See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330515577

Factors affecting the design and development of responsive facades: a

historical evolution

Article in Intelligent Buildings International · January 2019

DOI: 10.1080/17508975.2018.1562414

CITATIONS READS

11 2,030

2 authors:

Negar Heidari Matin Ali Eydgahi

University of Oklahoma Eastern Michigan University
15 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Responsive building facades and technologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Negar Heidari Matin on 05 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Intelligent Buildings International

ISSN: 1750-8975 (Print) 1756-6932 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tibi20

Factors affecting the design and development of

responsive facades: a historical evolution

Negar Heidari Matin & Ali Eydgahi

To cite this article: Negar Heidari Matin & Ali Eydgahi (2019): Factors affecting the design and
development of responsive facades: a historical evolution, Intelligent Buildings International, DOI:
10.1080/17508975.2018.1562414

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2018.1562414

Published online: 20 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tibi20
INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2018.1562414

Factors affecting the design and development of responsive

facades: a historical evolution
Negar Heidari Matina and Ali Eydgahib
a
Eastern Michigan University College of Technology, Visual and Build Environment, Ypsilanti, MI, USA; bEastern
Michigan University College of Technology, Engineering Technology, Ypsilanti, MI, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A responsive facade system is considered a major component of Received 24 September 2018
high-performance building envelope that is capable of responding to Accepted 19 December 2018
environmental stimuli and aims to improve occupants’ comforts and
KEYWORDS
energy consumption. While building design-related research have Facade; responsive
addressed the technical and design aspects of responsive facades, very architectures; historical
limited historical studies have been conducted on the evolution of such evolution of facades; facade
systems. This paper investigates and classifies in a chronological manner technology; smart building
the historical factors involved in the evolution of design and
development of responsive facade systems. The influential factors are
classified into a set of sociocultural, technological, political,
environmental and economic factors originating from revolutionary
changes in art, technology and building construction since late
nineteenth century. The historical timeline presented is intended to
serve as a helpful resource for researchers and educators in research
and teaching activities. The formulated timeline can be utilized to track
the pattern of current developments and predict what might be
expected in the future. While the focus of the paper is on individual
architecture, the trend of the recent facade developments as presented
in the timeline suggests that responsive facades will be possibly
implemented for urban-scaled development of smart neighborhoods
and/or cities in the future.

Introduction
Numerous factors stemming from revolutionary changes in public culture, economy, technology and
their impact on architecture initiated the idea of responsive facades in the 1960s. A facade system is
one of the most significant contributors to the energy consumption and the occupants’ comfort of
buildings (Aksamija 2016), due to the fact that 20–60% of annual energy consumption of a building
is attributed to the design and construction of facade system (International Energy Agency 2013). A
traditional facade, as a static system, is not capable of adjusting its performance over time in response
to climatic conditions (Selkowitz and Aschehough 2003; Kim and Jerratt 2011; Sorensen 2013). Static
facades contain design variables such as window-to-wall ratio, glazing type, shading shape, and insu-
lation with limited reactions to various dynamic climatic conditions (Shan 2016). To overcome limit-
ations of traditional facade systems, various types of high-performance facade systems have been
proposed (Trubiano 2013; Veliko and Thun 2013; Romano et al. 2018). During past decades, respon-
sive facade systems have attracted increasing attentions in both the construction industry and

CONTACT Negar Heidari Matin nheidari@emich.edu Eastern Michigan University College of Technology, Visual and Build
Environment, Ypsilanti 48197, MI, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

academia as they utilize active strategies for achieving higher level of sustainability (Basarir and
Altun 2017).
The recent studies on the existing responsive facades indicate that they play an influential role in
lowering carbon emission and increasing saving in energy consumption (Grobman, Capeluto & Aus-
tern, 2017). Under such systems, a reduction of 20% in carbon emission and a saving of 50% in
energy consumption can be achieved (Karanouh and Kerber 2015). While the majority of the studies
have focused on design, geometrical, structural, technological, material, and energy aspects of
responsive facades (Moloney 2009; Beaman and Stefan 2010; Sharaidin and Salim 2011; B Obrębski
et al. 2013; Grobman and Yekutiel 2013; Khoo and Salim 2013; Loonen et al. 2013; Verma and Deva-
dass 2013; Thobaiti 2014; Yekutiel and Grobman 2014; Elghazi, Wagdy, and Abdalrahman 2015;
Lopez et al. 2015; Ahmed et al. 2016; Benbacha and Bourbia 2016; Lee et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2016;
Choi, Lee, and Jo 2017; Loonen et al. 2017; Al-Masrani et al. 2018), a very limited studies have
been conducted on social and historical aspects of facade systems (Veliko and Thun 2013).
The objective of this paper is to present a historical study in a chronological manner that explores
factors originated and influenced responsive facades in different time periods. A graphical timeline
associated with the chronological discussion is created to depict the historical sequence of the factors
affecting the design and development of responsive facades. The current trend of advancements in
responsive facades as shown in the timeline can be used to predict what advancements may be com-
ing in the future.

Impact of technology and arts on twentieth century architectures

The reality of industrialization and urbanization, first were manifested by impressionist artists.
Affected by impressionism, twentieth century art intended to assimilate the machine and techno-
centric society (Smith and Smith 2015). Advancements in science and technology promoted the
definition of machine influenced aesthetic, which admired beauty in the mechanical motions.
Thus, different technocentric art movements such as futurism, constructivism, Bauhaus, and kineti-
cism were established in art and architecture (Simon et al. 2008). The machine-based kinetic sculp-
tures considered as sources of inspiration for architects to design building components such as
facades. During past seventy years, the kinetic art combined with facade technology displayed differ-
ent types of active facades including responsive building facades.

Concept of motion in arts and architectures

The concept of motion in art first appeared in artistic movements during the nineteenth century
when impressionist painters portrayed the motions existed in nature including those of human
bodies in realistic scenes of life (Popper 1968; Bessette 2018). The evolving pattern of motions in
the visual arts could be traced back to 1860, when impressionists fought to free from the restrictions
of two-dimensional canvas (Popper 1968). During the revolutionary advancement in technology and
associated industrial booming, the artistic concept of motion was further evolved by modernism
when the concept was affected by the industrial life in modern cities emerging in the beginning of
the twentieth century. As motion became an integral part of machines during the industrial revolu-
tion, art was affected by the technology (Bessette 2018).
Influenced by dynamism of the machine and cubism and inspired by the photographs’ art works
recording the continuous motions of animals and figures in 1870s, Italian futurism was founded in
1909 (Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015). Futurism, as a social and artistic movement in art and architecture,
preliminarily envisioned and portrayed machines by their specific features such as motion, speed,
time, and the associated technologies in the artistic works from 1910 to 1930 (Perrone and Büchler
2005). Futuristic pioneers praised the value of new mechanized era and its special beauties including
the beauty of the speed and motions brought by industrialized civilization. During this era, since
machines were viewed as tools of perfection with specific features, an architecture tended to be
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 3

considered, viewed and designed as a machine (Corbusier 1923). Such consideration led to the idea
of ‘house-machine’ and ‘city-machine’ concepts that would supposedly improve both the efficiencies
of buildings and comfortability of occupants (Corbusier 1923; Perrone and Büchler 2005).
Affected by socialism philosophy, the constructivism movement branched out from Russian
futurism to serve communism in art and architectural domains (Papadakis and Cooke 1992). To
this end, a constructivism artist, Yakov Chernikhov, pioneered the first perspectives of moving archi-
tectures and their kinetic components in 2-dimensional context in 1933 (Khmelnitsky 2013). The
concept of motion was further integrated in artistic works in 3-dimensional forms as kinetic sculp-
tures. ‘Standing Wave’ designed by Gabo Naum in 1920, was the first 3-dimensional object that inte-
grated dynamics into sculpture design (Mason 2011). The kinetic movement was originated from
dada art and was affected by Russian constructivism philosophy in 1920s, which was promoted as
an international artistic trend in 1955 when the Le Mouvement group exhibition was held at the Gal-
erie Denise René in Paris (Cotter 1899).
Dadaism was initiated by refugee artists and intellectuals against a senseless war, the World War I,
in 1910s. Absurdities were used as an offensive weapon against the ruling elite as war contributors
(Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015). Due to Dadaism philosophy, the artists believed in the change of forms,
re-objectified hug variety of objects to design artistic works, and created perspective using motions
(Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015; Esaak 2018). These features were utilized in kineticism as the source of
inspiration for kinetic artisans.
The kinetic movement rejected the aestheticism of modern capitalistic societies to promote its
political dependence on communism. In this movement, the beauty of art was redefined in mech-
anical motions featured in the sculptures. Kinetic movement was considered as four-dimensional
since it initiated the implementation of time and speed through 3-dimensional architectural space
(Popper 1968).
The motions featured in the sculptures were generated by a mechanism which was driven by
either mechanical, electro-mechanical, chemical actuators, or stimuli of natural resources such as
water, wind, or gravity (Malina 1974). On the other hand, under influence of the Bauhaus school
kinetic art was considered as a bridge associating art with technology, science, and engineering.
Based on Bauhaus educational goals, knowledge of fundamental science related to kinetic art
such as mechanics, physics, mathematics, and chemistry were promoted among young artisans
through 1920s. As a result, kinetic art developed to multi-disciplinary field of study (Chen, Lin,
and Fan 2015).
Kinetic sculptures included on transformable element gradually developed to the sculpture with a
number of kinetic elements. The modular kinetic components were used by architects as design con-
cept to be utilized in building facades (Rivenc and Bek 2018). Gianni Colombo’s artwork in 1960s
such as ‘Strutturaziona Pulsante’ (Scicolone and Cancogni 2010) and ‘Struttura tricroma’ (Rivenc
and Bek 2018) are considered as modular kinetic sculptures that consist of many movable com-
ponents with individual motions in the space. Also, Heinz Mark and Julio Le Parc artworks such
a ‘Light Dynamo’, ‘Farborgal’, ‘Lichtram’, ‘Continual Mobile’, and ‘Continual Light’ can be con-
sidered as a bridge between kinetic art and kinetic facade design (Rivenc and Bek 2018).

Concept of architecture motions in media and literature

Being fascinated about motions in the context of technological advancements or scientific achieve-
ments was not limited to artistic movements but it was also reflected in literature and even media
where the futuristic utopian cities and lifestyles were predictively described. For instance, in 1962,
the idea of a ‘responsive house-machine’ was introduced by a British novelist, James Graham,
who described a ‘psychotropic house’ as a live, mood-sensitive, and shape-adapting house, which
responded to its occupants’ preferences and requirements (Kolarevic and Parlac 2015). This was a
turning point where the motions featured in architectures were implemented for functional purpose
rather than artistic one.
4 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

The science fiction television series and films such as The Jetsons, Barbarella, and A Space Odys-
sey predicted that futuristic cities will be inspired by moving machines and advanced technologies in
late 1960s and early 1970s (Veliko and Thun 2013; Caplescu 2015; Kolarevic and Parlac 2015). Fur-
thermore, Star Trek released in 1967 speculated on technologies such as voice-recognition, handheld
computing and communications, human computer interaction, and machine-supported medical
diagnosis (Lasbury 2017).

Sustainability concept in responsive architectures

Following the technological advancements, the environmental movement and energy crisis during
the 1960s and 1970s along with concerns for availability of natural resources increased the cost of
fossil fuel energy and created a growing public awareness about crucial environmental issues such
as ecological balance, green culture, and sustainable strategic planning (Carson, 2002; Griswold
2012; Veliko and Thun 2013).
The environmental movement triggered the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the Water
Quality and Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Acts in 1965. Also, the OPEC oil export embargo
affected by ongoing conflicts in Middle East caused energy crises in the 1970s and the early 1980s. In
1989, the environmental movement, energy crisis, and their subsequent consequences caused the
American Institute of Architects (AIA) to form a committee on energy and environment to focus
and promote passive and active technological approaches on the design of buildings’ components
such as active responsive building envelopes (United States Environmental Protection Agency
2016). In 1990, the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) was launched by the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom as the
first method to assess, rate and certify sustainability of buildings (Veliko and Thun 2013). In
1998, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) developed a US rating system called Lea-
dership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for the design, construction, and operation of
high-performance green buildings. The LEED certifications specify the standards for the design and
construction of the high-performance building envelopes including responsive facade systems to
address the indoor environmental quality (Loonen, Favoino, Hensen, & Overend, 2016).
According to the International Energy Agency, the development, application and implementation
of responsive building elements such as facade is a necessary step towards further energy efficiency
improvements in the built environment (Heiselberg et al. 2009). Al-Bahar Towers are one of the
buildings that have received LEED-silver certification for having reduced energy consumption in
terms of lighting and cooling loads by up to 50% (Karanouh and Kerber 2015; Al-Kodmany 2018).

Socio-cultural concept in responsive architectures

In order to address the problem of uniformity that existed in modernist style, post-modern architec-
tures proposed incorporating historical and cultural references in facade design from the 1980s to the
1990s. While modernist slogans such as ‘ornament is crime’ and ‘a house is a machine for living’ led
to dominance of technological culture in architectural design, post-modernism accepted technology
when integrated in conjunction with socio-cultural values, local or regional identities. Historical
motifs were manifested in building ornaments that represented national cultures (Loos 1908). In
the post-modern era, advanced technologies were integrated with socio-cultural values while com-
plying with environmental principles in design of responsive facade systems (Sendi 2014). Thus,
responsive facade systems could feature aesthetic desires and socio-cultural values simultaneously
with technical functionalities. The implementation of the historical motifs as socio-cultural values
in facade design can be considered as a convergence of technology and culture (Moussavi 2006).
In Middle Eastern culture, geometric pattern design is one of the most prominent visual arts
widely used for decoration and ornamentation purposes in regional architecture (Broug 2013).
Depiction of anthropomorphic forms and their incorporation in architecture are prohibited based
on religious beliefs. So, the art of Islamic ornamentation has been developed mainly in the form
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 5

of geometric pattern generation. As a result, a praised, elegant, and complex set of geometric patterns
has been introduced and developed (Abas and Salman 1992). In 1989, such geometric patterns were
integrated in the design of the responsive facade installed in the Arab Institute building in Paris man-
ifesting Middle Eastern cultural symbols in the western world. This facade was geometrically
designed and built in a form of a traditional Middle Eastern sunscreen called Mashrabiyas, which
was equipped with photo-sensing technology to control the natural light (Wilkinson and Wood
2012). In 2012, a similar approach was adopted in the design of the Al-Bahar Towers’ responsive
facade systems in which five-folded geometric patterns were implemented as underlying geometry
(Broug 2013; Sendi 2014).

Cybernetics in responsive architectures

As a great conflict, World War II (1939–1945) caused death and suffering but provided a great deal
of scientific and technological innovations. After World War II, advancements in electronic technol-
ogy led to the implementation of dynamic entities in art and architecture, whose core creation was
the computer invention in 1946. Preliminary concepts and theories related to computer such as
information processing, cybernetics information theory, and computer science provided the tools
for creating controllable motions through architecture (Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015).

Architectural cybernetics
Paralleled by the cold-war politics and military practices, new disciplines such as cybernetics, infor-
mation theory, and general system theory were emerged in the 1940s. In 1947, machines were inter-
preted anthropologically as extensions of human intelligent systems (Yiannoudes 2016). This
biological interpretation of machines and technologies established a new science of cybernetics in
1948, which was developed by using World War II experiments with anti-aircraft systems that antici-
pated the course of enemy planes by interpreting radar images (Galison 1994). Subsequently, the
science of automatic control systems and communications were implemented in mechanisms.
Basic principles of cybernetic theory were formulated by synthesizing information theory, communi-
cation theory, and theory of machine control during various Macy conferences held between 1942
and 1965 (Popper 1968; Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015).
Cybernetic theory of design was proposed by applying the concept of cybernetics to architecture
(Pask 1969). Considering a building as a machine, the cybernetic theory of design was originated
from functionalism and mutualism theories of architecture. Based on this theory, architecture and
its components have reciprocal interactions with building occupants to manage, control, and
adapt the performance of the building based on occupants’ preferences and needs. Thus, buildings
are required to be designed as dynamic entities rather than static ones (Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015).

Responsive architectures
The term responsive architecture was first introduced by Nicholas Negroponte during the late 1960s
(Kolarevic and Parlac 2015). The concept of responsive architecture was formed based on the theory
of interaction, the theory of conversation, and the adaptive-conditional theory, which defined a
building as a self-adjusted system operated by the feedback from both the occupants and the
environment (Matin, Eydgahi, and Shyu 2017). Responsive architectures featured the use of dynamic
entities in components of the architecture such as the building envelopes offering wide interactions
between humans and the environment.
The first architectural group that employed cybernetic concepts such as indeterminacy, infor-
mation feedback, self-regulation, and adaptation in their hypothetical designs was Archigram.
This group formed as a neo-futuristic, anti-heroic and pro-consumerist firm in London in 1960
(Sadler 2005). Archigram published British architect Ron Herron hypothetical ‘Walking City’ project
6 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

in 1964. The walking city idea was imagined as a massive, transformable and mobile structure with
its own intelligence that could interconnect with other walking cities to form ‘walking metropolises’
(Khmelnitsky 2013). In 1969, Reyner Banham implemented the cybernetic feedback mechanisms in
several conceptual design projects to dynamically engage buildings with environmental changes.
Banham’s responsive projects such as ‘Transportable Standard-of-living Package’, ‘Environmental
Bubble’, ‘Anatomy of Dwelling’ were published in a book titled ‘A Home is not a House’ (Yiannoudes
2016).
As another representation of responsive architecture, the ‘Fun Palace’ was designed by Cedric
Price in the early 1960s using the emerging fields of information technology and cybernetics as
the socio-political changes in the post World-War II promoting public optimism and enthusiasm
(Yekutiel and Grobman 2014; Smith and Smith 2015). With the implementation of sensors, actua-
tors, transducers, and controllers, the cybernetic system in the ‘Fun Palace’ were capable of collecting
and analyzing information about preferences and activities of individuals. The data collected were
processed to determine how the architecture should be changed. The ‘Fun Palace’ was capable of
learning behavioral patterns to plan future activities (Yiannoudes 2016).
In 1969, during the post-war socio-economic environment, the emerging communication and
information technologies were utilized to design a floating mega-structure city called ‘Electronic
Urbanism’ (Pohl, Karanastasi, and Skoutelis 2013). This system embedded communication technol-
ogies that allowed wide-range of connections such as tele-work, tele-management, tele-medicine,
and tele-education between people and social groups (Yiannoudes 2016).

Implementation of advanced technologies in responsive facades

Implementation of kinetic in responsive facades combined with existing technologies at the time,
displayed different appearances that indicate deep influence of technology and its development
(Chen, Lin, and Fan 2015). Technologies of sensing, actuating, and control systems used in buildings
were first published by Popular Science Magazine with their application in remote control of garage
door opener in 1931 (Veliko and Thun 2013). Control of building mechanisms such as responsive
facades was advanced due to the availability of electrical components and control systems in the
1960s (Ahmed et al. 2016). The Kaufmann’s hand-operated facade was the basis for the development
of motorized mechanism for blinds that were used in the Los Angeles County Hall of Records in
1962. This facade mechanism was equipped with a switch control technique to adjust pivotal actua-
tors based on a preset algorithm (Matin, Eydgahi, and Shyu 2017). Furthermore, advances in com-
puter engineering introduced a new possibility in central controlling of facade systems. The
advancement of computer engineering provided the access to many digital systems such as main-
frame computers, primitive microprocessors, desktop microcomputer, home computer and personal
computer from 1960s to early 1980s (Veliko and Thun 2013). In 1967, Buckminster Fuller designed a
futuristic responsive facade for the United State Pavilion at Montreal Expo 67. The technology used
in this responsive facade was a soft self-regulated shading system with structural cables, which oper-
ated using a roller blind mechanism (Khoo 2013).
Different responsive facade systems have been designed since 1989. These systems are different in
geometry, mechanism, sensing technology such as light, temperature, and touch sensors, and actuat-
ing technology such as motor-based, pneumatic, and hydraulic actuators. In the earlier design of
responsive facades, switches were used for control purposes, but they were replaced by the central
computerized system in newer and more advanced design. The central control system is still the
most reliable technology implemented in the design of responsive facade systems. The central con-
trol system was utilized in the responsive facades of some well-known buildings such as Council
House 2 Building in 2006, Showroom Kiefer Technic in 2007, Q1 Headquarters Building in 2010,
Al-Bahar Towers in 2012 and One Ocean Pavilion in 2012 (Matin, Eydgahi, and Shyu 2017). In
2007, optimization techniques were implemented to improve occupants’ comfort in the Showroom
Kiefer Technic designed by Ernst Giselbrecht (Khoo 2013). The idea of a distributed control system
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 7

is also implemented in responsive facades to control the interconnected panels by microcontrollers

(Grobman and Yekutiel 2013). In recent years, the implementation and use of control systems have
been affected by the introduction of information technology (Scicolone and Cancogni 2010; Rivenc
and Bek 2018).
Various groups, labs and institutions have been established to advance design and construction of
responsive facades. These groups include MIT Architecture Machine group established in 1968, MIT
Media Lab established in 1980, Intelligent Building Institute established in 1986, Hoberman Associ-
ate founded in 1990 and MIT Adaptive Building Initiative (AIP) established in 2008 (Veliko and
Thun 2013). Tessellate in 2008 (Kolarevic and Parlac 2015), Strata in 2009 (Hoberman Associates
2012), and Adaptive Fritting 2009 (Tashakori 2014) are the projects that have been managed by
Hoberman association and its partners. In these projects, the facade systems are equipped with
motor-based actuators that are controlled centrally using electro-mechanical technologies (Matin,
Eydgahi, and Shyu 2017).
The concept of utilizing smart materials in responsive facades were introduced in (Davies 1981)
by proposing polyvalent facade systems. With the advancement of technology in material science,
materials such as shape memory alloys, shape memory polymers, electro-active polymers, and
phase-changing materials were applied in design of responsive facade systems in very small scale
(Sharaidin 2014). These smart materials were invented between 1940s to1980s and were used as
actuators, sensors or control systems in the structure of responsive systems (Decker and Zarzycki
2013). Material-based actuations could replace mechanical and electro-mechanical actuations in
the future (Decker 2013; Kolarevic and Parlac 2015).

Timeline representing historical evolution of responsive systems

A timeline of the historical evolution of responsive facades is depicted in Figures 1 and 2. In this
timeline, the vertical line shows the continuity of the events as they proceed with respect to time.
The circles are indicative of milestones associated with the events discussed. The horizontal lines
in each row are originated from the milestones and pointed toward the descriptions of the events
outlined in the timeline. It has been attempted to link the events to the relevant illustrations
shown in the timeline.

Influential factors affecting responsive facades

The influential factors affecting the development of responsive facades are summarized pictorially in
Figure 3. These factors can be categorized into following four different groups:

. Socio-cultural factors: are selected based on different artistic and social movements established
during the twentieth century. The artistic and social movements such as impressionism, futurism,
constructivism, Dadaism, modernism and post-modernism affected social sciences, philosophical
viewpoints of artists, aesthetic definitions of art, and the value of socio-cultural motifs. These fac-
tors affected the motion of form and geometry of responsive facade systems.
. Eco-political factors: are selected based on various political and economic events such as wars,
revolutions, sanctions, and energy crises, which encouraged designers to implement sustainable
strategies in design, material selection and structural systems. These factors affected the energy
efficiency and optimization strategies in responsive facade systems.
. Environmental factors: are selected based on different environmental regulation and acts that
became mandatory subsequent to the environmental disasters of the twentieth century. The dis-
asters raised awareness about crucial environmental issues such as ecological balances, public
green culture and sustainable strategies planning.
. Technological factors: are selected based on the advancements in science and technologies such
as cybernetics, information technology, control systems, materials science, smartphones, and the
8 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

Figure 1. Timeline representing historical evolution of responsive facade systems.

internet of things. These advancements affected motions, controls, interactions, and selections of
materials and structures in responsive facade designs.

These influential factors had direct impact on design concepts used in design and development of
facade systems. Since the design concepts define various features of motions generated in facade sys-
tem, they can affect the characteristics of responsive facades. Figure 4 presents design concepts and
facade characteristics that are resulted from sociocultural, technological, political/economic, and
environmental factors.

Future advancements in responsive facade systems

The current trend of facade system advancements as presented in Figures 1 and 2 can be utilized to
predict what responsive facade advancements may be coming in the future. Some of these potential
advancements are as follows:

Internet of things in responsive facade systems

Technology of internet of things is based on four critical elements, which are created initially by the
smart phone industry. These elements include low-cost distributed sensors with embedded comput-
ing, wireless communications, cloud-based data storage, and shared inter-operable protocols (Konis
and Selkowitz 2017). The recent advancement in new internet technologies features cloud-based
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 9

Figure 2. Timeline representing historical evolution of responsive facade systems.

Figure 3. Influential factors affecting the development of responsive facade systems.

10 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

Figure 4. The characteristics of responsive facade systems.

services, the internet of things, real-world user/machine interactions, smart phones, smart-meters,
and sensors networks that provide opportunities for responsive facade systems to be potentially inte-
grated as elements of smart cities. Networks of sensors embedded in facade systems collect real-time
data related to temperature, humidity, light, wind, and behavioral patterns of occupants. Collected
data are stored in a cloud that provides information to control systems. The control systems com-
municate with facade actuators for optimized performance to improve efficiencies. Also, networks of
sensors embedded in responsive facade systems could be linked by software to enable the system to
not only collect climate data but also exchange data among other building systems at different zones
of a building or at different buildings of a neighborhood.

Smartphones-based controllable responsive facade systems

The introduction of smartphones and wide usage of smartphone apps have provided a possibility of
smartphone-based controllable responsive facade systems. The capability of decentralized systems
and local sensors allow individual facade panels to be controlled by smartphone apps. In 2016,
the NBBJ architectural company developed an app called Goldilocks that employs real-time data
to provide occupants with the option of setting a desired interior environment. The desired interior
environment is achieved by a control system working in conjunction with a sensors network gather-
ing different data on acoustical conditions, temperature, day light, and users’ activities within the
interior environments (Stoughton 2017).

Interconnected responsive facade systems

Integration of information technology, communication technology, and internet of things intro-
duced the concept of a smart city, which was promoted as future urban development in the late
2000s. According to International Data Corporation, a smart building is considered as a key aspect
of a smart cities that would utilize advanced automation to measure, monitor, control, and optimize
operation and maintenance. As an element of a smart building, a responsive facade is a self-adjusted
system operated by real-time data from the environment and feedback from occupants. Responsive
facades are potentially capable of controlling, managing and adjusting the light level, glare discom-
fort, light energy efficiency, thermal resistance value, solar heat gain co-efficiency, heat energy
efficiency, response to solar patterns, occupant comfort level, and passive ventilation (Matin, Eyd-
gahi, and Shyu 2017).
In smart cities, the concept of control in responsive facade systems could be replaced from the
individual control by users to global control by a master. Distributed control systems can promote
the concept of interconnected facade systems, which link various building facades in smart cities.
As Figure 5 shows, in this concept, independent microcontrollers embedded in individual facade
panels are connected to each other to exchange local real-time data. At a higher level, a set of
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 11

Figure 5. Interconnected responsive facade systems in neighboring buildings.

individual panels of a building is connected to various facade systems in a smart neighborhood or a

smart city to transfer information globally. A master is designed to control these interconnected
facade systems in a smart city. At local level, microcontrollers are embedded in the facade panels
or groups of panels working in conjunction with local sensors which are triggered by internal or
external stimuli. So, actuations occur based on the program logic of the local agents. Motion starts
in the panels, which can affect the adjacent panels and create a chain of motions in a building facade.
At the global level, each building with its set of microcontrollers in a neighborhood is considered a
slave that is registered to a master microcontroller. The master measures, monitors, and analyzes
real-time environmental data along with users’ feedback to control and optimize facade automations.
Synchronization among interconnected facade systems in a smart neighborhood or a smart city can
provide smart shading for pedestrians, adjust natural light intensity and reflection in urban spaces,
control natural ventilation in urban paths and pedestrians, decrease annual energy consumed for
urban services purposes, prevent environmental noises, and represent aesthetic desires and socio-
cultural values.
12 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

Conclusion
Design and development of responsive facade systems gradually occurred in multi-phase processes
through past seventy years. Historical evidence shows how the design and development of responsive
facades have been affected from sociocultural, technological, political/economic, and environmental
factors originating from revolutionary changes in art, technology, and building construction since
late nineteenth century. In response, to the lack of comparative chronological analysis of responsive
facade systems, a graphical historical study was presented. The influential factors involved in the
design and development of responsive facades were identified and discussed. These factors had direct
impact on design concepts used in the design and development of facade systems. Also, the concept
of interconnected responsive facades in the smart neighborhood or smart city that can improve the
quality of life was discussed.

Notes on contributors
Negar H. Matin is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Technology at Eastern Michigan University (EMU), Ypsilanti, Michi-
gan. She has been a doctoral fellow working on responsive facade systems since 2015. Her research interests are in
interdisciplinary areas of cultural identities, architectural technology, building envelopes, responsive autonomous
intelligent facade systems and smart materials. During her PhD, she has published six journal and conference papers
in high-ranking architectural research journal and conference proceedings. Ms. Matin has over 5 years of experience of
teaching in architecture and interior design field at Azad Islamic University and Eastern Michigan University. She has
been LEED Green Associate since 2016.
Ali Eydgahi started his career in higher education as a faculty member at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in
1985. Since then, he has been with the State University of New York, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and
Eastern Michigan University. During 2006-2010, he was Chair of the Department of Engineering and Aviation
Sciences, Founder and Director of the Center for 3-D Visualization and Virtual Reality Applications, and Technical
Director of the NASA funded MIST Space Vehicle Mission Planning Laboratory at the University of Maryland East-
ern Shore. In 2010, he joined Eastern Michigan University as an Associate Dean in the College of Technology and
currently is a Professor in the School of Engineering Technology. He has an extensive experience in curriculum and
laboratory design and development. Dr. Eydgahi has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Tau Alpha Pi,
as a member of Advisory and Editorial boards for many International Journals in Engineering and Technology, as a
member of review panel for NASA and Department of Education, as a regional and chapter chairman of IEEE, SME,
and ASEE, and as a session chair and as a member of scientific and international committees for many international
conferences.

References
Abas, S. J., and A. Salman. 1992. “Geometric and Group-Theoretic Methods for Computer Graphic Studies of Islamic
Symmetric Patterns.” Computer Graphics Forum 11 (1): 43–53. doi:10.1111/1467-8659.1110043.
Ahmed, M., A. Abdel-Rahman, M. Bady, E. Mahrous, and M. Suzuki. 2016. “Optimum Energy Consumption by using
Kinetic Shading System for Residential Buildings in hot Arid Areas.” International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean
Energy 5 (2): 2.
Aksamija, A. 2016. “Design Methods for Sustainable, High-Performance Building Facades.” Advances in Building
Energy Research 10 (2): 240–262. doi:10.1080/17512549.2015.1083885.
Al-Kodmany, K. 2018. “Sustainability and the 21st Century Vertical City: a Review of Design Approaches of Tall
Buildings.” Buildings 8 (102): 2–40.
Al-Masrani, Salwa M., Karam M. Al-obaidi, Nor Azizah Zalin, and M. I. A. Isma. 2018. “Design Optimiazation of Solar
Shading Systems for Tropical Office Buildings: Challenges and Future Trends.” Solar Energy 170: 849–872.
Basarir, B., and M. C. Altun. 2017. Analysis of Low-tech Adaptive Facade Systems: Preliminary Results, Conference of
interdisciplinary perspectives for future building envelopes (ICBEST), Istanbul, Turkey.
Beaman, M., and B. Stefan. 2010. Responsive Shading: Intelligent Facade Systems, The Association for Computer Aided
Design in Architecture (ACADIA). Austin: University of Texas.
Benbacha, C., and F. Bourbia. 2016. Effect of Kinetic Facades on Energy Efficiency in Office Buildings-Hot Dry
Climates. In 11th Conference on advanced building skins, 1, 458–468, Bern, Switzerland. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-
100635-1.00006-X.
Bessette, J. 2018. “Machine art in the Twentieth Century.” Arts 7 (1): 1–8. doi:10.3390/arts7010004.
 INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS INTERNATIONAL 13

