Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abd Architecture Final
Abd Architecture Final
net/publication/223343375
CITATIONS READS
163 7,187
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan R. A. Maier on 11 April 2016.
In this regard we echo and expand upon some points made by Koutamanis in
his application of the idea of affordance to building elements and spaces. He
states ‘Affordances promise integration of different viewpoints (architects, en-
gineers, clients, users) and continuity, i.e., compatible expressions of function-
ality and usability throughout the lifecycle of a building (briefing, design and
use). This holds promise for the codification of design knowledge: affordances
could support direct matching of an existing building or type to a specific brief,
thus allowing for early evaluation and refinement of design or briefing choices’
(Koutamanis, 2006). Before expanding upon these ideas further, the concept
of affordance needs to be explored and understood, as presented in the next
section.
The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it
provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found
The idea of affordance has also been applied in the field of artificial intelli-
gence, e.g., how to design robots that recognize affordances in their environ-
ment (as in Murphy, 1999), and in a somewhat similar vein, to the study of
human childhood development (see, e.g., Gibson, 2000). Some authors in
the Human Factors field have recently applied an ecological approach to the
design of user interfaces, known as Ecological Interface Design (EID) (Vicente
and Rasmussen, 1992). Their approach emphasizes high-level processing of
data by human users and speaks chiefly to the layout and configuration of dis-
plays. However, their methods are not explicitly centered on affordances and
do not address design projects in general.
Meanwhile, a few other researchers have begun to apply the concept of afford-
ance to architectural design explicitly. Tweed (2001) reports progress on iden-
tifying and highlighting affordances within computer-aided architectural
design (CAAD) software. Koutamanis (2006) follows Norman’s application
of the concept of affordance to individual building elements such as door
With both Gibson’s and our examples of affordances in mind, for both envi-
ronmental things and architectural elements respectively, we can now general-
ize the concept in order to apply it to the design of artifacts in general and
architecture in particular. This is accomplished in the context of two distinct
classes of affordances, artifact-user affordances and artifact-artifact affordan-
ces, as discussed next.
At this point three basic categories can be identified as essential to any afford-
ance relationship. The first is structure (of artifacts and/or users), the second,
behavior (again, or artifacts and/or users), and the third, purpose. The funda-
mental relation between these categories is that systems afford behaviors via
their structure for a purpose. This is a more detailed adaptation of the dictum
from general systems theory that ‘structure influences behavior’ (cf., Senge,
1990). Essentially, we have used the generalized concept of affordances to
describe how structure influences behavior, and to what ends.
Another matrix based design tool to aid designers in understanding and man-
aging the impact of artifact structure on affordances is the Affordance Struc-
ture Matrix (ASM) which is being developed by the present authors (Maier
et al., 2007b, 2008). Using an ASM, changes to artifact structure can be traced
to the affordances that depend on each structural element. Thereby
The need to provide appropriate form and function has been recognized since
antiquity, e.g., in the writings of Vitruvius (Kruft, 1994). However, for Vitru-
vius, and for centuries of architects that he influenced, form (firmitas) and func-
tion (utilitas) were considered separate but competing requirements, among
others, such as beauty (venustas) (Vitruvius, 1960). We suggest that the concept
of affordance can be used as a conceptual basis to unite the originally separate
Vitruvian ideas of form and function, as explained in the following sections.
EB research explores the relations between people and their surroundings and
is a multi-disciplinary field spanning sociology, environmental psychology, hu-
manistic geography, natural resources, urban planning and architecture. EB
research is oriented toward understanding human characteristics at all levels
of human experience (from physiological responses to social and cultural
phenomena) and at all scales of the everyday physical environments (from
the micro-scale of interiors to the macro-scale of regions.) One of the primary
objectives of EB research is to discover underlying mechanisms that link envi-
ronment and behavior together (Moore, 1987). We believe the concept of af-
fordance is just such a mechanism, as affordances link the structure of the
environment with the capabilities of human users to determine what behaviors
are possible and even likely.
The concept of affordance can also be applied to understand basic ideas within
person-environment theories in the behavioral sciences and gerontology.
