Why use a machine for designing houses?

So far I have described a software machine that designs domestic buildings using an adaptive, evolutionary approach. This machine uses the theory of Pattern Languages to maximise human needs met, it combines this with a costing calculation that minimises construction material as the other side of a fitness equation. The software already exists and produces credible buildings that have an informal aesthetic much like those found in existing historical towns. Now I'm not pretending the software is complete, there is clearly still much that can be improved, but the basic engine is sound.

You might say this is sort-of interesting, but then also ask, why exactly is it necessary? Surely the problem with existing building design is not that a person has had to do the design? Surely the crappiness of much modern building is the result of economic or political forces beyond our control?

So why would we switch to using a machine for designing buildings? And why would we want to use one that works in this particular way? I think that there are some really compelling reasons for adopting this system, or something very much like it, and the remainder of this article sketches them out.

Rendered image of generated houses

Better

With this software, we are using Pattern Languages in a rigorous way; this means that we are selecting designs based on a list of things that matter - human needs, rather than arbitrary criteria or fashionable images.

What we get out of all this is simply just good ordinary buildings: well proportioned, with a balance between daylight and privacy. Houses with a front door, street access, outdoor space and all the other things we get by sticking relentlessly to the Pattern Language and using it at every stage of the process.

Practical

Unlike existing development models, this system doesn't require perfectly rectangular plots or large consolidated sites to be efficient. This means that it works with real sites that are available today in real cities, and not with imaginary cities built in theoretical perfect locations. It can be made to work at any scale and can fit itself between and around existing buildings and landscape. It doesn't require a regular grid or a clean canvas, so no space needs to wasted or left-over just because it is an awkward shape or not big enough for a standard module.

With a computational system, we can afford to be flexible, to embrace different and changing requirements. If we produce a design that is unexpected, we can re-examine the requirements to see if they need to change - generating multiple alternative designs to explore different requirements can become the normal way of doing things.

Dense

Density is one of Jane Jacob's four major ingredients for a successful living city. When people live closer together, there are more places and more people within easy reach. This is the essence of the reason people live in cities in the first place.

By optimising the use of the plot area, and with the Pattern Language approach to quality, we can pack buildings close together and still make them better places to live in.

This compact way of building is obviously an alternative to suburban sprawl, but it is also a real alternative to high-rise development. Tower blocks are not so efficient when you consider the huge amount of empty space needed around them. The efficiency of tower blocks is largely managerial, they are simple to design, simple to price, simple to finance, and simple to sell.

Spreading buildings out into a suburban sprawl isolates us and forces relationships to be mediated by cars and technology rather than face-to-face. A tower block forms a vertical cul-de-sac and has similar isolating effects. Human life is more complex than this; understanding, connection and serendipity come from chance encounters in the street.

Economic

A design system that calculates and considers construction costs at every stage of the fitness calculation is going to maximise value in terms of human needs met for the least quantity of materials used. This has to be a good thing.

In most cities, building land itself is a limited, costly, resource. A design system that fits good ordinary buildings onto smaller plots of land can only ever reduce the total cost of construction.

I want to emphasise this, this is a cheap way of building.

Ecological

By minimising construction material in the fitness calculation, our system minimises resource usage. We get a maximum amount of building for the least amount of material.

Houses that share walls burn less fuel to heat and to cool, this is fundamental to green building.

If density reduces the need for private cars, then a reduction in the number of cars means less space dedicated to parking and roads, and more space for everything else. Cities where more journeys are on foot burn less fuel for transport.

Towns that are compact leave more space to share with everything else that lives on the planet. Achieving this compact city form, whether it happens like this or some other way, is one of the keys to a sustainable future.

Diverse

The system designs a unique house for every situation. This is inevitable when every house exists in a unique environment, not least when every other surrounding house is itself unique. This variation suits real people who each have different needs and desires and so have more chance of finding a personal fit: so one house may have more outdoor space, and another may have a larger kitchen - yet others still have all sorts of combinations of attributes, layouts and sizes.

The alternative offered by the building industry today is a monoculture made up from just one or two house plans with a scattering of different cladding materials to give the impression of diversity.

Adaptable

The end result of an adaptive design system is that the final design is inevitably adaptable. This means that these buildings are well suited for future extension, or for combining rooms to create larger spaces, or even subdivision of existing rooms. This provides resilience over time, the buildings can change and evolve to suit changing needs.

Free

In this system, the design criteria used to create a house is transparent, allowing anyone to reproduce, question, justify or propose alternative designs. This is also Free Software, giving users the right to modify and share their modifications. The system provides freedom; freedom from professional gatekeepers with their own agendas, and ultimately freedom for anyone to take control of their own environment.

Wiki

Urb / Advocacy