archigram vision in the context of adaptable...

Vol. 1, September 2016 Asian Journal of Technical Vocational Education And Training (AJTVET)1

Archigram Vision in the Context of Adaptable Architectureand Its Current Potential

Zulkefle Ismail **Department of Civil Engineering

Politeknik Port Dickson, 71050 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Formed in the 1960s cultural milieu, the Archigram avant-garde group envisaged and designed architectural

environments able to respond to individual choice, desires and needs. Their vision for architecture in

providing instant services, automation and comfort, through robotized systems, seems to meet the Sustainable

Cities vision, and it is applied in the so-called Adaptable Architecture. Although this is outside the

architecture discipline, the applications are able to proactively enhance and cater for people's life and needs

either through autonomous/adaptive or user-driven control. The issues are related to the architectural design

and its buildability as well as modification over the lifecycle of the house. This paper examines analogies and

dissimilarities between Archigram's work and Adaptable Architecture looking at both their intentions and

projects. In a broader sense it includes an innovative participatory process for a better means of

personalization of the home and a carefully worked out design of the support and infill systems with a

considerable degree of variations. These will be eased for renovation and extension works that currently

limited in housing using IBS in Malaysia. The method used in this study was based on the assumption that

the existing technology of adaptability in the experimental housing of NEXT21 in Japan could be applied to

the housing in Malaysia. It is argued that Adaptable Architecture involves a functionalist flexibility

paradigm, unlike Archigram's proposals. On the other hand, alternative types of Adaptable Architecture, i.e.

the so-called user-driven, seem to near Archigram's vision for indeterminately flexible spaces. Yet, the

apparent potential of Archigram's experimental projects, especially those that are kinetically driven, is far from

the vision and capacities of user-driven in Adaptable Architecture. The paper further examines contemporary

attempts to combine user-driven control and kinetics in architecture concluding that, apart from research in

engineering systems and novel materials, conceptual guidelines toward this end are also needed.

Key words : Archigram, IBS, Domino, Unite d'Habitation

1. Introduction

Adaptability in general is the ability of individual modifications to suit new conditions. Adaptability is broadly

interpreted with definitions referring to “change of use”, maximum “retention” of original structure and fabric, and

extending “useful life”. Frequent terms like renovation, refurbishment, remodelling, reinstatement, retrofitting,

rehabilitation, and recycling of buildings are incorporated. Adaptability can occur within use and across use; for

example, an office can undergo adaptation and remain an office or it may change its usage to residential and be classed

as across use adaptation.

This paper examines the analogies and dissimilarities between Archigram's work and Adaptable Architecture

looking at both their intentions and projects. The research stems from a multifaceted need of users in housing using

IBS to transform, improve and adapt to their habitats. This need is confronted with the inability of contemporary

architecture to develop profoundly adaptable architectural living environments.

2. Architectural Transformation

There are many ways to classify such architectural transformations. Most typically found classifications are


segregated based on functions. Another way of classifying adaptive buildings is by the technical process in which

their transformation is achieved. In order to formulate classification more adequate for the scope of research to

follow, examples of adaptive architecture have been categorised based on the performance of the process of their

adaptation. In this way, two (2) distinguishable categories of adaptation of housing using IBS have been defined,

namely; flexible and reconfigurable. These groups are not mutually exclusive and approaches they represent can be

combined in many ways.

2.1. Flexible Construction

Building for living adaptation requires soft spatial flexibility and constructional openness. Spatial flexibility

involves dimensional coordination with grid and zone. While constructional openness involves level separation and

interface decomposability.i The latter requires components of generic shape, joints detachable and working process

that is simple for construction.ii However, a major problem arising in construction is the connection of different

modular dimensions.iii The connection on site of the units is a distinct challenge.

Therefore, the adaptable house must distinguish between two different decision-making levels i.e. support and infilliv

to ensure the building can be optimally modifiedv to meet changing needs. Inspired by the conceptual division of

Support and Infill, there has been a great deal of work done in the modern movement of housing.vi There is relatively

less development and less understanding on the subject of adaptability, especially for housing using IBS. Both

recognize that it is the responsibility of the architectural profession to take this diversity and change into

consideration.vii

A base building is built in the knowledge that we cannot predict what is going to happen to it. According to

Habraken, the more variety can assume in the support structure, the better.viii Therefore a base building design is not a

load-bearing structure skeleton design but is designed for a variety of uses and changes. The capacity of adaptation to

undetermined programs is the key dominating the quality of architectural design.

However, the diversity of the wishes of inhabitant was in conflict with normal practice in building.ix,x They are three

(3) principles which characterize the relationship between Support and Infill and they are as follows:

i. The Support is always more permanent than its Infill.

ii. The functions performed by the Support are usually more exacting than the functions of the Infill.

iii. In many cases, the development of Infill can be left to the fluctuations of the market and special desires of

individuals.

Previous studies identified that the human advantages of design strategies and building technologies such as housing

using IBS to be adaptable and provide for flexibility through the relationship of Support and Infill. A flexible system

will offer a coordinated set of architectural panel components to serve the Infill.

2.2. Adaptation by Reconfiguration

Configuration was defined as relations that take into account other relations and methods developed to measure the

relations between each space in a complex and all the others; and in this way to assign ‘configurational’ values to

individual spaces describing the links of each to all others.xi Space not only behaves lawfully when manipulated,

these laws also are the means by which they have agency in human affairs.xii The sense that spatial configurations

provide the conditions for the emergence of different kinds of complexity in human affairs, provide only the

continuation of everyday activity; and human beings consistently and knowledgeably manipulate space for social

purposes.

One of the contemporary architecture images of reconfiguration building as adaptability is the Domino concept

which is based on separation of structure and fill in.xiii The concept are based on a system where the vertical planes

can be built up on the building parameter and, in part, on the building’s interior. The insulating perimeter can be

positioned either on the exterior, in same plane as the elements or within the element.xiv Figure 1 shows the Domino T

concept which is based upon a T-shaped, house of cards and wall movable using concrete element which integrates

columns, beams and walls for the slab.


i. Domino T ii. Wall house of cards iii. Domino wall movable

Figure 1 Concepts for exterior walls as “Domino”.

Reconfiguration of buildings has been attempted to be re-facilitated along with the introduction of modular

building components. Among some of the earliest realized projects on large scale of this kind of built was in 1947-52

at Marseilles, France. The Unitè d'Habitation (Housing Union or Housing Unit) is a twelve-story apartment block late

modern counterpart of the mass housing schemes of the 1920s.xv The project based on the ‘bottle-rack principle’ (see

Figure 2) and the approach is an integration of philosophy of dwelling of the technology of housing production, and a

method of design. The building, which was refurbished in 1996 to suit today’s space requirements, has a number of

alterations including the combining of two adjoining units into one.

Figure 2 Bottle-rack principle in the Unite d'Habitation.

The individual dwelling units of the Unitè are shaped according to a complex programme that takes into account a

variety of dweller needs. The main form of variation is in household type assuming a complex concept of ‘family’

that underpins contemporary urban reality.xvi However in those days Le Corbusier hardly had to deal with adaptability

of services system. Consequently, the statement about a separation of structure and infill was made in 1972xvii and

later, the development of separation of services was conducted in Matura Infill System.

3. Leisure through Technology


Unlike Le Corbusier, a modernist who utilized technology in architecture as an “aesthetic (expression) of

technological, functional and (Rationality) of humanity…”xviii, Archigram explored potential leisure scenarios of

technology in addition to the influence of standardization of mass society where every one’s creativity was harnessed.

They believed that one day, just as the consumer’s frozen lunch (had become) is more important than Palladio

architecture environments would become obsolete, subject to disposal, replacement and update. Consequently,

through the wonders of modern technology, more leisure time would be available and create a type of Utopia where

people (could) control and transform their environment or live in the environment of their choice. Architecture is not

considered static. A society grows and changes; this same organic dynamism to its architecture can use archigram by

applying technology in extreme forms. In Walking City, they created a visually ‘organic’ (machine that reconfigured)

the typical understanding of what a machine should both look like and do. And Plug-in city is a highly technological

environment where there is the communal structure and the connections are standardized, yet each dwelling is

completely different and subject to change and individualization. As expressed by modernist Le Corbusier, where

“space, light, and air” are transcendent, plug-in city offers a reinvention of modern architecture through “flexibility,

mobility, and expressive identity”.

