Advertisement

An Ecological Approach to Generative Design

Ecoconfiguration through Agent-Environment Visual Coupling
  • Alasdair Turner
  • Chiron Mottram
  • Alan Penn
Conference paper

Abstract

In this paper we explore the use of an animat model to construct geometry. The model uses agents guided by direct (or active) visual perception of their environment to replicate human behaviour within a notional plan of an open space. The environment reacts to these agents by placing walls in order to affect their usage of the space, and thus the structure may be evolved to fit the social function of the agents within it. Here, we start with the most basic social function, to design a building that disperses agents programmed with an exploratory task across its floorplan by using an evolutionary algorithm. We investigate the effect of evolution on the generated configuration using space syntax tools. We show how the introduction of a simple rule, the desire to leave, can result in the evolution of commonly observed features — first a central axis and then a ‘foyer’.We discover that ‘intelligibility’ of the space, which might imply reduced cognitive load, may increase as the system is allowed to evolve. Finally, we consider the implications of the ecological approach for the design process.

Keywords

Generative Design Ecological Approach Axial Line Peak Fitness Direct Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, C: 1977, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdeau, L and Chebat, JC: 2003, The effects of signage and location of works of art on recall of titles and paintings in art galleries, Environment andBehavior 35(2): 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, RA: 1991, Intelligence without representation, Artifwial Intelligence 47: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clancy, WJ: 1997, Situated Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Conroy, RA: 2001, Spatial Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments, PhD thesis, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, London.Google Scholar
  6. Cruse, H: 2003, The evolution of Cognition — a hypothesis, Cognitivie Science 27: 135–155.Google Scholar
  7. Dale, K and Collett, TS: 2001, Using artificial evolution and selection to model insect navigation, Current Biology 11: 1305–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gero, JS and Fujii, H: 2000, A computational framework for concept formation in situated agent design, Knowledge-Based Systems 13(6): 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, JJ: 1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Goldberg, DE: 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, London, UK.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey, I, Husbands, P, Cliff, D, Thompson, A and Jakobi, N: 1997, Evolutionary robotics: The Sussex approach, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 20: 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillier, B: 1996, Space is the Machine, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Hillier, B: 2003, The architectures of seeing and going — is there a syntax of urban spatial Cognition?, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Space Syntax, UCL, London, UK, p. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Hillier, B and Hanson, J: 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillier, B, Penn, A, Hanson, J, Grajewski, T and Xu, J: 1993, Natural movement: Or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20: 29–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kichhanagari, R, Motley, R, Duffy, SA and Fisher, DL: 2002, Airport terminal signs—use of advance guide signs to speed search times, Transportation Research Record (1788), 26–32.Google Scholar
  17. Kuipers, B, Tecuci, D and Stankiewicz, B: 2003, The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational and empirical exploration, Environment and Behavior35(1): 80–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luhmann, N: 1995, Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Mäher, ML and Gero, JS: 2002, Agent models of 3D Virtual worlds, ACADIA 2002:Thresholds, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, pp. 127–183.Google Scholar
  20. Maturana, HR and Varela, FJ: 1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, D. Reidel, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maturana, HR and Varela, FJ: 1987, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Norberg-Schulz, C: 2000, Architecture: Presence, Language and Place, Skira editore, Milan.Google Scholar
  23. Penn, A: 2001, Space syntax and spatial Cognition, or why the axial line?, Proceedings ofthe 3rd International Symposium on Space Syntax, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 11.1–11.16.Google Scholar
  24. Penn, A and Turner, A: 2002, Space syntax based agent models, in M Schreckenberg and S Sharma (eds), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
  25. Reed, ES and Jones, R (eds): 1982, Reasons for Realism, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  26. Tolman, EC: 1948, Cognitive maps in rats and men, The Psychological Review 55(4): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turner, A: 2002, Ecomorphic dialogues, in C. Soddu (ed), Proceedings of Generative Art 2002, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy, pp. 38.1–38.8.Google Scholar
  28. Turner, A: 2003a, Analysing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(5): 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner, A: 2003b, Reversing the process of living: Generating ecomorphic environments, Proceedings ofthe 4th International Symposium on Space Syntax, UCL, London, UK, pp. 15.1–15.12.Google Scholar
  30. Turner, A and Penn, A: 2002, Encoding natural movement as an agent-based System: An investigation into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29(4): 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alasdair Turner
    • 1
  • Chiron Mottram
    • 1
  • Alan Penn
    • 1
  1. 1.University College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations