PARAMETRIC MINDSET and DECISION-MAKING

SOCIAL HEURISTICS

The world exists independent of our minds and is not bounded to one individual or

independent behaviour that doesn’t take into account or neglects society as a whole. In a new

ecology of matter, this transpires as an increased interdependency of social processes, a world

where we need to take-in and operate, independently & collectively manifested complex

parameters such as social, political, economic, cultural or environmental aspects. We are no longer

to think of a world detached, isolated, as a quasi-feudal, anachronistic and esoteric place, where the

architectural response to global views and modi-operandi is irrational and anarchical, translated into

loose objects, but rather a more responsible adaptive discourse that reflects architecture’s social

function is needed. Architecture’s core competency has always been that of articulating, in a

responsible way, the complexity of the built environment through material processes. The inherent

material process of architecture result in physical, material objects. The world is made-up of physical

objects that exist outside, and independently of our minds. Under Materialism, all phenomena,

including mental phenomena and consciousness, are wholly due to material agency. The material

interactions in architecture occur between space-users (sentient beings) and the physical objects

(designed objects) they interact with. Materialism is presented by Deleuze & Guattari, in their

Capitalism and Schizophrenia, as an escape from the old XIXth century thought, through concepts

such as self-awareness, lines of flight, deterritorialisation vs. territorialisation, swarming, machines,

assemblages vs. organisms, abstract machines, immanence, networks, bodies, plateaus,

consolidation, territory, limits, signification, structure, fields, order, milieu, environment, connectivity,

emergence, form, frames …1 . The direct link between architecture’s processes and its capacity to

produce affects is enabled by consciousness, it meaning the state of being aware of

and responsive to one’s surroundings, both interior and exterior. The latitude of architecture’s

affects should structure and help individuals and/or collectives navigate with a higher degree of

fluency the built environment. Every society is dependent on its built environment as it encompasses

places and spaces where humans live, work and recreate on a daily basis. Our contemporary global

society is faced with a fast pace development driven mostly by technology and its ability to produce

information and increase connectivity between individuals. This information driven society has been

described as Network-Society, Knowledge-society, Post-Fordist Society, Post-Modern Society,

Post-Industrial Society or Information Society terms coined in order to describe the transformations

that started in the 1970’s until today, transformations which are reshaping the way in which

societies fundamentally work. These theories are based on the presupposition that society in general

is being reshaped under the auspices of information access and the monetarization of information

which in turn produces a new kind of economy and social behaviour. Critiques argue that if

information is much more accessible in the contemporary world, it does not need to be perceived as

a totally different society2; in fact it can be viewed as an evolution. This evolution, built upon existing

societies and cultures, offers an exhaustive array of possibilities. Social actors are being exposed to a

manifold of milieus, both virtual and physical. The changes that occur in society, driven by

deindustrialization and an increase of information based processes, are reflected throughout all

layers of societal-functions as evolutions. Architecture as an autopietic societal-function has the

capacity to be informed and to produce affects that fully integrate contemporary societal needs,

therefor in turn needs to evolve its discourse and practice.

PARADIGM

Architecture in the 21st century is confronted with a PARADIGM SHIFT. This is a need that is

in part generated by a new globalised NETWORK SOCIETY or/and IFORMATITION SOCIETY and on

the other hand, the need for coherence in the architectural discourse itself. A new paradigm is

needed in order to respond to the increasingly more complex demands of our global society. The

call-out to stop generalised garbage-spill architecture has been made across the field, both in

academia and practice, in avant-garde (speculative architecture) or mainstream fashion. There is an

inherent, general feeling for a more qualitative way of materialising our abstract world into the

physical world space. Reaching out from the abstract need of sociology, economy, politics, ecology

or engineering to the material processes that architecture can provide and is sole responsible for its

affects. Architecture gives form to function and orders social communication through its construct.

Architecture’s new paradigm shift is called PARAMETRICISM3 and it is unique in its ability to

negotiate a vast array of information layers and superimpose them seemingly and gradually, in order

to create a flowing longitude of differentiation. It provides a new framework for architectural

processes and defines the discipline as an independent autopoietic4 social-system. This style is

meant to evolve and unify architecture’s global discourse, as a rightful successor to Modernism,

peak the efforts of Post-Modernism and end the crisis of Modernism.