Figure 3 Technology in extreme forms.

3.1. Adaptation of Space to Human Needs

Human needs differ among individuals and change over time. Human needs are used as an indicator ofchange in an installation or environment that a person can enforce.xix These changes can by cyclical,following daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and lifetime cycles, but are also highly dependent on individual’snon-recurring biological conditions.

Dynamic architecture adapts to the varying needs of the users; such as changing the environmentalcircumstances or the designer’s desires and imaginations.xx Interpretation of human needs is also stronglyaffected by individual’s “beliefs” which can be defined as comprising of cultural influences and revisingknowledge based on past experiences. Because of this, beliefs are highly subjective and can greatly varynot only among cultural groups, but even among closely related individuals. There is a mutualinterdependence between human needs and beliefs. Strong beliefs may lead to suppression or stimulationof specific needs. Together, needs and beliefs are the main drives of human behaviour and govern ways ofhuman’s responses to external factors.

However, in which the ultimate flexible interior may be one that is completely amorphous andtransitional. There are several technicalities involved when defining aspects of adaptation.xxi Thusadaptation and flexibility have played an important role in housing using IBS. A high Structural Flexibilitywill increase the building’s performance by allowing for possible future adoptions of the building layers, forexample caused by changing user requirements.xxii


3.2. Adaptation to Anticipated Changes

Taking into account the possibility of patterns of inhabitant activities altered in effect of a spatialintervention, those adaptations can also be performed pro-actively in response to an anticipated demand.Although certain functionalities may not be directly needed by their potential users, a provision of thosefunctionalities can change and generate new needs and patterns of behaviour and activity. Architecture canoperate similarly as the definition of adaptability which are of relevance to architectural system, is thecapability of exchange with their environment.xxiii xxiv

Many IBS housings are created by developer firms in anticipation of a demand for specific functions.Dekker stated that interactivity is specially used as an indicator of change in an installation or environmentthat a person can enforce, taking into account the form and function implications.xxv Similarly, affordablesuburban housing may entice a family who is used to an urban lifestyle to move to a suburban area andchange their entire activity pattern accordingly. This is according to Friedman who defined adaptability forhomes as “providing occupants with forms and means that facilitate a fit between their space needs and theconstraints of their homes either before or after occupancy”.xxvi

However, Douglas defined adaptation as: “any work to a building over and above maintenance to changeits capacity, function or performance” in other words, “any intervention to adjust, reuse, or upgrade abuilding to suit new conditions or requirements” as anticipated changes.xxvii

3.3. Adaptation by Flexibility/Adjustable

Whenever ‘flexible architecture’ is mentioned, to most people it will conjure images of moveablepartitions and fold-out furniture. These examples symbolize what Jeremy Till defines as hard and softflexibility, respectively. xxviii The distinction between these two terms is simple, but crucial. Hardflexibility describes a building with physically moving parts, designed to be changed by the occupant to suittheir needs. Soft flexibility, on the other hand, is achieved by creating a versatile space with the ability tohouse many diverse activities over its lifetime. Hard flexibility is more popular of the two – ‘there is adirect, almost simplistic, conviction that flexibility in architecture is best delivered through actual physicalchange’ – but arguably soft flexibility provides opportunity for much greater longevity.

The best example residential building allows flexibility not only for user-customized dwelling interiors,but also selection of customizable cladding and infill panels, is the NEXT21 (see Figure 4) building inOsaka, Japan. Each apartment shows a different layout, governed by the specific needs of its occupants.Many layouts have been changed completely since the initial construction was completed, while maintaining90% of the original components. A sophisticated series of grids for structural components (3,600 mm) wasused in NEXT21.xxix The exterior façade components are composed of different glazing units completed bycolourful stainless steel interchangeable horizontal laths which allow adaptation to the interior layout of theunits; the panels can be dismounted from the inside without exterior scaffolding.xxx

STRUCTURE CLADDING INFILL

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

AL

DE

SIG

N


CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

YS

TE

M

Figure 4 Structural Design and Construction System at NEXT21, Osaka, Japan.

