CONTEMPLATING CHANGE 1

Contemplating Change | Executing Transformation:

Psychological Constructs + Behavioural

Considerations in the Pursuit of Open Building

DR. BRIAN R. SINCLAIR

University of Calgary + sinclairstudio inc.

Architectural and urban design in our modern ethos is ever more complex, driven in part through remarkable advancements in technology, in part through escalating regulatory demands, and in part by dramatic shifts in demographics, expectations and needs. Designers and developers of projects,

across a range of scales, struggle to ensure

relevancy, viability, potency and sustainability. To achieve such ends the exploration and application of Open Building theories and practices proves increasingly important. In reaction to static and immutable conventional environments (e.g., interiors, buildings,

landscapes, etc.) Open Building and Agile Architecture methods foster a milieu of flexibility, modularity, adaptability and change. This vital notion of change has numerous dimensions, including key qualities that take account of the technical and the social. While

the vast majority of research efforts have focused on scientific, technical and quantitative characteristics of Open Building, the present paper argues that the human, social and

qualitative attributes are equally critical. In our quest for heightened mutability and adaptability of environments it is essential to

consider change in a broader fashion. While the technical capabilities of change in an environment can be developed and realized, such possibilities prove moot if the users of the resultant space(s) are resistant to adjustment, unwilling to take action, and reluctant to transform. In other words, the provision of

flexibility in environments does not, de facto,

translate into environments that will be modified by users. Key to the equation of greater mutability is not merely the ability of a user to effect change, but more importantly the willingness and desire to effect change. In the present paper the author, an architect and psychologist, critically considers the literature

on change as it pertains to human perception,

cognition and behavior. Theories drawn from cognitive and organizational psychology, including research on states of change, are imaginatively examined in light of Open Building aspirations.

Building from the foundation of a Holistic Framework for Design + Planning (see Sinclair, 2009 2010), and weaving in seminal research on the psychology of change, this paper envisions and delineates an approach whereby designers more fully consider and deploy

knowledge of human behavior when pursuing, crafting and constructing more flexible environments. While it is argued that technological progress effecting Open Building

has been outstanding over recent decades, a parallel awareness of human factors has been lacking. In order for Agile Architecture to be

more fully accepted, embraced and executed it is imperative that scientific, quantitative, human and qualitative facets of projects be examined, promoted and addressed in concert. A building deemed green through a checklist approach may fail if it is not enjoyed and accepted by users. In a similar vein, a project

that embraces mutability and affords flexibility

2

on a technical level may fail if users are incapable of acting, unwilling to consider, or disinterested in realizing change. Cognitive dissonance and psychological barriers, for example, may impede a user’s readiness to

transform space. Moving Open Building and Agile Architecture forward, in our current times, demands intense attention to a broader array of variables that, at the end of the day, prove essential to heightened acceptance, advancement and deployment. Design matters. Technology matters. Above all,

however, people matter.

Keywords: Open Building, Agile Architecture,

Psychology, Perception, Cognition, Behaviour, Change, Adaptability, Flexibility, Integration,

Holism

INTRODUCTION

Architecture over the past several centuries has been defined by relatively rigid, static and

immutable approaches to the conception and construction of form and space. Even with the arrival of industrial and then information technologies, many of the methods of building design and production have been narrowly prescribed and conservatively developed. While there have been numerous attempts to

introduce more malleable and inter-connected systems, they have often seen minimal uptake and have resided at the periphery of the profession and practice. In the mid 20th century some provocative designers and unconventional thinkers, such as Kisho Kurokawa, Cedric Price, Yona Friedman,

Gordon Pask and Constant Nieuwenhuys, critically explored the need for greater mutability of environments and encouraged greater responsiveness to user needs, desires, actions & activities. Unfortunately their progressive ideas were well ahead of the

capacity and readiness of their times. Today a number of pioneering theoreticians and bold practitioners are rekindling such innovative

agendas, with an understanding that modern technology can now more effectively address and support more interactive + symbiotic relationships between environments and

people. The present paper builds upon a series of investigations and theories developed by the author, with an overarching concern around more holistic, integrated, responsive and responsible ways to develop an Architecture of the 21st Century. Such solutions must be far

more flexible, far more adaptable, and far more accommodating than conventional buildings and predictable interiors. Evoking a Holistic Framework for Design & Planning (Sinclair 2009), and considering advances in

Open Building (Sinclair, Mousazadeh, Safarzadeh, 2012), this paper critically contemplates the status quo and imaginatively charts new paths forward that advocate and invocate enhanced, inventive and meaningful Agility in Architecture. The complex notion of change is examined from various vantage

points, including psychological. SLOW, STAID AND STUCK IN THE STATUS

QUO

“A concern for greater flexibility in buildings

arose in the 1950s as a reaction against the excesses of ‘form-follows-function’, which

argued that all parts of a building should be determined by, and destined for, specific uses. In practice, however, even if these uses could

be determined, no allowance was made for new developments over time, yet

alone the changes of use that happen in many buildings.”

Richard Weston Despite the pioneering image of architectural

practice being highly progressive and forward thinking, in reality the vast majority of

buildings designed and constructed in the past have been relatively conservative, arguably conventional and, in the end, hugely difficult to modify. Most buildings are constructed for single purpose use – for example an office, a hospital, a school, a residence, etc. The

architectural program for such structures is usually tightly delineated in terms of spaces, areas, arrangements and qualities. The nature of the construction process, and especially in North America, is best defined as incremental, fragmented, and even inefficient. A wealth of agents and players, from architects,

developers, and financiers to general

contractors, sub-trades and manufacturers, all struggle to find their place, posturing and timing within an overly complicated, perplexing and long-established milieu. Factors such as access to materials, availability of trades, market pricing on structural systems, policies

& codes, and, of course, approval by regulatory authorities all contribute to a daunting modus operandi regarding the design and delivery of Architecture.

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE 3

While historically design and construction processes and products have been quite routine, predictable and wasteful (e.g., massive contributions to landfills via the building industry), recent concerns about the

state of the planet, the degradation of our environments, and the significant damage inflicted through erecting and operating the built fabric of cities, have raised more than a few flags. The rapid ascent of ‘green’ and the strong subscription to ‘sustainability’ have put designers and builders under intense scrutiny

with regard to ethics, values and responsibilities. The world is now more urban than rural. Populations in many nations

continue to burgeon. Our building stock is aging with pressures to retrofit existing buildings, and requirements to construct new

ones, simply remarkable. While many new materials, innovative constructional approaches and energy saving systems are emerging, they tend to build upon commonly accepted ways of seeing, thinking and acting – that is, despite emerging technologies and novel tools, adherence to the status quo

remains severe. In light of the urgency around climate change, resource limits and widespread pollution (e.g., air, water, ground, light, noise, etc.), it seems imperative to transcend the status quo. In fact, considering the plethora of

variables in flux, including changing demographics, shifting needs, intensity of

churn, etc. it is undeniable that the design and construction sectors must undergo critical and substantive transformations, including a total reconsideration of means and ends around human habitation and city building.

While serious attempts are underway, and often good progress realized, around green building mantras, methods and metrics (e.g., Leading in Energy + Environmental Design), even they fall into quite predictable realms of creating & operating. Certainly such systems call for, and even reward, innovation and

ingenuity. Some systems move beyond a

rather prescribed scheme to promote and pursue regenerative buildings and communities. A key aspect that is missing, however, from the present author’s perspective, is considerable and meaningful adoption of agility in architecture. As long as

buildings remain slow to respond to technological possibilities, stuck in the confines of convention, and staid in their ability to accommodate shifting needs, our buildings will remain a major part of the problem rather than

arising as prime players in a more sustainable world.

QUEST FOR GREATER ADAPTABILITY

AND HEIGHTENED RESPONSIVITY

“Technology is the answer but what was the question?”

Cedric Price The 1960’s were a significant period within the annals of modern architecture, with many

theoreticians and practitioners filled with enthusiasm of the modern age, equipped with new materials & technologies, and ripe with ideas on how to construct cities of the future that would usher in harmony, happiness and utopian lifestyles. The Japanese Metabolists, for example, led by bold and brilliant thinkers

like Kisho Kurokawa, imagined cities where the parts were in synergy, where the systems intertwined, and where the lifelessness and the static was swapped with the living and the dynamic. Leading figures such as Price, Friedman, Pask and Nieuwenhuys denied the

shackles of the past and sought environments that were fluid, flexible and responsive. Price’s Fun Palace, for example, proposed interiors

that could be reconfigured based on needs and redeployed, by users, as demands shifted. It was an era that considered the fantastical opportunities for buildings to accommodate the

needs of users, versus the more typical (and certainly so today) arrangements whereby people are shoehorned into spaces (where they must struggle to feel comfortable physically, thermally, psychologically, etc.). The vision of the day was spectacular – that is, to create cities, buildings and spaces that reacted to

needs in real time, that altered composition based on conditions, and that pushed + pulled according to expectations. While the concepts were advanced and inspiring, the main challenge was the serious lag in technology.

Simply put, the science and systems of the day

were not sophisticated enough to rise to the occasion. Only now, in our present times, has science and technology progressed to the point where the thoughts & theories of these architectural pioneers might be realized in built form.

A relatively recent movement worth exploring is Open Building. Open Building (OB), as an

4

evolving architectural methodology, allows our buildings, similar to ecological systems, to shift and adjust over time. Embedded flexibility enables such buildings to adapt to different circumstances and be mutable in terms of

systems upgrades and ongoing maintenance (Kendall & Teicher) –hence, in the larger picture, they prove more resilient and less wasteful. The adaptability in OB has become possible through separating the structure or ‘support’ from the interior or ‘infill’ -- in essence ensuring that the systems in a

building are independent yet inter-related. This innovative approach challenges the typical ‘entangled’ systems in conventional buildings

and provides much greater degrees of flexibility. John Habraken introduced ‘support’ and ‘infill’ as new categories among existing

levels in his theory of “decision-making levels in the built field”. In this theory, Habraken divides the built environment into different aspects that have varying lifespans and across which the decision-making and control is delegated to different parties. In these various ‘environmental’ levels, users have the ultimate

control over the ‘flexible’ interior or infill level to adapt it to their own needs and desires. In this system, ‘support’ is the continuation of urban fabric in the third dimension -- its longer life-span and relative permanence supports

stability with respect to long term community interests while ‘infill’ accommodates change in

respect to individual preferences in the shorter, more immediate, term. Debatably Open Building’s evolution has been more dedicated to the technical development of ‘support and infill’; while the discussion over

the design, character and aesthetics of these buildings have been largely overlooked. In a previous paper, the author introduced the notion of ‘aesthetic flexibility’ (Safarzadeh, Mousazadeh & Sinclair, 2011) as a complementary concept to already established notions of ‘spatial flexibility’ and ‘functional

flexibility’. The notion of ‘aesthetic flexibility’,

as a novel dimension in Open Building theory, holds promise to celebrate ‘identity’, foster ‘customization’ within the design equation, and strengthen built outcomes. The idea of ‘aesthetic flexibility’, in this sense, applies to two different levels in the theory of “decision-

making levels”. First, it applies to the ‘infill’, which allows the users to adjust their interior environment according to their changing spatial needs but also modify it to reflect their personal character, culture and aesthetic

preferences. Second, it applies to the façade of the building, which interestingly lies between the domain of community interest and individual preference. Consideration of such duality is arguably a crucial and innovative

step in the advancement of Open Building. The concept of ‘aesthetic flexibility’ further positions itself within a broader understanding of the design & construction milieu, including a significant resonance with the notions of and framework for Agile Architecture and Integrated Design (Sinclair 2009, 2010).

While the author has researched and written extensively on Open Building and Agile Architecture, the focus has been (as it tends to

be in the field) overly concerned with the physical outcomes of design and construction. The following section of the present paper

introduces & highlights a model that moves well beyond the physical realm to explore and encourage other, equally vital, dimensions of agility. This grounding is an important step towards more fully understanding various aspects of change that are essential to the deployment, embrace and success of Open

Building.

AMPLIFYING AGILITY IN

ARCHITECTURE

“Flexible buildings are intended to respond to changing situations in their use, operation or

location. That is architecture that adapts, rather than stagnates; transforms, rather than

restricts; is motive, rather than static;

interacts with its users, rather than inhibits”. Robert Kronenburg

Open Building and Agile Architecture have been almost exclusively focused on the tangible qualities of design and construction – perhaps best illustrated by attention to support

and infill. The author, an architect and psychologist, argues that other less tangible parts of the equation now warrant our serious attention – from a research perspective, from a

testing viewpoint, and from an application outlook. Moving beyond concentration on the

physical, also key to conceiving and constructing more flexible, adaptable, responsive and responsible architecture are heightened awareness of regulatory considerations, individual concerns, and group expectations.

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE 5

The proposed synergistic model for amplified agility in architecture encompasses four areas: 1. Physical 2. Legal

3. Psychological 4. Sociological

Figure 1: Sinclair Multifaceted Model for Agility

Physical:

The construction of agile architecture encourages great mutability and adjustability across all realms of the building (and beyond). Such flexibility includes not only moveable

walls, fixtures, and fittings, but also structure, infrastructure and envelope. As noted the author has written extensively on the more tangible aspects of agility, most recently exploring the limits that the façade can be dynamically configurable, and the unique roles of the envelope as part of the building shell but

also part of the urban sphere. In this instance many questions arise concerning opportunities and obligations from both a private citizen and public entity point of view. From a physical perspective, the provision of changeable

components is tied to technical capacity.

However, as will be discussed later in the paper, physical mutability is only one part of a relatively rich equation equaling truly agile architecture. Legal:

There has been some research conducted, within the academy as well as in practice,

concerning policy, code, statute and regulatory dimensions of Open Building and Agile Architecture. Some of this work has considered ownership questions, such as support versus infill, government versus

citizen, etc. While such efforts are important and influential, examination of prevailing legal aspects and development of new systems of regulation are crucial. Legal challenges will need to be realized in order to push Open Building to new levels, and especially so in traditionally resistant markets (such as North

America). In order for buildings to be far more responsive, and by extension responsible, many established ways of working will need to

be overturned. A key pursuit in this regard is towards performative rather than prescriptive guidelines and measures. Also urgent is

reform around litigation on the construction field. In the author’s view movement toward greater agility, modularity, prefabrication and systems approaches hold promise to reduce building failures, heighten abilities for solving problems (e.g., due to plug + play), and foster more reasonable renewal of buildings (versus

the typical age-in-place story of decay, death then landfill). Undeniably this area of the model will require assumption of risks. Exactly how such risk is managed and exposures limited remains to be explored. When

considering the potential for change in environments, a plethora of legal and

regulatory points quickly move to the forefront. Due to the remarkable diversity of jurisdictions and associated laws and guidelines in place, the author argues that international model guidelines be delineated for refinement, customization and adoption at local levels.

Psychological: Individual reaction, resistance or acceptance to change within Agile Architecture is a topic that has seen virtually no serious and scholarly consideration. The author, as a psychologist,

has begun to study concepts of change,

including cognitive and behavioral aspects of living and working in mutable environments. The simple fact of providing the ability of a space to change (even if it’s straightforward and effortless) does not translate into spaces that will actually be changed by users. There

are many variables that must be considered, including personality, knowledge of systems, understanding of implications, levels of comfort (physiological, mental, cultural, etc.), and willingness to act. Historically in buildings

6

limited control has been afforded to end users. Environmental systems have been centrally driven. Windows have not always been operable. Lighting is typically predetermined. So, when the environment shifts from highly

regulated and rigid to highly adjustable and dynamic it is difficult to determine how people will respond. This realm of inquiry is a significant focus for the author, with an awareness that all aspects of the present model need to be advanced in unison if agile architecture is to see wider deployment and

more meaningful embrace. The psychological dimensions of change will be reviewed, in an initial yet broad manner, in a subsequent

section of the present paper. Sociological:

Lastly, it is critical that architects and researchers grasp the relationships, perceptions and expectations at play at a broader community level (e.g., the residents of a building, the members of a community, the politicians on a council, etc.). Better

understanding of the group dynamics, including reaction to agility, resistance to change, willingness to pioneer, etc. proves essential to the successful introduction of more agile architecture. At a sociological level a

given community must be able to overcome fears and to seize the novel, untried and

untested if consequential change is to occur. We have witnessed impressive cultural swings as society has become more cognizant of the seriousness and significance of global warming. A similar renaissance must occur in the way we conceive of and construct buildings. Rather

than fixed objects that deliver service over a set period then see demolition, buildings must be seen as living, dynamic and mutable entitles that can be assembled, reconfigured, upsized, downsized, repurposed then disassembled (e.g., for recycling and/or reuse in subsequent projects). This dramatic shift in

mindset will be especially difficult to realize in

North America, due in large measure to a very entrenched, complicated and conservative modus operandi.

INITIAL THOUGHTS, CONCERNS AND

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE

PSYCHOLOGY OF CHANGE

“Cognitive dissonance happens when actions are inconsistent with beliefs. It is commonly

believed that there are two ways to reduce this dissonance: by changing behaviors

and by changing beliefs.” Matthew Rabin

As was previously noted, the physical ability of a space, form or surface to change does not immediately equate to agile architecture. Simply because a wall can be moved by a user does not mean it will be moved. In any architectural proposition the central concern, and indeed the quality that enlarges the

pursuit from fine art to also embrace social aspects, is people. We design buildings and their spaces for people to use. User needs are

a fundamental driver of architectural program, of architectural design and of ongoing facility operations and maintenance. Given the core

positioning of building users it is vital that architects, as they pursue Open Building and heightened mutability, clearly understand psychological qualities, including people’s attitudes and actions around ‘change’. It is worth noting that generally in design

education, and many schools of architecture, include little or no curriculum addressing psychology, architectural programming, hierarchies of needs, and environment & behavior studies. To the contrary, many

design schools are increasingly obsessed with the commodification of architecture and an

obsession with building as object (sculptural statement versus container for living). If architects, and the architectural profession, are to embrace agility as a goal and deploy Open Building as a strategy, then architectural education will need to review and revise

curricula accordingly. Most pressing is the need for designers to clearly grasp the fears, opportunities, obstacles and potential of users concerning greater adaptability, mutability and change. Also crucial, in terms of knowledge and skills of practicing architects (and by extension students of architecture and

architectural educators) pertains to research.

In order to design more respectfully and responsively architects must know how to conduct research, how to attain the products of research (i.e., literature and knowledge base) and how to apply findings moving forward (i.e., to raise the quality of output, to reach new

markets, and to strengthen and adapt to current markets). When we consider the psychology of change, in order to better understand the possibilities of

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE 7

Open Building, we need to look closely at human behavior. Understanding behavior is fundamental to understanding behavioral & environmental change. In terms of agile architecture, if we create interiors that are

mutable or exteriors that users can manipulate, how do we know they can and will effect change? What steps do we as designers need to take to ensure users are aware of the qualities, limits and implications of changing a space or surface? Change can be empowering or intimidating, so we need to be empathetic

concerning how users might react to environments we design and freedoms we afford. What obligations do we have, as

designers, to effectively predict behaviors of users in our spaces and buildings? What does the research tell us about the nature of human

behavior and are we ethically obliged to seek out the knowledge that can make our projects more successful not only on artistic and physical terms but also on psychological and even spiritual terms? These questions are difficult to tackle yet vital to any equation for success in terms of fostering much more agile

architecture of the 21st century. When we provide the ability to change environments, even in modest and simple ways, often minimal change happens over

time. In some cases, for example with Kisho Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo,

the technology lagged far behind the thinking – which meant that even though change might have been possible it was so daunting from a technical perspective that it seldom or never happened. This is the case of a technical obstacle limiting change. In some ways

technical issues are relatively straightforward to understand and at times easy to solve. The psychology of change, however, is often very complex to grasp and very difficult to alter.

Figure 2: Nagakin Capsule Tower, Ginza Tokyo by

Kisho Kurokawa. (photograph brian r. sinclair)

Related to change are habits – those engrained behaviors that are deeply shaped through

routine and repetition. It is human nature to

become comfortable with actions we have encountered, trust and understand. While at the onset of the behavior we may experience apprehension, confusion and anxiety, the more we gain experience the more comfort we

realize. As we all know, habits are hard to break. Heimlich and Ardoin (2008) note that “Most behaviors are learned habits which are carried out sequentially through routines, therefore in order to change a behavior it is the routine that should be altered as opposed to the actual behavior itself.” The act of

inhabitation is, of course, ripe with engrained and routinized behaviors – or habits. When we introduce maneuverability and mutability into such realms, however well intentioned the

offer may be, it often causes concern, discomfort and even fear. Breaking habits is difficult, as is learning new actions.

It is interesting to consider the fear that can arise when we confront change. The fear is generally of the unknown – of shifting directions from the proven and known to the untried and unfamiliar. In light of anticipated

or experienced anxiety we often raise

8

resistance. For designers considering the introduction of more mutability into environments it is helpful to understand resistance to change. Oreg (2006), noted that resistance can be understood as a negative

attitude towards change – comprised of the three dimensions of affective, behavioral and cognitive. “The affective component refers to an individual’s feelings regarding the change, the behavioral refers to actions and intentions responding to the change, and the cognitive component refers to what the individual thinks

of the change.” To consider these dimensions from a design perspective, the architect needs to strive to grasp how a user might feel about

a proposed level of flexibility, how they might act when faced with executing a change, and how they might think of this feature of their

dwelling or workplace. While it can be argued that providing choice is generally positive, it is important for the designer to comprehend the real implications, both positive and negative, of heightened choice. With no choices users can experience a condition known as ‘learned helplessness’ whereby users give up efforts to

impact the environment due to its futility. On the other hand, truly flexible environments remain quite novel and generally untested. It is likely the case that too much open-endedness may cause anxiety, fear and

resistance. The architect needs to find the most appropriate path, and balanced solution,

based on evidence (i.e., existing literature), on research (i.e., with the actual user groups for a given project), and on professional judgment (which, in the author’s view, by necessity must include serious attention to local knowledge, user desires, etc.).

It is useful to consider resistance to change in greater detail. With a growing interest and application of flexibility in architecture comes increasing responsibility for architects to understand the mindset of users of these novel environments. Oreg (2003) notes six main

sources of resistance to change, all driven to

varying degrees by individual personality traits: 1. Reluctance to lose control; 2. Cognitive rigidity (i.e., close-mindedness); 3. Lack of psychological resilience (i.e., inability to cope with stress); 4. Intolerance to required adjustment period; 5. Preference for low levels

of novelty and stimulation; and, 6. Reluctance to give up old habits (i.e., ‘familiarity breeds comfort”). If architects are aware of such factors contributing to resistance to change they have a better chance of creating and

constructing environments that are sensitive, facilitating and accessible. It is instructive to examine processes and stages involved in realizing change. Much of

the research into change processes arises from the health and wellness areas, including health behavior and organizational change management. Prochaska and Velicer (1997) developed a ‘Transtheoretical Model of Change’ that clearly delineates sequential phases encountered in the act of change. They outline

the following six stages: 1. Precontemplation (not yet intending to change); 2. Contemplation (becoming aware that change

may be needed); 3. Preparation (plan of action); 4. Action (executing behavior); 5. Maintenance; and, 6. Relapse (return to any

stage is possible). These stages make sense when we consider the act of altering one’s environment. If, for example, an architect provides a homeowner with the ability to move a wall, these steps would be typical. The final stage, relapse, may be encountered if the act of change is deemed to be too difficult, too

time consuming, too costly, etc. As we pursue greater levels of agility in our environments, within buildings, on facades and in the landscape it is prudent to understand these stages of change so that we can develop

solutions that might find resonance and not resistance with end users.

Returning to the notion of ‘learned helplessness’, it is crucial for architects to comprehend the pros and cons of control, flexibility and accessibility in design. More is not always best – in fact it could be argued

that the search for an optimal balance is paramount. When there is no control over the environment the users often give up efforts and encounter a state of apathy. This phenomenon is often seen in nursing homes and other highly controlled ethos. While there are clearly environments where greater control

is necessary, in most environments some level

of user choice and empowerment is healthy and important. Webb and Sheeran (2006) noted that “The perception of having personal control over behavioral performance is a key factor in the intent to successfully engage in a particular behavior. However, to perform an

intended behavior, an individual must have actual control over the behavior, not just a perception of control.” In other words, creating environments that appear to afford choice proves insufficient – users must be able

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE 9

to execute intentions and move beyond perception to reality. For the purposes of design the challenge is finding the appropriate point of balance in the solution – fixed versus flexible elements and environments. As with

all architectural problems, the culture, context and conditions will demand unique and customized solutions. A part of professional training and development should prepare architects to deal with this increasing call for heightened mutability as a key ingredient of a more sustainable world.

A final point on the psychology of change pertains to the role of reason in decision

making and attitudes of end users. If environments provide flexibility to users, the extent to which environments may be changed

is significantly influenced by reasoning. Madden, Scholder and Icek (1992) proposed a ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’. In their model they suggest that an individual’s willingness to engage in a given behavior is primarily affected by behavioral intent. The aforesaid researchers note that “The intent to perform is

based upon two factors: 1. Attitude, which is based beliefs about the outcome of a behavior, and 2. Subjective norms, which relate to how other people perceive the behavior and what the outcome should be.” In the present

researcher’s model sociological aspects were noted as important. While the present paper is

most concerned with the personal psychology of change, the notion of ‘Reasoned Action’ does highlight the impact that groups can have on the realm of change. If contemporary buildings are afforded higher levels of agility, having all the users in a given building

understand, support and exercise choice seems especially strategic. Peer pressure and peer support provide incentives for tackling change in buildings.

FLEXIBILITY, MANEUVERABILITY &

CHANGE ACROSS FOUR DIMENSIONS

“People are very open-minded about

new things - as long as they're

exactly like the old ones.” Charles Kettering

There is little doubt that architects and contractors must find new and more effective ways of seeing, thinking and acting. The days of buildings moving from the downtown to the

dump are all but over. While renovating

existing buildings will be a reality, it seems imperative that we entirely reimagine how we create and operate new buildings. Rather than continuing with the status quo – with the erection of rigid and immutable structures –

we must push hard to envision and assemble remarkable dynamic, vibrant, robust, resilient and agile architecture. It is an ethical imperative for the building industry to not only ‘do no harm’, but to go well beyond this benign posturing to assume ownership of more regenerative, positive and inspiring outcomes.

The present paper has developed and delineated a synergistic model for advancing the cause of Agile Architecture at a global

level.

Figure 3. Artist Yuki Sinclair, Architect Kisho Kurosawa and the Author. Tokyo, Japan.

This paper has also strayed into the largely uncharted realm of the psychology of change. As architects design increasingly adaptable and

mutable environments, users must be able to cope and manage with such novel spaces and places. Rather than having architects blindly assume they as design professionals know best, the author argues that serious research is warranted in various realms of change,

including psychological and sociological. The main emphasis in the present work was on personal and psychological responses to change, with a broad overview presented

concerning some prevailing theories and germane research. There is a great need for more research into all areas described in the

author’s model, including Physical, Psychological, Sociological and Legal dimensions. Of these four realms the Psychological may indeed be the most complex and the most pressing. It is also arguably the most neglected, in part owing to its very intricate nature and the intense diversity of

10

people, conditions and responses. In pursuing and developing the facets and further aspects of this work the author acknowledges the need to critically consider and explore how the proposed model might best relate and

correspond to the design, construction and occupation of real projects. To this end it will be important to seek a better understanding of the logic, levels and locations of change & control – realizing that open buildings and agile environments call for new ways of envisioning, shaping and interacting with the world.

Finding the ‘appropriate’ balance that advances design, fosters happiness, promotes variability, and ensures sustainability seems key.

In order to realize progress towards more responsive and responsible architecture --

architecture truly of the 21st century -- academics, architects, constructors, consumers, politicians and the public need to imagine, create and propel a shared and innovative vision for more agile, open and sustainable environments. To do otherwise – to turn a blind eye and perpetuate the

untenable status quo -- seems economically unreasonable, socially unsound and ethically unacceptable. If we are to realize truly agile architecture then the design approach must be remarkably thoughtful, intensely responsive,

undeniably responsible and highly performing. Holism, integration, interdisciplinarity and

professionalism all factor significantly into any equation for success.

ENDNOTES

Habraken, John. 1994: Cultivating the field: about an attitude when making architecture. Places 9, 8-21 Heimlich, Joe E., and Nicole M. Ardoin. “Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a literature review” Environmental Education Research, 14 (2008): 215-237.

Kendall, Stephen and Jonathan Teicher. 2000. Residential Open Building. New York: E & FN Spon. Kronenburg, Robert. Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change. London: Lawrence King Publishing Ltd. 2007.

Madden, Thomas J., Scholder Ellen, Pamela, and Icek Azjen. “A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (1992): 3-9.

Oreg, Shaul. “Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2003): 680-693. Oreg, Shaul. “Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (2006): 73-101. Price, Cedric. Re:CP. Edited by Hans Ulrich Obrist. Basel: Birkhauser. 2003. Prochaska, James O., and Wayne F. Velicer. “The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change,” American Journal of Health Promotion, 12 (1997): 38-48. Rabin, Matthew. “Cognitive dissonance and social change,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23 (1994): 177-194. Safarzadeh, G., Mousazadeh S., and B.R. Sinclair. 2011: Exploring Connectivity + Seeking Integration: A Framework for Heightened Agility + Adaptability. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of CIB W104 (Open Building Implementation) + W110 (Informal Settlements & Affordable Housing) in Boston, pp 92-99. Sinclair, Brian R. 2009: Culture, Context and the Pursuit of Sustainability: Contemplating Problems, Parameters and Possibilities in an Increasingly

Complex World. Planning for Higher Education: The Journal of the Society for College and University Planning 38 (1).

Sinclair, Brian R. 2010: A Synopsis of the Invited Inaugural Lecture in the ‘Sustainable Lecture Series’. Zayed University, Abu Dhabi: Responsible Urbanism Research Lab (RURL).

Sinclair, Brian R. 2012: Flexible | Adaptable | Accommodating: Advocating + Invocating Amplified Agility in Architecture. 5th Int’l Symposium on Architecture of the 21st Century: In Search of New Paradigms. Baden, Germany. Webb, Thomas L., and Paschal Sheeran. “Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence” Psychological Bulletin, 132 (2006): 249-268. Weston, Richard. 100 Ideas that Changed Architecture. London: Lawrence King Publishing Ltd. 2011

Note:

photographs & diagrams by dr. brian r. sinclair reproduction with permission only | © 2012