Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (1992)

Claims (27)

• A building has too many variables; we cannot get each aspect right unless it is possible to work out one aspect at a time, step by step.
  Direct application of the coin argument to building design and construction.
• Awareness that living process will change our means of production entirely is only beginning to sink in.
  Visionary statement about the transformative potential of adopting step-by-step process.
• Computer simulations cannot yet provide the level of subtlety or depth to judge the visceral effect of complex building spaces; therefore they cannot replace real-world step-by-step feedback.
  Limitation of current simulation technology in capturing life-quality of spaces.
• Even a simple doorstep can only be made into a living center by standing inside the wholeness of the place and adapting it step by step in the actual situation.
  The smallest architectural act requires in-situ dynamic adaptation.
• For feedback to be meaningful, the end-result must be unpredictable; a predetermined end-state shuts off the possibility of adaptation.
  Unpredictability is a necessary condition for genuine adaptation.
• For step-by-step adaptation to be effective, there must be built-in feedback that checks each step immediately for its increase of life, accepted if it has it, rejected if not.
  Feedback as the essential companion to step-by-step work.
• In good architecture and good city-building, step-by-step adaptation was historically always present as a necessary core.
  Historical claim that all successful building environments used stepwise adaptation.
• In modern architecture, neither design nor construction typically works step by step; instead there is a fixed end-state produced without realistic feedback.
  Contrast between living process and current architectural practice.
• Matisse's painting process is exactly the kind of step-by-step adaptation with feedback: each brushstroke is a response to the actual emerging painting, making it continuously better.
  The Matisse film as an exemplar of living process in art.
• Modern architectural design typically creates a schematic drawing containing hundreds of untested decisions, with no step-by-step testing against real life.
  Critique of current design practice: hundreds of variables frozen at once.
• Our present forms of planning, design, construction, and production are deeply flawed because they do not include step-by-step adaptation and cannot in principle do so as they are.
  Sweeping indictment of current production systems.
• Possibly the most basic and necessary feature of any living process is the fact that it goes gradually.
  Core thesis of the chapter: gradual, step-by-step progression is the bedrock of life.
• Simple, intentionally rough paper and cardboard models that can be rapidly torn, cut, and patched provide a practical way to evolve design through feedback.
  Proposed practical method for achieving step-by-step feedback in design.
• The 30-coin thought experiment shows the step-by-step approach works (about one minute) while the all-or-nothing approach does not (about 300 years), and this is the secret of biological evolution.
  Mathematical argument that adaptation without stepwise process is statistically impossible.
• The butterfly effect supports that even one small detail can completely change the necessary whole, and this can only be seen dynamically as the whole unfolds.
  Chaos theory as scientific support for dynamic unfolding.
• The core of all living process is step-by-step adaptation — the modification and evolution which happen gradually in response to information about the degree to which the emerging structure supports the whole.
  Definition of the essential mechanism of living structure formation.
• The critical difference between successful living processes and unsuccessful modern architectural processes is the absence of feedback.
  Summary of the root cause of lifelessness in modern architecture.
• The field of centers at the heart of living structure is inherently so subtle that it can only be created dynamically, and its end-state is inherently unpredictable.
  The central ontological claim: living structure's dependence on dynamic creation.
• The geometry of living structure is markedly different in kind from the geometry of design done on a drawing board or on a computer.
  Fundamental distinction between generated and static geometry.
• The precise placement of windows can only be judged well in the real world, because subtle interactions with the wholeness cannot be captured in drawings.
  Example that vital fine-tuning depends on in-situ perception of the actual emerging structure.
• The process used by large commercial offices like Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is not like Matisse's because it lacks continuous feedback from reality; each pencil stroke is only a reaction to previous pencil strokes.
  Critical distinction between true feedback-based process and drawing-based design.
• The shape of a falling water drop can only be created dynamically, step by step, not by a static act of draftsmanship or design.
  Water drop as an illustrative example that living-like geometry cannot be drawn statically.
• The shapes of a truly living architecture can only be of this unfolded nature, created step by step dynamically, both in conception and construction.
  Universal claim about all living architecture.
• To get a fully adapted world, the same step-by-step principle must be extended to cover all scales, even things a million times bigger than a doorstep.
  Scalability claim: the principle applies to the largest constructions.
• To have living modern architecture, society must have a process capable of generating building form dynamically, step by step, at all scales.
  The need for a new kind of process in society.
• To make a building that lives, it must be allowed to unfold step by step in real time, both before and during construction; we cannot fake it.
  The necessity of real-time unfolding for authentic living architecture.
• We directly perceive that the Nolli plan of Rome has a geometric character formed gradually by successive adaptations, and we cherish that vitality.
  Direct perception of historical unfolding in the geometry of Rome.