Designing sustainability

RSDC

The Research School for Design and Computation (RSDC) was founded in 1996 with a congress on computation.

Af ter exactly one year a second congress was held on 'Designing Sustainability'.

The different approaches to the subject and the necessity of 'designing sustainability' were discussed during the congress and in this blication.

DES1GN1NG SUSTA1NAB1L1TY

199 8

Bibliotheek TU Delft

1111111111111111111111111111111111

C

0003815586

2444

719

.

1

I

/SBN: 90-407-1770-2

De/ft University Press, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Nether/ands. Te/ephone: (DIS) 278 32 S4, fax: (DIS) 278 1661.

All Rights Reserved C 1998 Delft University Pre ss.

No part of the materio' protected by this copyright natief may be reproduced or utilized in any farm or by any f7Jeans, electronic or mechanica!, including photocopying, recording or by any informotion storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands.

CONGRESS OF THE RSDC

,

RESEARCH

SCHOOL

OF

DESIGN

AND

COMPUTATION

DELFT, THE NETHERLANDS, 1 OCTOTlRE 1997

A more sustainable way of life would increase the viability of man's existence on earth. Being humans interested in the quality of life we need to be concerned with the way homo sapiens affects the equilibrium essential for life.

This book 'designing sustainability' is concerned with the way designers can contribute to a sustainable future. This book also deals with the different ways of thinking about

sustainabi lity.

There are two extreme approaches to sustainability: one pleas for saving, one counts blindly on technological solutions. The extremes compete, often missing the point that a solution could be found in saving and (high) technology combined.

At the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Technology in Delft the Research School for Design and Computation (R.5.D.C.) was founded on October first in 1996. It was started in 1996 with a conference on the role of computers in design. In 1998, there will be a conference on the methodology of design.

The present book gives an account of the 1997 conference, on designing sustainability. The introduction is given by prof. Frieling, the chairman of R.S.D.C.

Prof. de Jong writes about designing sustainability with great confidence in technological solutions.

Prof. Brouwer discusses the possibilities of building with reusable components, combining, saving and technology.

Prof. Röling is puzzled by the complete absence of full-scale experiment in sustainable building and argues that this might be the cause of the archaic state of the building industry.

Ir. Ravesloot uses the machine metaphor to elucidate our way of looking at technology. Prof. Margareth Kennedy (Hannover) shows how our economy, and the way money directs men, hampers sustainability.

Wouter van Dieren ('Club of Rome') concludes the conference questioning how engineers can contribute to sustainability.

In the six essays the different approaches to regaining equilibrium and balance are discussed. If becomes clear that (high) technology should be developed, but that it has to be accompanied by saving. Research into both needs to be done, to design a livable future.

Wiek Röling, Delft, 15-03-'98

CON F ERE NeE' DES 1 G N 1 N G SUS TAl N AB 1 L

1 TY'

DESIGNING SIJSTAINAll1LITY - OPENING WORD Prof. ir. Dirk H. Frieling,

Chairman RSCD

SIGNING AND MAKING; CREATIVlTY AND ROIJTINE Prof. ir. Jan Brouwer,

elft Technica/ University

2.1 Environmental themes 2.2 Desig n process 2.3 Energy-saving measures 2.4 Design model

2.5 Study of aspects

2.6 Development of the daylight aspect 2.7 Conclusion

IJSTAINING DESIGN Prof. dr. ir. Taeke M. de Jong,

De/ft Technica/ University

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking 3.3 Possible futures

3.4 Causal and conditional thinking 3.5 Design making a difference

3.6 Environment, the set of conditions for life 3.7 The concept of difference

3.8 The importance of diversity in ecology: tolerance and possibility 3.9 Diversity and quality

3.10 Conclusion Notes 9 13 13 14 17 17 19 23 24 27

27

28

29

30 31 32 34 36 37 39 41

:re

E EXPERIMENT OF SUSTAINABlllTY Prof. ir. Wiek Röling,

Delft Technical University

ACH1NE-L1KE ARCHITECTURE r. drs. Christoph M. Ravesloot,

Delft Technical University

STAINABLE ARCHITECTURE BASED ON A SUSTAINABLE ONEY SYSTEM

rof. dr. Margrit Kennedy,

6.1 The monetary problem 6.2 The sol ution

6.3 Practical possibilities today 6.4 Prospective resu lts

References

NEW ERA OF BRUNEi.

THE TECHNOLOGICAL HUMAN CONDIT10N AFTER 2001 Wouter van Dieren,

IMSA Amsterdam Literature 45 53 61 61 67 67 68

70

73 83

DES1GN1NG SUSTA1NAB1L1TY

Opening Speech

ladies and gentlemen,

last year, on the first of October, we celebrated the birth of the Research School of Design and Computation. To this end we organized a conferen-ce on the future of design and design research. We invited speakers from abroad and from the Netherlands, but refrained from presenting research done by members of the new school themselves. The idea behind this

modesty, this humbie start of a new school, was that we had just begun, that we had a lot to learn and that we were eager to learn from people

with more experience in this particular field of research than we could offer.

Today, on the first birthday of our School of Design Research, we feit we could not go on standing by watching others do the work. So today's conference on designing sustainability

offers lectures by several members of our school. Of course, we did not want to make this a completely internal affair, for outside influences test the vitality of any organization. So I

am very glad to welcome Professor Margrit Kennedy, from Hannover University, and Wouter van Dieren, Director of IMSA, the Institute of Environment and System Analysis, as speakers

from outside the Faculty. We feel honored by your presence and we look forward to your critica I contributions to today's subject. We hope and expect th at today's lectures and

dis-cussions will deepen our understanding of the methods to design sustainability and by doing

so create conditions to attain a sustainable man-made environment.

In a way, the conference is organized around Christoph Ravesloot's thesis who this afternoon

will show us a radical pa th to real reform. Again, as a research school, modesty becomes us. Ravesloot was already finishing his research before we even started our school. However, we

think that research done by Ph. D. students of a research school should be part and parcel of

10

An anniversary is a traditional moment to look back and to look forward. I will not do so, but for one issue that is subject of ongoing debate within the school, a subject th at I expect also to be a centra I theme of discussion in today's meeting. The issue is whether design can be a method of research which we may call scientific.

Last year, in my opening speech, I said that the design research the school was going to con-centrate on was of two kinds.

One was design research, or research ex post, analyzing existing designs as a means to fin-ding out the rules of the game. This is the traditional scientific approach: looking at the phenomena, you try to find out the rules that cause them.

The other method was designing research, or research ex ante, experimenting with new rules as a means to finding out the possible phenomena they may generate.

The ongoing debate pivots around the question as to whether this second method, the method of design, the method of creating new phenomena, can be called science. Or is design per se art or - even worse - politics? The words of Marx th at the time has come not to analyze the world but to change it, are an ominous warning that indeed design may have more to do with politics than with science. At the same time, it is a serious warning also that traditional boundaries between science and politics may change. In a school of archi-tecture as this faculty is, we feel completely at home with this type of discussion; we are used to the question should building be considered a science or an art. Renaming the Delft Institute of Technical Education as the Technical University can be seen as proof that politi-cally at least, generating new phenomena is considered as science. But then, this also can be seen as proof of political superficiality.

One can define science as finding out the rules according to which a system under similar circumstances will always show similar transformations.

One could then define art as finding out the rules according to which a system under similar circumstances will always generate new transformations.

Reflecting on these two definitions one gets a feeling th at maybe we are speaking here of two different kinds of systems. In living systems, time is something that goes by and never comes again. Similar circumstances then are impossible to achieve. If these living systems embody human beings, creating similar circumstances, even if possible, would not be worth-while, because as long as we hold true th at every human being is unique and that every human being is free to take decisions, we may feel quite sure that under similar circumstan-ces they can and of ten will take different decisions. And by doing so they will generate new transformations of the system they are part of.

Now you may wonder what is the practical purpose of these theoretica I arguments. The general answer, of course, is th at if science is anything at all, it is a way to clarify the mind by being as precise as we are able to.

To answer the question more precisely then, what we see happening in architectural design is a development we also see in many other types of human activity, that is ongoing

com-plexity as a result of the growth in quantity of human society, growth of awareness of inter -relationships between all aspects of life and, combining both developments, growth of spe-cialization in coping with these interrelations and interactions.

Now to one single person, one member of this enlarged society, specialization may seem a loss. This feeling may especially come to those who have no means of interaction with other specialists. In a very direct way they then feel at aloss.

In the building trade, design is increasingly becoming a specialization. If this proposition is

right, then design research has two tasks to perform. One is to reach a higher level of design competence by carrying out research in design methods and in design values. The other is to reach a higher level of design interaction by carrying out research in design conditions, that

is in concurrent design.

Today's subject of discussion is designing sustainability. I think I may safely assume that we all expect and hope to improve our level of design competence today, and by coming together and meeting today we also improve the design conditions required to intensify interaction in search of a sustainable human society.

DES1GN1NG AND MAK1NG

CREAT1V1TY AND ROUTlNE

Work is due to start shortlyon the new office premises of the Rijnland Regional Water Authority in leiden, which is intended to accommodate a workforce of more than 300 people. The present office is located in the historic centre of leiden while the new site is in an existing chicane in the PIesmanlaan; the access road from the A44 to the centre of leiden.

The new building will take up an area in excess of 11,000 m2 and will be 9 storeys high. The layout comprises two wings with a central block in between, which is to accommodate all kinds of public functions such as a reception area, library, museum, conferencing facilities etc. Technical areas have also been accommodated in th is central part. The basement has space for storage, parking and technical facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL THEMES

The project has been granted Model Status by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. The programme is an initiative of the SEV (Steering Committee for

Experiments in Housing) and Novem (Netherlands Development Corporation for Energy and

Environment) in the field of sustainable, low-energy, non-residential buildings. Specific attention is devoted to energy optimisation, waste water reuse systems, optimising the indoor climate and building methods.

The building's estimated energy performance is 37% which is better than the required

per-formance. Moreover, an experiment with daylight is to be implemented whose success could achieve an extra reduction of 20%. Daylight distribution and the control of artificial lighting also contribute to energy performance. Long-term energy storage in the soil and a heat pump are to be combined with low temperature systems (radiant ceilings).

A waste water reuse system is to be insta lied ; four-litre flushing systems are being conside-red. A tank is to be built for water storage.

Individual temperature control is to be insta lied indoors; lighting and sunblinds will also be individually controlled.

14

Radiant ceilings and climate windows are equally important items in an energy regime. The choice of material and methods will take sustainable aspects into account. Mono-mate-rial components play a role as weil as mateMono-mate-rial savings.

Wooden window frames and internal cavity walls are included in the design, also dismounta-bie ceramic facade elements, anhydride floors cast in-situ and non-adhesive floor coverings.

DESIGN PROCESS

It is an oversimplification to subdivide design into conceptual and material design. But for these purposes I shall make the distinction. I shall revert later to the design method. I would like to introduce a number of concepts in connection with material design:

• substance • method • process • relationship

To put it in other terms one might say: material, treatment, processing and encounter. The concepts relate to a great many aspects.

SUBSTANCE materials knowledge product knowledge ranges environmental technology recycling etc. METHOD tools production technology production means protection maintenance industrial production etc. logistics prefabricatiori detailing dimensioning building systems equipment adjusting mounting connecting ergonomics etc. RElAT10NSH1P solution principles cohesion space-materia I size, place and characteristic building node

coordination etc.

The process through which the architect goes is not always consistent with the overall design process as there are a number of parallel processes under way, for instance, the pro-cess through which the principal goes, while the impact of regulations and other propro-cesses initiated by the authorities are also of great significance.

In the past, the design route for buildings was often a chronological process. First of all there was the architectural design, then the engineering construction design frequently fol-lowed by the plan for the technical installations.

fig. 1

3D-drawing of the Rijnland Regionol Water Authority in Leiden

1 6

A

: MAN \GEMENI

I

eLII N 1

I I-\rTORS •

THE PROJECT ADVISERS REGULATION I

FACTORS :

,

ADVISERS • ENERGY

• ARCHITECT

CON TROL OF

• BUDGET • ZONING PLAN

• TIME • 'BOUW8ESLU1T'

• lNFORMATlON

• QUALlTY

fig. 2 I.ft page:

Designmodel in 4 phases: A: initiative

Because of the complexity of building technology and the higher standards of performance

another system is now required. Concurrent Engineering has meanwhile become an accepted system in which simultaneity has replaced chronology.

ENERGY-SAVING MEASURES

In leiden the environmental theme is to be reflected in the following energy-saving meas-ures:

• Long-term energy storage with integrated heat pump; • Heat exchangers;

• High frequency lighting;

• Application of radiant ceilings and climate walls/mechanically ventilated cavity facade; • District heating;

• Optimisation of daylight distribution; • Light control system;

• Energy-saving ventilators; • Frequency control of lift motors.

This list makes it clear that the impact of the installations is of great significance.

The art is to integrate the constructional aspects and the installations to create the required

synergy.

DESIGN MODEL

I mentioned earl ier that the greater complexity of the design process requires a more syste-matic approach. As part of the theme 'Designing Sustainability' I should like to demonstrate

a possible model in which energy issues are addressed more fundamentally as part of the design process.

It is important for the designers/architects involved to recognise the impact of their design decisions on energy right from the start of the building process. It is also important to know what the design parameters are and to provide these with a weighting factor 50 that one

can see at any given moment what effects are to be achieved with a particular measure. The preparatory phase (phase Al is an important one because it is at this stage that the design strategy and the energy strategy are decided on.

Phase A is in principle a feasibility study. The aim of the project is defined and the

verifica-tion criteria are agreed. The study of individual aspects is part of each phase. In each phase attention focuses on non-material subjects such as location, financial profile, functional

profile and typological profile.

In phase B the project is defined. Project strategy can also be defined during this ph ase. It

1 B : MANAGEMENT • CLIENT I

I

I FAcrORS

i

B

THE PROJECT I AUV1SfRS REGULATlON

i

FACTORS : I ADVISERS • ENERGY • ARCHITECT • ZONING PLAN • 'BOUWBESLUIT' l iS 1 Ol RI r,lllHT r..l1 N 1\ "11 f ,\ N A I ) SI "i CONTROL OF • BUDGET • TIME • lNfORMATION • QUAllTY • ORGANIZATION _11.( I1 , \\1 -,I \ 1 \1 • ( I I -11 I 1 I L -1 ' 111) 111'-'1 11111' ., I • I \ l i l . -[ \ , 1 1 ' ) I I1 \ ' 1 1 , I I I I -rl \I II! 1.11 \ '1111\ kl -11 \1 11-. '11 1111 ... 111

fig. 3 10ft page:

Designmodel in 4 phases: B: project definition

with regard to energy consumption to promote the integration of all the disciplines. For example, the aim of the project is to establish thermal comfort or light comfort, hence the use of artificial lighting and daylight optimisation come up for discussion. Design crite-ria are set for the functional use of the spa ces, the site and the building on the site, etc. This phase also involves deciding on the comfort criteria with reference to the building's use. A study of individual aspects is carried out at each phase. For example, in phase B the follo-wing aspects are involved:

STUDY OF ASPECTS

Investigate all aspects with regard to the climate to be created (temperature, wind direction, precipitation), location of the terrain (energy infrastructure, terrain features, geographical location, amount of sunlight, etc.) and the constructional and functional specifica ti ons (type of office, functional criteria). Once these aspects have been studied, feedback to the design criteria is required while additions

and/or

adjustments have to be made.

Analyse local parameters for cooling/air conditioning and heating. What advantages of the location can be used in the design? Analyse local parameters with regard to light. Determine the quantity of light normally present at the site and the advantages and disadvantages which occur with changes in the weather. Analyse the local parameters with regard to acoustics. What advantages and disadvantages may occur for the building? Determine the sources of water collection and waste treatment in the vicinity. What problems could arise ? Determine the building's basic requirements with regard to a sewer system, water consump-tion and waste water.

Phase C constitutes the provisional design phase after which the energy strategy is again determined. The following lists serve as an example of aspects studied at this phase.

With reference to heat:

• Opt for cool spots for summer functions • Use the wind to cool

• Use mass to cool heat (building mass, soil, water)

• Place the buildings in such a way that they offer each other shadow and shadow for the exterior areas

• Use arcades in the atria for shadow and radiant cooling at night • Orient the buildings according to the wind flows

• Integrate buildings into masses

• Separate openings for ventilation and openings to provide light and a view • Use water for evaporation cooling

20

c

: M/\NAGHvHN r

i

CllEN 1

I 1 AC I () f( S

i

rllE PROJECT AD\'ISEIIS REGUlIlTION :

I FAcrORS : I ARCHITECT CONTROL OF • BUDGET ADVISERS • TIME • ENERGY • BUILDING PHYSICS • lNFORMAT10N • lNSTAllATlONS

• QUALITY _{• STRUCTURAL ENGINEER}

• ORGAN1ZATlON • CONTRACTOR

SllIll) [)I ASPEl IS

• ZONING PLAN

• 'BOUWBESLUIT'

CONTROL OF • FIRE DEMANOS

• BUDGET

• TI M E

• lNFORMAT10N

• QUALITY

fig. 4 'eft page:

Designmodel in 4 phases:

C: provisional design

• Make winter areas warmer by designing sun traps • Use vegetation and earth wa 115 to block the winter winds

• If possible use windows for picking up solar heat other than the windows used to • provide a view and daylight distribution

• Use the building mass for attenuating temperature differences • Cluster buildings into compact building masses

• Minimise the north-oriented facade and glass openings

• Has the programme got a specific element which has to be taken into account? • Determine what future users regard as a pleasant climate

• Determine the thermal zones in the building, the temperature balance point, transmission and· infiltration

With reference to light: • See to it that there is an unscreened sky

• Reflect light to the building by means of adjacent buildings and land surfaces • Control glare and sunlight by incorporating external shadow factors such as trees • Locate work stations th at require daylight along the building's facade

• Locate small areas in such a way that they can take light or use light from the larger areas

• Surround highly lit spaces by smaller, lower spa ces

• Lead light deeper into the building with the aid of light shelves

• Ensure th at spaces th at are laterally lit are no deeper than twice the height of the front

wall

• Locate small windows high up or out of view in clear sky situations • Avoid direct sunlight through skylights at critica I sites

• Ensure that light penetrates from north to south to prevent glare and overheating • See to a well-balanced luminance by using lighting from several sides of the spa ces • Draw up a glazing strategy for the site and the climate

• Analyse activities that are going to be carried out in the building and determine the required lighting level (size of the openings)

• The demand for clarity and the desired level of light will determine to what degree locations are open to the sky.

• Arrange the buildings and the land surfaces in such a way that light is optimally • reflected and absorbed

• Place light coloured walls to the north in north-facing rooms 50 th at optimum reflection is achieved

• Control glare and heat gains by using thermal zones (atria, conservatories, inner courtyards etc.)

22

D

: MANAGEMENT

i

CliENT

I FACTORS

i

TUE PROJECT ADVISERS REGUlATION

i

I FACTORS

i

I ARCHITECT • EXPERT IN ENERGY • BUILDING PHYSICIST • lNSTALLAT10N ADVISER • $TRUCTURAL ENGINEER • CONTRACTOR CONTROl OF • BUDGET • TIM E REGUlATION • INFORMATION • ZQN1NG PLAN • FIRE SAFETY • QUALITY • 'EPN' • ORGAN1ZAT10N • SAFETY

fig. 5 left page:

Designmodel in 4 phases: 0: final design

• Always ensure a basic light level and provide additional light where necessary using artificial lighting

• lead light deep into the building

• Bring work stations to the daylight and not the other way around

• Ensure that daylight is distributed by the facade and roof 50 that there is sufficient light where needed

• Scale the window measurements to the desired minimum light level

• Keep openings for heat gains and ventilation

• Use varied landscape surfaces for their different reflection coefficients • Avoid extremely large daylight blockers

• Use lateral lighting for work stations to minimise reflection • Use daylight for a uniform basic lighting

In this way the design criteria become increasingly distinct while the aspects' study is geared more and more to problem-solving. Ultimately, the idea is to integrate all these facets into a whole to produce a final design.

During the preparatory phases the various elements of the system carry equal weight.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DAYLlGHT ASPECT

Architecture and light are irrevocably bound together. Daylight has been rather neglected in the last decades and this is certainly the case in office buildings. We have meanwhile reali-sed that daylight has a positive impact on people's well-being. The natural fluctuations in daylight, which cannot be achieved with artificial lighting, and the enormous variations and wave lengths have a positive impact on the human nervous system.

The use of daylight is, of course, also beneficial for energy consumption. And, as far as day-light was concerned in the leiden project, the aim was to ensure that 70% of office time would not require artificial lighting. The aspects' studies and energy strategies played a major role in the design of the facade, which was completed in four stages. The ultimate facade comprises a view window (the lower part) and a daylight window (the upper part).

The window takes the form of a climate/mechanically-ventilated cavity window in which the cavity plays a major role. Blinds have been incorporated in the cavity which in the light win-dow direct daylight into the spa ce and reflect warmth. The blinds in the view windows are perforated to give the windowamore diffuse character and can be operated automatically and by hand. They ensure th at the level of lighting in the room is more even and they allow the light to penetrate deeper into the spa ce. This means that the reflection factor of the ceiling elements also needs adjusting.

The addition of artificial lighting is of great significance. In leiden the artificial lighting is a kind of imitation daylight. The lights are positioned on the walls and the colour temperature

SUSTA1N1NG DES1GN

lNTRODUCTlON

We have found a systematic way to examine hidden presuppositions; in science and technology which, for the time being, we are calling 'condi-tiono/ ono/ysis'. We are able to use it in ecology, design, education and in making computer program mes. It has more to do with possibilities than with probabilities or necessities' and gives some insight into the bounda-ries of imagination.

It is based on the simple comparison' of two concepts A and B, putting the question 'could you imagine A without B?' and the reverse question. For the time being, we are only looking at the pairs of concepts th at make possible a different answer to both questions.

As soon as we can imagine A without B, but B not without A, we call A a (semantic) condi-tion for B. As soon as we find a concept C that we cannot imagine without B, although we can imagine B without C, we have semantically a 'conditiona/ range' of concepts ABC from which the hypothesis emerges th at we cannot imagine C without A, although we can imagi-ne A without C. Though introspective, these comparisons turn out to give consensus based on possible falsification'.

Let us, forinstance, conditionally compare the ecological concepts Abiotic, Biotic and Cu/tura/ phenomena (A, Band Cl. I cannot imagine cultural phenomena without biotic (because culture presupposes at any time living people and functioning brains), but biotic phenomena without cultural I can (for instance plants'). I cannot imagine biotic phenomena without abiotic phenomena, but abiotic phenomena without biotic I can (for instanee, light, air, water, soil). 50 the hypotheses to be controlled are: 'I cannot imagine cultural pheno-mena without abiotic phenopheno-mena, but abiotic phenopheno-mena without cultural I can'. If we con-firm these hypotheses we can draw a conditional scheme like th is':

28

It seems to be a Venn diagram from set-theory. But it is not because set-theory presupposes more than the concept of presupposition itself. It presupposes, for example, the concept of 'element' and any equality of the elements (according to the criterion of the set)'.

Asemantic Venn diagram

does not vet need these and perhaps other presuppositions. The drawn borders are no inward formulated borders of sets and elements, but outward bounda-ries of eventually vague and continuous conception.

The ABC model represents phenomena outside culture, but is itself a concept and thus culture.

This raises the philosophical question whether there is any difference between

'preconcep-tion' (presupposition, assumptionJ and

'

precondition' (prerequisiteJ at all

. The environmental fig. 1 crisis taught us, however, that there were preconditions for life we did not preconceive The ABC model beforehand. We consider

'environment' in an ecological sense as the set of conditions for

life, known or vet unknown.

2

ANTHROPOCENTRIC AND ECOCENTRIC THINKING

Let us now try to draw two very different ecological presuppositions th at have a direct inf-luence on the way people design a landscape or townscape: 'Man is part of nature' and 'Nature is only a human concept'

(ecocentrism and

anthrapocentrism).

Both suppositions contain a paradox. The anthropocentric way of thinking would imply that physics and biology ('N') cannot find anything new from experimention or observation th at is not already included in the existing set of concepts (C) or its combinations' (idealistic position). 'The boundaries of our world are the boundaries of our language." The ecocentric view, however, would imply that we cannot communicate su eh observations. To take these observations seriously, we have to regard them as a not vet cultural part of the natural world N (materialistic position).

