An Intellectual Framework for Design

DESIGN GOALS

We institute design change for the purpose of improving the human condition. To achieve
holistic improvement in the human/built/landscape condition we strive to develop architecture
that is:

 Aesthetically Desirable
 Climatically Comfortable
 Culturally Relevant
 Economically Viable
 Environmentally Sustainable
 Financially Feasible
 Functionally Convenient
 Physically Safe
 Politically Acceptable
 Psychologically Secure
 Socially Equitable
 Technically Sound

Acceptable architectural designs address some of these issues. Good architectural designs
address many. Excellent architectural designs, what we often call ‘creative or exceptional’ design
solutions, address and resolve many of these interrelated issues in unique, unified and mutually
supporting ways. Excellent architectural design decisions go beyond what is contained in the
given project brief.

DESIGN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The organization of design ideas – design problems and possible design approaches – is a
prerequisite to achieving design aims. To organize their thinking, designers may outline their
project with goals (basic intentions), objectives (design strategies) and performance requirements
(qualitative measures) to facilitate a rational approach to the irrational process of creative
thinking. The following may be helpful in organizing the programmatic phase of design.

Project goals (Basic Intentions): The goals state the intended results of design intervention:
why design change is being considered. If the goals cannot be clearly defined and written, it is
highly unlikely that the designer knows with any certainty what they are. Unstated goals cannot
be shared with clients or design collaborators, cannot become the basis for general agreement and
are unlikely to be achieved (Peña 1987). If you can’t write them, you do not know what your
goals are. If you do not know what your goals are the chance of meeting them with design is very
close to zero.

If the design intent is to improve on conditions as they presently exist, the first questions to be
asked are: What are the conditions to be improved upon? –and- What constitutes improvement in
the environment to be changed? Design goals define the desired results of the changes to be
imposed, such as convenience, function or safety. The design goals present your vision and
suggest unique and creative ways your building can respond to the project brief. The goals need
to be as comprehensive as possible if the basic project intentions are to be addressed holistically.
Alternatively, if the goals are to define the parameters of the project realistically, they should be
limited to the authority of the decision makers and the capacity of the decision-making process.
Project objectives (Design Strategies): Design objectives describe the means we employ to
satisfy the project goals. Unlike goals, which are general statements of project intent, the
objectives are concrete strategies. The objectives must keep various relationships of the project in
mind. This requires consideration of general form and space relationships along with lighting,
material, etc – all aspects that can be employed to satisfy the stated goals.

Design performance criteria (Qualitative Evaluation Measures): Performance criteria refer to

the desired qualitative standards of physical design relationships. The performance criteria,
which cover all aspects of design, address those areas in which the quality of design performance
may be measured. These include:

 functional requirements of the activities to be provided

 reliability of the design functioning as intended
 extent to which the design functions conform to established standards
 construction with available technology or local materials
 durability or useful life expectancy
 serviceability and ease of maintenance
 fitness of the design to the environment in which it is located
 aesthetic qualities of the design in relation to its environmental context
 perceived quality as determined by the client or users

QUESTIONS RELATED TO DESIGN GOALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL

DEVELOPMENT

Adequacy of accommodation. Are the activities to be provided adequate to meet the known or
anticipated needs of the users? Do the activities address the full range of requirements identified?
Can the activities be supported by the available infrastructure? Can the building/site as a
behavioral setting or ecological system adequately support the intended uses or activities?
Appropriateness. Is provision being made for all appropriate needs of the user groups? Are the
activities and features of the design, and the manner in which they are arranged, clearly
appropriate to the context of the natural environment? Are the activities appropriate to the
prevailing conditions of society and the times? Does the design reflect the values of the owner,
the users, and the local community? Is the design visually appropriate to the context of the
physical setting?
Functional utility. Are the activities intended, their supporting infrastructure, and circulation
support systems organized for optimum functional utility? Does the building/site provide a
supportive and appropriate setting for the functional relationships required by the activities? Are
the activities and design features arranged to enhance their functional relationships, both
individually and to meet the requirements of others that must remain active?
Comprehensiveness. Does the design address the complete range of issues to be resolved within
the limits of the decision-making process? Does the design comprehensively address or reflect an
awareness of the broad range of users and their requirements, the site and its opportunities and
limitations, the activities to be provided, and the culturally specific character of the place?
Accessibility. Is there adequate access to activities for all potential users and user groups? Does
the general circulation pattern avoid conflicts among the activities and with other elements of the
circulation system? Is the circulation system well integrated into the environmental setting? Is
there appropriate visual access for users and other members of the community?
Compatibility. Are the activities to be provided, their supporting infrastructure, and access
systems arranged for optimum compatibility with one another? Are they well integrated into the
ecological and cultural conditions of the site on which they are located? Do the activities
reinforce or support those features and processes existing on or near the site?
Health and welfare. Will the individual's experience of the place promote a sense of
psychological well-being, physical health, and improved quality of life? Does the design limit
stressful conditions for users, to an extent that is likely to promote their well-being? Is there
provision for the health of the social and ecological systems? Does the design address the users'
needs for privacy as well as belonging and interrelatedness with others?
Safety. Does the design create an environment that ensures an adequate level of protection for
those who use or come into contact with the activities or features provided? Does it convey a
sense of predictable safety to the users and the local community? Are activities located to avoid
or reduce the potential for risk from known development-induced hazards such as traffic conflicts
or natural hazards such as flood, fire, or earthquake?
Security. Does the design provide an appropriate defensible setting? Are community and private
spaces defensible against unwanted intrusion by those who pose a threat to individual safety or
social integrity? Does it convey a sense of psychological security to the users and the local
community? Are critical resources and infrastructure arranged for protection against hostile,
criminal, or terrorist acts?
Comfort. Does the design preserve desirable environmental conditions and ameliorate adversities
to provide adequate comfort for the users? Does the level of comfort provided facilitate all the
desired uses or activities? Does the design address comfort during all seasons, periods of use, and
critical times of day?
Convenience. Does the design make life easier for those who use it to engage in their daily or
routine activities without undue conflict or effort? Are there provisions for convenience on many
levels of activity; entering or exiting the site, engaging in the activities for which the place is
intended, moving from place to place within the design setting, or for engaging in casual social
interaction along the way?
Choice. Does the design offer users the opportunity to exercise individual discretion regarding
preference in access, the level of engagement, the extent of contact with others, or activities
desired? Are choices available continuously or do they vary depending on the timing of
decisions?
Legibility. Does the design clearly express itself and its relationships to adjacent settings? Does
it clearly reveal the provisions being made to facilitate desired activities, or those made to
discourage undesired activities? Are critical destinations or features clearly communicated to
those seeking that information? Does it clearly express the purpose of form and honestly express
the use of materials from which it is constructed?
Wayfinding. Does the design facilitate comprehension of the setting and orientation to place to
promote wayfinding? Are there sufficient points of reference or landmarks to enable users to find
their way through the environment and make appropriate choices of movement toward desired
destinations?
Diversity. Does the design provide a socially or culturally complex setting in which diverse
categories of people can interact and find common purpose? Does the design facilitate
harmonious relationships between socially and culturally diverse groups? Does it promote
environmental complexity and species diversity to maintain ecosystem health and viability?
Community. Does the design represent a socially responsible alteration of the landscape and
contribute to an enhanced state of social interaction, individual participation, and community
interaction among those for whom it is intended? Does the design facilitate desirable social
