
the gathering process
is
IMMEDIATE EVALUATION,
linkages, relationships,
made
"as
complete (deferred).
facts
are studied for
and hierarchies and groupings are
we go." Values
are placed
on the data and
precepts are formed based on the facts the programmer

has
AT THAT POINT
approach assumes that

facts
his
in
in
gathering progress. This
any design problem there are
which are "prime organizers" for synthesis and that
the sooner these are Identified, the sooner the synthesis
process can begin.
2.
DEFERRED EVALUATION
grouping,
sorting,
hierarchy
until "all the facts are in."
It
involves
linkages
putting
off
the
and relationships
assumes that
to check for relationships between facts on
it
Is
all
of value
levels in
joia^ ^fu^ d,1xf^&cJ^
-e
(o
51
form values and precepts based on

PICTURE. Prime organizers
categories and to
all
knowledge of the
uncovered
not
are
WHOLE
here
that
we NEVER can
gathering
until
complete. This viewpoint
is
essentially
Is
tempered by the recognition
be absolutely certain
when
all
the
facts are in.
F.
Fact gathering
TED
1.
may be
SEGREGATED
either
or
INTEGRA-
with design synthesis.
SEGREGATED GATHERING
gathering, organization and
FORE
design synthesis.
that even the
ALL
without
of having to
doesn't
first
It
requires a comprehensive
documentation of
is
facts BE-
based on the assumption
design decision should not be
the facts.
To do
so
is
made
to risk the possibility
undo design decisions because some "derail"
come
to light until well into the design synthesis
process. This attitude argues that
it
unreasonable, for
is
example, to document space needs without knowing what

is
2.
needed
in
the spaces.
INTEGRATED GATHERING
assumes that conceptual
design decisions require only "overview" data and that
need not be gathered until those
information
specific
decisions are being made.
In
this
method, gathering
is
divided into "schematic facts, design development facts,
and construction document facts" and
it
WITH
occurs
those respective synthesis stages.

G. Where data gathering
integrated with
is
(Immediate evaluation), the designer
ISTIC (suboptimized) or
1.
In
the
ATOMISTIC
this case
tions
Is
to
WHOLISTIC
design
may
synthesis
ATOM-
take an
approach.
approach, the programmer (who
In
also the designer) tries to find optimal solu-
SUB-PROBLEMS
they are uncovered
or
individual
He
in fact gathering.
situations
later
to combine these "sub-solutions" into a coherent
as
attempts
WHOLE
without compromising them. This approach assumes that

since a building
"works"
at this very specific level, the
designer should begin with solving those problems

It
also holds the value that the
sum
of the parts and that
if all
whole
is
first.
no more than the
the specific aspects of the
building are successful, the "whole" by definition will be

successful.
2.
The WHOLISTIC approach subjugates "sub-solutions" to

the larger context of a
SCHEMATIC CONCEPT.
Here a
framework or overall organizational idea is established

first and the more detailed concerns are "worked out"
within the model. The "broad" concepts are determinants
WITHIN WHICH
the remainder of the problem must be
i i
52
For
solved.
gathering
is
the sequence of
reason,
this
very important. That which
responded to FIRST
information
gathered and
is
direction for the
sets the general
solution.
H.
The models discussed above may or may not occur in their

PURE form. A programmer may use combinations and other
models depending on
know
his
view of design.
m^^r^-^
important to
It is
the models to be used prior to planning the gathering
procedures.
IV.
OUTLINING DATA TO BE COLLECTED
A.
It
in this stage
is
manner
which the
in
GROUPED
and
situation
ELEMENTS
of the programming that the
are identified that are to be
MANIPULATED
facts to be gathered are
begins
to
how
determine
The
in design.
IDENTIFIED
problem
the
"divided up" into manageable pieces which
is
DESIGNER
turn influence the pieces which the
will
in
attempt
:::: ::::. .::::
""p<.^
:::::n)ft::::;
some sort of coherent whole. It is imthe programmer be CONSISTANT throughout
to put together into
portant that
process
entire
his
once
problem
the
parts
have
been
identified.
B. In the interest of efficiency

is
needed and what
It
it
is
of value to
not needed
PRIOR
know what
analyzing
evaluating,
and
organizing
an
efficient
danger
of
forcing
gathering
NEW
C. Fact gathering should
operation
situations
NEVER
it
is
high and
even
higher.
EXPERIENCE
must be recognized that with the
allows
data
to beginning data
The cost of gathering unusable data
gathering.
of
is
also
into
that
comes the
OLD
molds.
be done "cold." Prior to out-
lining his facts to be gathered, the
programmer should be
as
familiar as possible with:
1.
past solutions to similar design situations.
2.
prevalent critical issues in the client's operation.
3. current trends
5.
and developments.
problem areas encountered
4. general
in
the building type.
the terminology for communicating with the client about

his operation.
In
effect this
purpose
his
will
task.
fact gathering.
EFFECTIVE
Its
at
This familiarization or introductory involvement
help to avoid the "unusable data" problem and will
facilitate
crucial
D.
amounts to "unofficial"
to enable the programmer to be
is
Some
the
DEFINITION
of that information which
is
to the project.
of the
WAYS
that familiarization can be achieved are:
Sr^lil?^2^")^
"^!!:-!:!!:^
z\
53
1.
checking the art index for
articles
all
on the building type
including examples of past designs.

2.
searching the libraries for books on the client's operation
and the building type.

3.
reviewing journals or other periodicals that specialize
In
the client's process.
might supply literature on
4. contacting organizations that
the client's operation.

5.
writing for reports on conferences held on the subject.
6. writing
prominent individuals
7.
in
compiling a bibliography from

acquiring
the field for a review of
work.
their current
many
as
of
the
the above sources and
all
pertinent
publications
as
possible.
8. visiting
existing buildings
which house similar functions
and interviewing people there

9.
if
possible.
attending conferences on the client's process or on planning for the client's process.
what may be
10. executing a quick design esquisse to identify

critical
information areas or particularly difficult design
problems.
programmer to
Familiarization also permits the
LEDGEABLY
talk
to his client about his operations.
It
KNOW-
should
never be the client's responsibility to "educate" the program-
mer
in
o*-*
n^
jRCflMjgBttjCirid"
?a8tW(^
i^
of*
the broad issues of his (the client's) field.
.ffpCuA^n^
E.
The TYPES of
depend upon:
1.
facts
and the degree of
document
the purpose of the program
make
DETAIL
required
may
(for the client to
compu-
decisions?, to design from?, to feed into a
ter?).
2.
the degree of complexity, precision and size of the client's

operation.
3. the
4. the
5.
performance standards required of the building.
number
of special or unusual conditions involved.
the nature of the project regarding
new
construction,
addition, remodelling or a combination of these.

6.
the
values
of
the
architectural facts
be
responded
to
programmer
and the
in
level
design
if
as
to
non-traditional
of detail he feels must
the
building
is
to
be
successful.
7.
more "common" the

more the programmer may tend to
the designer knows about the client's
the uniqueness of the project. The

building type the
"assume" that
process.
8. the
F.
philosophy of the designer.
Where the
undertake
client
a
is
PHASED
LARGE
organization
expansion
project,
intending to
there
may be
"pre-programming" data gathering to help determine the
54
NATURE
and
SCOPE
phases of design and
of the first
construction.
G.
Some
FACT CATEGORIES
of the potential
the
in
section
on
QUALITATIVE
must
Facts.
It
is
QUANTITATIVE
"hard" facts
or "soft" facts are needed.
The program
important to note that both
and
are outlined
Architectural
Traditional
give the designer a
SENSE
of the problem. This some-
times means that the program should contain a significant
amount of the programmer's OPINION
V.
or information that
PERIPHERY.
he might ordinarily consider
OF FORMS AND FORMATS
DESIGN
AJlc&tUi^f*f'
A. In gathering facts, especially for more complex projects,
it
of
is
value
to
GATHERED. Do
RECORD
information
the
Without the documentation of the
much
of
the
AS
IT
IS
not depend on remembering.
programming
facts as they are gathered
can
effort
WASTED
be
erroneous interpretations, retraced steps and multiple
in
veri-
fications.
B.
The design of the
may be
1.
FORMS
on which data
be collected
THE TYPE OF INFORMATION TO BE GATHEREDIs
it
Does
qualitative or quantitative?
graphic or verbal representation? Does
number
2.
will
influenced by several factors:
of
people
other
or
it
sources
lend
to
itself
involve a large
it
of
just
few?
THE WAY THE INFORMATION WILL BE GATHEREDWill
you gather
it
yourself or send assistants? Will an
interviewer be present or will the subject simply
fill
out
own convenience? Can the inforyour own pace or must you record
a questionnaire at their
mation be gathered
at
facts as fast as the client can talk?
3.
THE WAY THE GATHERED DATA

Can the gathering form
see relationships between facts?
form
IS
TO BE USED-
also provide an opportunity to
How
facilitate evaluation, analysis
can the gathering
and organization pro-
cesses?
4.
THE REUSABLE VALUE OF THE FORMsubject matter standard enough that

a later job?
Would the
5.
many
Is
the
could be used
building of a "data
value (information from

in
it
in
bank" be of
separate projects for use
future similar projects).
THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER FORMS-
Will
55
all
C.
the forms be grouped to form a raw data "package"?
GATHER
The forms used to

to those used for
GANIZING
data are very strongly related
EVALUATING, ANALYZING, and OR-
information after
are active in
It
Firms that
collected.
is
programming ordinarily develop
STANDARD
forms for gathering their information. Some of these include:
1.
functional matrices.
2.
sensory production
3. function
conflict matrices.
context matrices.
4. critical path diagrams.