Let us now consider culture (C) as an intermediate between the picture ('N') and the port-rayed in the natural world (N). Wittgenstein supposes th at the picture and the portport-rayed have their 'Iogical form' in common. Formal logic however cannot cope with expressions like exclamations, questions, proposals (Iike designs) and orders: they have no logical form. This is what occupied

Wittgenstein

'

at a later stage. In my opinion, these linguistic expressions are the very solution to the paradox of ecocentric thinking. Ouestions are the definition of an emptiness at the boundaries of knowiedge, while proposals and designs are excursions into the unknown, but nevertheless imaginable and perhaps possible future world.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC ECOCENTRIC

fig. 2

Presuppositions obout the

preconceptions in communication. Suppose we had to explicate all presuppositions of our

re/ation between culture and

communication before we could start with

it. In that

case we would seldom have time to

nature

communicate

lO_•

_Fortunately

_we

_don't

_{have to explicate all these preconceptions every time,}

we simply take them for granted and call them culture. That

is

easy, but

it

also keeps

'self-evident' concepts out of

discussion.

Creativity

starts with disclaiming these apparently

self-evident preconceptions,

science

starts with doubting them

.

fig. 3

The modality of the possible

FUTURES

DES1GN1NG

PREDlCTING

GOVERNING

Art;

is

a ripple on the outside boundary of culture denying conventional and adding

uncon-ventional presuppositions by poièsis". We need art or technique to make

new

concepts

outs-ide

conventional

language.

Science alone does not provide that.

3

POSS1BlE FUTURES

From

the point of view of

inevitable

environmental

devel

opments,

probable ecological,

eco-nomical

and cultural

futures

are gloomy. But are the probable futures the only ones that we

have to take

into

consideration?

Empirical research

is limit

ed

to probable futures

.

Design,

or

o

From a viewpoint of planning not revelant

possible ..

...

Experiments, design propositions possible but not (yet) probable

or not (yet) made collectively desirabie in a political program

...

Problems, problem indicating survey; probable, but not yet desirabie

30

technical research is limited to the broader set of possible ones.

I cannot imagine the probable without the possible but I can imagine the reverse. What is probable must be by definition possible.

Predicting probable futures requires causal thinking on an empirical basis. We cannot predict possible futures as far as they are not probable: we have to design them. They are invisible for probability calculations. They are fundamentally ab-normal, outside the 950f0-area of pro-bability. Designs cannot be calculated or predicted. If 50, they would no longer be designs. Design produces possibilities, conditions, freedom of choice, difference.

Every line a designer draws is a condition for further drawing, but not a cause for the rest of

the design process. In the same way, the performance of the resulting building and the

beha-viour of its inhabitants, is not caused by or even necessarily aimed at by the designer, but

only made possible in a universum of possibilities opened by the design. Every line a compu-ter programmer writes is a condition for the rest of the programme, but not the cause of its performance. On the other hand, one single missing line can, 'ceteris paribus', be called the 'cause' of its breakdown. In the same way, global life has no single cause but many condi-tions, and lack of one at a certain place and moment can indeed cause the death of an

indi-vidual. Special conditions of sunlight, moisture and minerals do not cause special life forms (Iet alone th at they can be aimed by norms of sunlight, moisture and minerals per location);

they only make different life forms possible. The relation conditional ~ causal has its

analogies in the dualities possible ~ probable, designing ~ predicting, means directed ~ aim-directed, and probably ecocentric ~ antropocentric.

What kind of thinking do we need for designing research?

4

CAUSAL

AND

CONDIT10NAL

THINKING

I cannot imagine causes without conditions but I can imagine the reverse.

We have to move away from causal thinking about probabilities into the broader area of conditional thinking about possibilities. Every cause is a condition for anything to happen, but not every condition is also a cause. The foundation of a house may be a precondition

but not a cause of its existence. Causal thinking is conditional thinking, but conditional

thin-king is not always causal.

Suppose we read in the paper: 'The crash was caused because one of the drivers lost control of the wheel.' That sounds plausible until an extraterrestrial descends, saying: 'Nonsense, the collision was caused by two objects approaching each other at great speed.' If he is right, the

paper is wrong, because if the cars had not been approaching each other and if one of the drivers had not lost control, there would have been no collision. 50, it is only a cause under

fig. 4

the tacit precondition of approaching cars. Every causal conclusion is based on innumerable

tacit conditions called

'

ceteris

paribus

presuppositions'.

CONDlnONAL THINKING CAUSAL THINKING

possibi/ities

fig. 5

Conditional thinking as 0

ceteris paribus environment

of causal thinking

o

cause

... effect social detenninism

physical detenninism

I cannot imagine

soc

ial

possibilities

without

econom

i

e condit

i

ons

but I can imagine the reverse.

I cannot imagine

eco

n

om

ical

possibilities

without

technical

cond

i

tio

n

s

but I can imagine

the reverse.

This gives asemantic conditional sequence of possibilities. In stabie technical conditions economical initiatives can cause technicalor social change. But when the dikes burst the technical 'ceteris paribus' for economical determinism are lacking.

Ceteris-paribus presuppositions of causal explanations also change on different levels in

time. That means changing causal explanation. They also can be changed by design forcing

and shifting explanation about the effects. Innovative design implies removing some

precon-ditions and making new ones. Design makes

ceteris

non

parib

u

s.

5

DESIGN MAKING

A

DIFFERENCE

I cannot imagine a

representation

or

d

r

aw

ing

without indicated differences, an (eventually tacitly presupposed) vocabulary or

legend (

key to symbols). The legend is the vocabulary of

the drawing. Only by drawing differences can one make

farms

and only by making different forms can one make

struct

ures

.

Fun

ct

ion

presupposes a structure within which the function operates.

Nevertheless, within one set of forms (for example a box of blocks) we can imagine different

ways of connecting them (structures) and within different structures we can imagine diffe-rent functions. In the reverse, the same function often chooses different structures and the

32

lays, the initiative

is

free. It can be either a causal,

aim-directed

(purposive) process starting

with the function

(functionalist

position) or a

condi

tional,

means-directed

process

(forma-list

or

structuralist

position).

