Beyond specification: A study of architect

and client interaction

Janet McDonnell, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London,
Granary Square, London N1C 4AA, UK
Peter Lloyd, School of Art, Design, and Media, University of Brighton,
Grand Parade, Brighton BN2 0JY, UK

This paper examines a successful architectural design process, taking place over
a period of seven years, which resulted in the delivery of a complex building
meeting the aspirations of the client. Our analysis focuses on the mechanisms by
which expectations about how a building will be experienced are created, shared,
and resolved during the process of design. We find differences in the ways
designer and client talk to each other about experience and differences in the
talk before the construction of the building and after it has been built and
occupied. We discuss these differences and why the ‘design concept’ manifests in
distinctive ways. We suggest that the phenomena we have noticed are linked
intrinsically to expert design performance.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: architectural design, communication, conceptual design, design

knowledge, design practice

P
eter Zumthor, in Thinking Architecture (2010), writes ‘[t]he design pro-
cess is based on a constant interplay of feeling and reason’ (p. 21). Ex-
pressing the same sentiment more prosaically, the architects Proctor
and Matthews write that it is ‘not sufficient to create buildings which provide
solutions to a series of technical performance specifications, spatial audits and
detailed room schedules . [there is also] a responsibility to offer more than
this: to have one foot in the pragmatic world through a strong dialogue
with clients and stakeholders, but to simultaneously look beyond e to defy
gravity and ultimately to exceed expectations’ (Proctor & Matthews, 2009:
p. 9). The design task in their view seeks, ‘[a]n equilibrium of the analytical
and the intuitive [to] deliver buildings which lift the spirit and exceed the prag-
matic expectations of any building brief’ (p. 25).

These descriptions express a subtle, nuanced view of the design process, and
point to an aspect of designers’ expertise often ignored in the academic study
of design. Downing (1992) writes:
‘The bridge from past to future suggests that the designer utilizes idiosyn-
Corresponding author:
Janet McDonnell cratic knowledge of the world as a template for future experience. Within
j.mcdonnell@csm. idiosyncratic knowledge, however, some kernels of shared experience must
arts.ac.uk be present if individuals expect to communicate with others. It is this
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 35 (2014) 327e352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.003 327
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 shared experience that architects use in many design situations to explore
meaning captured with a place-image, transferring meaning to the present
and future through the physical world’ (p. 316).

She describes how ‘place-images’, composites of form, space, movement,

sound, smell, or taste, function as bridging points in the design process and
allow both internal and external dialogues to take place in meeting a brief.

In the study presented below we look at how an architectural design project

succeeds in delivering a building that serves the functional, experiential and
symbolic aspirations of the client. We draw attention to the different ways
in which client and architect speak to each other about the building while it
is virtual: while it is a set of ideas, some of which are represented in draw-
ings and written specifications. We examine how they speak about the
building once it has been constructed and put into daily use. In the discus-
sion of our observations we suggest that the architect’s tacit knowledge
about what can serve as justifications for design decisions reveals his im-
plicit understanding of the limitations of the material traces (Medway,
2003: p. 260) of the design as a representation of the complex of ideas
(Medway, 2003: p. 256) that comprise the design as a whole. We focus
particularly on those things that go beyond the pragmatic expectations of
clients e their functional requirements e to those that may not only be
inexpressible but also unimagined. This paper is not about the difficulties
of non-designers understanding technical representations such as plans
and drawings of elevations. It is about how the client and, in particular,
the designer handle the fact that ‘the design is not the drawings but is the
idea that the drawings (always partially) represent’ (Medway, 2003: p.
258) and how they cope with the phenomenon captured by Medway anec-
dotally when he says:

‘When the architect goes across the office, opens the drawer and pulls out
what looks like a blueprint, which is just a set of lines and some figures (to
someone like me) what the architect sees is ‘boldness’ or ‘fragility’.’
(Medway, 2003: p. 258)

The architectural project we analyse below was successful in realising the as-
pirations of both the clients and the architect. However, our intention is not
to draw lessons from it, or make claims about how to guarantee or even
improve the chances that the architect’s ambitions for how the building will
be experienced somehow coincide with the unspecified yearnings of the client.
Our objective is rather to show that where there are not prior experiences of
place(s) shared between architect and client success hinges not only on the ar-
chitect’s technical expertise but also on his judgement about how to present
and justify key elements of the design. We believe understanding this better
is of value to current wider debates about the roles of the designer and design
expertise.

328 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 1 Background
The characterization of what the architectural design process entails as we
have introduced it above implies a particular scope for architectural discourse.
We set out this scope in Section 1.1, introducing terminology for the constit-
uent elements of it we wish to distinguish. Our study focuses on how the expe-
rience of architecture is spoken about, thus, in Section 1.2, we turn briefly to a
consideration of how the terminology we will use relates to writings of a phil-
osophical turn on the phenomenology of architecture, the built and the natural
environment. Finally, in Section 1.3, in a return to everyday architectural prac-
tice, we briefly review how architects characterise the purposes and value of
visits with clients to buildings in use. We note the absence of references about
establishing ‘place-images’ that are shared with clients.

1.1 Talking about architecture

Our study draws on terminology attributable to Medway (2000) that distin-
guishes different elements within discourse in architecture according to
(four) types of ideational constituents. His classification allows us to distin-
guish what is said or written about structural or functional aspects of the
building e comments or descriptions that are ‘more or less un-
problematically identifiable’ (Medway, 2000: p. 99) e from three further cat-
egories which relate to architectural experience, that is, how people are to,
or do, experience (say) a building. In the category of structural/functional
we find the naming of identifiable components such as wall, room, floor, cir-
culation routes, ‘some of these [components] are able to be designated by sim-
ple naming whereas others, such as complex and novel configurations, have to
be described’ (Medway, 2000: p. 99).

Echoing the considerations of architecture, beyond the material and geometric

we have already drawn attention to in our introduction, Medway also points
out that, ‘the aim of architectural design, however, is not just a structure that
meets certain functional requirements; it is also a particular architectural expe-
rience . its other ideational constituents reflect architects’ wish to influence
the viewer’s or user’s experience of the building’ (Medway, 2000: p. 100). Med-
way identifies three categories of discourse relating to experience. These are
perceptual, phenomenological and symbolic. Talk or writing about perceptual
experience includes mentioning what a person sees or hears in a building, for
instance talk about when components are revealed is classed as comment on
perceptual experience (e.g. remarks such as, ‘the first thing you’ll see.’; ‘the
light will filter through here .’; ‘attention will be drawn by .’). Phenomeno-
logical and symbolic elements are concerned with meaning making. They are
references to, ‘feelings and associations aroused in the viewer by the experience
of the architectural conditions’ (Medway, 2000: p. 100). Phenomenological el-
ements express an ambition to invite physical (bodily associated) responses,

Beyond specification 329

 e.g. to make something, ‘appear solid.’; ‘seem to be floating .’; ‘invite relax-
ation .’. Finally, the symbolic is the ‘evocation of ideas that are inherently
nothing to do with structural forms’ (Medway, 2000: p. 102). Examples might
be, ‘an escape from the real world’; ‘a sense of authority and privilege’; ‘ a
statement of civic pride’. Symbolic meanings relate to ‘aesthetic, cultural
and personal or collective identity’ (Dovey, 1993: p. 254).

1.2 Experiencing architecture

There exists a substantial body of literature that considers architecture, the
built environment, and landscape from a phenomenological perspective.
(Early work to coalesce and form this as a field of study includes the collections
edited by Seamon and Mugerauer (1985) and Seamon (1993) and one of the
most recent collections, showing how the area has spread, is that of Jacquet
and Giraud (2012)). Among the prominent concerns this literature addresses
are architectural experience and the meanings of architecture. Drawing signif-
icantly on Heidegger’s notion of ‘dwelling’, a body of writings explores the ar-
guments around how planned environments can (ever be planned) to address
the needs of those who dwell within them. Some of this literature argues that
‘meaning can only be discovered through the lives and worlds that a building is
meant to support and reflect’ (Seamon, 1993: p. 3, summarizing an argument
by Karsten Harries in the same volume). These arguments have profound im-
plications for design practice, confronting, as they do directly, the question of
the relevance and sources of architects’ (own) intentions and aspirations and
how, or whether, they can be resolved with those of the dwellers and place-
makers who inhabit the spaces they design.

Medway’s observation of what comprises architectural discourse is descrip-

tive. He does not make judgements about what the implications are for profes-
sional architectural practice or for those who inhabit the built environment.
His classification is useful for the purposes of the study we present here
because it offers us a clear means of identifying, in spoken interaction, talk
which relates to how places are experienced in contrast to talk about aspects
of a building concerned with function, structural form and materials, that
are ‘un-problematically identifiable’. In the study we present below we
examine the differences in the way the architect of a building and his client
talk about the building. Further, the data we have available allows us to
contrast what is said by these actors before and after the building is built
and inhabited. Our contrasts then are between what the client says and what
the architect says both before and after the building is realized e so between
when the building is virtual and when it is real and inhabited.

The literature on phenomenology of place which is concerned with contrasting

the subjective; namely lived experience, place-sensing and place-making with
the objective; namely plans, representations of space and the geometric is
compatible with Medway’s characterization. Medway’s four ideational

330 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 constituents e structural/functional, perceptual, phenomenological and sym-
bolic e are rich enough in scope to classify both of what Dovey (1993) con-
trasts as lived and geometric modes of space. We favour Medway’s
terminology in the study we present here because the distinctions he draws
serve our analytical and descriptive purposes. Whilst we accept that ‘to be is
to be in place’ (Casey, 1994: p. 16) we are interested here in interventions in
the built environment (designing and building something) and the extent to
which these interventions result in senses of place in these buildings that are
appropriate. Our work, whilst accommodating a phenomenological position
that assumes the inseparability of people and environment, does rely on accep-
tance that it is possible to enquire reflexively into how affordances for place-
making come about.

1.3 Visiting places

During the design process, aside from formal meetings between architects, cli-
ents and other stakeholders, it is common in some architectural practices for
architects to spend time with building users in the environments they currently
use. For example, Penoyre and Prasad, in writings addressed to potential cli-
ents (2007), describe this as a routine part of their design process. They assert
that insights from the practice of spending time in user environments allows
them to identify requirements arising from what they call ‘underlying factors’.
In the context of designing environments for health care, they give examples
such as noticing how noisy zimmer frames are when pushed, and how many
paper towels need to be stored (pp. 17e18). For Penoyre and Prasad another
common practice is to conduct visits with clients to other sites as an important
element of developing a brief. They claim it allows a shared language to grow
between the parties and helps the building users ‘properly to visualise their
future environment’ (p. 18). Immersion in any building’s current use is the
means by which these architects ‘make sure the brief in all its richness has
been engraved on the subconscious’ (p. 21), stating that assimilating this expe-
rience is the first step to its transcendence. For Penoyre and Prasad that tran-
scendence comes as ‘the leap of imagination that produces a potentially
effective and powerful concept [which] operates like an armature that will
generously accommodate the imperatives of operability and durability and
from which will spring the communicative, expressive character of the build-
ing’ (p. 21). We notice a shift in these latter references, drawing us firmly
into the realm of the designer, with client and building user absent from direct
involvement in the imaginative leap to the concept of the design, which the
designer somehow incubates. A clear distinction is made between, on the
one hand the ‘operability and durability’ of the building, and on the other
the ‘expressive character’ of the building. The latter corresponding to Med-
way’s phenomenological and symbolic discourse elements.

Joint visits to locations, whilst not an everyday practice for small-scale pro-
jects, are well documented in accounts of major ones. Such visits often have

Beyond specification 331

 specific goals, for example to explore the possibilities for realising known chal-
lenges in the design, or for exploring what others have done to tackle issues
that are well or poorly understood. Rybczynski (2011), in his account of the
design and building of the Sainsbury Centre for the Visual Arts in Norwich,
England, describes how the clients and patrons Robert and Lisa Sainsbury
made a ‘study tour’ of European art museums with the architects Norman
and Wendy Foster early on in the design process. The purpose of the visits, ac-
cording to Norman Foster, was to find out how the visited buildings functioned
for different stakeholders, for example, ‘if you were going to visit them and see
works of art . if you were guarding the works of art . if you had the job of
erecting exhibitions’ (p. 98). Rybczynski describes in some detail what was
gleaned from the visits. The gleanings identified by Foster are almost entirely
functional observations e.g. in the instance he describes they are about storage,
maintenance of fixtures, security, and adjustable top lighting to illuminate ex-
hibited work. Foster makes it clear that, for him, the value of the joint visit is
to arrive at agreements about good and bad features or solutions to issues.

Looking back, then, to Downing, and at what Prasad and Penoyre have to say,
we conclude that visits to places feed the architects’ repertoire of ‘place-im-
ages’, serving the process characterized by Prasad and Penoyre as transcen-
dence. Visits with clients, or to clients’ buildings serve to establish and
clarify the clients’ expectations in the ‘pragmatic world’ (Medway’s struc-
tural/functional design elements).

2 The study
The context of the study presented concerns the design and post-construction
occupancy of a crematorium set in a landscaped site which provides a chapel,
cremation facility, and associated staffing and ancillary accommodation.
Figure 1 shows a visualization of the crematorium in 2005 at an early stage
of discussion about the design, while Figures 2a and b shows views of the
completed building in 2011. The cost of the building, equipment and land-
scaping was approximately £4.5 million. The elapsed time the study covers
is six and a half years, with the first meeting between architect and client taking
place in 2005 and the building being completed in 2011. Such an extended time
frame offered us a unique opportunity to inspect how architect and client refer
to the building at the very beginning of the design process in contrast to how
they describe the building once it is completed and in daily use.

In many architectural design projects, clients and building users of various

kinds are distinctly separate communities with entirely different stakeholder
interests and it is critically important not to conflate their roles. In this study,
the client Anna is also the crematorium registrar whose place of work is the
building being designed. She is thus both the client and an experienced user
of buildings of this type. Here, throughout, we refer to her as client.

332 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

Figure 1 Crematorium visualization (2005)

The study is unique in three respects. First, we have access to detailed data of
in situ design conversations for the conceptual phases of a highly distinctive
building. Second, we can refer to analyses of some of the data by a large num-
ber of leading scholars in design thinking research (collected in McDonnell &
Lloyd, 2009), and can draw upon others’ findings and interpretations. Finally,
we have the opportunity to compare data from the conceptual design stage of
the project with material elicited from the same participants (client and archi-
tect) once the design has been fully realized as a building.

The study presented here is focused on the ways in which client and architect
talk about architecture. We are particularly interested in exposing how feelings
and experiences are referred to during conversations between the client and the
architect, and in contrasting what is said about the building while it is virtual e
existing on plans, in spoken interaction, and in the imaginations of those with
an interest in it e with what is said about it once it has been physically realized.

2.1 Data overview

The material we draw on comprises four discrete items: The first two are tran-
scribed video recordings from two meetings (M1, M2) between the architect,
Adam, and clients, Anna and Colin (representative of the local government
funding body), at the pre-planning application stage of the crematorium com-
plex. The new crematorium was commissioned for a site with an existing crema-
torium that would continue to operate. The third item of data is an interview
(Int) between a researcher and the architect Adam, in which he explains how
the project came about and the ideas behind the design proposals which he

Beyond specification 333

Figure 2 (a, b) Views of the completed crematorium (2011)

has presented and discussed with the clients in meetings M1 and M2. The fourth
source of material is an audio transcription of a guided tour (Tour) of the
completed building six months after it had been in full use. On the tour were
Adam; along with Anna as building user, client and registrar of both crema-
toria; and two researchers. Our four data points are shown in Figure 3 on a time-
line that also shows key dates in the project. M1 and M2 were meetings taking

334 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

Figure 3 Project timeline showing data points

place at the client’s premises (the existing crematorium) as part of the design
process (a researcher was present but did not trigger these meetings). The inter-
view and tour were instigated specifically by the researchers.

As we have already indicated, M1 and M2 are part of a dataset1 originally collected

as part of a large project in which many researchers analysed a common dataset to
further our understanding of what takes place in design meetings (McDonnell &
Lloyd, 2009). Table 1 summarises the material on which the study reported here
is based. Quotations from, and references to, the data below indicate its origin:
meeting (M1, M2), tour (Tour) or interview (Int). For M1, M2, and the tour a tran-
script line number is also given. Table 1 gives the number of lines in each transcript,
so that transcript line numbers, when given, provide some indication of the
sequence of comments and when, during each event the quoted talk occurred.

2.2 Approach
The material we are interested in for the present study are those instances in
the talk (so, spoken contributions) which are about phenomenological or sym-
bolic elements of the building. These are the experiential elements Medway as-
sociates with meaning making. They are references participants make in their
conversation to feelings, atmosphere, or the ascription of non-objective qual-
ities to the building, building features, or artifacts within the building. For
example, if someone speaks of ‘intimate space’ we classify the utterance as be-
ing about experience, whereas reference to a ‘small space’ might be prompted
by the geometry (a reference to structure) or it might be associated with a sense
of smallness contrived through artifice, looking like a ‘small space’ (a reference
to perception). It is usually possible to disambiguate these candidates by exam-
ining the immediately surrounding conversational context. Medway, himself,
acknowledges that, particularly with respect to the phenomenological and
symbolic categories, the distinctions are sometimes blurred. This might be
bad news for analysts. However here our concern is simply to identify any
talk which goes beyond discussion of the structure or function and then to
examine this material further. Nevertheless, we appreciate that identifying ref-
erences to experience is a matter of interpretation, therefore in what follows we
are conservative in what is included and, in presenting fragments of talk we try
to supply sufficient context to make our claims plausible.

Beyond specification 335

Table 1 Summary description of dataset

Description of data

M1 Video and transcript of meeting between architect and 2 clients, 1 researcher in attendance.
Documents tabled and produced during the meeting, including plans at different scales, elevations, and
design concept sketches.
Meeting duration: 2 h and 17 min.
Location: office at the site of the existing crematorium.
Stated purpose: to obtain the client’s feedback to the design proposals.
Transcript: 2342 lines
M2 Video and transcript of meeting between architect, his assistant and 2 clients, 1 researcher in attendance.
Documents tabled and produced during the meeting, including plans at different scales, elevations, and
computer-generated impressions of the building in its landscape.
Meeting duration: 1 h and 36 min.
Location: offices at site of existing crematorium.
Stated purpose: Formal follow up to M1 (8 months elapsed time) to present design responses to issues
raised at M1, final feedback from clients prior to seeking planning approval.
Transcript: 2124 lines
Int Video recording of an interview between architect and 1 researcher.
Documents referred to by architect in explaining the design include plans at different scales and a sketch of
the design concept.
Duration: 30 min.
Location: researcher’s office.
Stated purpose: For the researcher to understand the background to the project, how the project arose,
how the design proceeded, the origins of the design ideas particularly the design concept.
Tour Audio recording and transcript of a tour of the completed building led by the client and the architect for
‘audience’ of 2 researchers.
Duration: 2 h and 5 min.
Location: all areas of the crematorium complex, public and non-public areas, and the landscaped grounds.
Stated purpose: to see how the design had been realised and to understand how the building was being
used.
Transcript: 2964 lines
Misc Miscellaneous factual information, supplied by the architect on request, including information for the
project timeline shown in Figure 3.

Medway’s elements are derived from examining examples of discourse of both

spoken and written discourse about architecture. In other words, the objects of
functional, perceptual, phenomenological or symbolic characterization are, in
his scheme, always elements of design. Here we are dealing with data that
comes from conversations between client and architect in two settings, namely
planning meetings and building tour. To contrast the ways in which the archi-
tect and the client make references to experiences in the conversations, we
identify any reference to experience regardless of whether it is oriented towards
the architecture itself directly, or whether indirectly through reference to how a
user of the building might feel. We found that these, latter references, tend to
be less nuanced and can be reliably identified in the data with little, if any refer-
ence to surrounding conversational context, e.g. ‘we love being in the office’,
‘people like the area and enjoy walking around it’.

There are two parts to our analysis. We first examine how experience is
referred to before the building is constructed (Section 3). Conversation takes

336 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 place over plans at different scales and drawings that partially represent what
will be built. In Section 3.2 we particularly examine how the architect speaks
about the design concept. Here we make use of information from the interview
conducted with the architect entirely for our research purposes (i.e. it did not
form part of the natural sequence of architecteclient meetings from which M1
and M2 are drawn). In Section 4 we examine how the experiencing the building
is talked about by the architect and client once it has been built: six months
after it has been commissioned when it is in daily use. We revisit how the
design concept is addressed at this time when the talk takes place on site during
a tour of the building.

3 Talking about the virtual building

‘I visited the Kimbell Museum in nineteen ninety three. The feeling of it

never left me.’
Adam Day, Architect; January 22nd 2007

In this section we consider references by the architect and client to what Pe-
noyre and Prasad refer to as the ‘communicative, the expressive character of
the building’. We do this by first identifying references to experiences regard-
less of whether they are oriented towards the building itself. All the talk takes
place prior to the construction and commissioning of the building e while the
building and the landscaping of its site are virtual. Figure 4 shows an example
of the documentation available at the meetings to support conversation about
the design proposals. It is a scale plan of the proposed scheme showing build-
ings, car parking, vehicular access routes and major features of the
landscaping.

3.1 Experiencing the virtual building

During M1 there are 18 fragments of talk which are phenomenological or sym-
bolic references to the building or experience of the building by users. Table 2
shows the utterances, who makes them, and indicates in each case to what or
whom the feelings or experiences are ascribed.

The most striking observation from Table 2 is that all of the architect’s refer-
ences ascribe experiential properties to elements of the virtual building or its
setting, e.g. phenomenological (‘too ostentatious’, contribution 9) and sym-
bolic (light flowing through making a spiritual space, contribution 8). The cli-
ent’s references are to building users (‘they felt that was very good’,
contribution 12); to an object that will be a ‘user’ of the space (a coffin not get-
ting lost i.e. remaining the central focus of attention, contribution 13); expres-
sion of confusion precisely over the effects on experience of a design move on
the virtual space (contributions 14 and 15); and finally two ascriptions of
feeling to spaces at contributions 16 and 17, however, perhaps tellingly, these
references are not to parts of the virtual building but to another crematorium

Beyond specification 337

Figure 4 Plan of the crematorium showing access and landscaping (2005)

(16) and to an existing physical feature of the current landscaping at the site
(17).

What we see evidence of here is that the client is capable of ascribing experi-
ential qualities to buildings and other spaces, contribution 16 shows she can
do this, however we see no evidence of her ascribing these qualities to the vir-
tual building when confronted with plans, sections and drawings, despite her
interlocutor doing so repeatedly. What she does seem to do is to convert as-
criptions of experiential qualities of the virtual building made by the architect
into consequences to which she can relate her experiences as a building user.
Two extracts below from the transcripts show this process in action. In these
we show the details of the exchanges between the architect and client in which
both parties make references to feelings (18 and 19 in Table 2). In Extract 1
client, Anna, starts to articulate a preference about the sanctuary, Adam, ar-
chitect, proposes an ascription of intimacy. But Anna returns to perhaps more
comfortable ground before conceding or echoing Adam’s choice of term.

Extract 1, M1
432 Anna I would be concerned that if we make it too big it loses its sort of
433 Adam intimacy
434 Anna yes yes you know I’m not sure (pause) I quite like it being a small space in
435 a sense so I mean see whether that maybe just a little bit bigger but I’m

338 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

Table 2 Talk about experience during M1

No. Transcript Utterance Context/referent

line no.

By the architect
1 488 ‘it’ll be a much more intimate space’ Sanctuary
2 489 ‘it’s a very private sanctuary’ Sanctuary
3 519 ‘its spirituality is being amplified to make it a very calm and Chapel
spiritual, relaxing, meditative sort of space’
4 811 ‘I mean if I made this feel like a room with its own lid on it’ AV room
5 819 ‘I’m trying to keep the spaces pure, the purer the space the The building
more spiritual’
6 991 ‘I’ve created through here a spiritual space again’ Committal room
7 1117 ‘into a very chapel-like space’ Committal room
8 1339 ‘light flowing through it to make it a very spiritual space’ Sanctuary
9 1506 ‘too ostentatious for such a calm building’ A ‘shiny’ roof
10 1743 ‘it doesn’t really feel as if that’s what it wants to be’ Vehicular access
11 1987 ‘for it to have the right atmosphere’ The building

By the client
12 406 ‘they felt that was very good’ People consulted
13 451 ‘so it doesn’t get lost’ A coffin on the
catafalque
14 651 ‘I don’t know how that upsets the feeling of what you’ve got Adding an extra door
here’
15 658 ‘I don’t know how that would spoil the feeling for that’ Adding an extra door
16 1611e ‘there’s got to be a certain amount of balance between the Relationship between
building and the design features otherwise it looks sort of a bit landscaping (referred
lost in nothingness around it which is what Stevenage has got’ to as ‘design features’)
and building
17 2135 ‘it’s an area of sort of spirituality heaven you know the sort of Existing landscaping
thing’

By both contributing
18 432e Extract 1 below
19 519e Extract 2 below

436 quite happy with that as it is really I quite like the idea of a smaller
437 place so the intimacy on that

Extract 2 shows this strategy at play again. Here Anna turns phenomenolog-
ical and symbolic references used by Adam (calm, spiritual, relaxing, medita-
tive) into potential building users’ activity that such a space will support
(private reflection, sitting quietly).

Extract 2, M1
519 Adam good so in principle you really like the idea of its spirituality being
520 amplified to make it very calm
521 Anna yes
522 Adam and spiritual
523 Anna yes
524 Adam relaxing
525 Anna yes
526 Adam meditative sort of space

Beyond specification 339

 527 Anna yes not even necessarily particularly for funerals but for sort of
528 memorial services or something that people could come to later or some
529 area to come and visit to spend some time (pause) people sometimes like
530 coming back in the chapel and you know when we’ve got no services
531 on for sort of private reflection or something so there’s nothing saying
532 that they couldn’t do that but that would allow them to have an area as
533 well that they could also just sit in quietly and sort of that would be
534 quite nice

Anna is able to ascribe experiential qualities when she has had direct experi-
ence of a particular building or place. Extract 3 shows an example of this, at
the same time giving the context for contribution 16 in Table 2.

Extract 3, M1
1607 Adam so you know we could reduce this if you like to make it work but what
1608 I was trying to do was to really open up this end of the site to make it
1609 more useful
1610 Anna yeah well it it needn’t also there it’s nice cos it balances the
1611 building doesn’t it there’s got to be a certain amount of balance
1612 between the building and the design features otherwise it looks sort of a
1613 bit lost in nothingness around it which is what Stevenage has got just
1614 two little bays in front of it really they’ve got this lovely big building
1615 and then they’ve got these two little boxed bays in front of the building
1616 which are awful

In Extract 3 Anna reveals a sophisticated understanding about the architecture

of buildings as she talks about proportional relationships between building el-
ements. Here Anna is talking on equal terms with Adam. Adam starts with a
comment we class as functional/structural about the virtual building (‘really
open up this end of the site’) but Anna, with specific experience of another
building, counters (‘it needn’t’), and explains why she takes this counter posi-
tion (‘there’s got to be a certain amount of balance’, ‘lost in nothingness’). Her
phrase ‘lost in nothingness’ ascribes an experiential quality to an existing
building (Stevenage Crematorium) that she knows and has visited.

In the transcript of M2 we see a similar pattern of references to those in M1.

The architect ascribes experiential qualities to elements of the virtual building,
whereas the client’s ascriptions of feelings are largely to people using the build-
ing. There are two exceptions to this which are similar to references 14 and 15
in Table 2. They are ascriptions of experiential qualities to architecture but
again to existing places Anna has experienced personally (specifically the staff
room at the existing crematorium ‘that has a casual feel’ and the feeling evoked
by streaks of light from Edinburgh Cathedral’s stained glass). At no point dur-
ing M2 does the client ascribe experiential qualities to the proposed building.
(The references for M2 are not tabulated here as the data neither adds to, nor
contradicts the findings from examination of M1.)

340 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 3.2 Talking about the design concept
In the interview (Int) between the architect, Adam, and a researcher the archi-
tect talks about his ‘love of spiritual architecture’, his long-standing interest in
‘the design of sacred spaces’, and that being given the opportunity to design a
chapel was ‘a dream come true’. He expands on his inspiration for the crema-
torium, Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Museum (shown in Figure 5), stating that, ‘it
has an immensely spiritual character’, and a feeling that is ‘spiritual but not
religious’. Adam had visited the Kimbell over a decade previously and re-
vealed that ‘the feeling’ had never left him.

Asked for his thoughts about where a spiritual feeling comes from in a building
Adam talked about: the choice of form ‘the choice of correct materials to
reflect the form’, the importance of mass, symmetry and repetition, and his
belief that coolness and calmness comes from the ‘use of correct materials, cor-
rect natural lighting, the way the plan is laid out’. He spoke of Kahn’s use of
natural light, talking of the Kimbell Museum as being ‘painted with light’ and
in this context elaborated on the use of top lighting, linear diffusion of light
and the lighting of the curve of the cycloidal vault (all signature features of
the Kimbell Museum). Adam referred to all these things in combination as be-
ing ‘the vocabulary’ he selected for the crematorium project. Finally, asked
about whether what he was proposing for the crematorium was new for
him, Adam stated he had used the idea of servant and served spaces2 (a notion
ascribed to Kahn (2003)) as a way to organize space in an earlier project for an
entirely different building type e a sports pavilion.

Figure 5 Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Beyond specification 341

 Adam described the general design concept for the crematorium as deriving
from two principle sources: first, the Kimbell vocabulary, second, his study
of the alignment of the principal spaces of the existing crematorium and chapel
where he had learned that such buildings ‘function like a production line’, ‘a
business’ that has to operate efficiently and that this ‘dictates a certain circu-
lation system’. We return to consider these two sources in our later discussion
section.

Thus, the way that Adam talks about the Kimbell Museum in the interview is
by referring to elements at the phenomenological and symbolic levels of Med-
way’s classification scheme, specifically he talks about them as: an assembly of
forms and material that result, through symmetry, massing, repetition, and
lighting effects in a simple, uncluttered series of spaces that together create
‘an immensely spiritual character’. He describes how it felt to be there in the
Kimbell Museum and is able to give an account of how the components of
its design create the feelings he experienced.

In M1 and M2 Adam talks about the Kimbell Museum in a different way. He

makes only two explicit references to the Museum, once in each meeting, and
makes no attempt to talk about it in terms of its experiential qualities. In M1,
in response to a question about potential roofing materials, his reference to it is
a passing one, he says ‘the Kimbell, I think, was lead’ (M1, 1481). In M2, again
in reference to a query about materials, this time about the external elevations,
he gives a similar account, predominantly a functional/structural account with
a brief allusion to the Kimbell. Although he refers to the proposed columns as
‘temple-like’ this appears to be descriptive of the type of columns rather than a
suggestion of other qualities one might associate with a reference to temples,
such as spirituality, which we would class as symbolic,

‘the columns here will be in in situ concrete, the shell itself will be in in situ
concrete possibly in a board mark finish so its all very solid and temple-like
feeling similar to Kimbell, the infill will be a very nice white block that I
think we showed you the block last time, very sparkling white concrete
block but there will be stripes of black granite in the columns, erm the
roof itself will be either copper or lead’ (M2, 1362e1367).
There is one occasion in each of M1 and M2 where features of the design
concept inspired by Kahn’s work are referred to, though in neither case is
the Kimbell mentioned explicitly. In M1 Adam pulls out the drawing shown
in Figure 6, at a point in the meeting where discussion is about how to modify
the plan to better accommodate audio-visual (AV) facilities and the AV op-
erator’s needs in the chapel during services.

Extract 4 shows Adam’s complete turn at talk. He refers to the notion of ser-
vant and served spaces as structural elements serving functional purposes.

342 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

Figure 6 The design concept (plan sketch) featuring servant and served spaces (2005)

Extract 4, M1
660 Adam yes if I could go back to the architectural concept on [pulls out
drawing e shown in Figure 6]
661 that show you where I’m coming from I’ve done these concept diagrams
662 to try and explain how what holds the architecture together because the
663 building as I mentioned before is a combination of four strips of what we
664 call servant space which are low spaces and three strips of served space
665 which are the barrel vaulted spaces and you put those together and you
666 get this combination of ser- servant served servant served servant
667 served and servant so I’ve been trying my hardest to keep all the
668 important spaces like the chapel and things entrance so on
669 and so forth vestry and the major staff rooms that more important
670 spaces under the barrel vaults and keep all the supporting
671 accommodation under the served if we then went back to the plan
672 having explained that [replaces drawing] you know what I can do to
673 make your idea work is to suggest that we do something like this [begins
674 to sketch] and make this all perhaps one room and put a window in there
675 and then you can get access through here and you can get a view out that
676 way erm you could have a door this side if that helps you but erm I think
677 that might satisfy your needs

The reference to the design concept Adam makes in M2 concerns the part of
the building in which the cremators are housed. The clients are asking about
where the flues will vent and how high the roof space will be above the crema-
tors, for maintenance purposes. This time, Extract 5, Adam pulls out a

Beyond specification 343

 sectional drawing and answers both questions, reminding the clients about the
organizing principle of servant and served. After Extract 5 he uses the sectional
drawing to mention another of the Kahn-inspired features of the design e
sources of light within the chapel.

Extract 5, M2
751 Adam that is where we’re showing the chimney if you remember I
752 described this as as servant and served space
753 Anna that’s it I couldn’t remember
754 Adam and so we’ve got the chimney coming out of the servant space so
755 you’ve got this idea of servant served servant served servant served
756 and a bit more servant again (pause) OK (pause) the idea being that
all your
757 services and your loos and your cupboards and things are generally in
758 the servant space and your main space is the taller ones the chapel the
759 main parking areas the waiting area they all sit in the service
760 space
761 Colin what does the th- flu bear on does that go down to ground level or
762 does that-
763 Adam yeah it may well do may well have to
764 Colin right so it currently it’s- it will go through that erm external store is
765 that how you see it going
766 Adam yeah
767 Colin yeah
768 Adam we’ve got a drawing from <company name > which basically shows
how the
769 gases get from the cremators through to here and rise up into the sky
770 Colin right
771 Adam the whole idea was we wanted to make sure the architectural concept
772 worked through
773 Colin yep
774 Adam so that flues didn’t come from (pause) the nicest part of the building they
775 come from a subservient part of the building

The way that Adam explains his use of Kahn’s precedents by reference to spe-
cific and mundane aspects of the design e chimneys, cupboards, toilets e con-
trasts markedly with the way he speaks about the experiential effects of Kahn’s
architectural vocabulary during the interview. We offer an interpretation of
why this is the case in our later discussion (Section 5).

4 Talking about the actual building

‘I don’t know what it was but you have this feel in the [old] chapel and you
can’t possibly, you think you might try to recreate it with a [new] building
and how you furnish it, etcetera, and you hope that you will achieve that,
and my anxiety was that the building would be wonderful and lovely, but
would we have that lovely feel in the [new] chapel, and as soon as we all
came down here we all just felt that [here].’
Anna Weeks, Client; January 25th 2012

344 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 The tour of the building took place five months after the building was first
used for cremation services. Present were the researchers (authors of this pa-
per); the architect, Adam; and the crematorium registrar, Anna (whom we
have referred to throughout as the client). The tour was at the request of
the researchers and the conversation during the 2-h tour was recorded and
later transcribed. Intentionally, the researchers allowed the conversation to
proceed largely unprompted and, in particular, care was taken not to ask
leading questions. Figures 7a and b shows the interiors of the chapel and
sanctuary respectively; Figure 8 shows a view in towards the wreath court.

Over the five months it had been open, the architect (who had ceased to be
involved with the project just prior to the construction stage) and the client
had conducted tours on a number of occasions, both individually and
together, as much interest had been created by the opening of the new crema-
torium in architectural circles as well as in the crematorium services commu-
nity. It was the client registrar’s policy to make the premises open to visits
from a variety of interested parties, e.g. funeral directors, local authority coun-
cillors, and the general public. The tone of the tour recorded was one where the
registrar took the lead in showing the visiting researchers around the building
and its facilities as ‘owner’ of them. The architect participated actively in the
commentary but within this context.

In contrast to M1 and M2, we find that there are more than 55 statements
referring to experiential elements of the building and particular features within
it during the tour, the majority (75%) being from the client. However, we draw
no conclusions from the balance of the contributions, given the context of the
tour as we have just described it was ‘hosted’ by the registrar. Rather we are
interested in whether there are qualitative differences in what is talked about

Figure 7 Interior of the chapel (a) and the sanctuary (b) (2011)

Beyond specification 345

Figure 8 View towards the wreath court (2011)

between the situation when the building is virtual and when it is an experienced
place. Table 3 shows samples of the contributions from the client that relate to
experiencing the building.

The transcript of the tour also reveals a significant difference in the way in
which Adam talks about the design in comparison with M1 and M2. In Sec-
tion 3 we discussed the ways in which design decisions were presented and
justified by the architect, without appeal to their intended experiential effects.
During the tour Adam is much more expansive about the ‘vocabulary’ he has
used in his design in terms of how it achieves what we have seen Penoyre and
Prasad refer to as the ‘spirit-lifting’ expectations beyond the ‘pragmatic’
(Penoyre & Prasad, 2007: p. 25).

The most remarkable of these contributions is shown in Extract 6 as the tour-

ing group re-enters the building after looking at the wreath court, an external,
walled space (shown in Figure 8). Adam indicates the door to the committal
room (the ‘this’ referred to in line 2427), a space which has already been visited
on the tour via another route.

Extract 6, Tour
2426 Adam but, we don’t need to go in but as you can see what
2427 I was saying, you can see this is on the central axis (pause) of
2428 this space and so
2429 Researcher yes yeah
2430 Adam I think it is very important when you are dealing with a

346 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

Table 3 Examples of client’s talk during the tour about experiencing the building
No. Transcript line no.
1 237e238
2 317e330
3 360e362
4 772e774
5 1336e1337
6 1970e1976
7 1992e1993
8 1993e1997
9 2452e2453
Beyond specification
Utterance by client Context/referent
‘it looks so much more respectful and so you know Coffin charger and committal
it just seems such a nicer place’ room
‘it seems like a huge space when you go in there,
but actually it feels very intimate . it looks very Chapel
sacred the space, because of the shape of the roof,
the cycloid roof is very, attractive and pleasing,
and it seems very high when you’re in there you
think gosh it’s so big it’s going to be cold but
we’ve got under floor heating and we’ve got
everything else and it never feels empty whether
you’ve got 400 people or you’ve got 3 people it Chapel
doesn’t feel that, that’s what I wanted to achieve
when we first set out really, have a feeling that it
was intimate and people could do sort of more Chapel
personal things, and it does feel like that everyone Mourners
says that’
‘it is a sort of special place but it’s not a place that Chapel
we feel is so difficult that you can’t use it for
multi-purpose’
‘one of the things I find endearing about the Windows in the chapel
chapel is those two little windows’
‘it just makes it feel completely special’ Cycloidal roof shape in waiting
area
‘I think blue is a much more spiritual colour . it Stained glass ‘wall’
feels more regal, it feels more special, feels like the
space that we’re in is a particularly special area Chapel
for what we are doing’
‘you get these coloured patterns on the floor it Stained glass ‘wall’
just feels so lovely’
‘the sound is so nice it doesn’t feel as though e Acoustics in the chapel
you expect it to be such a huge big space because Chapel
it’s so high . but actually it feels very intimate
you don’t feel like you need to shout’
‘the chapel is a sort of protected area where it’s Chapel
just them and just their service’ Mourners
2431 space like that its positioning in relation to the
2432 other spaces can give it its importance I mean it you know about
2433 axial space (pause) that’s exactly what’s going on here
2434 Researcher uhuh
2435 Adam as an architect I love geometry should be pretty obvious
2436 seeing this building the geometry is so strong but for me
2437 geometry for me can help to deliver the calmness and
2438 tranquillity that was required in the overall feeling of
2439 this space (pause) I find that um very asymmetric spaces like
2440 Daniel Liebskind’s Jewish um Museum in Berlin can make you
2441 feel much more tense because of all the higgledy-
2442 piggeldyness of it, and that may partly (be) the reason why
2443 he chose that form (pause) here I wanted the opposite I think
2444 geometry gives you calm (pause) it gives me calm anyway
After Adam has pointed out that the entrance to the committal room is on the
central axis of the wreath court (2427) he follows up by saying that the
347
 positioning of a space relative to other spaces is what gives it its importance
(2431e2432). He then makes a theoretical declaration linking spatial arrange-
ment with experience ‘geometry can help to deliver the calmness and tranquil-
lity that was required in the overall feeling of this space’ (2437e2439). This
direct linking of architectural arrangement with feeling, bringing phenomeno-
logical elements into the discussion, contrasts with the way Adam talks about
the virtual building in M1 and M2 we have described above where, in making
the case for what he proposes, he does not offer justifications which rest on the
experiential significance of the arrangements he is describing.