5.
site
evaluation forms.
6. questionnaires.
7.
drawings of plans for existing buildings housing client's

operation.
8. checklists.
9.
bubble diagrams of
affinities,
conflicts
and sequences.
10. furniture inventory forms.

11. specific space needs
12.
form
HVAC)
(furniture, electricity,
code check form.
Other
FORMS
used for collecting data are tape recorders,
photography, sketching, xerox and game playing.
VI.
DEFINITION OF SOURCES
AND EXECUTION
A. For each "bit" of information outlined as being needed by

the programmer, he must also
that fact. This awareness
is
know
WHERE
actually needed
he can get
BEFORE
he can
plan his procedure for collecting his data.
B. Typical
"source areas" with which the programmer
may be
involved in gathering facts are:
1.
2.
interviews with the client himself.

interviews, questionnaire surveys
client's staff
and observation of the
and operation.
3. consultants (site surveys, soil tests, furniture
ment, efficiency experts, researchers,

cal, structural,
4.
fund
and equip-
electrical,
mechani-
raising, financial planners).
books and periodicals on planning for the building type.
5. general
planning
Standards,
standards
(FHA Minimum
Property
Time Saver Standards, Building Planning and
Design Standards, Graphic Standards).

6.
planning
information
from
pertinent
associations
and
manufacturers.
7.
Uniform
8.
governmental
9. empirical
Building
Code and
local
zoning ordinances.
regulations.
measurement of important sensory

and representatives.
10. manufacturers' catalogs
situations.
56
11. city building inspector.
and
12. city planning
departments.
utility
13. local utility companies.

14. local aerial photographiy firms.
county and
15. city,
and publications (popula-
state studies
tion growth, traffic volume, visual surveys).
done by
16. studies
local firms
such as banks or utility com-
panies (projected growth, etc.)
books
17.
and
on cost data
publications
Outlook"
F.
("Construction
W. Dodge, "Dodge Building Data and
Cost," "National Construction Estimater").

subscription to services such as
18
"IDAC," "Pattern Lang-
"CAD-LAB."
uage," or
weather bureau,
personal visits and observation.
21. school district surveys and publications.
Some
of the "methods of familiarization"
listed earlier also
apply to this concern.
It is
often helpful to
list
ALL the
potential sources for
EACH
needed. This fact-category-potential source matrix
fact
Tasks can be easily
can be
is
more than one gatherer involved.

divided among the workers. The matrix
very useful where there
DEVELOPED
is
and
EXPANDED
as
it is
used again and
again for different projects.
D. Don't overlook
mation.
in
It
is
YOURSELF
writing regarding
EVERY
on the problem. These may

and sub-topics.
are
issue
source of infor-
"empty your head"
may have an IMPACT
issue that
in
turn be organized into topics
BRAIN STORMING
mers may add to the

E. In actually
as a principle
usually quite effective to
with fellow program-
list.
executing the gathering of the information there
several
factors
that
may be
influential
in
having the
gathering operation succeed.
1.
When
interviewing the client or his staff:
SPONTANEOUS
a.
try to avoid
b.
attempt to plan meetings and
SPECIFIC
c.
meetings or phone
set
calls.
up appointments for
purposes.
have an agenda and avoid tangents except where necessary.
d. try
not to
OVERSTRUCTURE
an interview. Allow
the client freedom to communicate. Often, the client's

initial
comments
regarding
what he
feels
are impor-
tant issues prove to be major determinants. The client
should be allowed to express these at the start of an

interview.
e.
client comfort, attention span,
boredom, participation
:::::::::i:::::::i:i:::;x:i
iilliiililiiillllllll
::
::::::::::::::::::!:
O
O O
O O O
o
O O o
O
57
involvement are key issues when Interviewing.
and
f.
attempt to get the client to quantify

statements wherever possible ("on
This
ten").
one to
provide a clearer understanding of
will
relative values
g.
his qualitative
a scale of
he places on
have the client talk
needs.
his
terms of
in
NEEDS
and not
solu-
tions.
h.
where administrative commitments need to be made

before you can continue with programming, outline
but
the situation
Always have
let
the client
make the
decision.
who
client representatives present
the authority to
make
have
decisions that won't be changed
by superiors.
i.
VERIFY
always
data collected
in
interviews by writing
reports of the meetings and sending copies to
all
con-
cerned.
j.
when
^**pMc^V'
interviewing staff, always touch base with their
administrative superiors. Staff can define needs but
administration must have the final decision as to the
degree to which those needs

k.
know
the
will
be satisfied.
decision-making structure of the organi-
Where appropriate, have the
zation.
client designate
committee to work with you. Be sure of
their
decision-making responsibilities.
2.
When
staff
using a survey or questionnaire to be executed by
without supervision:
a.
attempt to explain the form personally to
b.
include an explanation sheet telling the
all
involved.
PURPOSE
of
the survey as well as giving instructions for executing

c.
try
any
avoid
to
it.
ambiguous questions. Whenever
possible judgments of those surveyed should be ex-
pressed
d. relate
Their
QUANTITATIVELY.
the survey results to those
who were
involved.
understanding of the value of their efforts
is
important to securing their continued cooperation.
3.
When using a consultant, always be very clear and

EXPLICIT about WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO
and
4.
As
and
the
in
design,
in
which
Programming
largely
an
you
expect
their
the programmer's sensitivity,
analytic-synthetic
success.
still
form
ART
constant search for
abilities
is
not
where
new
are
findings.
awareness
CRITICAL
to
his
mechanical endeavor but
creativity,
ideas are
initiative
VITAL.
and
^-^^
58
AND ORGANIZATION OF FACTS
ANALYSIS, EVALUATION
CONTEXT
A. Design
synthesis
COMMITMENTS made
involves
ADVOCATE, PROPOSE
He must
designer.
and
by the
RECOM-
MEND
and finally make relationships between particular

and individual elements so that the effects of his product
:dlf^d^
are as anticipated.
The
DEFINES
and
STRUCTURES, LIMITS,
program
architectural
DIRECTS
those commitments and the mak-
The program
ing of relationships.
is
the "plan of proceeding
with synthesis."
B.
The
architectural
program
an instrument to be used
Its
uses and roles
made
II.
some
KNOWN
must be
to insure that
it
be
uihy
usable and effective working tool.
C. Analysis,
TIAL
END in itself but

SUBSEQUENT process.
never an
is
in
evaluation and organization of facts are
ESSEN-
to the making of an effective and usable program.
A. Both design and programming involve
niques.
The program
CONSEQUENCES
directing
to
which
considered
are
in
tech-
Analysis,
and
desirable
the design process to bring these
REALIZATION.
mation
PREDICTIVE
concerned with defining building
is
INTENTIONS
and organization of
infor-
SUPPORT
these
programming are meant to
m'
goals.
B. Definitions
1.
Analyze:
To
its
separate
PARTS
function
the
2.
Evaluate:
break
or
so
as
and
relations
up
into
examination of
relationships;
between
To determine
WHOLE
to find out their nature,
variables.
RELATIVE
importance;
to
appraise.
3. Organize:
C.
To STRUCTURE,
arrange, establish or order.
The actions defined by these three terms

dual and specific.
MENTALIZE
in
It
is
are very indivi-
impossible, however, to
COMPART-
each operation separate from the other two
programming.
and organization.
Evaluation
There
is
needed
in
both
analysis
must be some organization for
ir'^'""
ii i
r iii h ..! r
'-aJJ-mr-'^
59
evaluation and analysis. Analysis provides evaluation with
subject matter.
"evaluation" and
of
development),
"organization" only
kinds
similar
(program-
process
design
total
design
schematics,
TRATIONS
the
of
phases
the
Like
ming,
of
"analysis",
CONCEN-
identify
that
activity
in
ODn Ife^
oil
effect
permeate each other to differing degrees. They are separated

fiH
occur
and
D.
hopefully
Whether
we
with
separate
they actually
packages
but to study
improve
and
processes
these
SEPARATE
that
refine
that
propose
to
and
distinct
as
not
here
operations
as
are
them.
INTEGRAL
considered
or
from data gathering depends on the "models"
use for gathering (separate versus integral gathering
immediate versus deferred
synthesis,
evaluation
of
facts).
E.
ANALYSIS, EVALUATION and ORGANIZATION must

