UIA GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UIA GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
CONTENTS
1. FOREWORD - MOTIVATION .............................................................................................. 3
2. BETWEEN THEORY AND CERTIFICATION ...................................................................... 4
2.1. CRUCIAL WORDS OF THEORY ................................................................................................ 4
2.2. DIFFERENT SOURCES DEFINING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE ............................................... 5
2.3. A WHOLE RANGE OF CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS........................................................................ 6
3. VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE INDICATORS .................................................................... 9
3.1. NEW AND REHABILITATED BUILDINGS ..................................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Parameters described by objective criteria of analysis, assessment based on
measurement, calculation ......................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1.1. Safety, Health, Technical value ..................................................................................................9
3.1.1.2. Ecology and gnomonic...............................................................................................................10
3.1.1.3. Economy ................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2. Parameters described by objective criteria of analysis, assessment based mainly on
estimation ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2.1. Functionality, Comfort, Maintenance ........................................................................................ 11
3.1.2.2. Process Quality......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2.3. Social and Urban Values - Cityness- generosity for human activity ......................................... 12
3.1.3. Parameters described by subjective criteria of assessment ........................................ 13
3.1.3.1. Cultural and artistic Value - an Aesthetic that Inspires, Affirms and Enables (UIA Declaration ,
Chicago 1993) ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2. REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS ....................................................................................... 15
4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 17
5. NOTES ............................................................................................................................... 18
6. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………...21
7. IMAGE CREDITS...……………………………………………………………………………. .22
2
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
“Humanity is more important than architecture
and the art of building more important than technology.”
- Wang Shu
1. Foreword - Motivation
Considering the responsibility towards the communities they serve, architects need to
offer a high level of culture, practice, knowledge and experience. The International Union of
Architects promotes a holistic system of value indicators for architecture enhancing the quality of
life. After centuries of theory of architecture and decades of certification systems, U.I.A. aims to
develop a set of holistic sustainable design criteria, a performance evaluation system based on
measurable and non-measurable instruments of definition. This guideline should constitute an
active contribution to sustainability and to a high level of quality of architecture, not just another
certification system but a practical tool for future generations of certification systems. It will
enable architecture to receive political recognition as an important component of the cultural
identity of different countries and regions. A high level of architectural value impacts on the
quality of life – it necessarily means more than an economic endeavour or a “green” initiative –
this level ultimately emphasizes architecture’s fundamental cultural role in relation to the public
and collective interest.
Fig. 1
3
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
2. Between theory and certification
In defining architecture, there are some statements commonly admitted inside the profession. One
of them , which reads as follows: “Architecture is the knowledgeable, correct and magnificent
game of volumes put together under light…., cubes, cones, spheres, cylinders and the pyramids
are the major primary shapes” (Le Corbusier), states that architecture is an art of construction.
Setting aside Adolf Loos - who considered that architecture is constituted exclusively of funeral
monuments - we could acknowledge all assemblages of building-landscape as belonging to
architecture. There are, of course, different types of architecture - we can speak about regional
and vernacular architecture, about international “corporate” architecture, etc.
Beside accepted professional views, the guide must take into consideration perspectives on the
matter coming from outside the professional realm. It should, simply put, try to define those
values which make the difference between bad and good architecture. “less is more”, “less is a
bore”, “less is gore” define different statements typical for the XXth century, from the value of
simplicity to that of complexity and ambiguity or that of green building and sustainability. There
are values which are commonly accepted outside the profession, such as “star architects”, the
heritage, the identifiable (regional value), the landmark, the extreme icon, the attractive and the
powerful metaphor.
2.1. Crucial words of theory
The Vitruvian framework – utilitas (usability), firmitas (durability) and venustas (beauty) -
produced the first keywords defining value in the field of architecture. This framework is the
expression of the three parts of Vitruve’s definition of architecture : construction of buildings,
gnomonics, and mecanics. Other concepts appeared inside the discourse of the profession,
assumed by architectural theory based on the Vitruvian triad. Recently they have become
function, form, construction and technology i or building quality, functionality and impact ii.