The parametricist paradigm is set to operate under three main agendas: The Organisational

(physical) The Phenomenological (perceptual) and The Semiological Project (communicative). Part of

Parametricism’s aim is to render potentially embedded semantics conscious to architecture’s

practice in order to achieve a higher degree of correlation between form and function and the

various layers of information that can transpire through architecture’s physicality. The Semiological

Project is based on the philosophical concept of semiology given by the linguist F. Saussure and it

aims at improving the navigability of the environment it defines. Saussure exemplifies how anything

acquires meaning through language. Language as a frame for communications: “Words are not mere

vocal labels or communicational adjuncts superimposed upon an already given order of things. They

are collective products of social interaction, essential instruments through which human beings

constitute and articulate their world.” We can articulate architecture’s goal as framing social

communications (e.g.) “the meaning of a word (sign) is its use.” (L. Wittgenstein) => “if a space has

meaning, the meaning of a space is its use.” (P. Schumacher) = space as a frame for communication.

By assuming an abstract translation of words into units or elements that carefully crafted articulate

intricate and coherent structures (main distinction between semiotics and semiology); we can

assume that architecture has the same inherent potential. We often refer to architecture having its

own language and syntax in the same way as linguistics has syntax and semantics. The semantics of

architecture’s materiality is translated into Parametricism trough the Semiological Project, by

framing communications into architectural elements. Informed architecture addresses the

importance of navigating space and orienting one’s self with confidence and ease in order to

establish new connections and have meaningful experiences. The users of space are sentient, social

beings not mere bodies funnelled through an amorphous physical construct. In order to navigate, we

need to understand, first of all, what is going on in a given environment (function type); who to

expect in a certain part of a territory (social type); where we are in respect to others and possible

alternatives of the building’s available usability (location type). Consistent designs-heuristics help

improve and cohere the built environment; in Parametricism there are both Formal and Functional

Heuristics defined with negative and positive values that articulate meaningfully the formal,

functional and social criteria. These heuristics are the drivers for articulating and informing the

various parametric models as solution sates in accordance to their problem state.

Formal negative heuristics:

avoid straight lines, avoid right angles, avoid corners, avoid rigid geometric primitives like squares,

triangles and circles, avoid simple repetition of elements, avoid juxtaposition of unrelated elements

or systems, and avoid familiar typologies

Formal positive heuristics:

hybridize, morph, deterritorialize, deform, iterate, use splines, nurbs, generative components, script

rather than model, consider all forms to be parametrically malleable, differentiate gradually (at

variant rates), inflect and correlate systematically

Functional negative heuristics:

avoid thinking in terms of essences, avoid stereotypes and strict typologies, and avoid designating

functions to strict and separated and discrete zones

Functional positive heuristics:

think in terms of gradient fields of activity, about variable social scenarios calibrated by various event

parameters, think in terms of actor-artefact networks7

DECISION-MAKING

I would like to address the issue of DECISION-MAKING and how we are bound to make

decisions, both in how we elaborate a parametric model and speculate on how we perceive physical

space and its affects. Decision-making as a cognitive process is defined in psychology as the capacity

to select a belief or a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Decision-making has

psychological, cognitive and normative research perspectives. The decision-making process is

regarded as a continuous process integrated in the interaction with the environment.

In economics, Herbert Simon describes the capacity of individuals for decision-making to be

bounded. Simon defines this concept as Bounded Rationality, meaning that decision makers can

only make satisficing5, even if they intend to make rational choices and maximize the utility through

optimization. Bounded Rationality is a concept that is based on three main criteria or constraints:

under any circumstance, (1) there is only a limited amount of information that is available over

possibilities and their consequences; (2) the human mind has only a limited capacity of evaluate and

process the information available; (3) there being only a limited amount of time to make decisions.

This concept can easily be abstracted to all decision-making processes, as it’s a general concept that

refers to the limitations that decision-makers have to manage. These bounds on rationality make the

process of decision-making rely on rules of thumb or habit. Habit was described as following in the

American Journal of Psychology (1903): "A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less

fixed way of thinking, willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental

experience."

The link between architecture and the decision-making process is established in the

environment that has to be constantly navigated by all individuals that participate to societal

functions. The milieus that individuals interact in are mainly governed by the physical, material build-

up of architecture’s processes. By this we can assume that architecture is directly and constantly

influencing the majority of the decision-making processes of all individuals with regards to

ubiquitous spatial navigations. In a constantly evolving social environment, where interaction and

the exchange of information is key to its functionality and evolution, architecture’s core competency

to articulate and frame social communication is empowered through The Semiological Project. This

allows a faster decision-making process of its social actors. When we navigate space, we are

subconsciously learning how to orient ourselves. We create rules-of-thumb based on simple

dichotomies that make distinctions possible: high & low, inside & outside, light & dark, opened &

closed, solid & transparent etc., we then transform them into positive or negative environmental

incentives. In the built environment, these incentives transpire through architectural elements; they

will help us navigate space as compasses for orientation, acquiring meaning through their use.

THE PARAMETRIC MODEL

“The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate

feedback within reasonable time.”6 Time in architecture is perceived through the movement of the

user in space and the visual interactions with its proximity. In order for the users to stay informed,

the system should provide a clear legibility of its components and their respective meaning

throughout the territory it defines. The variation and gradient alteration of the elements throughout

the system keeps a user aware of its own movement and relative position to the system’s parts,

maintaining in the same time consistency and balance of its build form.

In order for a system to be legible and for it to have the capacity to inform users on how

they should relate to it and its parts, it needs to articulate the different functionalities it may have

with identifiable elements with known operations. The construct has to be able to send a message to

its user and let the user know what it’s talking about. In less abstract terms, one should be able to

identify architectural elements as signifiers, relative to their visibility, position, massing, degree of

accessibility, materiality, etc. which in turn can all signify a specific function, social affiliation or area

of the territory.

A build-up needs to have multiple possibilities to be navigated, it needs to be opened and

flexible, it needs a multiplicity of vistas and a complex circulatory system that can provide a

multiplicity of choice. The users should be able to navigate the built environment manifold, avoiding

dead-ends. If a user needs to change track in its movement, the possibility for fast tracks and slow

tracks needs to be introduced for the different categories of users involved in the usage of a

territory. The faster ways of communication or circulation are going to mostly be used by the

informed experienced users, while the slower more indirect paths will mostly be used by the

unexperienced users who will always stay in a field that offers them maximum visibility and a high

degree of cognition opportunity. The functionality of the system needs to be informed by the formal

aspect of its architecture. Form should give meaning to function, in a new definition of the binomial

correlation.

A consistency in the design language and operations is preferred in order to reduce the risk

of biases. Users should not have to wonder if the same type of operation or articulation of

architectural elements has different semantics, if found in different areas of a territory. A set of rules

and conventions can be established for differentiating through geometrical operations, distinct

spatial and social hierarchies. If there is a consistency throughout the territory with regards to rules

of connectivity and articulation of the different similar parts, the user will gain confidence and

therefore less bias. One can argue for consistency and not sameness, consistency as harmony or

compatibility as opposed to endless repetition or modularity. When there is a consistent design

language throughout the built environment the choices become clearer and easier to make for any

of its users.

“The problem space defines the set of problem states among which the solution states must

be found”7. Given the vast array of possibilities that can be generated through contemporary design

specific computation methods, a manifold of problem states can be found. In fact, to be able to

select the best problem state that suits our solution state, we would have to go through and test or

examine a greater amount of data then the time available to our problem solving timeframe. We can

aim for the best result by methods of optimizations, or we can aim for the satisfactory solution,

which would give a suitable problem state for a goal state to be reached. This problematic is tied

back to Simon’s definition of satisficing and the limitations of optimization under constraints.

A solution state is reached by generating and testing different problem states. These

problem states are made up by computational models which will allow the study and testing of

complex systems and their behaviour through computer simulations. The problem states include all

available information existing at any given instance, formulated via symbolic systems corresponding

to the conceptual, modelling and evaluation systems in three states: the initial state, the

intermediate state and the goal state (P. Schumacher). The problem space is tested against the three

main agendas: the organizational, the phenomenological and the semiological dimensions of the

project. In order to produce architectural order, these dimensions set-up two binary distinctions: the

organization and the articulation of the architectural processes. The order proposed by

Parametricism is advanced through design processes such as Parametric Inter-Articulation,

Parametric Accentuation, Parametric Figuration, Parametric Semiology, Parametric Responsiveness,

Parametric Ecology and Deep Relationality. The goal state of the discourse is to achieve a deep

relationality in the totality of the built environment.

“All grids are fields, but not all fields are grids.”8 The problematic of the field, has been take

on by architectural discourse, through Frey Otto or Stan Allen and sets the ground for Parametricism

to demarcate itself from the rigidity of Modernism. Frei Otto makes a remarkable study of patterns

of human organisations inspired by nature in vernacular formations9 and Allen makes abstract

studies of possible field formations or systems, in order to prove a more integrated solution for the

figure-ground problematic of architectural compositions. Allen proposes to rethink the figure in

relation to the field, not as a clearly demarcated and individual object that reads against a stable

(static) field, but rather as an emergent effect of the field itself. Considering these premises we

assume that fields have a higher capacity to integrate parameters found both in the initial state and

in the problem state of a project and have a higher probability of success in reaching a solution/goal

state of the project in a more satisfactory form. Site conditions, functional, social and environmental

layers can be integrated and correlated within such symbolic systems through methods of

differentiation, juxtaposition and variation; establishment and reversals of hierarchies; spatial

positioning with regards to marginality and centrality, levels of importance, inside/outside/on the

border/in between conditions, centre vs. periphery, serviced vs. service areas, proliferations through

repetition and iterations. The parametric malleability, complexity and manifestations of fields results

out of their inherent fractal systems and their potential adaptation of different subsystems such as

L-systems, Mandelbrot systems, dynamic systems such as fluid dynamics or particle systems,

diffusion limited aggregation (DLA) systems, self-organised systems such as: voronoi, cellular

structures, spontaneous magnetizations, crystallizations; geometrical systems: triangulation,

recursive self-referenced subdivision, geo-webs; behavioural systems: swarm formations or cellular

automata; path-optimizations (Frey Otto) urban networks (Hiller).

The decision-making process that ultimately reaches the satisficing aspiration level starts at

the level of generate-and-test methods of the process. Supposing the task is to articulate a

programmatic requirement such as an urban block with three main layers of social functions that

need to be integrated onto an existing context and environment. We can generate several symbolic

systems at the conceptual level that rely on either of the aforementioned systems. By methods of

analysis we can identify the given environment’ and context’s characteristics and extract the main

abstract and physical constituents of the initial state. By means of research we could find the best

suitable or satisfactory symbolic systems that can be applied on site, taking into consideration the

formal, functional and social criteria of the problem space and test the possible reciprocal relations

that can be established between the problem-space over the solution-space. These reciprocal

relations can be established by means of inquire into if-then prepositions. We can reduce the

number of symbolic systems engaged by using methods of generate-and-test and by local

optimizations. A parametric model that is engaged in the earliest stages of the process, such as

Galapagos (Grasshopper) or self-organising systems, based on reciprocal relations pre-coded and

embedded in their genetic algorithms (CODE), can yield to rapid reductions of variables and biases in

the system and a faster genotype selection based on satisfactory phenotypes. The optimized system

that satisfies our goals will have the ability to test against seemingly integrating the formal,

functional, social and environmental criteria of the problem space. The optimum reached would be

then be subjected to optimization processes by local manipulations of the field in order to achieve a

higher degree of correlation. A deep-relationality is achieved once all components of the system are

interrelated and correlated. Zooming in and zooming out (redundantly applying a system to various

scales), can be one method of further detailing the model, depending on the strategies implied. The

correlations between field, massing and subsystems of the building blocks are possible by applying a

systematic layering of the symbolic systems engaged in the problem space, achieving a gradient

transition and systematic differentiation in topology and scale. By the use of manifold symbolic

systems and by means of emergence, new, unexpected solution states can be found and tested

against the goal parameters that are implied in the problem space.

“Whether a designed […] space will work well as effective orientation space, and whether it will

facilitate the envisaged encounters and informal communication events, is not easy to ascertain.

Agent simulations, scenario planning and people animation might come close. The key point here is

that each planning space is only as good as its predictive power over the next execution space and

ultimately over the life-process of the building as frame for social communication. On the other hand,

the design process in each problem/planning space is only as good as the simplification of the

problem its abstractions achieve. These two criteria have contrary implications and need to be

balanced.”10

1. Deleuze, Gill & Guattari, Felix (1980) Mille Plateaux, volume 2 Capitalisme et Schizophrenic,

Les Editions de Minuit, Paris.

2. Webster, Frank (2002) The Information Society Revisited. In: Lievrouw, Leah A./Livingstone,

Sonia (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of New Media. London: Sage. pp. 259.

3. Schumacher, Patrik (2008) Parametricism as Style – Parametricism Manifesto, London;

presented and discussed at the Dark Side Club, 11th Architecture Biennale, Venice 2008.

4. Luhman, Niklas

5. Simon, A. Herbert (April 1984). Models Of Bounded Rationality And

Other Topics In Economics. The MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262690867

6. Schumacher, Patrik (2012), The Autopoiesis of Architecture – A New Agenda For

Architecture, ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London, pp. 298, ISBN 978-0-470-66616-6

7. Nielsen, Jakob (1994). Usability Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 115–

148. ISBN 0-12-518406-9.

8. Alle, Stan (1999) Points + Lines, New York, ISBN 1-56898-155-4

9. Otto, Frei (2009) Occupying and Connecting, ed. Axel Menges ISBN 978-3-932565-11-3

10. Schumacher, Patrik (2012), The Autopoiesis of Architecture – A New Agenda For

Architecture, ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London, pp. 298, ISBN 978-0-470-66616-6

THE SEMIOLOGICAL PROJECT Nicola Beck | Bogdan Zaha | Daniel Zakharyan – Studio Hadid Vienna SoSe 2011

END ||| BOGDAN ZAHA ||| LONDON 2015|||