Theoretical models such as those by Lawton and Nahemow (1973) and Lawton
Since the 20th century, the investigation of the symbolic quality of the build
environment has been a focus of architectural discourse particularly during
Building upon readings from Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger and Gaston
Bachelard, Pallasmaa formulates ‘a theoretical position about experience’s re-
liance in memory, imagination, and the unconsciousness.’ Pallasmaa asserts
that meaning in architecture
Hence the impetus for any design project can be understood in terms of creat-
ing and changing affordances d neither creating artifacts to do certain things,
as a functional view of design would hold, nor creating artifacts solely on the
basis of creating a beautiful form, but rather to create artifacts that can be used
and that have meaning. The concept of affordance provides an alternate way of
viewing the design of environments, emphasizing the complementarity of the
relationship between environments and their users, i.e., between the form of
buildings and the resulting behavior of their occupants as the building
‘functions’ in practice.
Note that the vitally important determination of what exactly the artifact is
supposed to afford and not to afford is an early and crucial phase of the design
process itself. Within the domain of architecture, this phase of the design
process is often referred to as ‘architectural programming.’
One of the most referenced texts, Problem Seeking by Pena (2001), defines
architectural programming as an analysis stage and is distinct from the later
design phase defined as ‘problem solving.’ Pena’s initial approach to architec-
tural programming (published as early as 1977) has significantly influenced the
practice of architecture and provided a basis for subsequent writings on archi-
tectural programming (e.g., Kumlin, 1995; Cherry, 1998; Hamilton, 1999;
Hershberger, 1999). During pre-design phases architects and other profes-
sionals on the planning team generally employ several interactive methods
and techniques to collect information on the internal and external forces
that impact a given project. Generally speaking, the planning team may con-
duct environmental evaluations and assessments, collect data, research best
practices, interview different user groups, establish goals, and generate a list
of technology and equipment needs. During this inquiry process, objectives
are established, the context of the design problem is identified and the perfor-
mance requirements are defined (Duerk, 1993). Ultimately, a large amount of
information is distilled into several key concepts that are intended to inform
the later design process. Most architectural programming approaches utilize
a divided programming and design process and this is often reinforced in
the organizational structure of large architectural firms. A limitation of this
Note also that the determination of affordances directly requires the expertise
of designers who have knowledge of the context in which the artifact or build-
ing will be used. This includes the meaning suggested by individual elements as
well as everything that will need to be accomplished with the artifact (which
leads to everything the artifact needs to afford), not only what the artifact
will need to do itself (function) or look like (form). Recall that an important
difference between affordance-based design and other views of the design pro-
cess is the formal identification of things that the design should not afford. In
other words, it is not sufficient to design an artifact to accomplish certain goals
(e.g., meeting budget, attractive appearance) if that artifact also accomplishes
undesired goals (e.g., criminal activity, short life-span).
The need for such a knowledge base has been articulated at national confer-
ences on the design of buildings and landscapes. For example, the 2003
National American Institute of Architects (AIA) Convention theme was
‘Design Matters e Poetry and Proof’ (Aiarchitect, 2003) a provocative title
which conveys that there is not a sufficient knowledge base to inform design de-
cisions and help justify design decisions when communicating with the client or
Adaptations are needed when a building structure does not afford desired be-
haviors, or affords undesired behaviors. Levy and Salvadori (1994) provide
many examples of adaptations to buildings over time due to unintentional
design consequences.
Signage is often used to compensate for the lack of properly designed affordan-
ces. Within any large institutional, educational or commercial building one can
see signs placed all over these facilities for the purpose of orienting the user, e.g.,
‘watch your step’, or ‘do not enter’. Better designs are those that do not need
signs because they indicate by their structure how they are to be used. For ex-
ample, the front entry doors to the Cooper Library at Clemson University were
recently changed. In the old design, the exterior handles afforded both pulling
and pushing, although the doors only opened inward. To remedy the problem
of patrons’ consternation over frequently trying to pull the door open, signs
were installed instructing the user to ‘PUSH’ (Figure 2a). However, the handles
themselves were much larger than the signs, and users continued to try to pull
the doors open. Recently, the problem was resolved by replacing the handles
with push plates that only afford pushing and not pulling (Figure 2b). Note
that with the new push plates the signage for ‘PUSH’ is in fact redundant
because the plates only afford pushing, not pulling.
Obsolescence in artifacts may result when buildings afford specific uses, but do
not afford change. Often times, it is too expensive to rectify or to modify the
design of an artifact and it becomes prematurely demolished. In many cases,
these buildings are built with (i.e., to afford) a specific intended purpose, for
a temporary time period.
‘has not’ distinction. One artifact may afford a desired use better than
another.