bridge the gap between RAW data and DESIGN SYNTHESIS. Out of these processes comes the material
for
the production of the program document.
F.
FORM
The
may
data
or
hinder
these
processes.
FEW operations
make it USABLE for
to perform
to
tasks
as
It
is
of value
on the form of gathered
as
organizational
GATHERING
which the data comes from
in
facilitate
analytical,
evaluative and
possible.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
III.
ANALYSIS,
A. In
in
The process
TAILED
is
determination
to
of
relative
organization
RELATIONSHIPS between
consequences.
and
similarities
GROUPING
differences
of facts into
as
are
a
Analysis
because
uncovers
"finer
to
with
in design
it
and between
of
facts
for
facts
that
determined
BASIS
in
more
grain" which
facts
serves
to
into smaller
reduce the
can be more easily dealt
but also often results
might have remained
general
analysis.
SORTING and
in
the
UNCOVERING
what prove to be major design determinents
otherwise
and
establish
SYSTEMS.
SUB-ISSUES not only
data
If
components.
importance.
The decomposition of information or

comprising
C.
facts
Qualities
These qualities are used
of
its
plays a supporting role to evaluation in that
important
building
B.
interested
principally
is
of the data into
broken down to allow very SPECIFIC and DE-
facts are
also
the programmer
DECOMPOSITION
the
BURIED
which
within broader
facts.
each design issue or fact category
is
EXHAUSTIVELY
'of
hh{h
^riXê^
60
ALL
extended with respect to

there
subissues,
be
will
REPETITION
regarding
same
information
fine
grain
OVERLAP
and
information.
The
by
claimed
be
will
The resolution of
ORGANIZATIONAL
the
in
of
bits
headings.
Issue
the
and sub-
related subissues
considerable
different
problem must occur
this
processes
programming.
of
may be GROUPED
and ORGANIZED totally differently than when the procNEW topic headings may need to be
ess began and
After analysis, fine grain information
invented
D. Analysis
new information
the
for
not
does
finally
groupings.
the
fix
relationships
data that will be used in synthesis.
but
operation
only
deals
and
relationships
qualities
is
NOT
between
a synthesis
discovering
POTENTIAL
information,
organization
with
for
It
\(i/tuMf4'Li^
%r-^
and design.
E.
Some
of the qualities and relationships that offer potential
means
for organizing the data are:
1.
types
the
with
2.
CONSEQUENCES
economic,
ELEMENTS
the
the
building,
design
(site,
structure,
of the fact to
the client
IMPORTANCE
relative
fact
the designer
or to
SEQUENCE
4. the
future
deals
fact
psychological)
environment)
function,
3. the
the
of
the
that
physical,
must respond to the
which
of
which
in
(schematic,
synthesis
5.
of
(social,
FLEXIBILITY
the relative
the
design
facts
be used
will
in
development)
or
FIXEDNESS
of the fact
(hard versus soft data)
Also
that
F.
use
of
result
in
the
analysis
of facts are those
EVALUATION
from the
of the
qualities
data.
The importance of analysis as a separate operation will

depend on how STRUCTURED the gathering process has
been in terms of FACT CATEGORIES. Even where the
relationships
between
purposes
convenience and
of
may sometimes be
organization"
NEW
and
G. Analysis
facts
in
to
valuable
provide an
CREATIVE
is
data have been
predetermined
efficiency
to
in
gathering,
DECOMPOSE
the
it
"fact
opportunity for discovering
potential relationships
between
facts.
directly concerned with the study of specific
terms of their
for
POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS on
the physical building. As in "non-traditional facts", these
DO
DP
>:f}>
VL
-^D'W
t
D/5k
61
sometimes not immediately evident. The
be perceptive and thorough enough
implications are
must
programmer
data
a
on
causative
it
is
not
that
implications
MORE DATA
for
gathering
also
as
events
BUILDING CONSEQUENCE.
An important by-product
tectural
of
of the chain
part
is,
fact
does not mean
event
surface
the
to
relevant,
to the
leading
H.
agent
"remote"
seemingly
even
Remoteness of
design.
building
the
of
implications
the
trace
to
of checking facts for their archi-
that
is
may
it
certain
in
results
point out the need
refinement
in
This
areas.
of
feedback
gathering
to
tech-
niques.
IV.
EVALUATION OF FACTS
A. Evaluation here
is
DISTINGUISHED from
to be
the evalua-
tion of fact relevancy in data gathering or the appraising
of design decisions or final building.
B.
As facts are gathered (or after they are "all" gathered

and analyzed), their RELATIVE IMPORTANCE to the
problem must be determined. The programmer must have
some bases or criteria for making these judgments. The
criteria
for deciding the relative importance of data
may
relate to:
1.
^MJl!'"""
Whether the data has
DIRECT
bearing on the design
ir
::::::::::::::::
\,Jjjr~~-
.;i:jj::j::H:||
of the building or not.
2.
Whether the
is
one
fact,
that
will
need
be
or
desirable
future
AUTOMATICALLY
situation
taken
care
of by the solving of other problems, response to other

problems, response to other facts or satisfaction of
other needs or whether
demands the DIRECT
it
atten-
tion of the designer.
3.
How SOON
the fact will be important to the designer's
operation.
4.
The
IMPORTANCE
relative
of
the
fact
in
terms of
the client's goals.
5.
The
relative
of the
6.
The
importance of the fact
ARCHITECTURAL
relative
FLEXIBILITY
("hard" or "soft" data)
C.
in
terms of the goals
or
FIXEDNESS
of the fact,
"
Through evaluation, PRIME

which may serve
in
firm.
ORGANIZERS are
CONCEPTS in
the forming of
identified
synthesis.
Jkmub
ft
ftx
VklS
'(>^^^
62
Also, by defining the facts that are fixed and unchanging
made aware of the FRAIVIEmore VARIABLE aspects of

the problem must be worked. The GREATER the body
shape), the designer
(site
WORK
around which
FEWER
of fixed facts, the
be available
will
D.
Where
a large
number of
facts are involved,
QUANTITIES
and to express the
tion
NUMERICALLY.
it
\. o
sometimes
is
to the criteria for evalua-
importance of the facts
relative
promotes
This
to the client and
regarding the
the alternative solutions that
synthesis.
in
to assign
helpful
is
the
clarity
feedback
the
in
the communication to the designer
in
VALUE RANGE
assigned to problem
deter-
minants.
V.
A. Analysis and evaluation are
process
Although
TOOLS
Both
are
of the organizational
necessary
there
degree
is
organization
of
both analysis and evaluation, organization as

process
programming usually happens
in
as
BASES
program information.
organizing
for
B.
programming.
in
has been evaluated and analyzed. This
related
a
to
FORMAL
AFTER
the data
true even where
is
and evaluation are integrated with the gathering
analysis
process.
The work done
FLECTED
in
C. Organization
operation
and evaluation should be RE-
SYNTHETIC,
the
programming.
COMMITMENTS
DECISION-MAKING
Here the programmer

in
sions and
in
terms of relationships and
design.
schematic design and design development.
BEYOND
extends
projection
should
begins
He begins to draw conclumake recommendations about what should happen

be used
qualities to
in
is
in
make
to
analysis
in
the organized data.
of
future
contain
desirable
statements
The
situations.
about
Involvement
"existing" to a
of the
description
HOW
this
program
might
be
achieved.
advisable for the sake of clarity that
DESCRIPTIVE
statements about the existing situation and
ADVOCATIVE
It
is
statements
GUISHED
ming
that
cated
D.
about what
SHOULD
in
the
program.
reflects
the
values
are
as
obviously
all
be
DISTIN-
of program-
programmer, statements
of the
judgemental
should
be
clearly
indi-
process
for
such.
The organization of data

bridging
happen
Even though
the
gap
is
the
between the
essential
PROBLEM STATEMENT
f^^kt^
63
and
a
SYNTHETIC OPERATION
the
solution.
It
evaluated
TRANSLATED
are
will
result
in
CS^=:
.^^^^^^^
4^<4j(<.d1^
the other facts gathered, analyzed and
with
relationships
that
point where client needs and their
the
is
language
the
into
of
the
designer.
Needs and other
VERBAL
expression
is
of
the
much
is
/Id/i/roL
<n^^^3^
J^
as possible. This dia-
grammatic translation of the programming
facts
the start
is
p^4icaC'
it
GRAPHI-
of the program
DIAGRAMMATICALLY
and
largely
(visual)
problem statement
solution to the
of value to express as
CALLY
are
PHYSICAL
facts at the gathering stage
concepts. As architecture
of the formation of the physical building, as diagrams have
DIRECT
implications on physical building form.
The programmer's
cation
extent to which
communi-
ability to design visual, graphic
programming
of
data
largely
will
NEEDS
the programming
all
determine
met
are
/UM>Ut
the
in
synthesis.
E.
The SEQUENCE of data and the FORM in which it appears

must be related to the WAY it will be used. Ideally, after
the program is complete, there would be no additional
operations performed on the data to make it directly
usable
as
when
F.
It
design.
In
This
may sometimes
DIFFERENT
being used for
helpful
is
CLEARLY
phasis.
to
the
WAYS
of the
that
difficulty
forms
design tasks.
the
if
program
format
priority
and em-
Information types,
indicates
Some
designer
create
DIFFERENT
the same facts often should take
may
be used to communi-
cate these issues are:
1.
diagrammatic expression of important issues
2.
use
3.
tones applied over important phrases
of
4. color
5.
capital
coding of
letters.
title
or
Italics
underlining
words
pages or pages of a section
use of large dots or other shapes beside important facts
6. use of receding
page sizes to reveal
all
program sections
simultaneously
7.
tabs applied to each program chapter or section
8. tables
G. As
of contents at each chapter
DESIGN INSTRUMENT,
in
the
the program
program
organized to allow the designer to easily