B Obrębski, J., R. Tarczewski, P. Kolodziej, and P. Zylka. 2013. Experimental Research of the Adaptive Building
Envelope, International association for shell and spatial structures (IASS) Symposium, Wroclaw University of
Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.
Broug, E. 2013. Islamic Geometric Design. 1st ed. London: Thames & Hudson.
Caplescu, O. A. 2015. Architecture in Science Fiction Movies. Romania, Ion Mincu: University of Architecture and
Urbanism.
Carson, R. 2002. Silent spring, 361. Boston: Houghton Mifflin harcourt.
Chen, G.-D., C.-W. Lin, and H.-W. Fan. 2015. “The History and Evolution of Kinetic art.” International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity 5 (11): 922–930. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.581.
Choi, S., D. Lee, and J. Jo. 2017. “Methods of Deriving Shaded Function According to Shading Movements of Kinetic
Facades.” Sustainability 9: 1449.
Corbusier, L. 1923. Toward a New Architecture. London: John Rodker Publisher.
Cotter, S. 1899. Force Fields-Phases of the Kinetic. Barcelona: ACTAR, Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona.
Davies, M. 1981, February. “A Wall for all Seasons – Some Radical new Proposals for the Way we use Glass in
Buildings.” Journal of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) 88: 55–57.
Decker, M. 2013. Emergent futures: nanotechnology and emergent materials in architecture. Proceedings of the con-
ference of tectonics of teaching: building technology educators society (BTES), Newport: Rhode Island.
Decker, M., and A. Zarzycki. 2013. “Designing Resilient Building with Emergent Materials.” ECAADe 32 (2): 179–184.
Elghazi, Y., A. Wagdy, and S. Abdalrahman. 2015. Simulation Driven Design for Kinetic System; Optimize
Kaliedocycle Facade Configuration for Daylighting Adequacy in Hot Arid Climate, 4th Conference of
International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA), Hyderabad, (1).
Esaak, S. 2018. What dada was and why it matters. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-dada-182380.
Galison, P. 1994. “The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the Cybernetic Vision.” Critical Inquiry 21 (1): 228–266.
Griswold, E. 2012. How ‘silent spring’ Ignited the Environmental Movement. The New York Times.
Grobman, Y., I. Capeluto, and G. Austern. 2017. “External Shading in Buildings: Comparative Analysis of Day Lighting
Performance in Static and Kinetic Operation Scenarios.” Architectural science review 60 (2): 126–136. doi:10.1080/
00038628.2016.1266991.
Grobman, J., and T. Yekutiel. 2013. Autonomous Movement of Kinetic Cladding Components in Building Facades.
International Conference on Research into Design, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai. doi:10.1007/978-81-
322-1050-4_84.
Heiselberg, P., I. Andresen, M. Perino, and A. Aa. 2009. IEA ECBCS Annex 44 Integrating Environmentally
Responsive Elements in Buildings-expert Guide Part1: Responsive Building Concept.
Hoberman Associates. 2012. Hoberman: Company Profile and Selected Works. http://www.hoberman.com/
HobermanPortfolio.pdf.
International Energy Agency. 2013. Technology Roadmap, Energy Efficient Building Envelopes. https://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapEnergyEfficientBuildingEnvelopes.pdf.
Karanouh, A., and E. Kerber. 2015. “Innovations in Dynamic Architecture.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering
3 (2): 185–221. doi:10.3233/FDE-150040.
Khmelnitsky, D. 2013. Yakov Chernikhov: Architectural Fantasies in Russian Constructivism. Berlin: DOM Publishers.
Khoo, C. 2013. “Morphing Architecture: with Responsive Material System”, thesis, Architecture and Design, RMIT
University, Australia.
Khoo, C., and F. Salim. 2013. Lumina: A Soft Kinetic Material for Morphing Architectural Skins and Organic User
Interfaces, Proceedings of international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing, Zurich,
Switzerland, 53–62.
Kim, K., and C. Jerratt. 2011. “Energy Performance of an Adaptive Facade System.” Journal of Architectural Research,
179–186.
Kolarevic, B., and V. Parlac. 2015. Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change. New York: Routledge Press.
Konis, K., and S. Selkowitz. 2017. Effective Daylighting with High-Performance Facades: Emerging Design Practices.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Lasbury, M. 2017. The Realization of Star Trek Technologies: The Science, Not Fiction, Behind Brain Implants, Plasma
Shields, Quantum Computing, and More. Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Lee, D.-S., S.-H. Koo, Y.-B. Seong, and J.-H. Jo. 2016. “Evaluating Thermal and Lighting Energy Performance of
Shading Devices on Kinetic Facades.” Sustainability 8 (9): 883. doi:10.3390/su8090883.
Loonen, R., F. Favoino, J. Hensen, and M. Overend. 2016. “Review of Current Status, Requirements and opportunities
for Building Performance Simulation of Adaptive Facades.” Journal of building performance simulation 10 (2): 205–
223. doi:10.1080/19401493.2016.1152303.
Loonen, R. C. G. M., F. Favoino, J. L. M. Hensen, and M. Overend. 2017. “Review of Current Status, Requirements and
Opportunities for Building Performance Simulation of Adaptive Facades.” Journal of Building Performance
Simulation 10 (2): 205–223.
Loonen, R. C. G. M., M. Trcka, D. Costola, and J. L. M. Hensen. 2013. “Climate Adaptive Building Shells: State-of-the-
art and Future Challenges.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25: 483–493.
14 N. HEIDARI MATIN AND A. EYDGAHI

Loos, A. 1908. Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos: Selected Essays, Ariadne Pr. 1997.
Lopez, M., B. Croxford, R. Rubio, S. Martín, and R. Jackson. 2015. “Active Materials for Adaptive Architectural
Envelopes based on Plant Adaptation Principles.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering (3), doi:10.3233/
FDE-150026.
Malina, F. J., ed. 1974. Kinetic Art: Theory and Practice. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Mason, C. 2011. Towards a History of Kinetic Art in Britain.
Matin, N., A. Eydgahi, and S. Shyu. 2017. Comparative Analysis of Technologies used in Responsive Building Facades.
Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education, Columbus, OH. doi:10.18260/1-2–28052.
Moloney, J. 2009. A Morphology of Pattern for Kinetic Facades. PhD thesis, Architecture, Building and Planning, The
University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moussavi, F. 2006. The Function of Ornament. Barcelona: Actar.
Papadakis, A. C., and C. Cooke. 1992. The Avant-Garde: Russian Architecture in the Twenties. J. Ageros, Ed. London: St
Martins Pr.
Pask, G. 1969. The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics, Architectural Design, September issue, (7/6), John Wiley &
Sons Ltd (London), 494–496.
Perrone, R., and D. Büchler. 2005. An Investigation of Futurist Architectural Design. Proceedings of EAD06
International conference. European academy of design, Bremen, Germany.
Pohl, E. B., E. Karanastasi, and N. Skoutelis. 2013. Takis Zenetos Unbuilt Tropes, Mas context.
Popper, F. 1968. Origins and Development of Kinetic Art. New York: New York Graphic Society.
Rivenc, R., and R. Bek. 2018. Keep it Moving? Conserving Kinetic Art. Los Angles: Getty Publications.
Romano, R., L. Aelenei, D. Aelenei, and E. S. Mazzucchelli. 2018. “What is an Adaptive Facade? Analysis of Recent
Terms and Definitions from an International Perspective.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering 6 (3): 65–76.
Sadler, S. 2005. Archigram: Architecture without Architecture. Cambridge: Mass: MIT Press.
Scicolone, G. C., and L. Cancogni. 2010. Strutturazione pulsante: il restauro del movimento, della percezione complessa
e del materiale, 8.
Selkowitz, S., and Y. Aschehough. 2003. “Advanced interactive facades-critical elements of future green buildings,”
Proceedings of annual USGBC international conference and expo.
Sendi, M. 2014. “The Effect of Technology to Integrate Aesthetic Desire of Contemporary Architecture with
Environmental Principles in Facade Design.” Architecture and Engineering 7: 24–31.
Shan, R. 2016. Climate Responsive Facade Optimization Strategy. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sharaidin, K. 2014. Kinetic Facades: towards design for environmental performance. PhD thesis, RMIT University, Australia.
Sharaidin, K., and F. Salim. 2011. Affordable, Performative, and Responsive: Designing Affordable Responsive
Architectural Prototypes through Physical and Digital Modelling, Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Newcastle, Australia, 113–122.
Simon, J., B. Leal, Q. Bajac, A. Cohen-Solal, P. Karmel, C. Mancusi-Ungaro, and A. S. C. Rower. 2008. Alexander
Calder: The Paris Years, 1926-1933. 1st ed. New Haven, CT: The Whitney Museum of American Art.
Smith, G., and G. W. Smith. 2015. “Swing low, Sweet Chariot: Kinetic Sculpture and the Crisis of Western
Technocentrism.” Arts 4 (3): 75–92. doi:10.3390/arts4030075.
Sorensen, L. 2013. “Heat Transmission Coefficient Measurements in Buildings Utilizing a Heat Loss Measuring
Device.” Sustainability 5 (8): 3601–3614.
Stoughton, J. 2017. A Smartphone-controlled Responsive Shading System Prototype. https://archpaper.com/2017/06/
seattle-based-nbbjs-sunshade-prototype/.
Tashakori, M. 2014. “Design of a Computer-controlled Sun-tracking Facade Model.” Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University.
Thobaiti, M. M. A. 2014. “Intelligent and Adaptive Facade System: The Impact of Intelligent and Adaptive Facade on
the Performance and Energy Efficiency of Buildings.” Thesis, University of Miami, 105.
Trubiano, F. 2013. “A Theory of Spatialized Skins and the Emergence of the Integrated Design Professional.” Buildings
3: 689–712.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “Basic Information, Green Building, US EPA,” https://archive.
epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/about.html.
Veliko, K., and G. Thun. 2013. Responsive Building Envelopes: Characteristics and Evolving Paradigms in Design and
Construction of High Performance Homes. London: Routledge Press.
Verma, Sushant, and Pradeep Devadass. 2013. Adaptive[skins]. AA Conversations, http://conversations.aaschool.ac.
uk/adaptiveskins/.
Wilkinson, C., and A. Wood. 2012. Al Bahar Towers: External Automated Shading System: Jury Statement of CTBUH
Innovation Award. http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket = c8GlZooATFg%3D&tabid=3845&language=
en-US.
Yekutiel, T. P., and Y. J. Grobman. 2014. Controlling Kinetic Cladding Components in Building Facades: A Case for
Autonomous Movement. 19th International Conference of the Association of Computer-Aided Architectural Design
Research in Asia CAADRIA, Hong Kong.
Yiannoudes, S. 2016. Architecture and Adaptation: From Cybernetics to Tangible Computing. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.

View publication stats