Moreover, the affordances of the artifact can differ with respect to different
users. The concept of ‘environmental role’ developed by the British psycholo-
gist David Canter clearly supports this premise. Building from his general the-
ory of place as mentioned earlier, ‘environmental role’ is a particular set of
associated behaviors and rules within a particular place that vary according
to the relationship between an individual and place (Canter, 1977). He argues
It is also interesting to note how the concept of affordances applies over a wide
range of scales from the very large macro-scale of projects such as Pruitt-Igoe
to more human-scale objects such as entry doors to smaller micro-scale ele-
ments such as door handles. This observation emphasizes the general applica-
bility of the concept of affordances across the field of architecture as we have
advocated in this paper.
4 Summary remarks
In this article we have proposed that the idea of affordance, an established con-
cept from ecological psychology, may serve as a conceptual basis and unifying
framework for architectural theory, design, and practice. As many researchers
have realized, architectural design, as other fields of design, lacks a rigorous
theoretical basis. The concept of affordance can provide that basis, as Gibson
originally suggested, because it ties together human occupants (users) and the
built environment (artifacts) and explains why and how users behave the way
they do. These ideas unite various perspectives from architectural theorists
from Vitruvius to Norburg Schulz, Heidegger, Canter, Pirsig, and other
contemporary thinkers. We have also shown how the concept of affordance
provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding past architectural
failures, and how an understanding of affordances can help prevent such fail-
ures in the future. More broadly, the scheme we have outlined of affordance-
based design for architecture can be used as a broad framework uniting the
work and understanding of architects, engineers, future occupants, and other
stakeholders. Such a framework will also facilitate knowledge capture and
re-use.
We realize that these ideas are presented at a high-level and are chiefly theoret-
ical in nature. It is our hope that this article provokes a lively debate within the
architectural and broader design community, and helps to undergird parallel
efforts by other researchers who are actively developing techniques for apply-
ing affordances to architectural practice. The potential benefits of a rigorous,
testable, and practicable design theory are enormous. So too are the costs of
continuing ad-hoc practices which frequently result in dissatisfaction and oc-
casional outright failure. We invite and look forward to the opinions and con-
tributions of other researchers in the pursuit of a unifying and mature theory
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Chris Pagano of the Department of Psychology at
Clemson University for his many valuable comments on drafts of the paper.
We would also like to thank Peg Tyler, Associate Librarian in the Clemson
University Libraries for graciously providing the photographs of the door
handles on the Cooper Library. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of
earlier drafts of this paper for their helpful comments, especially with respect
to the Pruitt-Igoe example and the scale of affordances.
1. Lewin argued that behavior in general could be viewed generally as a function of the
interaction between people and the environment. Based on his research a formula was
derived: B ¼ f (P, E, P E), where behavior (B) is a function (f) of person (P) and envi-
ronment (E) and the interaction between the two (P E).
References
Aiarchitect (2003) AIA national convention and exposition, <http://www.aia.org/
aiarchitect/thisweek03/tw0509/convention2003.asp> (accessed 12.10.07)
Astin, A W and Holland, J L (1961) The environmental assessment technique:
a way to measure college environments, Journal of Educational Psychology Vol
52 pp 308e316
Battisto D, et al (October 2006) A green community wellness center: expanding
the scope of design for health, AIA Academy Journal
Bristol, K G (1991) The Pruitt-Igoe myth, Journal of Architectural Education Vol
44 No 3 pp 163e171
Brown, D C and Blessing, L (2005) The relationship between function and afford-
ance, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Longview, CA,
Paper No. DETC2005e85017
Canter, D (1977) The psychology of place Architectural Press, London
Canter, D and Walker, E (1980) Environmental role and the conceptualizations of
housing, Journal of Architectural Research Vol 7 No 3 pp 30e35
Cherry, E (1998) Programming for design: from theory to practice John Wiley &
Sons, New York
Craik, H K and Feimer, N R (1987) Environmental assessment in Handbook of
environmental psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York pp 891e918
Duerk, D (1993) Architectural programming: information management for design
John Wiley & Sons, New York
Eco, U (1979) A theory of semiotics Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN
Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2004) Human-centered system architecture: a framework
for interpreting and applying user needs, in ASME Conference on Design Theory
and Methodology, Salt Lake City, UT, Paper No. DETC2004-57545
Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2005) Affordances in product architecture: linking tech-
nical functions and user requirements, in ASME Conference on Design Theory
and Methodology, Long Beach, CA, Paper No. DETC2005-84525
Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2006) Incorporating affordances into product architec-
ture: methodology and case study, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and
Methodology, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC2006-99404