LEGEND FORM CONDlTIONALlTY

fig. 6

legend

form

structure

function

I

f

the number of

aims

is

less than the number of

means,

it

is better to take the aims as the

The legend and its relatian

independent variabie

and

the means as the

dependent variabie.

In

architecture and urban

ta farm, structure and

func-planning, the

number

of

means is l

ess

than the number of aims.

Hence,

it

is

better

to

variate

tian

the means to see what gives the greatest

amount

of possibilities for future generations.

6 MEANS-f(A1MS)

(

Form

follows

function

ENVIRONMENT, THE SET OF CONDITIONS FOR LlFE

Environment

in

an

ecological sense

is

the set of conditions for

l

ife

"

.

In this definition

'p

re-conditions' can be

in

terpreted

as ecological,

technical,

economical, cultural or administrative

preconditions

.

These

substit

utions

result

in five

standard concepts of the

'environment':

the

administrative environment, the cultural environment etc

.

The concept

'Iife'

can be

substitu-ted

in

the same sense;

'social

life, cultural

life,

life of man, animais, plants etc

.

,

multiplica-ting the meanings

of

the concept 'environment'.

A1MS-f(MEANS)

Function)

follows

form

fig. 7

Function, farm, oims and

Building is a prerequisite for human and other life. Ecologically, building and urbanizatian

has more positive effects on the environment than negative ones. In contrast with other productive branches it produces more 'environment' than it costs. It produces an environ-ment for humans without which they would not survive at the same rate. But it could also

produce a better environment for a variety of plants and animals than many places outside the built-up area.

For instance, in the Dutch cities Zoetermeer" and Amsterdam", we find 1/3 and 1/2 of the total number of botanical species in the Netherlands. Within the city of Zoetermeer one square kilometre even counts 350 wild self-breeding species outside the cultivated areas.

That is 7 times more species than in an agricultural square kilometre in the direct surroun-dings and as many as in a square kilometre of natural environment in the Dutch dunes. Of

course, we cannot say that the value of an urban ecosystem equals that of the dunes, but

we signal a potential that could be improved. To improve the contribution of urban design to the solution of the ecological crisis we have to place more emphasis on the production of

positive effe cts and their research than on the reduction of smaller negative effects.

Number of AA+species per square km

2

_(1989-1993)

Municipality Zoetermeer (A. de Jong en J.Vos)

D

0-5 • Park area

[36-15

D

Built-up area

G

16-25

D

Rural area

1

---1

26-35 Incomplete stocktaking

The highest score (32) was achieved by the layout of the 'poldergardens' in the Floriade during the stocktaking.

fig. 8

A distribution of Attroctive let me give another example of environmentally decisive design. The development of

photo-Altention • species (co. 10% voltaie eells can destroy many gloomy prophecies. Since 1975 the photovoltaic cell has

effi-34

ciency of

fossil

fuels

.

The only

problem is

a cheaper way of si

icing sand. In the

past two

cen-turies technical problems

like

that never had to wait more than

10

years to be solved

.

L

et's

destroy all gloomy prophecies by design.

7

THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENCE

The very beginning of any range of

semantic

conditions seems to be

'difference'.

Any

con-cept presupposes 'difference'.

Difference

in itself cannot be defined because the concept of

'definition'

already presupposes making difference with the rest. But also the concepts of

'making', 'with

'

,

'the', and

'rest' presuppose 'difference'

.

50

in

the sentence concerned, 'diffe-

fig. 9

rence' was already at

least

five times presupposed! Even the concept of

equality

(as necessa-

Anything diff.,s

rily presupposed in the concepts of

'gathering'

and

'counting'

and therefore

in

set theory

and mathematics) presupposes difference. As soon

as

you accept th at

there

are

'different

differences', for instance, more or less difference

('variation1,

you have

to accept that

equality

is

a special case of difference.

Ross Ashby"

and

Van Leeuwen"

noticed that given a

differenceyou can always

imagine more

difference, but not always

less. The least

kind of

difference we call equality,

but

there must be a difference of place or moment

left

to

esta-blish that equality, otherwise the comparison has no sense.

50

we can drawan

important

conclusion:

equality is

a

special kind of difference and not

the

opposite of

it.

Many scientists feel

un

comfortable

with that conclusion because their profession is based on

equations

th

at conceive regularities

in

sets of

n>1

'comparable'

fa

cts. On the contrary,

designers do not because their profession

is

based on originality

in

every single n=1 case.

Without

that originality their design would not be a design, but aprediction

.

The very

con-cept

'concepf

presupposes any equality in the observations conceived

in

the concept, but

the concept

'conception'

presupposes something different from earlier observations.

Conceptualization always needs a reduction of diversity

:

fig. 10

Perceiving differences,

recognizing equalities.

ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATION ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATION

o . . . .

. . . .

. .

==~~

_{o . . . .}

_{. . . .}

_{. .}

~===

equalities

differences

perceive

recognize

durations

changes

conceptualization

differentiating

•

leve1ing out

U

deduction

induction

Vision, hearing, smelling, touching all need differences or changes in the environment. As soon as there is some repetition within these perceptions, we 'recognize' it, which is the basis of cognition and conceptualization.

(Re)cognition however is only based on similarity, it reduces the differences that still can be perceived. 50 conceptualization sometimes changes chaos into surprise, sometimes surprise into recognition, sometimes recognition into boredom.

Diminishing returns of

monocausal

(or paucicausal) research

Benefit

1800 1900 2000 2050

Time (or money) ---'':>

fig. 17

Deminishing returns of Causal thinking is a special way of reducing diversity. It reduces similarities in repeating

monocousal (or paucicousal) sequences of phenomena to the more general concepts of cause-effect relationships. Causal research. explanation has the more value the more the reduction of different causes is possible by

abstraction.

Unfortunately, nowadays there are not many phenomena left th at can be explained mono-causally; the majority have already been explained. What are left are effects that can be

caused by many different causes or causes th at can bring about many different effe cts

depending on the small differences in the environment where the cause is introduced.

5triking a match can cause little damage here but a great deal of damage there. 50

mono-causal (or 'paucicausal') research shows diminishing returns, especially on environmental

issues.

Means and aims can only be chosen on the basis of a causal relationship between both.