engagement among users to strengthen their shared sense of community and provide
opportunities for informal social interaction?
Privacy. Does the setting provide the opportunity for withdrawal and privacy for personal
reflection and intimacy? Are such opportunities provided in a way that enables those making the
choice to withdraw to do so at their discretion without inviting intrusion or sanction from others?
Beauty. Does the design enhance users' appreciation of the physical setting and the elements
within it? Does the design meet users' needs for interrelatedness with place and heighten their
aesthetic experience of it? Does it have a compelling physical attractiveness based upon a
harmonious arrangement of its elements? Can the beauty of the place be comprehended through
a variety of senses and is it related to the values and cultural perspectives of the users? Does the
place express the changing dynamics of diurnal and seasonal cycles?
Pleasure. Does the design provide the opportunity for experiences that are highly desirable and
actively pursued for the pleasurable benefits they offer to users? Are there opportunities for
intellectual and spiritual as well as sensory pleasure on multiple levels? Are pleasurable
attributes available to the full range of likely users or community members?
Sense of place. Does the design promote a culturally specific sense of place and community?
Does it incorporate and express regionally specific characteristics and features of the natural
environment? Is it particularly appropriate to the specific character of the local community as it
has developed over time?
Productivity. Does the design facilitate productive activity on multiple levels? Does the setting
promote productive relationships to address the users' working, social, or leisure requirements?
Does it promote the production and maintenance of complex biomass? Does it stimulate
improved productivity throughout the local environment, beyond the limits of the property being
directly considered?
Profitability. Does the design promote the possibility of profitable or rewarding result for the
user, developer, or investor? Does it benefit the local community? Is the likelihood of advantage
to members of the local community sufficient that they are likely to support the project's
implementation and benefit from its presence?
Economy. Does the design promote economic viability? Does it promote economies regarding
the level of investment required for development and maintenance? Are design forms, materials,
and processes realistically related to the resource base of the local environment? Can the design
be realistically achieved within the limits of available resources?
Efficiency. Does the design provide maximum benefit in development and operation for
minimum expenditure of resources to attain a given level of achievement or standard of
performance? Do the materials selected have limited embodied energy requirements? Does the
design limit the expenditure of energy and resources required for implementation and to sustain
its operation?
Adaptability. Is there a realistic opportunity for the design to respond to growth or to adapt over
time to accommodate changed circumstances? Can it support use under a variety of conditions,
seasons, or times? Can the design idea be sustained over the anticipated period of its life span
and under the altered circumstances that are likely during that time? Is the design a highly
specific “tight fit” arrangement with only a limited range of functions, or a more general “loose
fit” design that can be easily adapted to multiple generalized functions?
Resource utility. Does the design make effective use of the resources available? Are the
building/site’s cultural, physical, ecological, and visual resources used in concert with financial
resources to take optimum advantage of the site and its context? Are resources used in ways that
reasonably assure their long-term sustained yield? Are visual resources within the perceptual
reach of users employed to good advantage?
Resource conservancy. Does the design protect and conserve the building/ site's cultural,
physical, ecological, and visual resources? Are site resources employed in a way that sustains
and enhances their value for future as well as present generations? Does the design incorporate
resource elements of the past into the fabric of the present and extend them into the future in ways
that retain their value, utility, and viability? Does it confirm our cultural and ecological heritage?
Are there provisions for limiting the expenditure of energy and material resources necessary for
successful construction, operation, and maintenance?
Recyclability. Can the materials used to construct the design be disassembled and reconstituted
into new forms with minimal inputs of energy? Is the design constructed of materials that have
been previously used in another context? Does the design encourage recycling and reuse of
critical natural resources?
Synergy. Does the design promote a creative interaction among the site's processes and activities
that results in a whole greater than the sum of its parts? Does the design promote the
simultaneous integration of the users of the site in creative and productive ways? Does it bring
the social, economic, and ecological aspects of the environment together to encourage long-term
viability?
Sustainability. Does the design promote self-reliance and reduce dependence on limited
resources such as capital, fossil fuel, or groundwater? Does the design reflect local values to the
extent that society is likely to support its long-term existence? Can the building/site, within the
limits of available resources or environmental conditions, sustain the design as an integral
element of the ecological system? Can required activity sustain itself as a cultural setting with
infrastructure and circulation systems providing physical support and access? Does the design
support or reinforce the activities of the surrounding community and the ecosystem? Can the
design support future as well as present users? Is it regenerative?

Reference: Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer by William Pena, 1967