Measurable values were included in manuals and standards, but the theory focused more on non-
quantifiable values included in the complex field of “venustas”:
- John Ruskin: life, truth, power, memory and beauty are among the seven lamps of
architecture iii;
- poetry, emotion and organicity are evoked by the “grandfathers” of modern architectureiv;
- Kahn refers to “quality which inspires music”v;
- Alto and Utzon speak about the quality of sense of place and the metaphoric quality at a
variety of scales;
- R. Venturi writes about the quality of complexity and ambiguityvi;
- L. Barragan about the quality of beauty of “the art of architecture which generates silent joy
and serenity”vii;
- To be place and occasion, to be a whole - as a quality of architecture, is evoked both by Aldo
van Eyckviii and Christian Norberg-Schulz (art of place, character and basic atmosphere)ix;
- Christopher Alexander writes about patterns and “quality without a name, quality itself”x;
4
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
- Juhani Pallasmaa in recent years refers to the quality of “the embodied image, of the lived
metaphor”xi;
- Glenn Murcutt refers to quality of buildings that are like musical instrumentsxii;
- Patrik Schumacher writes about the quality of architecture as an autonomous autopoietic
system according to a new social environment, a new visionary parametric avant-garde and
iconic qualityxiii;
- Charles Jenks refers to the iconic visual and highly metaphorical quality (iconicism,
adhocism, patterns of ornaments and the cosmic narrative)xiv;
- Vicente Guallart refers to the rational quality of the (geo)logics of a dynamical, multilayered,
complex and natural systemxv.
2.2. Different sources defining the value of architecture
The criteria of value are defined not only inside the profession by theory and criticism, but by
different sources.
From the inside our profession there are:
The global elitist acknowledgement (PritzkerPrize, UIA Gold Medal, etc.)
Different types of recognition (National and different types of professional awards, In what
we trust)
From the outside :
The glossy magazines (Fashion and trends, The regional heroes)
The brief providers (Public procurement, Fashion stars)
The Certification systems (LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE, DGNB, etc.)
The Public (The stakeholders, The users, The excluded)
As a public asset (architecture is of public interest), architecture has to reveal the view a society
has on itself, and to give concrete expression to its hopes and its projects.
The criteria for the value of architecture are different depending on :
- The subjectxvi
- The « lessadvantaged »xvii
- The excludedxviii
- The legacy of former authoritiesxix
- Level of education and wealthxx.
Among the public, the end-users are the most important group.
For the stakeholders, the most important criterion seems to be profit in two ways :
- Obtaining a cheap construction
- Working with star architects to attract customers.
When speaking about its quality, both inside and outside of the profession, architecture can be
deemed either as good or bad, which leads to a system of positive and negative quality indicators.
Among the non quality indicators to define bad architecture are to be mentioned:
- The nonfunctional
- The banal and the unidentifiable (global architecture)
5
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
- The extravagant and too «noisy»
- The hazardous, built with dangerous materials
- The exclusive
- The too expensive
- The «badly built» and «badly aging»
- The meaningless and/or «out of scale»
- The fake
- The ugly.
The non quality criteria of banality, extravagance, exclusivity, meaningless, fake or ugly are
commonly refused outside the profession. It is impossible to quantify these indicators.
In opposition, the nonfunctional, the dangerous, the too expensive, the badly built or badly aging
are relatively easier to be measured and understood.
2.3. A whole range of certification systems
In the last decades quality has been defined by a number of rating tools emerging from different
institutions exterior to the profession. New criteria such as sustainability and socially beneficial
resilience are important and, as a result, new measurable methodologies have been developed by
LEEDxxi, BREEAMxxii, CASBEExxiii etc. as “first generation” certification systems, followed by
DGNB as a more holistic, second generation systemxxiv. Policies of governments have been
interested in defining building quality systems such as CABE (Great Britain)xxv or The German
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety’s
Guideline for Sustainable Building,xxvi etc. and new expertise has been generated – such as
D.Q.I. -“Design Quality Indicators”xxvii - as “an interactive tool for thinking rather than an
absolute measurement”. The debate on the subject has become more lively in the last few years;
on one hand efforts to develop better parametric measurable systems, analytic hierarchy process
systemsxxviii, on the other more empirical and nuanced discourses about value and values in
architecture. Measuring “economic and engineering efficiencies” offers only a partial image over
what value in architecture means xxix.
6
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
Fig. 2
In a few words, defining a high value of architecture means to refer in a holistic way to:
- efficient use of resources – sustainability (Economy, Rational, Green, Eco-balancing and
life cycle cost, healthy)
- generosity for human activity, cityness (Accessibility, Functionality, Socially beneficial,
Ergonomic, Resilience, Affordable)
- sense of place/human scale (Art of place, Context integration)
- consideration for time/ability to age (Well made, technical quality, Enduring)
- intelligence and surprise (Iconic value, Landmark, Creative)
- sensuous space and material/emotion/beauty (Emotionally resonant, Beautiful)
Fig. 3
7
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
In conclusion, architecture is a fundamental feature of humanity’s history, culture and fabric of
life; it represents an essential means of artistic expression in the daily life of citizens and it
constitutes the heritage of tomorrow. Architecture can be the mirror of a community or nation,
can achieve the quality of a living metaphor. Architecture has changed from the service of the
prince (king, bishop, pope, state), to a wider clentèle, the society. The modern movement has
driven this change. The danger now is in the loss of political will under the economic pressure.
The value of architecture, of new buildings and rehabilitated old ones and of architectural, urban
and landscape culture influences the quality life. Good quality architecture, enhancing the quality
of life, improving the living context and the relationship between citizens and their environment,
can contribute effectively towards social cohesion, job creation, promotion of cultural tourism
and economic development. Economic value is directly linked to the cultural value of
architecture.
“The way places and buildings are planned, designed and looked after matters to all of us in
countless ways.The built environment can be a source of everyday joy or everyday misery. It is
an important influence on crime, health, education, inclusion, community cohesion and well-
being.”(CABE www.cabe.org.ukwww.buildingsplatform.eu)
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
8
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3. Value of architecture indicators
The parameters that can define the quality of a building/architecture, of an environment,
vary between two great categories depending on the mainly subjective character of the
assessment or the capacity to measure objectively, scientifically its performance.
Fig. 6
3.1. New and rehabilitated buildings
3.1.1. Parameters described by objective criteria of analysis, assessment based on
measurement, calculation
3.1.1.1. Safety, Health, Technical value
- Structural stability, resistance to environmental influences (as earthquake, winds and effects
of climate changes)
- Safety in construction, (improvement of safety on site in recent years, scafoldings, common
protection, banishment of dangerous materials, asbestos, lead, fibers, VOC, solvants, etc...
- Safety in use;
- Safety in maintenance;
- Fire protection and safety;
- Security and barrier-free accessibility;
- Quality of indoor air and climate, heat and humidity protection, avoid emissions, etc;
- Natural lighting, artificial lighting;
- Noxious substances control; Less bad is not enough, avoid all hazardous materials;
- Acoustic conditions, noise control, sound protection;
- Waste management, smell control, cleaning and maintenance issues;
- Reliability, Service life of components;
- Possibility to demolish the building, or “deconstruct” selectively.
9
UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3.1.1.2. Ecology and gnomonic
a.Natural resources protection
- Reduced land use;
- Reduced resource demand in conjunction with the construction and operation of buildings;
- Longer and better documented use of products, structures and building; (BIM)
- Fewer transports of construction materials and parts;
- Minimised energy demand during the use phase;
- Use of regenerative energy;
- Use of rainwater or grey water, reduced fresh water consumption.
- Use of construction products, materials, designed to be reused or recycled;
- Safe recycling of materials and substances after sorting.
b. Ecosystem protection
- Green space and green infrastructure;
- Global warming potential;
- Ozone depletion potential;
- Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential;
- Acidification Potential;
- Eutrophication Potential;
- Risks to the Local and Regional Environment;
- Other Impacts on the Global Environment;
- Non-renewable Primary Energy Demands;
- Total Primary Energy Demands/ Proportion of Renewable Primary Energy;
- Potable Water Consumption and Sewage Generation;
- Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling and Dismantling;
- Energetic and Moisture Proofing Quality of the Buildings;
- Influences on surrounding environment;
- Surface Area Usage;
- Load on local infrastructure;
- Noise, vibration and odor;
- Microclimate, heat island effect, Venturi effect;
- Shading and greening of public spaces;
- Wind and sand damage;
- Daylight obstruction, light pollution, reflected solar glare from building walls.