4.0 Discussion

This section will discuss further the explicit formulation in terms of design and the user’s satisfaction forbetter process of adaptable design for housing using IBS in Malaysia. In order to provide strategies forsuch adaptable design and further advance the state-of-the-art in techniques and methods for IBS housing,form and function were identified as technological difficulties in the concept of adaptability and flexibility.These difficulties may be classified as the design of the structural method, and the design of the functionalrequirements of the space.

4.1 Flexibility of Floor Plan

Considering the factor of the structure, the more the structure avoids any obstacle to the space, the moreit allows for freedom and flexibility. It is obvious that the long span skeleton structure provides formaximum interior freedom. The desirable method, as for adaptable housing of NEXT21 which gives agreat amount of freedom, is the skeleton structure. Since the building must be divided into different sizeshousing units, the combination of skeleton structure with cross bearing walls may achieve the sameadvantages as the skeleton structure, with high quality of acoustic insulation between the units. As atwo-stage housing, the design of the units begins after the design of the building frame and continues whilethe building frame is being constructed. Dwellings and their mechanical systems are designed prior todesign of the base building’s mechanical system. Subsequently, mechanical services at all levels are installedby a single contractor. The participation of the occupants is instrumental throughout all designdecision-making processes.

4.2. Functional Requirements of the Panel

The main difference between traditional architectural and adaptable architecture is the attribution offlexibility to designed spaces. Where traditionally the functional spatial organisation would be fixed, herethe spaces was flexible, both in terms of size of space, its relations to other spaces, as well the type offunctional programme attached to it. Spaces would consequently have simple behaviours attached to users,allowing adaptation depending on changing local conditions. Aggregation of adaptability between themrequires better structuring in order to deliver IBS housing as shows in Figure 5. Thus, the adaptability isrelated to transparency, closed or open, and stratification of design system.

4.3. Open Building System

In order to permit Open Building System, developers need to first arrive at the open concept of the IBShousing. Such concept would include identifications of architectural panel, relations between them, andtheir overall purpose of adaptability. Different manufacturer of panel clearly see different systems and they


do not share the same concept. The common discrepancy between building system lying at attribution ofstakeholders. Users would typically the stakeholder to the entire housing, architects to its conceptuallyidentified building components, and engineers to specific technical apparatuses. Predefining adaptability ina top-down fashion at the outset of architectural design proved beneficial only in a limited way. It facesresistance from designers seeing it as a constraint or hindrance to their creativity; for engineers as notcorresponding to technical solutions, and is difficult to convey to persons not directly involved in the designprocess. Consequently, the aim of the panel is to provide a structure in such a way that culturally andprofessionally valid programming of different users could be integrated. A key for implementing suchOpen Building System lies in the understanding of attributed party, tied to the definition of adaptability.

4.4. Stratification of Design System

The complexity of housing using IBS means that it is impossible to represent those systems with a singledesign. Any initial design concepts’ simplistic representation becomes gradually “stratified” into multiplerepresentations showing different aspects of the concept. Such design would be complementary toeach-other and together it forms a comprehensive description of a designed system. Similarly, deployedsystems would consist of a number of supplementary and/or overlapping sub-systems corresponding to someof the complementary designs. Consequently, the Architectural Panel is required to support coexistence ofheterogeneous design and systems and their integration.

4.5 Modularity for Adaptable Architecture

The various types of IBS can be customized, dynamically transformed and assembled into largerarchitectural structures. The various methods and design techniques discussed in respect to the developmentof adaptability, can be treated as modules, and can be combined in different ways to structure a process ofhousing using IBS. The process of the housing to a high extent involves transformation of such genericmodules to fit the highly specific conditions of the project, defined by its context and constraints. Modulesare thus primarily various sorts of systems such as panel, that share some of their characteristics with othercomponents. In addition, modules employed in housing using IBS can also be located outside of thesystems, as is the case with reusable instruments or design techniques. The application of AdaptableArchitecture of modules is illustrate in Figure 5 as follows

Figure 5 Adaptable Architecture for Housing Using IBS


Availability of technology is a strongly constraining factor for the housing. Throughout the years in which

housing is developed, global technological developments such as development of new IBS and adaptable system, have

had a strong influence on housing projects. In retrospect, technology can be seen as a critical enabler of adaptable

housing, but reliability on specific existing technology or exclusion of a new technology can be a factor that largely

constrain the development and evolution of Adaptable Architecture. The role of technology in adaptability is

unquestionably important. However, specific technological solutions fluctuate across housing projects. In

correlation with the often constraining role of technology on some design aspects, it can be concluded that Adaptable

Architecture needs to be formulated independently of any possible technological solutions. However it needs to

enable and facilitate inclusion of technology and its consequences on adaptability.

5. Conclusion

The adaptability has a long history from traditional construction to the more recent government led initiatives to

promote IBS in Malaysia. The adaptable attributes found in traditional designs were primarily driven as methods to

accommodate the diversity of everyday life at the scale of the component as opposed to increasing the longevity of the

housing. Whilst historical efforts in Europe and Japan have embedded an understanding in architectural and

construction of important concepts around adaptability and implementation has been a slow journey. Research into

adaptability requires the effective communication between professionals, with clients and users. Expanding the

adaptability towards Open Building System will link the manufacturers to a multitude of contextual dimensions for the

success of IBS housing using architectural panel.

As a conclusion, to make exchangeability and (multiple) reuse of building components achievable in Malaysia, the

architectural panel needs to be reconfigured. The design should focus on standardisation of form and dimension of

the basic elements of construction systems. The use of building components composed by dry construction and

assembling should be buildable and practicable. Thus, a new adaptable innovative direction for IBS housing of

architectural panel should be developed further. This can allow architects and engineers to understand and meet

design standard and user’s needs.

6. References

Tomasz Estkowski, Towards a Generative Design System Based on Evolutionary Computing (Oslo: Unipub AS,

2013), 26-60. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/id/205959/Estkowski_PhD_thesis_11_03_2014.pdf

Zulkefle Ismail, Improving architectural panel programming for increasing user satisfaction in industrialized housing

in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur: IIUM, 2014),

Cecília G. da Rocha, Carlos T. Formoso & Patrícia Tzortzopoulos, “Adopting Product Modularity in House Building

to Support Mass Customisation,” Sustainability 7 (2015): 4919-4937.

http://www.mdpi.com/20711050/7/5/4919/pdf

Q.M. Mahtab-uz Zaman & Stephen S.Y. Lau, “Difficulties in achieving open building in mass-housing in Hong

Kong and implication of user participation,” Architectural Science Review Vol 45, Issue 3 (2002): 175-181.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697508

Masran Saruwono, An Analysis of Plans of Modified Houses in an Urbanised Housing Area of Malaysia. (UK: The

University of Sheffield, 2007),

Zulkefle Ismail, A Preliminary Evaluation of Prefabricated Bathroom for High-Rise Housing Scheme in Malaysia

(Kuala Lumpur: IIUM, 2007),

Beisi Jia, “Transformable building facade: An interface between community and user’s control,” Joint Conference of

CIB W104 and W110 – Architecture in the Fourth Dimension: Methods and Practices for a Sustainable Building Stock

(2011): 321-327. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23858.pdf

Neil John Habraken, Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing (London: The Architectural Press, 1972), 59-61.


http://www.oikodomos.org/workspaces/app/webroot/files/references/text/amartin_15_Habraken_Supports.pdf

Robert Maurice Oxman, Flexibility in support: An analysis of the effect of selected physical design variables upon

the flexibility of support type housing systems, (Haifa: Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, 1978),

Arjan van Timmeren & Mick Eekhout, Development & Realisation of the Concept House Delft Prototype

(Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2015),

Bill Hillier, “Space and spatiality: what the built environment needs from social theory,” Building Research and

Information Vol 36, Issue 3 (2008): 216-230.

Bill Hillier, “Studying cities to learn about minds,” in Space Syntax & Spatial Cognition, ed. C. Holscher, R.

Conroy-Dalton & A. Turner (Bremen: Universitata Bremen, 2007), pp. 11–31.

https://core.ac.uk/download/files/118/1687404.pdf

Jos J.N. Lichtenberg, “Slimbouwen®, adaptability on an economic basis,” International Conference On Adaptable

Building Structures, (2006): 3-297 – 3-301. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10852.pdf

Matthias Bram, “Projecting with precast concrete components,” New Perspactive in Industrialization in Construction

– A State-of-the-Art Report, (2010): 317-331. http://site.cibworld.nl/dl/publications/tg57_pub329.pdf

Kenneth Frampton, Le Corbusier (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2001),

Le Corbusier, Towards a new architecture (New York: Dover Publication, 1986),

https://monoskop.org/images/b/bf/Corbusier_Le_Towards_a_New_Architecture_no_OCR.pdf

Neil John Habraken, Shell Infill House: A Study on the Application of the Open Systems Approach in Housing

Design (London: The Architectural Press, 1987),

Lara Schrijver, Radical Games Popping the Bubble of 1960's Architecture (Belgium: NAi Publishers, 2009),

A. Dekker, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006),

J. Edler & T. Edler, “Message vs. Architecture? Dynamic media as a continuation of architecture,” Game Set and

Match II: on Computer Games, (2006):

Robert Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture that responds to change (London: Laurence King Publishing, 2007),

R. Blok & F. van Herwijnen, “Quantifying structural flexibility for performance-based lifecycle design of buildings,”

International Conference On Adaptable Building Structures, (2006): 1-16 – 1-20.

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10760.pdf

Peter Schwehr, “Evolutionary algorithms in architecture,” 16th International Conference on Open and Sustainable

Building, (2010): 289-299. http://site.cibworld.nl/dl/publications/w104_16th.pdf

T. Eguchi, R. Schmidt III, A. Dainty, Simon Austin & Alistair Gibb, “The cultivation of adaptability in Japan,” Open

House International. vol. 36, no.1. (2011): 73-85.

Adedokun Ade, “Environment and adaptation in architecture planning and building designs; lesson from the forest

region of West Africa,” British Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2014): 9-20.

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Environment-and-Adaptation-in-Architecture-Planning-and-Building-D

esigns-Lesson-from-the-Forest-Region-of-West-Africa.pdf

Avi Friedman, The adaptable house (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002),

J. Douglas, Building Adaptation (Massachusetts: Butterworth Heinemann, 2006),

Jeremy Till & Tatanja Schneider, Flexible Housing (Amsterdam: Architectural Press, 2007),

Seiichi Fukao, “The history of developments towards open building in Japan,” International Joint Conference CIB

W104 & CIB W110 (2008): http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB11014.pdf

Neil John Habraken, “Design for flexibility,” Building Research and Information. Vol 36, Issue 3 (2008): 290-296.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09613210801995882

7. Bibliography

Ade, Adedokun. “Environment and adaptation in architecture planning and building designs; lesson from the forest

region of West Africa.” British Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2014): 9-20.


http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Environment-and-Adaptation-in-Architecture-Planning-and-Buildin

g-Designs-Lesson-from-the-Forest-Region-of-West-Africa.pdf

Blok, R. & van Herwijnen, F. “Quantifying structural flexibility for performance-based lifecycle design of buildings.”

International Conference On Adaptable Building Structures, (2006): 1-16 – 1-20.

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10760.pdf

Bram, Matthias. “Projecting with precast concrete components.” New Perspactive in Industrialization in Construction –

A State-of-the-Art Report (2010): 317-331. http://site.cibworld.nl/dl/publications/tg57_pub329.pdf

Corbusier, Le. Towards a new architecture. New York: Dover Publication, 1986.

https://monoskop.org/images/b/bf/Corbusier_Le_Towards_a_New_Architecture_no_OCR.pdf

da Rocha, Cecília G; Formoso, Carlos T. & Tzortzopoulos, Patrícia, “Adopting Product Modularity in House Building

to Support Mass Customisation.” Sustainability. 7 (2015): 4919-4937.

http://www.mdpi.com/20711050/7/5/4919/pdf

Dekker, A. Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies. Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006.

Douglas, J. Building Adaptation. Massachusetts: Butterworth Heinemann, 2006.

Edler, J. & Edler, T. “Message vs. Architecture? Dynamic media as a continuation of architecture.” Game Set and Match

II: on Computer Games, (2006):

Eguchi, T.; Schmidt III, R.; Dainty, A.; Austin, Simon & Gibb, Alistair.“ The cultivation of adaptability in Japan,” Open

House International. vol. 36, no.1. (2011): 73-85.

Estkowski, Tomasz. Towards a Generative Design System Based on Evolutionary Computing. Oslo: Unipub AS, 2013.

https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/id/205959/Estkowski_PhD_thesis_11_03_2014.pdf

Frampton, Kenneth. Le Corbusier. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2001.

Friedman, Avi. The adaptable house. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Fukao, Seiichi. “The history of developments towards open building in Japan.” International Joint Conference CIB

W104 & CIB W110 (2008): http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB11014.pdf

Habraken, Neil John. “Design for flexibility.” Building Research and Information. Vol 36, Issue 3 (2008): 290-296.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09613210801995882

Habraken, Neil John. Shell Infill House: A Study on the Application of the Open Systems Approach in Housing Design.

London: The Architectural Press, 1987.

Habraken, Neil John. Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing. London: The Architectural Press, 1972. 59-61.

http://www.oikodomos.org/workspaces/app/webroot/files/references/text/amartin_15_Habraken_Supports.pdf

Hillier, Bill. “Space and spatiality: what the built environment needs from social theory.” Building Research and

Information. Vol 36, Issue 3 (2008): 216-230.

Hillier, Bill “Studying cities to learn about minds.” In Space Syntax & Spatial Cognition, edited by C. Holscher, R.

Conroy-Dalton & A. Turner, 11–31. Bremen: Universitata Bremen, 2007.

https://core.ac.uk/download/files/118/1687404.pdf

Ismail, Zulkefle. A Preliminary Evaluation of Prefabricated Bathroom for High-Rise Housing Scheme in Malaysia.

Kuala Lumpur: IIUM, 2007.

Ismail, Zulkefle. Improving architectural panel programming for increasing user satisfaction in industrialized housing

in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM, 2014.

Jia, Beisi. “Transformable building facade: An interface between community and user’s control.” Joint Conference of

CIB W104 and W110 – Architecture in the Fourth Dimension: Methods and Practices for a Sustainable Building.

Stock (2011): 321-327. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23858.pdf

Kronenburg, Robert. Flexible: Architecture that responds to change. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2007.

Lichtenberg, Jos J.N. “Slimbouwen®, adaptability on an economic basis.” International Conference On Adaptable

Building Structures (2006): 3-297 – 3-301. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10852.pdf

Oxman, Robert Maurice. Flexibility in support: An analysis of the effect of selected physical design variables upon the

flexibility of support type housing systems. Haifa: Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, 1978.

Saruwono, Masran. An Analysis of Plans of Modified Houses in an Urbanised Housing Area of Malaysia. UK: The

University of Sheffield, 2007.

Schrijver, Lara. Radical Games Popping the Bubble of 1960's Architecture. Belgium: NAi Publishers, 2009.


Schwehr, Peter. “Evolutionary algorithms in architecture.” 16th International Conference on Open and Sustainable

Building (2010): 289-299. http://site.cibworld.nl/dl/publications/w104_16th.pdf

Till, Jeremy & Schneider, Tatanja. Flexible Housing. Amsterdam: Architectural Press, 2007.

van Timmeren, Arjan & Eekhout, Mick. Development & Realisation of the Concept House Delft Prototype. Amsterdam:

IOS Press, 2015.

Zaman, Q.M. Mahtab-uz & Lau, Stephen S.Y. “Difficulties in achieving open building in mass-housing in Hong Kong

and implication of user participation,” Architectural Science Review. Vol 45, Issue 3 (2002): 175-181.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697508

archigram vision in the context of adaptable...

Documents