Otherwise, thinking about means and aims is senseless. The same means applied here have

other effects as applied there. Apart from that they are also scale-dependent and therefore

36

8 Tl-lE IMPORTANCE OF DlVERSlTY IN ECOlOGY: TOlERANCE AND POSSIBIllTY

The curve of

ecological toleranee

relates the chance of survival of a species or ecosystem to

any environmental variabie, for instance, the presence of water. In this case, survival

balan-ces between drought or drowning.

Y

CHANCE OF SURVIVAL ENV1RONMENTAL VAR1ABLE TOO UTTLE a a a

A

:

minimum

~~

'amplitude'

't

he

right middle'

'beau milieu'

maximum

:

(e.g. presence of water

~

~

or lime, temperature)

~

TOa MUCH

environment for species

'A'

a

A

a a a

_A

_a a

_AA

_a a

A A A

a a a a a

AA

a a _a

AA

_a a _a fig. 72

x

Imagine the lower half of this figure as a slope, from high and dry to low and wet. Species A Eeologieol tolerance in

will survive best in the optimum conditions. Therefore, we see specimens flourishing on the theory ond reolity.

optimum line of moisture (A). Marginally-growing specimens are found higher up and lower

down the slope (a). The marginal specimens, however, are important for the survival of the

species as a whoie.

Suppose, for instance, a lengthy period of wet weather: the lower marginal specimens die as

they become too wet, the flourishing specimens become marginal, but the specimens

stan-ding high and dry start to flourish! A lengthy period of dry weather will result in the same

situation but in reverse. Levelling the surface and water supply for agricultural purposes in

favour of one useful species means the loss of other species as weil as endangering the

remaining species.

Variety is a risk-cover for life. This is not only true for the variety in abiotic conditions but

Life survived many disasters thanks to biodiversity. In the diversity of life there was always a species to survive or within a species a specimen that survived. Survival of the fittest pre-supposes diversity from which can be chosen in changed circumstances. Diminishing biodi-versity means undermining the resistance against catastrophes. Of the 1.5 million species known to us we have lost approximately 50,000 this century. 50, we not only introduce eco-logica I disasters we also undermine the resistance of life against these disasters.

Biodiversity in mankind is a crucial value in our quality of lik As we are here we are all dif-ferent and the very last comfort you can give a depressed person is: 'But you are unique'. Diversity is also a precondition for trade and communication. If production and consumption were the same everywhere, there would be no economic lik If we all had the same percep-tions and ideas, there would be no communication. It is an important misconception to believe that communication only helps to bridge differences. Communication also produces diversity by compensating each other and coordinating behaviour by specialization.

8rundtland" summarizes the environmental challenge by defining sustainability as leaving next generations at least as many possibilities as we found ourselves. But what are possibili-ties? 'Possibilities' are not the same as economic supply. If our parents had left us the same supplies as they found in their childhood, we would be far from satisfied. 'Possibilities' have to do with freedom of choice and thus variety. Our converging Schumpeter-economy" and Fukuyama-culture" leave no choice. In our search for the alternative we find everywhere in the world the same hotels, the same cuisine, the same language, etc. In this century, the world's last 'primitive' cultures are disappearing and with them an experience of life that no Western language can express.

The extremest consequence of this levelling out would be a world without economy and even communication. If there were no longer any differences in production factors, exchan-ging goods and services would no longer be necessary. If total world wide distribution of knowledge and consensus were the result of our communication age, there would no longer be anything worthwhile to communicate. These thought experiments show clearly that 'dif-ference' is also a hidden presupposition in communication and economy.

9 D1VERS1TY AND QUAl..lTY

Quality can be measured in terms of possibilities of use, experience and expectation for future generations. The way design can sustain a sustainable development, in the sense meant by Brundtland, is to produce more choices for man, animal and plant. If there were one best solution for all the problems of architecture and urban planning, it would be the

38

worst in the sense of choices for future generations! This paradox pleads for more diversity than uniform solutions. Moreover, if there were a uniform solution, the designer would have no task.

Ouality is always a function of variation. Ouality of possible experience moves between

diversity and uniformity, surprise and recognition. One step too far in either direction brings us into an area of boredom or confusion.

This is a simple conception, already recognized by 8irkhoff'°, but why did it not succeed, why

is quality always posed as an unsolvable question?

QUALlTY

VAR1ATION

Diversity

TOa LlTTLE Toa MUCH

boredom recognition

surprize chaos

Any discussion on variety and thus variables can fall prey to confusion of scale. That means that even logic and science as forms of communication are prey to the scale paradox. The

paradox of Achilles and the tortoise is a beautiful example of the scale paradox in time. The

tortoise says: 'Achilles cannot outrun me when I get a head start, because when he is where

I was at the moment he started I'm already further, when he reaches that point I am again

further and so on!'. This conclusion is only incorrect by changing the time-scale during the

reasoning. Something similar is found by RusselI on set-theory. Russell21

bans sets containing themselves and reflexive judgements as 'I am a liar'.

The sco/e paradox is an important scientific ban to applying ill-thought out conclusions drawn on one level of scale to another. The figure shows the possibility of changing conclu-sions on a change of scale by a factor 3. There are 7 decimals between a grain of sand and

fig. 13

fig. 14

The scale paradox

the earth. That gives approximately 15 possibilities to change conclusions. The same applies

between a molecule and a grain of sand.

This ban is violated so many times that it should be an important criterion to test the validi-ty of scientific judgments. FIElD OF VISlON OUTWARD INWARD

.

.

.

....

..

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

....

:.~.~~~~~~~~:

...

.

.

:~~~~~~~:

...

...

.

..

..

. .

....

...

...

...

.

...

....

.

:~9~~!!!Y.:

...

..

.

.

...

...

.'.?~.~~~~~~~~

...

...

..

.

The scale paradox is not only limited to concepts of diversity. An important example of changing conceptions into their opposite by scale is the duality of aim and means. For the government subsidizing a municipality, the subsidy is the means, for the municipality it is the aim. 50 the conception of means changes to a conception of aim by crossing levels of scale. Changing 'Zweckbegriff' into 'Systemrationolitäf (Luhmonn") may be another change of conception of the same character. In growing organizations integration at the level of the organization as a whole of ten means disintegration of the sub-systems and perhaps a new form of integration in the sub-sub-systems. This process is often called 'differentiation"

10 CONCLU510N

The computer sustains the design process and spatial design sustains or even enlarges our freedom of choice. Af ter all, enlarging the diversity of our inside and outside space offers us new possibilities and th us new freedom of choice. Ever since Bruntland expressed concern about the possibilities for the world's future generations, we have ca lied the maintenance of th at freedom 'sustainab/e development'. Environmental planning takes into account the apparent loss of possibilities and freedom of choice for future generations.