3.1.1.3. Economy
a. Building-related Life Cycle Costs
- Construction costs;
- Operating costs, Costs of cleaning, Service and maintenance, Replacement investment;
- Costs of demolition and disposal.
b. Economic efficiency
c. Value stability
- Space efficiency; best use;
- Possibility of conversion and reuse;
- Flexibility and adaptability;
- Resilience;
- Durability;
- Energy and performance characteristics.
10UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3.1.2. Parameters described by objective criteria of analysis, assessment based mainly
on estimation
3.1.2.1. Functionality, Comfort, Maintenance
- Optimal use;
- Thermal Comfort in Winter and Summer;
- Indoor Air Quality and Hygiene ;
- Acoustical Comfort, inside and environmental;
- Visual Comfort, daylight, shade, anti-glare measures;
- Illuminance level, lighting controllability
- Influences by Users;
- Roof Design;
- Area Efficiency;
- Feasibility of Conversion;
- Accessibility for all;
- Bicycle Comfort;
- Ease of Cleaning and Maintenance of the Structure;
- Ergonomic.
3.1.2.2. Process Quality
- Quality of the Project’s Preparation;
- Conceptual clarity- starting point for a good project;
- Integral Planning;
- Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning;
- Evidence of Sustainability Considerations during Bid Invitation and Awarding;
- Establishment of Preconditions for Optimized Use and Operation;
- Construction Site;
- Construction Phase;
- Quality of executing Companies;
- Pre-qualifications;
- Quality Assurance of the Construction Activities;
- Systematic Commissioning.
11UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3.1.2.3. Social and Urban Values - Cityness - generosity for human activity
Fig. 7
- Socially beneficial, potential and mix;
- Accessibility, Attention to designing for older, disabled and younger people;
- Quality and accessibility of public space;
- Image and character of location and quarter; proudness of the users to be there;
- Urban integration; Social identity;
- Connection to transport systems and to infrastructure;
- Vicinity to use-specific services;
- Sense of place - a place with a positive feeling for people and local distinctiveness;
- Resilience, Affordable; avoid speculations;
- The quality of public space and human scale, continuity and enclosure, public and private
space clearly distinguished;
- Appropriate size, scale, density, design and layout, including mixed-use development, that
complement the distinctive local character of the community;
- Integration and regeneration of historic buildings and sites;
- The social change;
- The crime prevention design;
- The consultation and participation design;
12UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3.1.3. Parameters described by subjective criteria of assessment
3.1.3.1. Cultural and artistic Value - an Aesthetic that Inspires, Affirms and Enables (UIA
Declaration , Chicago 1993)
Fig. 8, 9
- Art within architecture, Proportion and spatial structure (topology), ease of movement;
- Inner atmosphere and character;
- Sense of place, Art of place, site integration;
- Vision and style, The expressive value;
- Image and identity;
- Opening views;
- Aesthetics of facades;
- The spirit of the time, Innovative design;
- Intelligence and surprise;
- The structural, functional and material honesty design value, Integrity and honesty;
- The pattern of ornament design value;
- The simplicity and minimalism design value;
- The nature and organic design value;
- The classic, traditional and vernacular aesthetics design value;
- The regional design value;
- Spontaneously handicraft value;
- Iconic value;
- Clarity of organisation , from site planning to building planning;
- Order;
- Consideration of time, ability to age/timeless;
13UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
- Expression and Representation;
- Scale;
- Conformity and contrast;
- Orientation, prospect and aspect;
- Detailing and materials;
- Sensuous space and material/emotion/beauty (Emotionally resonant, Beautiful);
- Sensitive treatment of historic buildings and sites.
Fig 10 Fig. 11
The long-term quality of use of a building is determined in a considerable measure by the social,
urban, cultural and artistic/aesthetic values. They influence the “soft” aspects of the quality of
life. How can these be introduced in quality indicators ?
A great challenge for these indicators is to include clear specifications regarding experiences and
methodologies to monitor and assess the quality of the built environment with the help of
tangible and visible but non-measurable indicators of architecture’s value; this value, strongly
based on subjective effects and perceptions, can only be assessed by combining the evaluation of
experts with the opinion of stakeholders (end-users, investors, developers, building managers,
building administrators, neighbourhood associations, etc.).
14UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
3.2. Rehabilitation of buildings
Existing buildings characterise the way urban spaces are perceived. Buildings thus create
identity which should be taken into consideration just as much as energy saving potentials.
The value of buildings for society is expressed by their cultural diversity and the
distinguished and location-specific appearance.
Fig 12 Fig. 13
Existing buildings should be generally preserved as long as this makes sense from an
economic and socio-cultural perspective. There may, however, be sometimes functional and
safety/security requirements which have to be fulfilled as a general precondition for
possible reuse, refurbishment or conversion. If key requirements cannot be met, the option
oferecting a new building may be considered in exceptional cases even though this should
always be the “last resort”. The principles o fvalue and quality are much the same as in the
case of newbuildings. When it comes to qualifying and converting existing buildings, the
same safety/health/technical, ecological, economical, processual, functional and socio-
cultural criteria must be taken into consideration.
In analogy with new buildings, Ecological Value will be based also on eco-balances Life-cycle
assessments which allow to identify resource consumption and impacts on the global
15UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
environment. For existing building structures, partially or totally regenerated, the main aspects to
be taken into account are maintenance, demolition, disposal and recycling.
The possible advantage offered by rehabilitating existing buildings results from the fact that
existing structures are reused. A large share of old built structures which can be reused
(ideally directly on the site) can thus have a positive effect on the energy aspect of the
eco-balance and therefore compensate for any disadvantages of rehabilitation projects
compared to new construction work.
The life-cycle cost and holistic analysis – Economic value- covers more than production and
construction costs. For rehabilitating existing buildings, maintenance, demolition and disposal or
recycling costs must mandatorily be addressed. For historic monuments it is necessary to respect
their specific characteristics and all measures must generally be performed which are compatible
with the requirements of the monument protection, restauration and preservation principles,
rules and legislation. The socio-cultural value in all cases of rehabilitation and especially in the
case of classified monuments are of much greater importance. There are a number of important
principles to mention:
- Legibility – differentiated from the old;
- Harmonious integration with the context;
- Relation of the building with its surroundings;
- Balance in composition;
- Respect for the history of the building.
16UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
4. Conclusions
What the U.I.A. System of Quality emphasizes:
- the PROCESS QUALITY parameter;
- the Social and Urban Quality parameter ;
- the Cultural and Artistic Quality parameter;
Fig. 14 Fig. 15
U.I.A.has to develop an adequate effort to define and promote the qualitative aspects of the
physical dimension of the built environment as a fundamental element for the quality of life. It
must promote a comprehensive quality system for a large majority of countries where such
systems do not exist.
Also, it has to prevent the excess of parametrisation concerning quality, in favour of a balance of
all measurable and nonmeasurable indicators which define high value in architecture and built
environment which ultimately enhance the quality of life.
17UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
5. Notes
i Francis Ching, “Architecture: FORM, SPACE and ORDER”
ii TimucinHaputlugil, prof.dr. A. Tanju Gultekin, assoc.prof.dr. Y. IlkerTopcu, “Architectural Design Quality:
The practitioners’ perspective – an AHP Approach for assessment”
iii John Ruskin, “Seven Lamps of Architecture”
iv Mies van der Rohe : “Architektur beginnt wenn zwei Backsteine sorgfaltig zusammengesetzt werden.
Architektur ist eine sprache mit der disziplin einer gramamatik, man kann sprache im alltag als prosa
benutzen, und wenn man sehr gut ist, kann man ein dichter sein.” , Le Corbusier, Fr. Ll. Wright
v Louis Kahn, “I feel fusion of the senses. To hear a sound is to see its space. Space has tonality, and I
imagine myself composing a space lofty, vaulted, or under a dome, attributing to it a sound character
alternating with the tones of a space, narrow and high, with graduating silver, light to darkness. The spaces
of architecture in their light make me want to compose a kind of music, imagining a truth from the sense of a
fusion of the disciplines and their orders. No space, architecturally, is a space unless it has natural light.