data
that
is
directly
response to this need

In
an
APPENDIX,
DIRECT
H.
to group
separating
architectural
The use of
pertinent
Is
it
to synthesis.
all
should
be
FIND and USE
A common
supporting Information
from the
facts that have
implications.
SUMMARY SHEETS
where
all
critical
data
'^
II|A
64
under
together
in
I.
EACH
Related
summary
the
to
may
ming
concept
sheet
the
major
hours
of
saving
or
may
the
issue
of
on these
time
organization
of
the most
are
sheets
HEADINGS
information
In gathering,
is
information
the
gathering
involve
wîth
SPACE ANALYSIS summary

common of these forms.
The
separately
information forms. Highly systematic program-
later.
J.
grouped
be
may occur
or
topic section.
STANDARD
forms
These may
relationships.
data
code requirements or
needs,
summary CHAPTER
in a
and SUCCIIMCTLY
designer. Typical
the
to
include space
functional
overall
GROUPED
is
of great help
is
might
sheets
heading
given
presented
proved
that
useful
analyzing and evaluating the information
not
CONTINUE
organizational
the
as
major headings
After decomposition
processes.
may
the
in
data
of
in
may be REGROUPED on the basis of newly

discovered SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES. Totally
new information groups and titles may emerge which
analysis,
have
K.
it
relationship to those used for the earlier tasks.
little
From
the
preceeding
ORCHESTRATION
bility,
groupings,
INFORMATION
particular
issues
major headings)
itself.
manner
becomes
it
in
clear
the
that
of the data (sequence, clarity, accessi-
very
as
is
important
which the elements to be
the
as
strong determinent
the
is
ASSEMBLED
!Sa5
IDENTIFIED. In putting a building

may work in any of several ELEMENT SYSTEMS (people, activities, room areas and shapes,
space volumes, furniture). The information groupings and
in
have
design
been
the designer
together,
their titles establish a
promotes
the
use
of
VIEW of the problem

CERTAIN element
that strongly
systems
over
OTHERS.
L.
As
in
the gathering of information for programming, organi-
may be based on a MODEL

RELATIONSHIP to the design of the
Two such examples are:
zation
1.
THE PROGRAM
THE DESIGNER.
IS
or concept about
final building
its
product.
A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS TO
:::::ia*T::j:{:j|:|i.
This implies that the program format
take the form of a series of
DIRECTIVES.
THE PROGRAM SHOULD DESCRIBE THE FINAL

DESIGN AS EXPLICITLY AS POSSIBLE IN VERBAL
AND DIAGRAMATIC TERMS. This involves not only
drawing conclusions about the consequences that
vidual
aspects
PROPOSING
most
of
the
building
the physical
effectively
bring
should
have
indi-
but also
building situations that will
them about.
MPi^MMf^
;r"Tyîii?HiiTT!f:TT'
_,
.,.W&

65
not be concerned about INFRINGING upon the PROVINCE of the designer. The LINE
between programming and design operations is in DIF-
M.The programmer should
FERENT
on the project
places depending
may have
Different people
involved.
issue
^p^fîtmsm^
ci(li^c/yf\.e\y
on the matter
differing opinions
also.
The program should contain INTERPRETIVE information

that
refers
tions
ARCHITECTURAL IMPLICATIONS
the
to
raw data. The programmer's preferences for
of the
design
in
should
be
clearly
direc-
This tactic
indicated.
provides the designer with the recommendations of those
MOST FAMILIAR
with
OPTION
designer's
problem.
the
the
ignore
to
It
program. The extent of the design content
the
in
the program
in
up to the programmer. Some may stop
is
always the
is
content
design
suggested
at
Oo
SUB SOLUTIONS
a WHOLE. Others
t>0
with the designer assembling these into
FRAMEWORKS
offer concept
within
which the designer works out the DETAILS.
PREMISE
The fundamental
it
UNREASONABLE
seems
raw
its
state
behind
attitude
this
is
through several stages of translation to
architectural implications
its
and then to terminate the process
some IMAGINARY and ARBITRARY line between

programming and design operations. It seems much more
at
reasonable
to
CONTINUE
the
SIONS, allowing the designer to
process to
Depending on the nature of the

ble to have
to
project,
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
more
the
O.
his
detailed
schematic
it
is
often desira-
This permits the de-
design
requirements
ACCOMMODATE.
more CONFIDENTLY
that
Schematic
ceed
with
decisions
against
schematics
design
must
can pro-
view toward
what
is
TO COME.
In
outlining a program for schematic design, the inclusion
what
can
1.
serve
ORDINARILY
considered
of requirements
INFORMATION
be
the
analytical
tions performed
MUCH
"details"
and
on data
as a
itself
PRE-
which must eventually be met.
a CATALYST for discovering what

SCHEMATIC DESIGN issues.
As
Like
be
two purposes.
For the value of the
VIEW
2.
might
evaluative
in
f "sg3p\
of
information available
eventually
of
P.
TEST
!^^?3ii
^p__ -f
--riv**-------:
when doing SCHEMATIC DESIGN.

signer
Hir**
""
CONCLU-
its
CHOOSE how much
the design content he will use.
N.
-4- wm^
that
develop information from
to
may
processes,
prove to
the opera-
organization depend on
was done to the data during
its
gathering.
HOW
Some
66
example organizational operations
1.
SORTING
2.
GROUPING
and
on
based
criteria
of
use,
of
identified
qualities
to
are:
by
established
EFFECTS on
and grouping of the
Sorting
the design
aspects implied by the program
building
of individual
^^-<^^^^,.îf
(sequence
programnner
the
importance).
relative
categories
into
facts
analysis and according
in
data.
3.
HIERARCHY
Establishing a
attention
about
clusions
a.
ONE
and
data
should
designer's
with
deal
GRAPHI-
time and be expressed
issue at a
what
about
proposals
accomplish.
SHORT, CONCISE,
be
should
Precepts
only
the
of
precepts describing individual con-
the
design
final
of determinants which will

intensity
synthesis.
in
DEFINITIVE
4. Writing
the
and
sequence
the
direct
CALLY.
b.
Precepts should
UNIQUENESS
the
identify
of the
problem. The extent to which general or "universal"

written
are
precepts
down and contained
the
in
document depends on the PURPOSE of the docu-
OBVIOUS
ment.
precepts
when EDUCATING
c.
should deal
Precepts
may need
with
d.
An
to avoid
help
the
of
This
difficulty.
EVALUAT-
that of
is
the
in
building
plan.
as
"extruded plan"
taken
directions
well
as
important role of precepts
ORS
involving
issues
SECTION and ELEVATION

will
to be included
the client.
conceptualization
By checking alternative design

directions against the precepts, the development of
stages
of
synthesis.
INVIABLE
SCREEN
concepts can
levels
all
will
the
most
the
statement,
statement
result
"the
the
in
solution
clearly
a
in
illustrated
response
from
is
problem.
contained
to
Hence,
the
in
problem."
The use of precepts can help
CONFLICTS
CONVERGENCE
the
to
pre-
(schematics,
of design synthesis
solution
viable
of
design alternatives.
comprehensive establishment of
Theoretically
development)
e.
EVALUATE
and
cepts
at
be avoided. Precepts help
the
design
when two
a
identify
problem.
precepts
particular
POTENTIAL
This
is
most
COMPETE
building
aspect
for
or
do-
o
0-7
Cjn*<i^
KD
Ô
p'vujifi^
i^f^^^f*^
67
element where
PATTERN LANGUAGE
f.
(Alexander)
to the precept model. Essentially

solutions
LUTION of
SYNTHESIS
DESIGNER.
in
them
can
used
be
4^^ciXUf\^y
^^l^*;^^^'
in
The RESOthe
the patterns and
a whole is left to the
into
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
SUGGESTED by the
the
for
liiSSfc:^^^
i^îi^
precepts.
building
form (presentation). This task has
where
implications
where data
or
^^W^wd^
the analyzed, evaluated and organized data
all
USABLE
into
conflicts
of the
6. Putting
closely related
is
different building types.
of
the
Identifying
design
the
proposes synthetic
it
which
sub-problems
to
many
designing
5.
EXCLUDES
response to one
of responding to the other.
possibility
program
the
be
to
is
special
published
to be fed to a computer for sorting
is
or grouping.
Q. Oftentimes
the
the
organizational
this
is
can
processes
designing the
designing
of
discipline
LOGICAL CONTINUITY
document
be of help
programming.
in
for
c&mImum:^
i^jr^tZ^î
structuring
in
sense
its
table
In
program through designing
of contents.
R.
One programming
tactic
development of
reusable
is
used from
project to
that often
proves useful
is
the
PROGRAM OUTLINE. As it
project it may be EXPANDED
is
A comprehensive program outline
COMPLETELY applicable to every project.
It must
be TAILORED to suit the building type under
study. An outline can serve as a CHECKLIST to insure
REFINED.
and
never
usually
S.
thorough and organized programming
program outline should not only be
possible but
PRIORITY
|ft0 off
effort.
as
DETAILED
as
should also convey a sense of information
it
respect to schematic
with
design
and design
development.
T. There
are
several
development of
1.
considerations
assist
in
COMMITMENT TO YOUR VIEW OF DESIGN. A

sign
process
can
programming and
READINGS
toric
the
de-
view or way of understanding and explaining the
design
2.
may
that
program outline.
IN
help
in
role
in
firming
that
PROGRAMMING.
and current
papers and
its
issues in
up views about
process.
Familiarity with his-
books, periodicals, conference
publications of professional firms provides
a base for forming a personal
programming approach.
"
y -^M^JM -A ..^
68
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE PROGRAMS.
3.
helps to
It
how
see
others have structured their pro-
gramming approach and the information types that have

been used by different firms for different building types.
4.
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM OUTLINE.

