I. Preliminaries
2. Design Problems
Newell and Simon (1972) describe a problem as follows: “A person is confronted with a problem when he wants
something and does not know immediately what series of actions he can perform to get it”. This definition is true
for all problems. But one can distinguish different kinds of problems.
For example, the problems of Euclidean geometry, or problems within any calculus, are either intuitively or
demonstratively certain. They are solvable without direct reference to what exists in the physical world. For
problems defined within games, one develops prompt understanding of the permissible actions and objectives
and searches for the appropriate combination of actions that leads to the end. But there are problems where the
permissible actions are not determined, and the objects of reasoning cannot be ascertained. The contrary of every
assertion is possible without implied contradiction. Hume (1775) suggests that all reasoning concerning “facts”
is of this type. And although it is often supposed that there is an evident connection between some fact X and
another Y inferred from it, there is nothing to bind them together. Design problems belong to this last type of
problems.
Simon (1988) believes that “everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing situations into
preferred ones”. In architectural design a preferred situation can be understood in different ways. For example,
certain arrangements of forms in physical space may be preferable to other because they cause a visual-
intellectual, or psychological, response. Or, some arrangements succeed to accommodate particular activities
more effectively than others, and this makes them preferable for some people. And, some other designs turn out
to be more economical, in terms of space, time, materials etc.
Architectural design includes problems that cannot be organized deterministically. One has to determine both the
rules and the objectives of the search.
A typical statement of a design problem is based on the analysis of the
common practice. It mirrors the conventions, the habits and the optimum patterns of this practice. Statistical
information, charts, diagrams, text regarding the building code, the program, or the site prohibit certain options
while allowing others. But they do not determine the objective of designing. This demands interpretation and
evaluation of the given information, which is not a trivial thing to produce.
Further, designers approach the available information regarding a design problem without specific method. And,
as they are different in their way of thinking, in culture, in their needs and their capacity for observation, their
readings differ.
Compounded with several elements demanding effort, attention, and often the most specialized
knowledge, the process of designing has to remain finite. But, it cannot be reduced to a system of uniformly
determined acts.
At a particular state s there is a certain understanding of the given conditions, sometimes a simple disposition,
which becomes of great value, and impulse. It is the moment that one starts to act. A design concept is a
hypothesis that corresponds to the intent-towards-action of the designer, produced at this stage, in response to
the transitory understanding of the conditions. By accepting a minimum number of attitudes, and assuming
certain definitions, the designer limits the space of search and sets a basis upon which further decisions can be
made.
|