Natural light has varied mood of time of the day and the season of the year. A room in architecture, a space
in architecture, needs that life-giving light – light from which we were made. So silver light and the gold light
and the green light and the yellow light ar qualities of changeable scale or rule. This quality must inspire
music.” Conference at symposium “ The Conservatory Redefined”, 14. nov. 1967
vi Robert Venturi , “Complexity and ambiguity in architecture”
vii Louis Barragan, 1980 – Speech at Pritzker Prize festivity
viii Aldo van Eyck, “Man still breathes both in and out. When is architecture going to do the same? There is a
kind of spatial appreciation which makes us envy birds in flight; there is also a kind which makes us recall
the sheltered enclosure of our origin. Architecture will fail if it neglects either the one or the other –
labyrinthian clarity, at any rate, sings of both. Birds nest, bird-flight, bird.” (Place and ocasion) “Tree is leaf
and leaf is tree – house is city and city is house – a tree is a tree but it is also a huge leaf – a leaf is a leaf,
but it is also a tiny tree – a city is not a city unless it is also a huge house – a house is a house only if it is
also a tiny city”, “Aldo van Eyck, Works”, Compilation by Vincent Ligtelijn
ix C.N. Schulz, “The coexistence of architecture and life, to which I have referred, may give the impression
of another version of the motto Form follows function, but my concept of use is fundamentally different from
the functionalist approach. Here we are not dealing with individual more-or-less coordinated functions, but
rather with moments that acquire significance beginning with that totalitarian existential structure is
represented by the act of inhabiting.bSimilarly, architectural forms do not appear separately, but are
conditioned by a preordained place in which nature participates. Therefore, architecture is not a result of the
actions of man, but rather it renders concrete the world that makes those actions possible. And since the
constituent elements of that world are qualitatively diverse, they cannot be understood with logic, but rather
should be expressed poetically. This is the task of architecture, which, based upon a phenomenological
comprehension, assembles and illustrates multiplicity in terms of space, form and figure, in other words, as
the art of place.”, “Architecture: Presence, Language and Place”, SKIRA 2000
x Christoher Alexander, “The more living patterns there are in a place- a room, a building or a town – the
more it comes to life as an entirety, the more it glows, the more it has that self - maintaining fire which is the
quality without a name. And when a building has this fire, then it becomes a part of nature. Like ocean
18UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
waves, or blades of grass, its parts are governed by the endless play of repetition and variety created in the
presence of the fact that all things pass. This is the quality itself. To reach the quality without a name we
must then build a living pattern language as a gate”, “The timeless way of building”, “The Pattern language
of Architecture”, Oxford University Press
xi Juhani Pallasmaa, “In architecture, likewise, the artistic motifs should not be excessive or overly
dramatised, because our ‘imagination will reject them’, as Borges advises writers. The strategies of holding
back and understatement have a heightened value in architecture. If it aspires to a permanent mental
impact, an architectural work has to engage our personal and active imagination; even an architectural
narrative has to be left incomplete and open-ended in order to be completed and embodied by the
imagination of the observer/occupant. This is why the restrained architectural works of Renzo Piano and
Glenn Murcutt achieve greatness: these buildings are clearly and convincingly understandable as
conceptual, functional and tectonic structures, yet they avoid oversatement and verbosity, and gently invite
our embodied, tactile and sensuous imagination. They are highly rational tectonic structures that project
poetic images of gravity and horizon, artifice and nature, use and space, tradition and innovation, materiality
and light.”
“Architecture is usually understood to originate in the act of dwelling and inhabiting. In my view, however,
architecture has a dual origin; it arises simultaneously from the acts of inhabitation and glorification....’A
house is an instrument with which to confront cosmos’, as Gaston Bachelard suggests.”
“Both artistic and architectural works are existential metaphors in which an entire world is reflected. Iconic
buildings, such as Casa Malaparte (1938-40) on Capri, the Melnikov House (1927-9) in Moscow, Pierre
Chareau’s Maison de Verre (1929) in Paris, are condensed metaphoric microcosms, inhabited and lived
metaphors, self-sufficient universes enclosed within the wals of these structures.”, “The Embodied Image –
Imagination and Imagery in Architecture”, Wiley and Sons, 2011
xii Glenn Murcutt, “It is very important to me to make buildings that are like instruments. They respond to
light, to the movements of air, to prospect to the needs of comfort.
Like musical instruments, they produce the sounds and tones of the composer.
But I am not the composer, nature is the composer.
The light and sounds of the land are already there. I just make the instruments that allow people to perceive
these natural qualities.”
“The creative process is a path of discovery. The hand makes drawings and arrives at solutions before the
mind has even comprehended them.”, Exhibition at Architektur Zentrum Wien, 2012
xiii Patrick Schumacher , “Aesthetic values are thus the explicitly evaluative steering mechanism of the
formal dimension of styles, demanding the formal (formaliy satisfying) resolution of a design problem. The
style’s idiom embodies the pressuposed formal tendency within which the formal design solution is sought. .
The style’s consciously expounded aesthetic values are brought to bear where the routine application of the
idiom runs into obstacles and an explicit, considered decision is required. Aesthetic values in architecture
thus represent the unquestioned, presupposed ideal of beauty inasmuch as it is utilized to explicitly criticize
and direct the design process. They are unquestioned values that are used to question and settle design
decisions.”, “The Autopoesis of Architecture – A new framework for Architecture”, vol 1, Wiley and Sons,
2011
xiv Charles Jenks, Value and values, WAF, Singapore 2013
xv Vicente Guallart, “ A process oriented toward creating conditions of habitability in the territory more than
constructing buildings. We are, then, more interested in the systemic character of the architecture than its
iconic character per se.
There would be no need for architecture if human beings were content to live in caves or in trees.
Architecture is necessary to create conditions of habitability that are not dependent on the time of day or the
time of year, on the climatic conditions of the environment anywhere in the territory. Architecture, then, must
emerge in specific places, at particular moments in history, in a continuous process of re-foundation of the
19UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
territory……In the pursuit of an architectural project that is more than an object on a background, an
affirmation of personal identity on the landscape or a phenomenon on a cultural context, the human
actuation must be a nature in itself capable of possessing different degrees of artificiality both in its
gestation and in its operation.”
“We seek to ensure that the logics we present act as dynamical rational systems that go beyond the
development of a project on the basis of an ‘idea’, a purely formal response or an economic discourse.”
“We work in this way to produce an architecture which develops the potentials that the information society
offers for constructing a more natural world.”
“The incorporation into the projects of external specialists from fields such as geology, anthropology,
sociology, engineering, software and interface design, ecology, art, economics or biology enables these
projects to encompass records registers that in other conditions would be impossible.”, “GeoLogics –
Geography, Information, Architecture “, ACTAR, 2008
xvi Ronchamp has never been questionned, while the « Cité radieuse » had « la maison du Fada » as its
nickname.
xvii Urbanization has a side effect, the informal settlements. Quality there means public services.
xviii Urgent necessities become much more important than other values.
xix Colonial architecture is often rejected because of its meanings.
xx Beaubourg has not been accepted at the beginning, but seems to be unanimously accepted today
xxi www.LEED .net
xxii www.bre.co.uk/sustainability
xxiii U.I.A. Forum – Sustainable by Design in Cancun, Mexico on 30 nov. 2010 - CASBEE in Progress by
JaGBC for market transformation, by U.I.A vice-president KAZUO IWAMURA, Tokyo City University,
www.uia-architectes.org/../iwamura1_EN.pdf
xxiv Günter Löhnert, Der Weg Zum DGNB – Zertifikat, Detail Green, No.02, 2009, pp. 28-29.
xxv www.cabe.org.uk
xxvi Guideline for sustainable building, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building
and Nuclear Safety, 2014
xxvii www.dqi.org.uk
xxviii TimucinHaputlugil, prof.dr.A. TanjuGultekin, assoc.prof.dr. Y. IlkerTopcu, Architectural Design Quality:
The practitioners’ perspective – an AHP Approach for assessment
xxix Patrik Schumacher, “Is Architectural Quality Mysteriously Ineffable?”, London 2011, contribution to the
RIBA Building Futures Debate, Business Design Centre, London “Thesis 1: Design is neither art nor
science. It is a sui generis competency. There are some obvious, unproblematic ways in which certain
aspects of the value or quality of a design can be measured quantitatively: costs, energy performance,
overall ecological performance (LEED, BREEAM), circulation efficiency, …, structural efficiency, gross to
net area efficiency etc.
These measures do not measure the architectural quality of the design – rather they measure economic
and engineering efficiencies. These latter engineering concerns are relatively easy to operationalize
because they relate to a narrowly defined sub-problem and their measures do not involve reference to the
users of architecture as socialized, sentient beings.”
20UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
6. References
[1] Günter Löhnert, Der Weg Zum DGNB – Zertifikat, Detail Green, No.02, 2009, pp. 28-29.
[2] The Governmentţs strategy for improving quality of place, World Class Place – Planning, building and
the environment, 2009
[3] Designing for the future: the market and the quality of life, conference proceedings, April 2008 Brussels,
Belgium.
[4] Architecture and Sustainability, Declaration and Policy of the Architect’s Council of Europe, ISBN 2-
930164-03-4; EAN 9782930164038
[5] www.cabe.org.uk
[6] www.buildingsplatform.eu
[7] www.bre.co.uk/sustainability
[8] www.uia-architectes.org
[9] www.welldesignedandbuild.wordpress.com
[10] www.dqi.org.uk
[11] www.ace.com
[12] Francis Ching, FORM, SPACE and ORDE
[13] TimucinHaputlugil, prof.dr.A. TanjuGultekin, assoc.prof.dr. Y. IlkerTopcu, Architectural Design Quality:
The practitioners’ perspective – an AHP Approach for assessment
[14] John Ruskin, Seven Lamps of Architecture
[15] Robert Venturi , Complexity and ambiguity in architecture
[16] C.N. Schulz, “Architecture: Presence, Language and Place”, SKIRA 2000
[17] Christoher Alexander, The timeless way of building, The Pattern language of Architecture
[18] J. Pallasmaa, “The Embodied Image – Imagination and Imagery in Architecture”, Wiley and Sons, 2011
[19] P. Schumacher“The Autopoesis of Architecture – A new framework for Architecture”, vol 1, Wiley and
Sons, 2011
[20] Vicente Guallart, “GeoLogics – Geography, Information, Architecture “, ACTAR, 2008
[21] A Resolution on architectural quality in urban and rural environments , European Council12 february
2001
[22] Felix Bachmann, Len Bass, Gary Chastek, Pat Donohoe, Fabio Peruzzi, The Architecture Based
Design Method
[23] Glenn E. Wiggins,, Methodology in Architectural Design, M.I.T.
[24] WIKIPEDIA , Architectural design values
[25] Patrik Schumacher, “Is Architectural Quality Mysteriously Ineffable?”, London 2011, contribution to the
RIBA Building Futures Debate, Business Design Centre, London “Thesis 1: Design is neither art nor
science. It is a sui generis competency.
21UIA Guideline Concerning the Value of Architecture Enhancing the Quality of Life
7. Image Credits
Fig. 1 Technical University Library Prague, arch. Projectil, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2010
Fig. 2 A whole world of rating tools, diagram by S. Murakami, copyright 2006 IBEC
Fig. 3 Oslo Opera House, arch. Snohetta, image source
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uT41RPzfX1E/maxresdefault.jpg
Fig. 4 BMW Showroom Munchen, Coop Himelb(l)au, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2009
Fig. 5 Forum Building Barcelona, Herzog & De Meuron, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2007
Fig. 6 The seven pillars of value in architecture, diagram by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2012
Fig. 7 Mosk, New Delhi, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi 2009
Fig. 8,9 Saint Pierre Church, Firminy, arch. Le Corbusier image sources https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/236x/97/54/c6/9754c6cce08cecfc04d4a41887fff3f5.jpg,
http://www.tuxboard.com/eglises-les-plus-insolites/eglise-saint-pierre-firminy-interieur/
Fig. 10 Finlandia, Helsinki, arch Alvar Aalto, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi , 2009
Fig. 11 Auditorium, Otaniemi, arch. Alvar Aalto, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2009
Fig. 12 Fishing Store Sulina, photo by Ovidiu Micsa, 2010
Fig. 13 The Tomb of Sadian’s Kings, Marrakech, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2008
Fig. 14 History Museum in Ningbo, arch. Wang Shu, image source
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/23474.aspx
Fig. 15 Tokyo Forum, arch. Rafael Vinoly Beceiro, photo by Vlad Gaivoronschi, 2011
22You can also read