40

The building process, however, has in this sense more positive than negative ecological effects. The best way design can sustain a sustainable development in the sense meant by Brundtland, is to produce more choices (possibilities) for man, animal and plant. If there were one scientifically- tested, best solution for all causally-formulated problems of

archi-tecture and urban planning, it would be the worst in the sense of choices for future genera-tions. This paradox arises when we consider science only as a method of optimizing probable effects. But, in my view, technical science has more to do with possibilities than with proba-bilities.

Computer programming not only sustains design and freedom of choice, it also forces us to make clear hidden presuppositions and that is the traditional task of art and science.

In that perspective, the task of technical science is to make clear the preconditions (or pre

-suppositions) of technical performance, the task of technica I ecology th at of life performan-ce.

Presuppositions about the design process, as they are differently hidden in a designers' mind and in design-sustaining computer programmes, have something in common with the pre-conditions of technical and biological performance. If our theory can cope with both, it will concern a more essential aspect about design, building and ecology.

The possibility (the set of conditions) of an event is something different than the cause (and subsequently the probability) of an event. Every cause is a condition for something to hap-pen, but not every condition is also a cause. The design of a house does not cause the beha-viour of a household. It only makes more ways of behabeha-viour possible than there would have been possible without a house. It allows ·freedom of choice, offers conditions. In the same way the design of a computer progamme is no good when it forces the user into a specific way of thinking; it should give the opportunity for different ways of thinking.

Ecology is the science of conditions, prerequisites for different life-forms. Global life by its

enormous differentiation is not monocausal and thus not predictabie or 'aimable'. However, by pointing out an essential condition lacking to life, the death of an individual can be pre-dicted.Man as a part of life however is essentially not predictabie as long as we believe in freedom of choice.

In ecology, technology, design and computer programming conditional thinking is as

impor-tant as the operational, aim-directed, causal thinking we are used t~. The methodology of causal thinking and probability thinking is largely developed. But what methodology do we need when we do not only ask questions about the cause or aim of a phenomenon, but also about the conditions under which a phenomenon could possibly appear -its possibility?

NO TE S

It misses some presuppositions of normal logic that seem to stagnate the development of

drawing theory, design theory and ecological theory. Although we did not examine the

sub-ject thoroughly, semantic conditions may be tactily presupposed in normal logic. To

formula-te the function of a logical operator '0', you first need to test the truth-value of 'PoQ' in

four conditions (jf Pis true and Q is true, if P is true and Q is false, if P is false and Q is

true, if P is false and Q is false). This conditional test cannot be performed by the

condition-al operators (- . ., ~ and ~ ) it has to defined by the truth-table itself. What

kind of conditional comparisons are they then if they are tacitly supposed to formulate

these well-known conditionals

?

Conditional analysis mayalso shed light on the hidden

pre-positions in the terminology 'true' and 'false' and the hidden propositions concerning

res-trictions on space and time in logical reasoning.

For instance, the expression, 'it rains and it rains not' is true on a word scale but forbidden

in formal logic as a contradiction. 50 the hidden supposition of formal logic must be th at

only local events can be logically expressed. A drawing containing different locations cannot

be logic in this way.

2 The expression 'comparison' is used here in an unusually broader sense than in formal logic

or mathematics and up to now seems to have been correctly understood without explana-tion.

3 Including the comparisons needed for the hypothesis, we needed six comparisons to make a

conditional sequence of th ree concepts. The fourth concept will need another six

comparis-ons, the fifth another eight. We compared approximately two hundred crucial concepts in

science and technology, su eh as 'set', 'pattern', 'structure', etc. (see note 6). That required

39,800 comparisons and resulted in a semantically conditional sequence of these concepts

with a single condition at the beginning.

4 This already says something about my preconception of culture: 'a plant has not culture'.

Although the concept of culture is not vet defined by th is operation, it is in any case

'placed' and the boundaries of many possible definitions set.

5 Taeke M. de Jong, De honderd stellingen van 5harawagi, Faculteit Bouwkunde, TUD, 1972.

42

7 Synthetic a priori judgements by Kant.

8 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tactatus logico-philosophicus, Vienna, 1918. 'About which you cannot speak you have to be silent: It was a reason to suspect him of mysticism.

9 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford, 1953.

10 'Suppose we are hu man, suppose we use a language, suppose we understand the same things using the same words, suppose this building does not fall down, suppose you don't kill me for the things I say, etc. etc ... then we could have a conference ... shall we have a conferen-ce?'

11 1totTifficr, manufacture, construction.

12 CAJ. Duijvestein, lM. de Jong, P. Schmidt, JA Wisse, see W.J.L. Hendriks, Begrippen rond bouwen en milieu, werkdocument, Stichting Bouwresearch, Rotterdam, januari 1993.

13 A. de Jong and

J

.

Vos, Bericht uit de plantenwerkgroep, KNNV Kwartaal-bericht, Zoetermeer, nr. 5, juli 1994.

14 1 Denters, R. Ruesink, B. Vreeken, Van muurbloem tot straatmadelief. Wilde planten in en rond Amsterdam, KNNV Uitgeverij, Utrecht 1994.

15 Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain, London 1952.

16 Van Leeuwen, e.G., Ekologie, Faculteit Bouwkunde, TUD 1971.

17 World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New Vork, 1987.

18 Krupp, Helmar, Zukunftsland Japan, Globale Evolution und Eigendyna-miek, Witssenschaftlicht Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1996.

19 Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, New Vork, 1992.20.

20 Birkhoff, Georg D., Aesthetic Measure, Cambridge, Mass, Havard Univ. Press, 1993.

Arnheim, Rudolf, Entropy and Art, Univ. of California Press, London 1971, ISBN 0-520-02617-9.

21 RusselI, Bertrand, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Routledge, London, 1993. 22 Luhmann, Niklas, Zweckbegriff und System-rationalität. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch,