An Affordance-Based Appraoch Architectural Theory, Design and Practice - Maier Et Al. 2009

P

Corresponding author:

Jonathan R. A. [email protected].

edu

-based approach to
An affordancearchitectural theory, design, and practice
Jonathan R. A.Maier andGeorgesM. Fadel,Clemson Research in Engineering

Design and Optimization (CREDO) Laboratory, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Clemson University, 135 Fluor Daniel, EIB, Clemson,

SC 29634-0921, USA

Dina G. Battisto, Department of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson,

SC 29634-0921, USA

The idea of affordance, borrowed from perceptual psychology, is applied to the

domain of architecture. As to architectural theory, affordances can be used as

a conceptual framework to understand the relationship between environments

and occupants, especially with respect to form and function. Regarding

architectural design, the concept of affordance allows for a common theoretical

basis to improve the design process. Concerning architectural practice,

affordances can be used as a tool to explore the connection between the

intentions of the design with how the artifact is actually used, leading to archived

knowledge, and the potential for avoiding common design failures.

ublished by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: architectural design, design theory, design practice, design process,

theory of affordances

‘Architecture and design do not have a satisfactory theoretical basis,’

wrote psychologist James J. Gibson three decades ago. He then

asked ‘Can an ecological approach to the psychology of percep-

tion and behavior provide it?’ (Gibson, 1976). Clearly his opinion was yes,

and we agree. In this article we expand upon this idea by applying Gibson’s

concept of affordance to the design of artifacts in general and in particular

to the domain of architecture. In previous work we have applied the concept

of affordance more specifically to the field of engineering design, where we

have argued that the concept of affordance is more fundamental than other ex-

tant concepts, particularly that of function (Maier and Fadel, 2001, 2002; cf.,

Brown and Blessing, 2005). In this article we argue that, as in engineering, the

concept of affordance is more fundamental to architecture than other often

studied concepts, particularly that of form. One of our goals in this paper is

therefore to show how the idea of affordances applies to a theoretical basis

for architecture, in an answer to Gibson’s provocative question.

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 30 (2009) 393e414

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002 393Published by Elsevier Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

394

Our application of affordances to architecture rests upon three main proposi-

tions, which we explore in the remainder of this paper. First, as to architectural

theory, we assert that affordances can be used as a conceptual framework to

understand the relationship between built environments and humans over

time, especially with respect to the form, function, and meaning of architec-

tural elements. Second, regarding architectural design, we propose that the

concept of affordance allows for a common theoretical basis to improve the

design process by offering a shared language among those involved in a design

project, particularly architects and engineers. Third, regarding architectural

practice, we believe that affordances may be used as an evaluation tool to ex-

plore the connection between the initial intentions or objectives of the design

with how the artifact is actually used, leading to archived knowledge for use in

future projects, and the potential for avoiding an array of common design

failures.

In this regard we echo and expand upon some points made by Koutamanis in

his application of the idea of affordance to building elements and spaces. He

states ‘Affordances promise integration of different viewpoints (architects, en-

gineers, clients, users) and continuity, i.e., compatible expressions of function-

ality and usability throughout the lifecycle of a building (briefing, design and

use). This holds promise for the codification of design knowledge: affordances

could support direct matching of an existing building or type to a specific brief,

thus allowing for early evaluation and refinement of design or briefing choices’

(Koutamanis, 2006). Before expanding upon these ideas further, the concept

of affordance needs to be explored and understood, as presented in the next

section.

1 A generalized theory of affordances

1.1 History of the idea of affordanceThe perceptual psychologist James J. Gibson first put forward the theory of

affordances. In other work, the present authors have expanded upon this

theory, and identified new application areas (Maier and Fadel, 2001, 2002,

2003, 2005, 2007, in press). Following our introduction of the concept

into the engineering design community, other authors have also begun using

the concept of affordance within engineering design and industrial design re-

search (e.g., Galvao and Sato, 2004, 2005, 2006; Brown and Blessing, 2005;

Kim et al., 2007). In this section, we briefly review our generalized theory of

affordances (see Maier, 2005, Maier and Fadel, in press, for a more complete

discussion) with a focus on its applicability to architecture. We begin with

Gibson’s original definition. Gibson coined the term ‘affordance’ as follows

(all emphases are his):

The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it

provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found

Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

An affordance-based app

in the dictionary, but the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean

by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in

a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the an-

imal and the environment (Gibson, 1979).

Gibson’s book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception is most con-

cerned with how animals perceive their environment, which Gibson argues

is through the perception of affordances in the environment. As such

Gibson’s theory of affordances is a descriptive formulation: it describes how

animals perceive their environment.

A decade later another psychologist, Donald A. Norman, took Gibson’s the-

ory of affordances and extended it into a prescriptive formulation: Norman

gives some guidelines as to what certain objects should afford and should

not afford. However, Norman, in his bookThe Psychology of Everyday Things,

also published as The Design of Everyday Things (Norman, 1988), is concerned

primarily with, as the title says, ‘everyday things’ and not the design of artifacts

in general or architecture in particular. Hence Norman’s theory culminates in

two design-for-x methodologies (design-for-usability and design-for-error) but

stops short of incorporating the concept of affordance as fundamental to the

design of any artifact. Following Norman’s seminal use of the concept of af-

fordance in interaction design, there has been considerable discussion of affor-

dances in the context of human-computer-interaction (HCI) (cf., Norman,

1999). Other psychologists, such as Warren and his students, have applied

the concept of affordance to design specific artifacteuser relationships, such

as the height of stair steps (Warren, 1995). However, such an approach relies

on the analysis of so-called invariant geometric relationships, such as the ratio

of leg height to stair height, which may not exist in all cases.

The idea of affordance has also been applied in the field of artificial intelli-

gence, e.g., how to design robots that recognize affordances in their environ-

ment (as in Murphy, 1999), and in a somewhat similar vein, to the study of

human childhood development (see, e.g., Gibson, 2000). Some authors in

the Human Factors field have recently applied an ecological approach to the

design of user interfaces, known as Ecological Interface Design (EID) (Vicente

and Rasmussen, 1992). Their approach emphasizes high-level processing of

data by human users and speaks chiefly to the layout and configuration of dis-

plays. However, their methods are not explicitly centered on affordances and

do not address design projects in general.

Meanwhile, a few other researchers have begun to apply the concept of afford-

ance to architectural design explicitly. Tweed (2001) reports progress on iden-

tifying and highlighting affordances within computer-aided architectural

design (CAAD) software. Koutamanis (2006) follows Norman’s application

of the concept of affordance to individual building elements such as door

roach to architectural theory, design, and practice 395

396

handles, and proceeds to apply affordances to architectural spaces in which he

introduces the technique of ‘affordance mapping’ to help architects think

about the affordances of their architectural designs. In a similar vein, Kim

et al. (2008) study the actual affordances of a building lobby and how they

vary between different users. Whereas the above authors tend to focus on tech-

niques for using the concept of affordance in architecture, our focus in this pa-

per is a thorough application of affordances on a theoretical level which should

underlie subsequent practical applications.

1.2 Examples of affordancesThe concept of affordance is perhaps most easily understood through some

simple examples. Gibson gives the following examples:

� ‘If a terrestrial surface is nearly horizontal (instead of slanted), nearly flat

(instead of convex or concave), and sufficiently extended (relative to the

size of the animal) and if its substance is rigid (relative to the weight of

the animal), then the surface affords support’

� ‘Terrestrial surfaces, of course, are also climb-on-able or fall-off-able or get-

underneath-able or bump-into-able relative to the animal. Different layouts

afford different behaviors for different animals’

� ‘Air affords breathing, more exactly, respiration. It also affords unimpeded

locomotion relative to the ground. when illuminated and fog-free, it af-

fords visual perception. It also affords the perception of vibratory events

by means of sound fields and the perception of volatile sources by means

of odor fields’

� ‘Solids afford various kinds of manufacture, depending on the kind of solid

state. Some, such as flint, can be chipped; others, such as clay, can be

molded; still others recover their original shape after deformation; and

some resist deformation strongly’ (Gibson, 1979)

Pertaining to architecture specifically, the following examples of affordances

may be helpful:

� Buildings have many high-level affordances, including affording shelter to

occupants from the exterior environment, affording aesthetics to occupants

and passers-by, affording storage of goods, affording comfort to occupants

through climate control, etc. More detailed affordances can better be

analyzed by looking at specific building elements.

� Windows afford the transmission of light, and hence illumination of the in-

terior environment as well as a view of the exterior environment. Operable

windows may also afford the exchange of air, and in extreme cases even

defenestration.

� Floors afford the support of occupants’ weight, as well as furniture, the at-

tachment of finish materials, the routing of utilities, and in some cases even

drainage.



Notice how some of the above affordances are positive, i.e., beneficial to the

user, such as the lights, air and views through windows. Other affordances

are negative, i.e., harmful to users, such as defenestration through windows.

With both Gibson’s and our examples of affordances in mind, for both envi-

ronmental things and architectural elements respectively, we can now general-

ize the concept in order to apply it to the design of artifacts in general and

architecture in particular. This is accomplished in the context of two distinct

classes of affordances, artifact-user affordances and artifact-artifact affordan-

ces, as discussed next.

1.3 About artifacteuser affordances (AUA)Affordances always express a complimentary relationship between two sepa-

rate systems. In Gibson’s original formulation, one is the environment, and

the other is an animal situated in it. For design, and especially for architec-

ture, we can view the environment as the built environment, i.e., artifacts,

and consider the typical animals in them to be in fact human users. Hence

the usual affordances of interest exist between artifacts and users. We call

these ‘artifact-user affordances’ (AUA).

Affordances are distinguished from other types of interaction by the potential

usefulness of the relationship. Other types of relationships, such as ownership,

or even the artifact’s actual use by the user are not affordances. An affordance

indicates the potential for a behavior, but not the actual occurrence of that behav-

ior. As Gibson pointed-out, individual properties of either the artifact (color,

density, size, etc.) or the user (strength, age, height, etc.) are not in and of them-

selves affordances, but taken together can determine whether a specific afford-

ance exists, such as the ability of a specific person to walk on a specific floor.

Note also that an affordance must first exist before the behavior afforded can

ever be exhibited. For example, the affordance of visibility through a window

is one type of interaction, while the behavior of a person looking through thewin-

dow is a different type of interaction, but the two are related because the window

must (first) afford visibility before it can (second) ever actually be gazed through.

1.4 About artifacteartifact affordances (AAA)Anaffordance does not need to be perceived for that affordance still to exist. This

means that the human user does not need to even be present for the affordance to

exist. Taking another step of abstraction, we recognize that an affordance ex-

presses a relationship between two (or more) subsystems in which a behavior

can manifest between the two subsystems that either subsystem cannot manifest

in isolation.Examples exist of course between artifacts andusers (e.g., turnability

of a door-knob, readability of a sign) betweenmultiple users (e.g., conversations,

mating, fighting, etc.), and finally betweenmultiple artifacts (e.g., walls affording

support to roofs, sprinklers affording suppression of fires). We call the latter re-

lationships ‘artifact-artifact affordances’ (AAA).


398

Obviously buildings must be designed to afford desired uses to its occupants

and other stakeholders, however, the components of the building must be de-

signed to have affordances as well. The behaviors of these affordances may be

realized in practice, such as walls supporting roof loads, or may be designed

simply as contingencies that may never be realized, such as fire suppression,

or extreme loading by snow, hurricanes, or floods.

It is important to note that whereas an AUA expresses a relationship that is

directly useful to users (including the meaning of architectural elements as dis-

cussed in Section 2.3), an AAA expresses a relationship that is indirectly useful

to users. Floors must support users walking on them, however, walls must

support roofs, but this is ultimately to protect users within the building.

1.5 Affordances and system behaviorWhether an affordance exists, and what quality the affordance is, depends upon

the structure of both of the subsystems involved. A thicker, stronger floor af-

fords support to heavy occupants better than a thinner, weaker floor. However,

a thinner, weaker floor may be adequate to support lighter users, such as chil-

dren. In the case of AUA, designers have control over the structure of the arti-

facts they design, and thus over what affordances exist with respect to specific

users, over whom they usually do not have control. In the case of AAA, de-

signers have control over both artifacts, but still need to design the affordance

and resulting behavior ultimately to benefit or to protect human users.

At this point three basic categories can be identified as essential to any afford-

ance relationship. The first is structure (of artifacts and/or users), the second,

behavior (again, or artifacts and/or users), and the third, purpose. The funda-

mental relation between these categories is that systems afford behaviors via

their structure for a purpose. This is a more detailed adaptation of the dictum

from general systems theory that ‘structure influences behavior’ (cf., Senge,

1990). Essentially, we have used the generalized concept of affordances to

describe how structure influences behavior, and to what ends.

Structure determines what affordances exist. The affordances indicate what

behaviors are possible, whether or not they are ever expressed. The ultimate use-

fulness of the affordance to users (directly in the case ofAUA, or indirectly in the

case of AAA) is the purpose of the system and its organization. In the next sub-

section we offer a specific architectural example, using the theory of affordances

to understand some well publicized failures of modern architecture.

1.6 A motivating example using the concept of affordanceto understand building failureHermetically designed concepts for high-rise housing towers provide an exam-

ple of how unintentional social behaviors develop in structures that inherently



afford those behaviors. Modern masters such as Le Corbusier, in his austere

high-rise multi-family housing projects, significantly influenced a generation

of housing schemes in urban environments in the International Style. Modern-

ist ideals were evident in the design of the failed public housing developments

such as Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Cabrini Green in Chicago, although the

lessons learned following the occupation of the buildings by the tenants clearly

show that there was a gap between the intentions of the design and the ensuing

behaviors of the tenants (cf., Hillier, 2007). The building achieved its intended

affordances of providing high density, inexpensive housing. Its failure was due

to the multiple macro-scale unintended negative affordances that resulted in

such bad actual living conditions.

Although it is a myth that Pruitt-Igoe ever received any kind of architectural

prize, some of its design features that were initially praised, such as the design

of the elevators and hallways (Figure 1a), soon ‘proved to be opportune envi-

ronments for violent crime’ (Bristol, 1991). Due to a variety of factors, includ-

ing demographic shifts within the city, poor management and maintenance, as

well as actual design flaws, three of the high-rise towers of Pruitt-Igoe were in-

tentionally demolished in 1972 by the St. Louis Housing Authority

(Figure 1b), just 18 years after their completion in 1954. We suggest that if

the affordances of the proposed buildings had been better understood in the

design stage, then the building design could have been modified so the building

would not afford the undesirable behaviors later experienced by the tenants.

Recently developed strategies for identifying and understanding affordances

in the design process are discussed in the next section.

1.7 Strategies for identifying and understanding affordancesin the design processTwo design tools have recently been developed to help designers identify and

manage affordances with respect to user behaviors and artifact structures in

the design stage. The Function Task Interaction Matrix (FTIM) proposed

by Galvao and Sato (2005) identifies affordances as the intersection between

artifact structure and user tasks. While Galvao and Sato (2005, 2006) origi-

nally demonstrated the FTIM with consumer products such as cell phones

and digital cameras, Kim et al. (2007) have applied the FTIM to identify 28

affordances to guide their design of the interior of a conference room. They

conclude ‘It is more systematic and effective to use these relationships in the

design of [a] conference room to meet specific needs of users rather than to

only rely on designer’s experience and knowledge’.

Another matrix based design tool to aid designers in understanding and man-

aging the impact of artifact structure on affordances is the Affordance Struc-

ture Matrix (ASM) which is being developed by the present authors (Maier

et al., 2007b, 2008). Using an ASM, changes to artifact structure can be traced

to the affordances that depend on each structural element. Thereby


Figure 1 Demolition of

Pruitt-Igoe housing project

(� Newman, 1996)

400

possibilities for improving positive affordances and mitigating negative affor-

dances can be explored during conceptual design. Methods for designing indi-

vidual affordances have also been introduced by the present authors (Maier

and Fadel, 2003).

Finally, Tweed (2001) has begun investigating explicit representation of affor-

dances in computer-aided architectural design software. Although research

into applying affordance-based design theory to the design of architectural

elements is on-going, as discussed further in Section 3, we suggest that the care-

ful application of even these early concepts and tools can produce better archi-

tecture with better affordances and less tendency for failure.

2 Application to architectural theory and design

2.1 Historical separation of form and function in architectureAs the preceding example illustrates, an understanding of the relationship be-

tween form (or more generally, structure) and function (or more generally,



user behavior) is essential for a successful design project. An understanding of

the separation between form and function in architecture helps to explain the

theoretical dilemma that designers face today.

The need to provide appropriate form and function has been recognized since

antiquity, e.g., in the writings of Vitruvius (Kruft, 1994). However, for Vitru-

vius, and for centuries of architects that he influenced, form (firmitas) and func-

tion (utilitas) were considered separate but competing requirements, among

others, such as beauty (venustas) (Vitruvius, 1960). We suggest that the concept

of affordance can be used as a conceptual basis to unite the originally separate

Vitruvian ideas of form and function, as explained in the following sections.

2.2 The influence of affordance in existing architecturaltheoryIn the domain of architecture, the concept of affordance has not been applied

to design directly, although as a concept it has influenced work within the in-

tegrative field of Environment and Behavior (EB) research, which attempts to

integrate form and function more than earlier conceptions which separated

form and function.

EB research explores the relations between people and their surroundings and

is a multi-disciplinary field spanning sociology, environmental psychology, hu-

manistic geography, natural resources, urban planning and architecture. EB

research is oriented toward understanding human characteristics at all levels

of human experience (from physiological responses to social and cultural

phenomena) and at all scales of the everyday physical environments (from

the micro-scale of interiors to the macro-scale of regions.) One of the primary

objectives of EB research is to discover underlying mechanisms that link envi-

ronment and behavior together (Moore, 1987). We believe the concept of af-

fordance is just such a mechanism, as affordances link the structure of the

environment with the capabilities of human users to determine what behaviors

are possible and even likely.

Furthermore, current EB research practices can aid designers in anticipating

affordance perception and behavior response. Established research instru-

ments such as the environmental assessment technique (Astin and Holland,

1961) and environmental descriptor scales (Kasmar, 1970) can be used to

quantify attributes of built environments or concepts and test hypotheses

about usages of the building (Craik and Feimer, 1987). Kim’s recent evalua-

tion of the affordances of a building lobby demonstrates this approach in

action (Kim et al., 2008).

The concept of affordance can also be applied to understand basic ideas within

person-environment theories in the behavioral sciences and gerontology.

Theoretical models such as those by Lawton andNahemow (1973) and Lawton


402

(1982), and Kahana (1982) involve an interaction approach to studying older

adults and their environments. Much of this work emphasizes a quantitative

view of the person-environment interaction building on the work of Lewin

(1951). This approach focuses on the functional aspects of the person-

environment relations and views the interaction as a system that is divisible

into separate entities of person and environment.1 Both person and environ-

ment are believed to be fluid, one changing as the other changes, with cause

and effect being difficult to separate. The concept of affordance provides a use-

ful framework to understand just such a relationship, where the (sometimes

fluid) properties of both person (or user) and (artificial) environment determine

the affordances that exist and the consequent behavior that manifests. To the

extent that these properties can be quantified, so too might the resulting affor-

dances and behavior. Such was the basic approach of Warren (1995) in his

studies of stair step height.

The concept of affordance can also be applied to person-environment theories

within place-based research. This work focuses on a qualitative view of the inter-

action. The disciplines interested in understanding this type of interaction

involve fields of environmental psychology (see, e.g., Canter, 1977), architecture

(see, e.g., Schulz, 1988), and humanistic geography (see, e.g., Tuan, 1980). The

term ‘theory of place’ is a term often used to encompass the meanings and emo-

tional ties associated with physical environments. The person-environment

relationship is then viewed as a unified interaction, from which individual com-

ponents of the environment and behavior experience cannot be separated. The

researchers view the interaction in terms of the experiential nature of the place

and the consciousness of the individual. Interpreted as affordances, this type

of interaction emphasizes the fact that affordances depend on both the artifact

(i.e., environment) and user (i.e., person) and do not exist in isolation from the

other. This research also takes into accountmore of the psychological properties

of the user than the quantitative person-environment theories discussed above.

2.3 On form and meaning in architectureAs we have just seen, the study of affordances obviously entails an understand-

ing of the interaction between people and their (artificial, i.e., architectonic)

environment. Similarly, the study of form and meaning within architecture

has addressed the connections between an environmental setting and the ob-

server. Thus, it seems plausible that meaning can be considered as a separate

affordance, dependent on the physical form of architectural elements and the

past experiences, beliefs, aesthetic preferences, etc. of the observer. We explore

this idea in the remainder of this section, beginning with a brief review of the

history of meaning in architecture.

Since the 20th century, the investigation of the symbolic quality of the build

environment has been a focus of architectural discourse particularly during



the Post Modern Era. This can be seen in historical studies in architectural

iconography as seen in e.g., Venturi’s (1966) Complexity and Contradiction

in Architecture and Moore and Bloomer’s (1977) Body, Memory and Architec-

ture. In other work, symbolic qualities have been linked to the significance or

production of meaning (semiotics) by the sociologist Umberto Eco (1979) in

his Theory of Semiotics.

Building upon readings from Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger and Gaston

Bachelard, Pallasmaa formulates ‘a theoretical position about experience’s re-

liance in memory, imagination, and the unconsciousness.’ Pallasmaa asserts

that meaning in architecture

‘depends on its ability to symbolize human existence or presence, and as

modern architects appear to have overlooked, on the spatial experience

of the work.Forms themselves are meaningless, but can transmit mean-

ing via images enriched by associations.Science and reason, have contrib-

uted limiting mindsets like analysis, elementarism, and reductionism, with

unfortunate consequences for architecture.By contrast, the experience of

architecture is synthetic, operating at many levels simultaneously: mental/

physical, cultural/biological, collective/individual, etc.’ (Pallasmaa, 1986:

p. 447)

As noted previously, meaning in the context of architecture has been shown

to be an important component in linking people to places (Schulz, 1976,

1988). There are multiple ways in which a building can convey meaning.

For example, meaning may be associated with an architectural form’s histor-

ical significance or specific cultural, political, or social symbolism. Columns,

for example, while performing the function of supporting a roof load, to some

mean power and prestige hearkening back to the Grecian and Roman

empires, however, to other people these columns may symbolize American

colonial racial repression. Marble on the floor of a bathroom, while affording

support to walk on and a water-proof seal above the sub-floor, may be

perceived as luxurious because of its relative expense.