5 Discussion
Donald Sch€ on writes of design worlds, environments entered into by designers
when they are designing which act as ‘containers . for particular configura-
tions of things, relations and qualities . they act as holding environments
for design knowledge’ (Sch€ on, 1988: p. 183, italics added). These design worlds
are comprised of sets of ‘types’, or things to think with. From our interview
data, we might say that Adam, the architect, has at least two of these types
in play at the macro-level for his project. On the one hand he has what Sch€ on
describes as a ‘functional type’, a type of building e here the existing crema-
torium with cremation facilities and a chapel is a very specific example. This
furnishes him with another of Sch€ on’s types e a ‘spatial gestalt’3 e giving
him a starting point of how the principal spaces relate to one another, which
he is free to reconfigure for circulation efficiency or alignment.

Joining the ‘functional type’ of a crematorium is a reference to a particular

building (another of Sch€ on’s types), the Kimbell Museum, which performs
exactly as Sch€ on describes to ‘generate or justify a ‘leading idea’ that triggers
a sequence of moves’ (Sch€ on, 1988: p. 187). The Kimbell Museum also func-
tions as an ‘experiential archetype’ (Sch€ on’s fourth type) because, for Adam,
it is an experienced object, selected by him for what Sch€ on terms its ‘experien-
tial significance, its emotive power’ (Sch€ on, 1988: p. 187).

Whilst these two elements (the existing crematorium and the Kimbell
Museum) form major resources for the architect’s design world, design worlds
are primarily instantiated as materials for the designer to think with. Sch€ on
suggests that consensual design worlds may be achieved as a result of ‘commu-
nicative enquiry’; but design worlds are not necessarily shared by other partic-
ipants in the design process. (Compare here the two distinct purposes we have
claimed for visits by architects to buildings, with or without clients above.)
During M1 and M2, Adam shares some of the Sch€ onian types with the client.
Both parties have knowledge of the existing crematorium: the client as build-
ing user (Anna has been working there for two decades); the architect as a
mourner at funerals. As a professional architect, Adam is also is capable of
an analytical appreciation of the building, i.e. he is able to identify what ma-
terial combinations, spatial elements and their arrangements give rise to the

348 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 sense of place experienced. The architect does ‘share’ the Kimbell Museum
with his clients, but it is not as a shared experience. Adam has visited it;
Anna has not. The client has seen photographs of the Museum, indeed she
has them displayed on the wall of the space in which M1 and M2 take place.
The architect has also spoken about the distinctive cycloid roof vaulting, and
explained the ‘leading idea’ of served and servant spaces. What he does not do
is speak over plans, sections and concept drawings about the experiential sig-
nificance of using this ‘Kimbell’ vocabulary. He seems to know, tacitly, what
categories of discourse to use when talking to his clients about places they have
not experienced.

We have seen that the client is able to talk about experiential qualities of places
she has experienced personally e including the new building, once she has in-
habited it. We do not see her talking about the virtual building in this way at
all. She seems to be like Medway seeing (only) ‘lines and figures’ on a
blueprint.

Our account of why the architect treats the design concept the way he does in
M1 and M2, in contrast to what he says in the interview and on the tour, con-
flicts with a prior interpretation by Luck (2009) based on the data M1, M2 and
Int. Luck’s work shows how the design concept for the crematorium is nego-
tiated in interaction through the two meetings, and proposes that the design
concept itself functions as an agent in the meetings. She inspects moments
when design modifications are being explored which have consequences for
the design concept to propose that it is the architect alone who, acting as a
gatekeeper and protector (our terms) of the design concept, moderates (her
term) or protects (our term) the design concept.

Luck’s interpretation of the data in Extract 4 describes the architect’s moni-

toring of ‘moves in the design space against as yet unspecified criteria’ (p.
239, italics ours). Later she concludes that:

‘the architect was locally (i.e. at a particular moment in the spoken inter-
action) in a privileged position to moderate moves in the design space in
relation to his conception of the design concept. I infer from this that
the architect had locally negotiated ownership of the design concept and
used the concept to moderate moves in the design space.’ (p. 242)

The ‘ownership’ of the design concept, which the architect has ‘locally nego-
tiated’ contributes to the definition of the roles that architect and client will
play, the architect ‘protecting’ the design concept by resisting design changes
that would threaten it, whilst permitting others which do not. We are in agree-
ment up to this point. However, at this point, Luck speculates that this is
because the design concept itself has agency. She suggests that ‘properties
of the concept were beyond the architect’s volition’ (p. 246) (italics ours).
Our contention is that what we see happening as protection is driven by

Beyond specification 349

 the architect’s understanding of what is critical to realizing the experiential
qualities of the design (what Adam calls: ‘the character and feel of the build-
ing’). The reason, then, that the architect adopts a protective role towards the
design concept, restating it in functional terms (Extract 4), is not that he is
constrained by the design concept, but that it is part of his expertise to
know that it is through the preservation of this design concept that the expe-
riential and symbolic aspirations will be achieved. Further we want to pro-
pose that it is part of his expertise also to know, tacitly, that he cannot
offer to clients who have not shared the experiences he is drawing on, justifi-
cations expressed in terms of experiential qualities. We want to suggest that
this ‘protective’ talk and the language used for it, around issues that ‘threaten’
the design concept is a manifestation of expert performance.

We are suggesting that part of the (possibly unconsciously exercised) skill of

the architect is to know at what levels elements of the design can be spoken
about while a building is virtual, and what elements rely on experiences, which,
if not shared cannot function as persuasive arguments. The expertise of the ar-
chitect is in knowing the consequences, as experiential qualities, of the patterns
he puts in place e what Lawson (2004) talks of as schemas, gambits and pre-
cedents. And hence, in a sense, it is the designer’s job to ‘defend’ the design
concept through talk. Only in this way can the aspirations of the clients e
those that perhaps they cannot articulate e be achieved.

What we hope we have shown here is that the differences between Adam and
Anna are not their capabilities for experiencing architecture but their knowl-
edge of how to bring into being, through architectural vocabularies, buildings
that realise experiential and symbolic ambitions. Design practices that are
participatory in nature rightly recognize the specialist knowledge of the socie-
tal and user communities who participate in the design of objects, environ-
ments and services that will affect them. Designers, because of their
expertise in modelling and in the use of methods for dealing with uncertainty,
conflicting requirements, contestation, and so on, often operate as facilitators
in these processes. It is only comparatively recently that what they can be ex-
pected to do as process facilitators has come under scrutiny per se (see for
example DiSalvo (2012: p. 124) on adversarial design and Thorpe and
Gammon (2011: pp. 223e225) on the limits of expectations in socially respon-
sive design). Even less attention has been paid to where the place for design
domain expertise resides, and the extent to which, during the design process
it is realistic for the designer to be able to justify some of his proposals. While
we have come a long way from ‘trust me I’m the designer’, there is still much
research needed, which pays close attention to the fine details of how design
decisions are made and what are the types of justification suitable for different
audiences, in a way that takes account of what it is reasonable to expect can be
communicated, and under what circumstances.

350 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014

 The study we have presented shows that representations of the virtual building
did not draw the client into discoursing about its experiential qualities directly.
What does bring out these contributions is talking about a building that is in
use. Shared experiences, such as using visits for purposes other than clarifying
functional issues perhaps provide a direct route to the difficult to express
wishes of the client; what Proctor and Matthews describe as ‘looking beyond
e defying gravity’. This still leaves the question of how alignment of the aspi-
rations of architects and those of clients can be achieved reliably. Sch€ on’s
claim (1988: p. 187) is that experiential significance has universal emotive po-
wer. If this is the case, once an architect has understood what emotion/expe-
rience needs to be created he can pull an experiential archetype from
memory and work from this. This seems to be what the separate accounts of
Zumthor, Proctor and Matthews, and Downing that we described in our intro-
duction are intimating, though each uses a different language of expression.
However they also leave us with that tantalizing gap between the idea and
the building, the form and the experience which, when things go well, may
be a source of wonder, but when they go badly may be a source of disappoint-
ment that it is difficult to repair.

Acknowledgements
We thank Redshift Photography for permission to use the photographs of the
crematorium shown in Figures 2a, b, 5, 7a, b and 8 and Adrian Morrow for
permission to include Figures 1, 4 and 5. Our special thanks go to Anna
and to Adam for their generous co-operation with us over the last eight years.

References
Casey, E. (1994). Getting back into place. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dovey, K. (1993). Putting geometry in its place: towards a phenomenology of the
design process. In D. Seamon (Ed.), Dwelling, seeing and designing an introduc-
tion (pp. 247e269). New York: University of New York Press.
Downing, F. (1992). Conversations in imagery. Design Studies, 13, 291e319.
Jacquet, B., & Giraud, V. (Eds.). (2012). From the things themselves. Kyoto:
Kyoto University Press.
Kahn, L. (2003). Talk at the conclusion of the Otterloo Congress 1959. In
R. Twombly (Ed.), Louis Kahn essential texts (pp. 37e61). New York: W.W.
Norton.
Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design
expertise. Design Studies, 25, 443e457.
Luck, R. (2009). ‘Does this compromise your design?’ Socially producing a design
concept in talk-in-interaction. In J. McDonnell, & P. Lloyd (Eds.), About:
designing e Analysing design meetings (pp. 233e249). London: Taylor and
Francis.
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (Eds.). (2009). About: Designing e Analysing design
meetings. London: Taylor and Francis.
Medway, P. (2000). Writing and design in architectural education. In A. Pare
(Ed.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 89e129).
New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.

Beyond specification 351

 Medway, P. (2003). Imagining the building; architectural design as semiotic con-
struction. Design Studies, 24, 255e273.
Penoyre, G., & Prasad, S. (2007). Transformations: The architecture of Penoyre
and Prasad. London: Black Dog Publishing.
Proctor, S., & Matthews, A. (2009). Pattern place purpose. London: Black Dog
Publishing.
Rybczynski, W. (2011). Biography of a building. London: Thames and Hudson.
Sch€on, D. (1985). The design studio. London: RIBA Publications Ltd.
Sch€on, D. (1988). Designing: rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9, 181e190.
Seamon, D. (Ed.). (1993). Dwelling, seeing and designing an introduction. New
York: University of New York Press.
Seamon, D., & Mugerauer, R. (Eds.). (1985). Dwelling, place and environment; to-
wards a phenomenology of person and world. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Thorpe, A., & Gammon, L. (2011). Design with society: why socially responsive
design is good enough. CoDesign, 17, 217e230.
Zumthor, P. (2010). Thinking architecture (3rd ed.). Basel: Birkhauser.

Endnotes

1. The DTRS7 dataset (see McDonnell & Lloyd, 2009 for detailed description).
2. Kahn’s view on spaces in architecture was that they are hierarchical. One mani-
festation of hierarchy, for him, is to distinguish clearly in the built form and
spatial arrangements between ‘important spaces’ e the served e and spaces
which support them e servant spaces. Use of columns, changes in lighting,
and ceiling height variations are examples of architectural features that signal
which spaces are served and which serve. See for example the description
Kahn gave in a talk in 1959 (reprinted Kahn, 2003: pp. 48e49).
3. Sch€on uses this term for the units with which architects reason spatially as they
work on a particular design. These are signalled in what they say while working
by references to spatial geometries and clusters of spaces, e.g. talking about
‘pods’ or ‘peninsulas’. They are parts of the footprint of an emerging design
that the designer reasons with as s/he experiments with arrangements. For an
example of this in action see Sch€ on’s conversation between Petra and Quist
(Sch€ on, 1985: specifically pp. 33e38) where Quist the experienced tutor-
designer, proposes to Petra, the tutee, an alternative way of ‘seeing’ and thus
working with, spatial gestalts in order to address the difficulties that have arisen
with her attempt to configure L-shaped clusters of classrooms into a sloping
site.

352 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 4 July 2014