attempt
at
detailed
and usable
on paper"
must
be
tested
relevancy
both
to
On
tasks.
the
usability,
programming and
the
basis
of
The
DESIGN.
as
outline
comprehensiveness
many
the
and
design
of these applications
many
the outline can undergo
possible,
as
for
first
organized
as
start.
PROGRAM AND
BUILDING
5.
good way to
is
be
possible.
as
The
and
"Emptying your head
should
outline
the
evaluations
and refinements.
DESIGN EVALUATION.
6.
the
The
design.
degree
many
role
this
in
program
building
It
of
is
often
to
use
evaluating
the
revealing
for
criteria
as
of
applicability
program
the
provides insight into needed
times
outline alterations.
A
It
program outline probably never reaches
must
be
continually
USED,
form."
"final
EVALUATED
and
IM-
PROVED.
U. Ordinarily the
MAJOR
program subsections of
TION, GOALS, FACTS, PRECEPTS and

quately serve as
In
organizing a
to TAILOR the information

UNIOUENESS of the project.
the
Some
in
are
listed
groupings
CATEGORIES
information
the
of
SUBSECTIONS
below.
They
or
are
to
AVAILABLE
the scope of
used
organizing a program.
and their
ARRANGEMENT
upon the
overall
document.
between
tural
It
this
in
program
ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPT
should be noted that there

list
is
of the
some overlap
and the outline of traditional architec-
1.
pre-programming
2.
acknowledgements
3.
forward or preface
of contents
5.
purpose of the document
6.
scope of the document
7. spirit
briefly
which may be
The CHOICE of these titles

a program would depend
facts.
4. table
titles
suit
not ordered
any particular manner but are intended only to
present
in
ade-
DIVISIONS of programmatic information.

SPECIFIC program however there is often
need
INTRODUC-
CONCEPTS
of the problem (quotes)
'fyiipa^K^ aiMi/iou
ci^4U^^
69
8. client identification
9, client
.10.
background and philosophy
history of client operations
11. general client goals

12. goals of specific project aspects
13. general trends in client's field
14. glossary of client vocabulary

15. time schedule
16.
17.
18.
19.
and budget
project priorities
program organization and format

programming methodology
overall project goals and objectives
20. project status

21. project descriptions
22. reason for the project

23. general design philosophy
24. general description of client's operation
25. major constraints and limitations
26. analysis of existing conditions
27.
facts (see Traditional Architectural Facts)
28. precepts
general explanation
29. site precepts
30. building precepts

31. phasing precepts
32. premises
33. assumptions
34. givens
35. architectural design criteria
36. general building systems design criteria
37. mechanical systems design criteria
38. electrical systems design criteria
39. structural systems design criteria
40. building performance (consequence) standards

41. concept
alternatives
42. patterns
43. action plan
44. concept aspects (description)
45. evaluation of concepts (advantages and disadvantages
46. composite evaluation

47. project phasing
48. recommendations
49. review
50. general conclusions
51.
summary
52. appendix
53. exhibits
54. definitions
and glossary
55. index
56. bibliography
57. credits and
programming team
V. All of the above information types
INFLUENCE
the nature
70
4î/{Aîi/yuUf'j^
CONSEQUENCES that the resulting BUILDING will

that
have on its SURROUNDINGS and CONTENTS and
will have on the
its SURROUNDINGS and CONTENTS
of the
BUILDING.
71
DESIGNING FROM THE PROGRAM
I.
A. Although
of
ROLES may
its
program
building
Its
validity
the
degree
C.
make
As
"design
program
the
successful
is
depends on
synthesis
in
all
of
its
pre-
aspects.
together of parts or elements so
WHOLE.
event" the
response to the
of the
nature
HOW
upon
synthesis depends largely
in
DESIGN TOOL.
value
its
CONSEQUENCE
putting
the
as to
that
purpose
principle
a
facilitates
it
solution
dicted and desired
B. Synthesis:
of
USE and
its
which
design
building
in
lies
to
the
vary,
that
is
the pro-
grammer gathered, analyzed, evaluated and organized the

information.
on the amount of
D. Depending
in
design
may
SYNTHESIS
already con-
program, the "parts" to be assembled
the
tained
from
range
statement
simple
of
in
desired
consequences with no stated architectural implications to

a
of
series
presynthesized sub-solutions such
language or precepts that describe
TURAL
E. In
way
ACTUAL
situation
needs
to
climate)
(site,
so also
STATEMENT
program
programming
that
client
DESIGN BY
Both
pattern
responses to individual needs.
the same
the
as
optimum ARCHITEC-
and
an
a transition
ACTUAL
to the actual
from
existing
statement to
organized
synthesis
is
is
the
transition
from the
PHYSICAL
solution.
programming and synthesis can be thought of

where a situation in one language
TRANSLATIONS
expressed
in
as
is
another.
The programmer takes the "raw situation" and TRANSLATES it into the language of the designer. The designer
in
turn
TRANSLATES
tion.
The
first
LY,
the
second
expresses
TECTURALLY.
GRAPHICALLY,
TECTURALLY.
the program into a physical solu-
VERBAL
expresses
If
it
concepts
GRAPHIC
concept
GRAPHICALARCHI-
concepts
cannot
be
expressed
usually cannot be expressed
ARCHI-
For the building to accurately and comprehensively express the original
process,
BOTH
portant.
The
"raw situation" that

translation
operations
initiated the entire
are
INTENT and MEANING
of
critically
the
im-
original
tâyi^4ii*^
Xhj^Miti^n^
72
must
situation
be
presented
programming and
both
in
synthesis.
F.
DESIGNER must
As the
anticipate and simulate the use
of his building to insure that

so
situations,
and
also
the
simulate
functions to suit the future
it
PROGRAMMER
must the
of
use
functions successfully as a tool
experience
learned)
or
(direct
those yet to be. This need
is
it
synthesis.
in
for both depends
The simulation required
anticipate
program to insure that
his
upon previous
situations
in
similar
to
more commonly recognized
when designing the building than when programming, yet

no more important. SYNTHESIS may fail due to poor
PROGRAMMING,
to poor
just
BUILDING may
the
as
SYNTHESIS. The
net result of either
is
due
fail
a building
that does not successfully respond to the original situation
which was brought to the architect by the
II.
PROGRAM
A. There
several
are
1.
DESIGN RELATIONSHIPS
QUALITIES
that are
relationship
client.
of
program-synthesis
the
of
value:
THERE SHOULD BE MAXIMUM INTERFACE

TWEEN PROGRAM AND SYNTHESIS. Ideally,
planning process should be CONTINUOUS from
BE-
original situation to the realization of the building.
The
program
should
should
be
program,
DETERMINE
directed
as
the
solution.
completely
the
Synthesis
possible
as
the
by the
and there should be no gaps between pro-
gramming and synthesis to be "filled in" by the designer's "assumptions." If the program has clearly identified the ELEMENTS to be MANIPULATED in DE-
SIGN and
the
involved
issues
determining
in
their
relationships, design-program interface will be facilitated.
2.
SYNTHESIS SHOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE PROGRAM. Sometimes when manipulating the elements
of the physical building, the designer may be tempted
to INVENT new needs, INFLATE the importance of
a determinant or DE-EMPHASIZE a critical issue to
facilitate
the
structural
or
ARCHITECTURAL
cause
should
accurate
3.
deviation
nevertheless
reflection
some
of
resolution
geometric,
problem.
aesthetic
program
strive
of
the
to
intent,
make
that
may sometimes
(physical) concerns
from
spatial,
Recognizing
his
the designer
building
an
program statement.
SYNTHESIS SHOULD THOROUGHLY RESPOND TO

THE PROGRAM. Some programs leave more for the
73
designer to
The degree of
in" than others.
"fill
detail
and thoroughness required in synthesis is not optional

to the designer but determined by the LEVEL OF
DETAIL
at
occupied
and
which
building
the
The
use.
in
function when
may sometimes
will
designer
be inclined to cut short his development of the solu-
when
tion
reaches the tedious stages of providing
it
for the fine details of function. This thoroughness and
When
of
program
the
general
organize
must
either
unwarranted
details,
needed
the
situation," there
begin
will
designer
terms
in
pressure
is
concerned
gether" and
mation
zation
terms of
in
might
upon
the
its
the
to
justice
building
to-
the raw infor-
evaluation and organi-
analysis,
Here,
design.
his
in
it
IMPLICATIONS and RELATIONSHIPS

been
have
discovered
program
of
analysis
"putting
responding to
to
the potential
that
with
seldom do
will
prior
designer
to
danger that the solution
is
the
directly
"patched together." Ordinarily, the
be
to
is
When
information.
programming and go
by-pass
"original
4.
INCOMPLETE
is
or
issues
on the designer to gather, analyze, evaluate and
put
all
can be facilitated by the program.
to detail
attention
through
information
reflection
are
lost.
FLOW UNINTERRUPTED
SHOULD
FROM THE PROGRAM. When the designer must
SYNTHESIS
stop synthesis to gather

usable
form,
this
more data
results
UNSYSTEMATIC response
PHASED so
is
for
that
phase
pleted
of
to
segment of
given
as
synthesis
SMOOTHLY
into
Where
pro-
provide only enough

synthesis
should
it
INEFFICIENT and
to the program.
gramming
data
or to translate
an
in
be
(schematics),
able
be com-
to
with the data supplied
the pro-
in
gram.
The separation of information that has DIRECT architectural

implications from SUPPORTING or backup
Information allows the document to be much more
by the designer. An
efficiently used
APPENDIX
should
be used for supporting information while directly usable

data should be grouped and identified.
Anything that causes the designer's attention and concentration to
detrimental
be
to
"incubation,"
creativity,
even
DIVERTED
the
design
subconscious
when not
from synthetic
process.
problem
at the
The
issues
is
designer's
solving
and
drawing board, should
not be cluttered with thoughts relating to what must
done BEFORE he can begin designing

more data, sorting out usable data).
be
(gathering
74
B.
Where there
and different
MORE
is
one designer on
than
design
the
of
aspects
project
addressed
be
will
by DIFFERENT people, in order to achieve the above

mentioned quality the program must respond to multisituations.
designer
C.
determinant of
The view of "programming
as a
and
determinant
of
"synthesis
GENERAL
are
as
DETAILS
However, the
two
of
descriptions
synthesis"
building"
the
of
cause-effect systems.
of each system must be studied
two systems to be OPERATIONALLY meaningful.

SPECIFIC aspects of programming affect SPECIFIC aspects
of synthesis and SPECIFIC aspects of synthesis affect
for the
SPECIFIC
The
of
aspects
building
the
design.
between
isolation of specific cause-effect relationships
program and synthesis and between synthesis and building

permits us to REFINE and IMPROVE both systems in a
way
what the programmer and designer DO.
that affects
on
studied
are
general
particular operations
D.
It
is
remote from the actual
level
programming and
design.
virtually impossible to precisely define a point
ENDS
programming
of
programming
to
organize
identify
The
of
relationships
long as
This refinement cannot occur as
SEPARATE
as
the
fee
structure
from design serves only
p^tCÛî'KyMM^
.îfuMuU-
and to
profession
the
in
and group operations of similar nature.
"formal"
beginning
ORGANIZATIONAL
on how
where
and synthesis BEGINS. The definition
far
of
process
this
design
building
Depending
taken the program
is
the
in
is
process of programming.
will
con-
tain varied degrees of synthetic decision-making.
E.
The
stronger
and
design,
the
program
should
that the
mer to
it
is
be
DISTINCTION between programming
the
the
greater
the
be lost
will
in
CONTINUOUS
optimum
chances that
synthesis.
with
the
other.
situation in this regard
the
spirit
of
The one process

is
This
implies
for the program-
also be the designer. This, of course, assumes that
of value for the designer to respond to
of the program and the
way
all
the subtleties
the problem was understood in
programming.
F.
The most CRITICAL TEST of the communicative value

of a program is where the programmer is not the designer
and where the designer's
is
G.
ONLY
exposure to the project
through the program document.
Where synthesis
is
CONTINUOUS
term "response"
is
with programming the
misnomer. "Response" implies that
yi,
^ ^ ___.
,11 111
'
iiitt
75
there
INTERRUPTION
an
is
the continuum from pro-
in
gram to design and .that they are two independent operations that are "brought together" artificially.
the same way, the use of the program as a means of
In
means
evaluating the final solution
when
little
the program
CONTINUOUS (high percentage of intersolution is DIRECTLY generated by the criteria
and design are

face).
the
If
for evaluation, the design
by definition successful. Where
is
the "stream of design events" between program and solution
BROKEN,
has been
for
the
evaluating
the use of the program as a criterion
becomes
building
more appropriate
process.
Where
the
the
designer
works on design
serve
an
as
evaluator
INDIVIDUAL
of
DESIGN and
may be used
the
PROCESS
leading to
test
programming
and
the
of
it
PHILOSOPHICALLY
sequence
presented
as
of
in
document including the
the
to strength
and
clarity
of graphic ex-
of issues)
degree to which program serves as a catalyst

ing initial design
for
program
the
with which the designer can grasp program
(related
pression
8. clarity
convenience
data
palatability"
"visual
efficiency
forms and
information
format
the
of
information
issues
the
overall
4. relevancy
9.
of the
are:
thoroughness and required degree of informational detail
of
7.
final
both of these
OPERATIONALLY?)
3. usability
6.
"'p^j^pa^fC^'
degree of "fit" between the program and the designer's
view of design (can he relate to
5.
it,
PROGRAM. Some
to evaluate the
ways that synthesis may
2.
design decisions
program may be used to evaluate both the
H. As the
of
also
and directions tested against precepts).
(decisions
1.
independently
program for periods of time, the program may
of
the
resolving
in
determin-
concepts and directions
priorities
design
the
in
program
as
criteria
conflicts
degree to which program removes the need for arbitrary
assumptions and judgments

10. extent to
in
synthesis
which the program promotes a creative syn-
^fiiSlpluir^
Jme^
76
problem elements and
thesis of the
These
may
of evaluation
criteria
issues
ANY
apply to
ALL
or
of the gathering, analysis, evaluation and organization proc-
programming.
esses in
III.
SYNTHESIS OPERATIONS
'^tpdile^ti^
The operations performed in synthesis as a response to the

program vary from designer to designer. They depend upon
his
A.
VALUES
No
in
how
matter
eventually
establishment
result
starting
point
working
more
im-
as
is
The
data.
involve:
issues
from
ESSENCE
the
of
out
doing an
"^C&Mê/tt
IJiSiJiiiJHi!!!!!!!!!!
the
problems
easy
ones
difficult
or
OVERVIEW
relationships
5.
program
may
concept
overall
will
problem
the
4.
that
solution.
the
designer
CRITICAL
an
relationships
as
operate
concerned with the
"gets into" the problem
the
for
for
solving
2. deriving
3.
of
DETERMINANT
portant
may
designers
SINGULAR
in
The way the designer
1.
two
differently
synthesis, they are both essentially
CUMULATIVE
B.
VIEW OF DESIGN.
as reflected in his
vice
and
first
then
the
versa
of the whole situation to establish
between major determinants
attending to the
dealing with the
UNIQUE
more
aspects of the problem before
general or universal ones (pedes-
trian-car separation), or vice versa
6.
searching for dimensional
relationships
between spaces
and between spaces and the existing context for

ble geometric organizational
C.
Some
of
the
traditional
CONTINUATION
1.
issues
possi-
concepts
related
to synthesis
as
of programs are:
LITERAL RESPONSE VERSUS ARTISTIC RESPONSE.

Depending on the designer's attitude about the nature
and
of
the
he
may attempt
of the
gram.
facts
to
make
program or an
The
first
of
ROLE
his
in
the
design
process
'
i ll
n
I
r'j ij
j jj j
'
i ll
"i i
"iijjjjj
jjj jj
i ..
iii i
iiiii|
his design a literal translation
artistic
expression
these views
FACTS
of the
as
INTERPRETATION.
pro-
crucial
the success of the building, while the second sees

as the basis for a creative
"îiiiiiiiii
to
them
unit
"
77
Related to the
that
versus
literal
response issue
artistic
INTERFACE between program and
of
Synthesis
may
vary
both
terms
of
is
design.
programming
of program
having DIRECT relatedness to solution) and LEVEL
(relative broadness or specificness of the program issues
in
in
interface with
its
DEGREE
(percentage
responded to directly).
2.
RANDOM RESPONSE VERSUS STRUCTURED

SPONSE. The
program he
of the
part
may
designer
point of beginning
a review of the
SEQUENCE
program
HOW
for
program
be responded to
will
it
^^^^^
The structured response assumes that the
design.
in
PLAN
jîp
FIRST. "One
as another." In contrast,
a structured response requires
and then
RE-
thought to what
attend to
will
good
as
is
give little
is
and
a
real
MANNER OF
designing from the

on the nature and success
influence
/UuJUi/i^
of the final solution.
3.
SUBOPTIMIZED APPROACH VERSUS CONCEPT

