process to reach a solution, and a “mystification” of the
design process ensues. There is always the frustration of the
lack of logical steps that if followed would eventually lead to
one if not several solutions. The problem is compounded by
the rigid hierarchy of professors and jurors who behave as if
they are the sole judges of knowledge of what is “architectural design”, adding to the mystification of the process.
A specific “design process” is not yet part of the “design
culture” of most schools of architecture in Egypt and elsewhere, in-spite of the existence of “design methods”. Except
for rare examples, absence or existence of a clear process for
architectural design has not been considered as a factor in the
education of the architectural engineer, or in the points of
action that have been suggested to address problems of
architectural education. The dominance of the traditional
“design studio culture” and the “myths” prevailing in every
design studio has been an accepted part of architectural
education worldwide. This traditional lack of a clear
problem-solving “design process” for Architectural Design
as taught to students in Architectural Design studios was not
addressed until the 1960s. Until now, there is simply no clear
consensus on the “design process” for the architectural studio. Few instructors teach their design students a method
with clear steps and guidelines that remove the mystery out
of architectural design. Even the written “Studio Culture
Manual” of US schools of architecture is too sketchy and
flexible to be put to practical use as a design “process”. With
the boom in architectural schools in private sector universities and institutes in Egypt, addressing this issue is now
becoming a necessity.
3 The Proposed Design Process
3.1 Theoretical Framework
The process being proposed is based on some of the ideas
surveyed above, and is limited to the design phase, and will
not continue to the design-build cycle. The proposed process
can be considered a variation on the basic “Analysis, Synthesis, Appraisal then Decision” method.
The proposed process makes use of case studies (architectural history), the use of patterns (Alexander 1964), the
use of sketches (Laseau 2001), the use of generating concepts (Lawson 1980; Gero 1997), the use of models (Salama
2005; Asfour 2011), the inclusion of user needs and
requirements (Dubberly 2004; Sanoff 2000), lectures, personalization of the design process and presentations by the
student and other ideas (see Mcallister 2010; Nabih 2010),
plus my own experience.
Sketching and drawing are an integral part of this process,
since it is considered an integral part of architectural design
thinking. Sketching is a “problem-solving heuristic
procedure” (Goldschmidt 1992) that is employed to enhance
visual feedback, with information being read and design
reasons are derived from the sketch image (Brawne 2003).
Sketching and drawing are of paramount importance in our
proposed design process. Drawings are “the designer’s
principal means of thinking” (Herbert 1993). A sketch is a
type of “shorthand reference” which can be elaborated upon
when developed and combined with other elements (Graves
1997). The sketching of a designer explores an analogy thus
restating the design problem for further design development
(Oxman 1995). Different drawing types and sketching
techniques have been shown to influence the making of
architecture (Herbert 1993; Fraser and Henmi 1994; Robbins
1994), thus sketching and drawing are both an integral part
of this process.
Using digital techniques as a complement to this manual
method is part of a “mixed media” approach, with the
sketching as a basis for further development using
computer-aided drafting (CAD) systems. Integrating available digital resources in the use of CAD in the production of
drawings, sketches and visualization together with traditional methods like scale models and hand-rendered sketches
is encouraged in this process, especially in the formative
steps of concept generation and modelling. This “mixed
media” approach has been shown to give better results in
perception of spatial qualities and understanding the design
problems (Nassar et al. 2010; Shih et al. 2015). The use of
digital techniques has been shown to have a positive effect
on both the creativity and productivity of students (Farghaly
2006). The investigation of the correct mix of traditional
manual methods with digital techniques (“mixed media”)
(Shih et al. 2015) warrants more research, and with the
current rapid pace of change in the technology there are
ever-increasing options available. Whether freehand, by a
2D or 3D CAD program, or “mixed media”, sketching the
ideas during the design process is an integral part of our
proposed “10-step design process”.
It has been noted that some problems associated with
design are a result of architects not studying the user
requirements enough and not generating a design that will
cater for those requirements, with lack of investigation of the
design problems and program, giving theoretical solutions to
real-world problems. As has been observed, “formal
abstraction in design only distances students from their
physiological understanding and engagement with the real
world” (Salingaros and Masden 2010). Research of the site,
program and user requirements are a core part of the proposed process, in addition to the reliance on case studies of
similar projects or similar details or subcomponents of the
project. Thus, an integral part of the process is studying the
site, program and user requirements. Reliance on theoretical
forms and projects to solve real-world problems for real
people with specific requirements is counterproductive, since
A 10-Step Design Process for Architectural Design Studios
3
design process ensues. There is always the frustration of the
lack of logical steps that if followed would eventually lead to
one if not several solutions. The problem is compounded by
the rigid hierarchy of professors and jurors who behave as if
they are the sole judges of knowledge of what is “architectural design”, adding to the mystification of the process.