Such meanings are not captured in computer-aided-design (CAD) systems or

any other form-based representation (Maier et al., 2007a). They are culturally

embedded; they are taken with reference to the human users and their cultural

identity. As such, meaning may be considered as another category of

affordance.

In order to understand the affordances, both positive and negative, within

a particular context, the study of meaning may shed light on the connections

between artifact and user. What is meant (or not meant) in a particular archi-

tectural setting depends, as theorists such as Pallasmaa have realized for years,

on the prior experiences of the individual. The meaning of any architectural


404

attribute, therefore, depends on the individual, just as does any other afford-

ance of that same feature.

3 Application of affordances to architectural practice

3.1 An affordance-based view of the design processIn an effort to understand the design process in general, we first need to take

a step back and address the question of why people design things at all. Once

again, Gibson applies the powerful concept of affordance to answer this fun-

damental question: ‘Why has man changed the shapes and substances of his

environment? To change what it affords him’ (Gibson, 1976).

Hence the impetus for any design project can be understood in terms of creat-

ing and changing affordances d neither creating artifacts to do certain things,

as a functional view of design would hold, nor creating artifacts solely on the

basis of creating a beautiful form, but rather to create artifacts that can be used

and that have meaning. The concept of affordance provides an alternate way of

viewing the design of environments, emphasizing the complementarity of the

relationship between environments and their users, i.e., between the form of

buildings and the resulting behavior of their occupants as the building

‘functions’ in practice.

We envision architectural design as fundamentally being no different from the

design of any other artifact. First, the desired (positive) affordances and the

undesired (negative) affordances must be identified. As usual, these affordan-

ces can be divided into two broad categories, artifact-user affordances (AUA)

and artifact-artifact affordances (AAA) as discussed previously (cf., Maier and

Fadel, 2003, 2007).

In architecture, AUA are extremely important yet often neglected to the

extreme consternation of buildings’ occupants and visitors. In The Design of

Everyday Things, Norman points out the frustration experienced by many

users of doors in buildings which suffer from common (yet easily avoided) pit-

falls such as failing to indicate whether they need be pulled or pushed (by poor

choice of handles), or failing to properly indicate that they are doors at all

(e.g., glass doors). Modern buildings also sport an abundance of signage to ex-

plain to people how the buildings should be used. As Norman has pointed-out

about objects in general, if they require written instructions, they are probably

bad designs. A better design indicates, by virtue of its structure, how it should

be used (what it affords). No explanation should be necessary (Norman, 1988).

Meanwhile, AAA are also extremely important in architecture, for architects

are also responsible for various modern technical systems of buildings:

their lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical provision, lightning

protection, plumbing, endurance of severe weather, maintainability, longevity,



fire-resistance, etc. Currently, these various design activities share no common

basis. If architects and engineers were to approach these systems from a

common theoretical basis, that of affordances, it would be easier for them to

communicate and concurrently design their systems.

Unfortunately, usually it is not merely sufficient to design an artifact that pos-

sesses certain affordances; as Norman has pointed-out, that artifact must also

not possess certain undesired affordances. Hence, as we have discussed in prior

work (Maier and Fadel, 2001; Maier and Fadel, in press; Maier, 2005) the de-

sign process can be viewed simply as the search for an artifact that:

� possesses all the desired affordances, and

� does not possess any undesired affordances.

Note that the vitally important determination of what exactly the artifact is

supposed to afford and not to afford is an early and crucial phase of the design

process itself. Within the domain of architecture, this phase of the design

process is often referred to as ‘architectural programming.’

3.2 Applying affordance-based design to architecturalprogrammingIn architecture generally, we see affordance-based design as most beneficial in

this architectural programming phase of a project. It is important to note, how-

ever, that the concept of affordances should not be limited to just program-

ming but relates to all phases of architectural design.

One of the most referenced texts, Problem Seeking by Pena (2001), defines

architectural programming as an analysis stage and is distinct from the later

design phase defined as ‘problem solving.’ Pena’s initial approach to architec-

tural programming (published as early as 1977) has significantly influenced the

practice of architecture and provided a basis for subsequent writings on archi-

tectural programming (e.g., Kumlin, 1995; Cherry, 1998; Hamilton, 1999;

Hershberger, 1999). During pre-design phases architects and other profes-

sionals on the planning team generally employ several interactive methods

and techniques to collect information on the internal and external forces

that impact a given project. Generally speaking, the planning team may con-

duct environmental evaluations and assessments, collect data, research best

practices, interview different user groups, establish goals, and generate a list

of technology and equipment needs. During this inquiry process, objectives

are established, the context of the design problem is identified and the perfor-

mance requirements are defined (Duerk, 1993). Ultimately, a large amount of

information is distilled into several key concepts that are intended to inform

the later design process. Most architectural programming approaches utilize

a divided programming and design process and this is often reinforced in

the organizational structure of large architectural firms. A limitation of this


406

fragmented approach is the ineffective transfer of information to the designers

and the subsequent disconnect throughout the entire design process.

The architectural programming process is a highly analytical process that

tends to focus on things that are ‘measurable.’ Such a highly analytical process

of design often creates a more functional view of a design problem. It is impor-

tant, however, that the functionality of design must be balanced with an artis-

tic or poetic view of design in order to achieve ‘Quality Architecture’ (Pirsig,

1974). By providing a common understanding of the design process, means

of representing requirements, and means of analyzing candidate structures,

the concept of affordance can provide a framework to create a more fluid

transfer of information through the multiple stages of the design process,

and a more coordinated effort in the planning and designing efforts among

multiple disciplines.

Note also that the determination of affordances directly requires the expertise

of designers who have knowledge of the context in which the artifact or build-

ing will be used. This includes the meaning suggested by individual elements as

well as everything that will need to be accomplished with the artifact (which

leads to everything the artifact needs to afford), not only what the artifact

will need to do itself (function) or look like (form). Recall that an important

difference between affordance-based design and other views of the design pro-

cess is the formal identification of things that the design should not afford. In

other words, it is not sufficient to design an artifact to accomplish certain goals

(e.g., meeting budget, attractive appearance) if that artifact also accomplishes

undesired goals (e.g., criminal activity, short life-span).

3.3 Affordance-based design and an architecturalknowledge baseA key advantage of the concept of affordance is that it can be used from the

very early stages of a design project through to evaluation after the project

is completed. Understanding early information in terms of affordances can

help designers determine appropriate measurable goals or hypotheses that

may serve as guiding principles in the design process. These hypotheses can

then be evaluated following the occupation of the building. Doing so may

aid in developing a knowledge base on the success and failure of designs

and replace the tradition of transferring information and knowledge through

oral history.

The need for such a knowledge base has been articulated at national confer-

ences on the design of buildings and landscapes. For example, the 2003

National American Institute of Architects (AIA) Convention theme was

‘Design Matters e Poetry and Proof’ (Aiarchitect, 2003) a provocative title

which conveys that there is not a sufficient knowledge base to inform design de-

cisions and help justify design decisions when communicating with the client or



other stakeholders involved in the design process. According to Hamilton

(2003), architects are accustomed to casual investigation as opposed to scien-

tific rigor, i.e., not establishing any clear hypotheses with subsequent claims

that can be measured to build a knowledge base. When the design intentions

are not clearly articulated in the design process, it makes it difficult to conduct

a post-occupancy evaluation to determine if the design is meeting measurable

objectives, e.g., with regard to safety, comfort, productivity, flexibility,

aesthetics, etc.

To respond to clients’ expectations, those involved with designing environ-

ments are seeking ways to advance their thinking and position themselves as

leaders capable of blending the creative arts and a credible knowledge base.

The appropriate application of the concept affordances may help to build

this knowledge base, by providing a means for comparing actual behaviors

with the intended affordances of a structure, and documenting solutions to

problems encountered in practice, so these problems can be avoided in future

projects. Such is the approach taken by the authors in the recent design of

a community wellness center (Battisto et al., 2006).

3.4 Applying affordance-based design to understandingarchitectural failuresThere are numerous examples of unintentional consequences that may be dis-

covered after an artifact is built. These consequences may be revealed after the

people begin to use the building, or as programs and operations evolve, and

they may change throughout the lifecycle of the artifact. Unintentional design

consequences within the domain of architecture include unexpected behaviors,

adaptation, interpretation error, signage, and obsolescence.

Unexpected behaviors occur when the affordances of designed structures were

not correctly understood, or when structures create an environment in which

novel behaviors can occur. Consequently, users interact with the designed

building in ways the designers either did not or could not anticipate. Just as

jumbo-jet air-liners were not designed to be missiles, but unfortunately afford

this use in the hands of terrorists, spectacular and symbolic architectural land-

marks such as theWorld Trade Center inNewYork and the Pentagon building

in Washington, D.C. afford targets for terrorism. The hallways of Pruitt-Igoe

were designed to foster community interaction but instead afforded a haven

for criminals through which their prey had to traverse.

Adaptations are needed when a building structure does not afford desired be-

haviors, or affords undesired behaviors. Levy and Salvadori (1994) provide

many examples of adaptations to buildings over time due to unintentional

design consequences.


408

Interpretation error occurs when a building is designed to afford one behavior,

but in practice affords a different behavior. The external influences that shape

how an artifact is used over time may also alter the interpretation of that ar-

tifact. For example, the symbolic front door in American homes has changed

over time with the introduction of the automobile; meanwhile new entryways

to the house have influenced the reading of the house within the contemporary

culture. The physical nature of the front door has not changed, although the

pathway to the house is now viewed in terms of the automobile and has

been emphasized with the garage. The door still affords entry to the house,

but is now rarely used for that.

Signage is often used to compensate for the lack of properly designed affordan-

ces. Within any large institutional, educational or commercial building one can

see signs placed all over these facilities for the purpose of orienting the user, e.g.,

‘watch your step’, or ‘do not enter’. Better designs are those that do not need

signs because they indicate by their structure how they are to be used. For ex-

ample, the front entry doors to the Cooper Library at ClemsonUniversity were

recently changed. In the old design, the exterior handles afforded both pulling

and pushing, although the doors only opened inward. To remedy the problem

of patrons’ consternation over frequently trying to pull the door open, signs

were installed instructing the user to ‘PUSH’ (Figure 2a). However, the handles

themselves were much larger than the signs, and users continued to try to pull

the doors open. Recently, the problem was resolved by replacing the handles

with push plates that only afford pushing and not pulling (Figure 2b). Note

that with the new push plates the signage for ‘PUSH’ is in fact redundant

because the plates only afford pushing, not pulling.

Obsolescence in artifacts may result when buildings afford specific uses, but do

not afford change. Often times, it is too expensive to rectify or to modify the

design of an artifact and it becomes prematurely demolished. In many cases,

these buildings are built with (i.e., to afford) a specific intended purpose, for

a temporary time period.

3.5 Additional ramifications of affordance-based designfor architectural practiceThe concept of affordance-based design also suggests a natural metric

against which various designs may be compared. Any design that affords

its intended purpose may be called a successful design. However, a design

that affords that same purpose while affording other desirable features

(such as user comfort, safety, durability, recyclability, etc.) may be viewed

as better. Furthermore, a design that does afford everything it is supposed

to do, while also affording something it is not supposed to do, is worse

than a comparable design that only affords what it is supposed to do. It is

also important to remember that affordance is not always a clear ‘has’ or


Figure 2 Front entry doors to

the Cooper Library at Clem-

son University


‘has not’ distinction. One artifact may afford a desired use better than

another.

Moreover, the affordances of the artifact can differ with respect to different

users. The concept of ‘environmental role’ developed by the British psycholo-

gist David Canter clearly supports this premise. Building from his general the-

ory of place as mentioned earlier, ‘environmental role’ is a particular set of

associated behaviors and rules within a particular place that vary according

to the relationship between an individual and place (Canter, 1977). He argues


410

that people have different relationships with places depending on their role

within that particular place. Thus, people have particular purposes with regard

to place that shape their behavior and their conceptualizations of that place

(Canter and Walker, 1980). In our language, the affordances of the building

environment would be different for individuals in different user groups. The

affordances may vary for individuals within each user group as well. It is

important to notice here how the concept of affordance supports experiential

aspects of good design.

It is also interesting to note how the concept of affordances applies over a wide

range of scales from the very large macro-scale of projects such as Pruitt-Igoe

to more human-scale objects such as entry doors to smaller micro-scale ele-

ments such as door handles. This observation emphasizes the general applica-

bility of the concept of affordances across the field of architecture as we have

advocated in this paper.

4 Summary remarksIn this article we have proposed that the idea of affordance, an established con-

cept from ecological psychology, may serve as a conceptual basis and unifying

framework for architectural theory, design, and practice. As many researchers

have realized, architectural design, as other fields of design, lacks a rigorous

theoretical basis. The concept of affordance can provide that basis, as Gibson

originally suggested, because it ties together human occupants (users) and the

built environment (artifacts) and explains why and how users behave the way

they do. These ideas unite various perspectives from architectural theorists

from Vitruvius to Norburg Schulz, Heidegger, Canter, Pirsig, and other

contemporary thinkers. We have also shown how the concept of affordance

provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding past architectural

failures, and how an understanding of affordances can help prevent such fail-

ures in the future. More broadly, the scheme we have outlined of affordance-

based design for architecture can be used as a broad framework uniting the

work and understanding of architects, engineers, future occupants, and other

stakeholders. Such a framework will also facilitate knowledge capture and

re-use.

We realize that these ideas are presented at a high-level and are chiefly theoret-

ical in nature. It is our hope that this article provokes a lively debate within the

architectural and broader design community, and helps to undergird parallel

efforts by other researchers who are actively developing techniques for apply-

ing affordances to architectural practice. The potential benefits of a rigorous,

testable, and practicable design theory are enormous. So too are the costs of

continuing ad-hoc practices which frequently result in dissatisfaction and oc-

casional outright failure. We invite and look forward to the opinions and con-

tributions of other researchers in the pursuit of a unifying and mature theory



for architectural design and practice. We commend the concept of affordance

as an important tenet within such a theory.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Chris Pagano of the Department of Psychology at

Clemson University for his many valuable comments on drafts of the paper.

We would also like to thank Peg Tyler, Associate Librarian in the Clemson

University Libraries for graciously providing the photographs of the door

handles on the Cooper Library. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of

earlier drafts of this paper for their helpful comments, especially with respect

to the Pruitt-Igoe example and the scale of affordances.

1. Lewin argued that behavior in general could be viewed generally as a function of the

interaction between people and the environment. Based on his research a formula was

derived: B¼ f (P, E, P�E), where behavior (B) is a function (f) of person (P) and envi-

ronment (E) and the interaction between the two (P� E).

ReferencesAiarchitect (2003) AIA national convention and exposition, <http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek03/tw0509/convention2003.asp> (accessed 12.10.07)Astin, A W and Holland, J L (1961) The environmental assessment technique:

a way to measure college environments, Journal of Educational Psychology Vol52 pp 308e316Battisto D, et al (October 2006) A green community wellness center: expandingthe scope of design for health, AIA Academy Journal

Bristol, K G (1991) The Pruitt-Igoe myth, Journal of Architectural Education Vol44 No 3 pp 163e171Brown, D C and Blessing, L (2005) The relationship between function and afford-

ance, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Longview, CA,Paper No. DETC2005e85017Canter, D (1977) The psychology of place Architectural Press, London

Canter, D and Walker, E (1980) Environmental role and the conceptualizations ofhousing, Journal of Architectural Research Vol 7 No 3 pp 30e35Cherry, E (1998) Programming for design: from theory to practice John Wiley &Sons, New York

Craik, H K and Feimer, N R (1987) Environmental assessment in Handbook ofenvironmental psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York pp 891e918Duerk, D (1993) Architectural programming: information management for design

John Wiley & Sons, New YorkEco, U (1979) A theory of semiotics Indiana University Press, Bloomington, INGalvao, A B and Sato, K (2004) Human-centered system architecture: a framework

for interpreting and applying user needs, in ASME Conference on Design Theoryand Methodology, Salt Lake City, UT, Paper No. DETC2004-57545Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2005) Affordances in product architecture: linking tech-

nical functions and user requirements, in ASME Conference on Design Theoryand Methodology, Long Beach, CA, Paper No. DETC2005-84525Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2006) Incorporating affordances into product architec-ture: methodology and case study, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and

Methodology, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC2006-99404


http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek03/tw0509/convention2003.asp

http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek03/tw0509/convention2003.asp

412

Gibson, J J (1976) The theory of affordances and the design of the environmentSymposium on Perception in Architecture, American Society for Esthetics, Tor-onto, October 1976. Republished as Chapter 4.9, Part VIII in E Reed and

R Jones (eds) Reasons for realism: selected essays of James J. Gibson (1982),

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USAGibson, J J (1979) The theory of affordances in The ecological approach to visualperception, Houghton Mifflin, Hopewell, NJ, USA