FRAMEWORK APPROACH. The first of these entails
ISOLATING specific problems and searching for soluthem
may
arranged
different
situations
are
WHOLE.
This
out the
of each other. The

same architectural elements
ways due to the different design
(Ml^
the
involve
The "optimal
criteria.
<^S|^H<^
INDEPENDENTLY
to
solutions
tions
T^^f^
solutions"
approach
COMPETITION
problem determinants
very
is
these
to
then related to each
individual
other to
effective
in
make
pointing
form between the various
for
as the designer attempts to
comThe
bine the sub-solutions without compromising them.
concept framework approach leads

tion
structure
the
for
problems then
"relating
The
The
solution.
the
involve
to the genera-
first
OVERALL
of the "big idea(s)" or
organizational
solutions
ADDED
to
jlp
sub-
gI
determinant of
to the whole."
of these approaches values the attitude that
first
the overall composition and sense of order should be
derived from
building
solving
functions.
problems at the
"The
building
is
level
where the
composite of
The second approach

more controlled, ordered and structured sense
of "whole." Compromises here are made in favor of
solutions to individual problems."
values a
the total rather than the part.
4.
SIMULTANEOUS AND PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT

OF
ISSUES
VERSUS SEQUENTIAL INTEGRATION OF ISSUES. The
on
different
NEOUSLY
is
form
first
categories
but
of
f^^CH
L:::::::
ûd^
of these pertains to working
the
SEPARATELY
of suboptimization.
program
(function
Eventually
SIMULTAand
site).
It
conclusions
|i!!::!j5i
78
drawn in each category and they are integrated.
The second approach studies one topic until tentative
conclusions are reached. Then another topic is studied
are
CONTEXT
together
IN
resolved
and
with
the
Conflicts
first.
drawn
conclusions
about
the
of the two. The process continues until

are covered. In
studied
5.
this
system,
all
the topics
sequence
the
are
synthesis
topics
of
vital.
is
CONVERGENCE TO ONE SOLUTION VERSUS GENERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
Although alternatives
are generated in the first of these, they are
LY
^^
IMMEDIATE-
judged and either discarded or incorporated into the
developing what
(One
MINIMAL
The approach values spending
solution.
in
r&tr
designer attempts to
responds
to
solution
by
the
time
prove to be inviable alternatives.
and the others discarded.) The
chosen
be
will
will
work
for the solution that
CONVERGES
He
program.
making judgments about
BEST
to
alternatives
that
"as
he goes" rather than by developing them and choosing
The second viewpoint values the use of different
later.
solutions
to
taken
be
help
the
that
insure
solving
in
best
problem
the
by
direction
will
looking at the
SPECTRUM of possibilities. These alternatives also serve

CATALYSTS for developing further concepts and as
as
determining the most viable direction to take.
criteria for
6.
SEGREGATIVE SOLUTION VERSUS INTEGRATIVE

SOLUTION.
The
generated
volves
forms
NOT
relating
to
each
difficult
to
SEPARATING
insofar
as
possible.
sub-
the individually
This
usually
in-
forms to a circulation framework but

other.
UNUSUAL
where
minimizes
solution
segregative
solution compromises by
This
is
especially
advantageous
forms are generated which would be
physically
relate
to
each
other.
It
also
work on parts of
the design independently of other parts. The segregative
approach demands a strong UNITING system or element
for finally assembling the sub-solutions. The integrative
approach attempts to "weave" the form together so
the designer or designers to
allows
that there are as
many
MUTUAL
relationships
between
the parts of the whole as possible (physically, dimensionally,
structurally,
greater degreee of "fit" needed

is
usually
more
Because
mechanically).
COMPROMISE
there
is
between elements there
involved in achieving the
fit.
The
first
approach tends to generate an "assembly of
differences" while the second results
in a
whole" where elements "belong" to each

D.
The
designer's
METHODS
in
more "unified
other.
synthesis are largely depen-
raiK
79
on
dent
VIEW OF DESIGN. The
his
models he
for ordering the design situation are related to the
he uses for ordering
E.
The
may
designer
Even
his
everyday experience.
divide
synthesis
DECOMPOSITION
the
development
smaller
into
FREQUENCY
into
several
stages.
and
design
schematics
of
may be
increments
COMPLEXITY
depending on the
necessary
of the project and the
needed client participation
of
uses
models
in
the syn-
4di47tc^xi^
c::ê4AUpyyKU(t
thesis process.
F.
It
important that contact with the client be maintained
is
ALL
through
stages.
Vital
including the conceptual
stages of synthesis
the communication with the client
is
manner which
can
he
UNDERSTAND.
This
in
help
will
avoid the problem of the client not really knowing what

his design
is
until
it
is
built (with
accompanying
criticism,
dissatisfaction and changes to a constructed building).
G.
To
ing
successfully "take the client along" through the reason-
that
to the
leads
the
physical
designer
solution
architectural
be highly
ORGANIZED
re-
his
quires
that
logical
sequence of decision-making. The discipline of hav-
ing to
COiVIMUNICATE why you do what you do
excellent test of
H. Just as the
in
the
is
an
PROBLEM ORGANIZATION.
RECORD KEEPING
programming can
tions,
in
during the gathering process
facilitate the other
RECORD KEEPING
jllPijiipilliijiiiiiiijjiiiiii
programming opera-
during schematics can help
during design development. Well ordered and documented
schematic
and
development
stages
in
turn
can
aid
in
executing the contract documents. Each stage in the entire

process should
work.
ANTICIPATE and SIMULATE
the following
X~t~
-ill-
80
PROGRAM AND DESIGN EVALUATION
I.
AND CONCEPTS
DEFINITIONS
"An APPRAISAL
A. Evaluation:
of the
VALUE
WORTH
or
of something."
B.
To
evaluate something
ARD
or
SCALE.
to judge
is
it
against
some STAND-
RELATION-
Evaluations always involve a
SHIP between what
COULD
SHOULD
be or
be and what
IS.
+
T
1-
C.
EVALUATION
distinct
is
subjective sense). Analysis
in
that evalua-
(not necessarily
the
in
concerned only with the decom-
is
whole into
position of a
ANALYSIS
from
VALUE JUDGMENT
tion involves a
its
parts.
Evaluation
may
be pre-
ceded by analysis, but analysis doesn't necessarily require

an evaluation. The one
DESCRIPTIVE
is
while the other
is
EVALUATIVE.
D. Evaluation
can
occur
specificity.
We
can
Because
it
at
varying
appraise
of generality
levels
WHOLE
or
or
PARTS.
its
desirable for there to be a close "fit" between
is
the "evaluation profile" and the profile of the thing being

evaluated,
it
seems best
if
INDIVIDUAL judgments
COMPONENT
about specific
are
made
The
aspects of the "whole."
cumulative judgment of the parts IS the judgment of the

whole.
In
the same
way
that a "whole" cannot be designed as such
but results from attention paid to the relationships of comprising
parts,
evaluate the
so also
it
seems meaningless to attempt to
"whole." Even so-called immediate,
over-all,
general positive or negative responses to things are based
SPECIFIC
E.
may
Individual
parts
criteria
evaluation.
in
be judged
The model of "ordering systems"

for understanding the
in
Evaluations are
by totally
process just as
made NOT of the objects

QUALITIES. The same
of properties of elements which
F. Properties
in
design
means
it
helps
DESIGN SYNTHESIS.
selves but of their
the elements
DIFFERENT
serves as a useful
EVALUATION
the understanding of
istic
on
qualities such as visual appeal.
is
of elements
used
is
or things themscalar character-
used for ordering
in evaluation.
and relationships are judged
in
manner which is essentially QUANTITATIVE. The degree

to which the object to be evaluated possesses the desired
-iiiiitr
iiii
r!?fiT
<./i^
1
.
>
JL
Ci^.UÂC'
81
or
quality
VALUE
we
determines the extent to which
qualities
Even though the choice of the quality to be
it.
may be subjective, once

made quantitatively.
used for the evaluation
may
the judgment
be
G. The concept of evaluation
rooted
is
selected,
the model of the
in
We ASSIGN positivity or
on its PERCEIVED affect on
necessity of gratifying self-love.

negativity to experience based
SELF-ESTEEM. We
our own
phenomena only
attend to
when they potentially may be of CONSEQUENCE

way to our self-concept (which may range from
considerations).
psychological
well-being to
SENSITIVELY
attentive
We
some
in
physical
most
are
we have
those things which
to
0M^
h Âi
grown to be most DEPENDENT upon for gratification of

self-love. Once attended to, experience is "evaluated" or
categorized
DAMAGE
II.
terms
in
EVALUATION
we may think
of
or
of "evaluation" as applied
and finished buildings,
designs
final
SUPPORT
relative
its
^ll4/mTiÛK^
PROGRAMMING & DESIGN
IN
A. Although normally
to
of
our self-image.
to
its
role
cieaiot^Cfi'tr^-^tivuî'ntuCt
extends
We are
TENTATIVE COMMITMENTS and judgDESIRED CONSEQUENCES or goals. The
through the entire programming and design process.

continually making
ing
them
against
criteria for
making these "sub-evaluations" are
as those used to
make
the
commitments
as
numerous
(visual, functional,
"-lU/filc^Zc^p^
mechanical, structural, sensory).
B.
Examples of evaluations made

process follow. Evaluation
ESSENTIAL
as
in
at
all
stages of the planning
is
an
aspect of the decision-making process as well
simply the process of making sense (ordering) of ex-
perience.
the client be easy to
work with?
1.
Will
2.
Should you accept the job?

the commission socially significant?
3.
Is
4.
What
tactic
5.
How
best can the information be organized?
What
What
are the
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
would be best
for data gathering?
most important
issues?
value will you assign the various data?
Which alternative concepts should be pursued further?

Which concept is most viable?
How should the working drawings be structured?
Do you want open bidding or bidding by invitation?
Was the building successful?

Was the job successful?
C. Evaluation
that
requires
STANDARD
and
~^^ ~^^^^\^^
there
be
commitment
to
desired
judge
GOAL
against
or
that
a^-4<î^ît**<'^
82
which
D.
may be in terms of "unspol<en"

economy of effort or in terms of criteria
Evaluation
standard.
sucii
criteria
as
EXPRESSED.
are
The evaluation process may occur
GEIMERAL
the very
gramming and
may
decision
design.
or
E.
iiiii/ii-t-'i
development
design
FRAMEWORK
and
how
VALUES
values
his
to
the
issue
of
needs and wants.
the client's
Some
of the evaluations
offer
FEEDBACK
made
in
immediately to decisions and affect the
"en route," while others are made only AFTER

more complex and lengthy decision-making processes have
been completed. (Evaluate the building to determine whether
'''^'"Otij!^
the whole process needs to be recycled.)
Evaluation as a task becomes more difficult
EXPLICITLY
not been
gramming and
arbitrarily
H.
We
in
much
as
is
PRIOR
set
The more
when
goals have
to proceeding with pro-
declarative and specific the
the task of evaluation.
on the
G. Evaluation
criteria
design.
EASIER
goals, the
basis
of
ARBITRARILY
determined
of a problem as design on the basis of
determined
criteria.
can think of the evaluative process as design synthesis
REVERSE. SYNTHESIS
Cwweiti*\y
proceeds from goals to product
while evaluation proceeds from product to goals, in synthesis
we may think
of the problem
in
terms of two major con-
PHILOSOPHY - GOALS - ASSUMPTIONS and

CONSISTENCY OF EXECUTION. Evaluation of a project
cerns:
may
made
be
in
terms of these same two aspects. For
may be VALID as to its goals but

INCONSISTENTLY executed or may be a magnificently
CONSISTENT execution of an INVALID assumption.
example,
I.
project
An evaluation may be based on SUBCONSCIOUS criteria

known by experience or a careful and systematic evaluation
on the
basis of logically constructed criteria generated
CONSCIOUS
J.
f\^,M-
programmer
of the
relate
process
F.
f^--^
of
CONCEPT. CONCEPTS may be judged

GOALS. Problem GOALS may be
the light of the
in
designer
satisfying
smallest
problem
the
evaluated
The
at ANY LEVEL from

PARTICULAR in pro-
be evaluated within the
the broader project

against
to the very
by
thought and recorded verbally and graphically.
Using the same design model as mentioned

tion, the evaluation of the final
in
the Introduc-
product of the design pro-
on the EXTENT to which

CONSEQUENCES. Evaluation of a
generated
cess should be based
it
the desired
design prior
to construction must necessarily be based on past experience

of cause-effect relationships between physical
FORM
and
4*^Ml4ii>
C{iMii^
83
CONSEQUENCES.
resulting
It is
not unreasonable to expect
that
observed consequences or hypothetical consequences
may
be highly positive but not
PROJECTED
or
EXPECTED
beginning of the planning process. This serendipity
at the
may sometimes prompt
of the
re-evaluation
originally
stated goals and desired consequences.
III.
A.
PROGRAM AS AN EVALUATIVE TOOL

EVALUATION
The
ASPECT
developing
by the inclusion of
of completed
buildings
is
of architectural design. This
is
rapidly
evidenced
this specialty into the curricula of
many
architectural graduate schools.
Ovaii/ltMfv^
B.
would seem appropriate
It
unbuilt design) that
(or
INTENTIONS
nowhere
C.
in
the light of the
These intentions are probably
of the architectural program
role
DIRECTION GIVING
that of a
may
it.
stated as in the building program.
Although the principle

is
the evaluation of a building
be judged
it
that formed
CLEARLY
as
in
also serve as a tool for
device in synthesis,
EVALUATING
it
jUfyÂtM.
the final design
solution.
D.
The
FORM
of the program should facilitate
EVALUATIVE
precepts should
and
It
becomes much
building
in
E. In
tool.
when
Critical
be
issues
its
use as an
should be identified
CONCISE and DECLARATIVE.
easier to judge the relative success of a
the program states what
SHOULD HAPPEN
the building.
ideal
its
form, the evaluative situation should involve a
program that
QUENCES
PREDICTS
EFFECTS and CONSE-
desired
and an observation to determine
quences do
in
fact
OCCUR
and
if
if
these conse-
they are indeed DESIR-
ABLE.
F.
IIIIIIIIIII IIII II IUl
The program "sets the tone" for the evaluation. A well

documented systematic program will usually prompt a
THOROUGH and well ORGANIZED evaluation.
G. The use of the program to evaluate the building can serve

as
1.
an
INDIRECT EVALUATION
If
the
program
building,
it
is
of
of the
LITTLE
PROGRAM
help
itself.
evaluating the
in
was probably of LITTLE help
in
the design
of the building.
2.
Critical
issues
which are
BURIED
in
supporting data
present a problem to the evaluator and designer alike.
ifyx^î^
84
3.
When
the evaluation deals with points and issues
COVERED
in
the program, this
program may not have been

4.
H.
The
I.
THOROUGH.
EVALUATING
a design
is
and organization of the evaluation may be
but not limited to the
reorganized
may
or
good one to DESIGN from.
FORMAT
related
NOT
an indication that the
COMPLETE
good program format for
also a
is
FORMAT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
be taken as a suggested improvement
table of contents.
of the program.
for the evaluation

in
the
PROGRAM
iMsa
Due
Returned
2 J-30
,Ce7 3 e
Mi
J984
am
7
'îOV
JA 2 9
T-'T'
78
2 2 '6*
i^pJ3
^^'^^
Returned
'''
if8
S^
Due
WW
'^::''V.''^'-
JflN2 4liW*
1930
.-!-
^CC
Uhl..
T
::|
y|! I|h
/
/
3 12bE QMIM? bb3D
^!
jî
i_l
'T""
iiiiiiwwtfwiwwr
n
,iI
-î
II
ff;
liiiiiiiil
iiiiiiii
--
^-î/fi^f^****
F"T
^Mixi/cmo^
^ -I
z,\r=:
-^
JmuJ'
y^CiO'fice^
nn^< xnuaUU.!
at.
->
j^
'^'
-n
Pi
17^4
i -"rP^
-fiit^t*1n*ni*%o
Ci.n>îMXI^*^'
\
1
'
i
1
,
II
\_<<'
/ /
//
,'
,-,
3|
1
"itiiiliilii i
'
-ff
^..L
if^TîiHtx^p;'
ti'
W IIt H III M
I
r-5
-MHti
mM m
jilji
,-.T..ia .ht,.i&.,.
{'r'' i '>-ij";'-nir'
'
'
~
^~
"^>
.
,^
'
-*MJ-*Q

Introduction To Ar 00 Whit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction To Ar 00 Whit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jawtlff'

1972 by Edward T. White

the United States of America

P.O. Box 4664

NON -TRADITIONAL FACTS

PROGRAMMING -DESIGN MODEL

vary from project to pro-

and from design method to design method,

nevertheless an integral part of the planning of any

building. With the architect involved in projects of greater

greater complexity, the value of the

means of "getting to know the problem" to that of an

instrument which LIMITS and

the planning process.

the past programming amounted to

no direct influence on the

operations of design synthesis,

developing into a syste-

matic, analytical discipline with ever increasing

nent of the design process.

the practitioner as a guide

as a text for introductory

clients with a general introduction to program-

writing and responding to a program, and the

the final design.

are discussed. There

of the field. There are

have not been pursued because of the Introductory nature

and programming which has served to provide the basic

that facilitates the reader's

ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT

concerns which provide a context for discussing

programming and considerations that apply

with accompanying explan-

atory diagrams where appropriate.

occurs at the start of each of

the three major divisions.

The subject matter

organized around the

are complex operations to be performed or a

often proves useful.

information or operations and their relationships and so

for organizing and presenting ideas

OF DESIGN as a process often

The programmer's VIEW

the determination of specific

of the programming document.

RELATIONSHIPS: VIEW OF DESIGN TO

performed and their sequence

are largely a result of the designer's

reasonable to assume that the designer's view of design will

not the programmer, he

often in a position to set the goals of the program and so,

operations and final form.

programming and design

problem statement to solution.

view of design than the designer has, he may have

to solve the problem.

D. In order to insure this consistency, the designer

about design. The

the more able

be to tailor the programming phase to his particular

DEVELOPING A VIEW OF DESIGN