A specific “design process” is not yet part of the “design
culture” of most schools of architecture in Egypt and elsewhere, in-spite of the existence of “design methods”. Except
for rare examples, absence or existence of a clear process for
architectural design has not been considered as a factor in the
education of the architectural engineer, or in the points of
action that have been suggested to address problems of
architectural education. The dominance of the traditional
“design studio culture” and the “myths” prevailing in every
design studio has been an accepted part of architectural
education worldwide. This traditional lack of a clear
problem-solving “design process” for Architectural Design
as taught to students in Architectural Design studios was not
addressed until the 1960s. Until now, there is simply no clear
consensus on the “design process” for the architectural studio. Few instructors teach their design students a method
with clear steps and guidelines that remove the mystery out
of architectural design. Even the written “Studio Culture
Manual” of US schools of architecture is too sketchy and
flexible to be put to practical use as a design “process”. With
the boom in architectural schools in private sector universities and institutes in Egypt, addressing this issue is now
becoming a necessity.
3 The Proposed Design Process
3.1 Theoretical Framework
The process being proposed is based on some of the ideas
surveyed above, and is limited to the design phase, and will
not continue to the design-build cycle. The proposed process
can be considered a variation on the basic “Analysis, Synthesis, Appraisal then Decision” method.
The proposed process makes use of case studies (architectural history), the use of patterns (Alexander 1964), the
use of sketches (Laseau 2001), the use of generating concepts (Lawson 1980; Gero 1997), the use of models (Salama
2005; Asfour 2011), the inclusion of user needs and
requirements (Dubberly 2004; Sanoff 2000), lectures, personalization of the design process and presentations by the
student and other ideas (see Mcallister 2010; Nabih 2010),
plus my own experience.
Sketching and drawing are an integral part of this process,
since it is considered an integral part of architectural design
thinking. Sketching is a “problem-solving heuristic
procedure” (Goldschmidt 1992) that is employed to enhance
visual feedback, with information being read and design
reasons are derived from the sketch image (Brawne 2003).
Sketching and drawing are of paramount importance in our
proposed design process. Drawings are “the designer’s
principal means of thinking” (Herbert 1993). A sketch is a
type of “shorthand reference” which can be elaborated upon
when developed and combined with other elements (Graves
1997). The sketching of a designer explores an analogy thus
restating the design problem for further design development
(Oxman 1995). Different drawing types and sketching
techniques have been shown to influence the making of
architecture (Herbert 1993; Fraser and Henmi 1994; Robbins
1994), thus sketching and drawing are both an integral part
of this process.
Using digital techniques as a complement to this manual
method is part of a “mixed media” approach, with the
sketching as a basis for further development using
computer-aided drafting (CAD) systems. Integrating available digital resources in the use of CAD in the production of
drawings, sketches and visualization together with traditional methods like scale models and hand-rendered sketches
is encouraged in this process, especially in the formative
steps of concept generation and modelling. This “mixed
media” approach has been shown to give better results in
perception of spatial qualities and understanding the design
problems (Nassar et al. 2010; Shih et al. 2015). The use of
digital techniques has been shown to have a positive effect
on both the creativity and productivity of students (Farghaly
2006). The investigation of the correct mix of traditional
manual methods with digital techniques (“mixed media”)
(Shih et al. 2015) warrants more research, and with the
current rapid pace of change in the technology there are
ever-increasing options available. Whether freehand, by a
2D or 3D CAD program, or “mixed media”, sketching the
ideas during the design process is an integral part of our
proposed “10-step design process”.
It has been noted that some problems associated with
design are a result of architects not studying the user
requirements enough and not generating a design that will
cater for those requirements, with lack of investigation of the
design problems and program, giving theoretical solutions to
real-world problems. As has been observed, “formal
abstraction in design only distances students from their
physiological understanding and engagement with the real
world” (Salingaros and Masden 2010). Research of the site,
program and user requirements are a core part of the proposed process, in addition to the reliance on case studies of
similar projects or similar details or subcomponents of the
project. Thus, an integral part of the process is studying the
site, program and user requirements. Reliance on theoretical
forms and projects to solve real-world problems for real
people with specific requirements is counterproductive, since
A 10-Step Design Process for Architectural Design Studios
3