Gibson, E J (2000) Perceptual learning in development: some basic concepts,Ecological Psychology Vol 12 No 4 pp 295e302Hamilton, D K (1999) Innovations in planning for healthcare The Center for Inno-

vations in Health Facilities, College Station, TX, USAHamilton, D K (2003) The four levels of evidence-based practice, HealthcareDesign Vol 3 No 4

Hershberger, R (1999) Architectural programming and predesign managerMcGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkHillier, B (2007) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architectureSpace Syntax, London, UK

Kahana, E (1982) A congruence model of personeenvironment interaction inM P Lawton, P G Windley and T O Byerts (eds) Aging and environment: theoret-ical approaches, Springer, New York

Kasmar, J V (1970) The development of a usable lexicon if environmental descrip-tors, Environment and Behavior Vol 2 pp 153e169Kim, Y S, et al (2007) Affordances in interior design: a case study of affordances

in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interac-tion, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas,NV, Paper No. DETC2007-35864

Kim, Y S, et al (2008) Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception:the user activity case study in a building lobby, in ASME Conference on DesignTheory and Methodology, New York, NY, Paper No. DETC2008-50063Koutamanis, A (2006) Buildings and affordances in J S Gero (ed) Int’l conference

on design computing and cognition, Springer, New York pp 345e364Kumlin, R (1995) Architectural programming: creative techniques for design profes-sionals McGraw-Hill Professional, New York

Kruft, H (1994) A history of architectural theory from Vitruvius to the presentPrinceton Architectural Press, New YorkLawton, M P (1982) Competence, environmental press and adaptation in

M P Lawton, P G Windley and T O Byerts (eds) Aging and environment: theoret-ical approaches, Springer, New YorkLawton, M P and Nahemow, L (1973) Ecology and the aging process inC Eisdorfer and M P Lawton (eds) Psychology of adult development and aging,

American Psychological Association, Washington, DCLevy, M and Salvadori, M (1994) Why buildings fall down W.W. Norton & Com-pany, New York

Lewin, K (1951) Field theory in social sciences University of Chicago Press,ChicagoMaier, J R A (2005) Foundations of affordance based design, Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634Maier, J R A, et al (2007a) A computational framework for semantically rich de-sign problems based on the theory of affordances and exemplar technology in

International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Paper No.ICED’07/510Maier, J R A, et al (2007b) The affordance structure matrix e a conceptexploration and attention directing tool for affordance based design, in ASME



Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas, NV, Paper No.DETC2007-34526Maier, J R A, et al (2008) Extending the affordance structure matrix e mappingdesign structure and requirements to behavior, in 10th International Design Struc-

ture Matrix Conference, DSM ’08, Stockholm, SwedenMaier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2001) Affordance: the fundamental concept inengineering design, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology,

Pittsburgh, PA, Paper No. DETC2001/DTM-21700Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2002) Comparing function and affordance as basesfor design, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Montreal,

Canada, Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34029Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2003) Affordance-based methods for design, inASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL, Paper No.

DETC2003/DTM-48673Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2005) A case study contrasting german systematicengineering design with affordance based design, in ASME Conference on DesignTheory and Methodology, Long Beach, CA, Paper No. DETC2005-84954

Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2007) Identifying affordances in InternationalConference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Paper No. ICED’07/591Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M Affordance based design: a relational theory for

design, Research in Engineering Design, in press, doi:10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3.Moore, C W and Bloomer, K C (1977) Body, memory and architecture YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT

Moore, G T (1987) Environment and behavior research in North America: historydevelopment, and unresolved issues in Handbook of environmental psychology,John Wiley & Sons, New York pp 1359e1410

Murphy, R R (1999) Case studies of applying Gibson’s ecological approachto mobile robots, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, PartA: Systems and Humans Vol 29 No 1 pp 105e111Newman, O (1996) Creating defensible space U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Washington, DCNorman, D A (1988) The design of everyday thingsCurrency Doubleday, New YorkNorman, D A (1999) Affordance, conventions and design, Interactions 1999;

May/June Issue pp 38e43Pallasmaa, J (1986) The geometry of feeling: a look at the phenomenology of ar-chitecture Chapter 9, in K Nesbitt (ed) Theorizing a new agenda for architecture.

An anthology of architectural theory 1965e1995, Princeton Architectural Press,New YorkPena, W (2001) Problem seeking: an architectural programming primer (4th edn)John Wiley & Sons, New York

Pirsig, R (1974) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance Quill William Morrow,New YorkSchulz, N (1976) The phenomenon of place Rizzoli, New York

Schulz, N (1988) Architecture, meaning and place: selected essays Rizzoli, NewYorkSenge, P M (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organi-

zation Currency Doubleday, New YorkTuan, Y (1980) Rootedness versus sense of place, Landscape Vol 24 No 1 pp 3e8Tweed, C (2001) Highlighting the affordances of designs, in B de Vries, J van

Leeuwen and H Achten (eds) Computer aided architectural design futures 2001,Kluwer, Dordrecht pp 681e696Venturi, R (1966) Complexity and contradictions in architecture Museum of Mod-ern Art/Doubleday, Garden City, NY


414

Vicente, K and Rasmussen, J (1992) Ecological interface design: theoretical foun-dations, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Vol 22 No 4 pp589e606Vitruvius (1960) The ten books on architecture (M. Morgan, Trans.) Dover, New

YorkWarren, W H (1995) Constructing an econiche, in J Flach, P Hancock, J Caird

and K Vicente (eds) Global perspectives on the ecology of humanemachine systems,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ


Documents

An Affordance-Based Appraoch Architectural Theory, Design and Practice - Maier Et Al. 2009