Generative processes and generative design approaches are topics of continuing interest and debate within the realms of architectural design and related fields. While they are often held up as giving designers the opportunity (the freedom) to explore far greater numbers of options/alternatives than would otherwise be possible, questions also arise regarding the limitations of such approaches on the design spaces explored, in comparison with more conventional, human-centric design processes. This article addresses the controversy with a specific focus on parametric-associative modelling and genetic programming methods of generative design. These represent two established contenders within the pool of procedural design approaches gaining increasingly wide acceptance in architectural computational research, education and practice. The two methods are compared and contrasted to highlight important differences in freedoms and limitations they afford, with respect to each other and to ‘manual’ design. We conclude that these methods may be combined with an appropriate balance of automation and human intervention to obtain ‘optimal’ design freedom, and we suggest steps towards finding that balance.
AishR. Introduction to GenerativeComponents: a parametric and associative design system for architecture, building engineering and digital fabrication. Exton, PA: Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 2005.
6.
CramerNL. A representation for the adaptive generation of simple sequential programs. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on genetic algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, 24–26 July 1985, pp. 183–187. New York: ACM.
7.
KozaJR. Genetic programming as a means for programming computers by natural selection. Stat Comput1994; 4(2): 87–112.
8.
Van LeeuwenJ. Handbook of theoretical computer science: algorithms and complexity, vol. A. Elsevier, 1990.
9.
BentleyPJKumarS. Three ways to grow designs: a comparison of embryogenies for an evolutionary design problem. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO-99) at the 8th international conference on genetic algorithms and 4th annual genetic programming conference (ed BanzhafWDaidaJEibenAE.), Orlando, FL, 13–17 July 1999, pp. 35–43. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
10.
BurrowAL. Computational design and formal languages. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 1999.
FürnkranzJHüllermeierE. Preference learning. New York: Springer Verlag, 2010.
13.
DabbeeruMMMukerjeeA. Discovering implicit constraints in design. AI EDAM2011; 25(1): 57–75.
14.
ChaszarA. Bridging the gap with collaborative design programs for CAD/CAM. Archit Design2003; 73(5): 112–118.
15.
WhiteheadHPetersB. Geometry, form and complexity. In: LittlefieldD (ed.) Space craft: developments in architectural computing. London: RIBA, 2008.
16.
TsigkariMChronisAJoyceSC. Integrated design in the simulation process. In: Proceedings of the symposium on simulation for architecture and urban design, society for modeling and simulation international (ed O’BrienLKhanA), San Diego, CA, 2013, pp. 153–160.
17.
HesselgrenLCharitouRDritsasS. The Bishopsgate tower case study. Int J Archit Comput2007; 5(1): 62–81.
18.
DavisDBurryJBurryM. Untangling parametric schemata: enhancing collaboration through modular programming. In: Proceedings of CAAD Futures: the 14th international conference on computer aided architectural design (ed LeclercqPHeylighenAMartinG), Liege, 4–8July2011, Les Éditions de l’Université de Liège, pp. 55–68.
19.
PetersB. Computation works: the building of algorithmic thought. Archit Design2013; 83(2): 8–15.
20.
SchonDAWigginsG. Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des Stud1992; 13(2): 132–156.
21.
HardingJJoyceSShepherdP. Thinking topologically at early stage parametric design. In: HesselgrenLSharmaSWallnerJ. (eds) Advances in architectural geometry 2012. Vienna: Springer, 2014, pp. 67–76.
22.
HardingJ. Meta-parametric design: developing a computational approach for early stage collaborative practice. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bath, Bath, 2014.
23.
LawsonB. How designers think: the design process demystified. London: Routledge, 2006.
24.
BradnerEIorioFDavisM. Parameters tell the design story: ideation and abstraction in design optimization. In: Proceedings of the symposium on simulation for architecture and urban design (ed GerberDGoldsteinR), Tampa, FL, 13–16 April 2014, pp. 77–84. San Diego, CA: Society for Modeling and Simulation International.
25.
AishRFisherAJoyceS. Progress towards multi-criteria design optimisation using DesignScript with SMART form, robot structural analysis and Ecotect building performance analysis. In: Proceedings of ACADIA, San Francisco, CA, 18–21 October 2012, pp. 47–56. San Francisco, CA: ACADIA.
26.
MillerJFThomsonP. Cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of EuroGP’2000, the 3rd European conference on genetic programming – genetic programming (vol. 1802: lecture notes in computer science) (ed PoliRBanzhafWWBLangdon.), Edinburgh, 15–16 April 2000, pp. 121–132. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
27.
WoodwardJR. Complexity and cartesian genetic programming. In: Proceedings of EuroGP 2006, the 9th European conference on genetic programming – genetic programming (vol. 3905: lecture notes in computer science) (ed ColletPTomassiniMEbnerM.), Budapest, 10–12 April 2006, pp. 260–269. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
28.
WoodburyRAishRKilianA. Some patterns for parametric modeling. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ed LilleyBBeesleyP), Halifax, 4-7 October 2007, Riverside Architectural Press and TUNS Press, pp. 222–229. Halifax: Nova Scotia.
29.
Von BuelowP. Suitability of genetic based exploration in the creative design process. Digit Creat2008; 19(1): 51–61.
30.
MuellerCOchsendorfJ. An integrated computational approach for creative conceptual structural design. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) symposium ‘Beyond the Limits of Man’, 2013, http://www.caitlinmueller.com/images/mueller_iass2013.pdf
31.
PriceC. Cedric Price: the square book. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2003.
32.
QuinlanJR. Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn1986; 1(1): 81–106.
SimsK. Artificial evolution for computer graphics. SIGGRAPH (‘91 Proceedings of the 18th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques), 1991, vol. 25, issue 4), pp. 319–328.
35.
ToddSLathamW. Evolutionary art and computers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1994.
36.
CohenH. A self-defining game for one player: on the nature of creativity and the possibility of creative computer programs. Leonardo2002; 35(1): 59–64.
37.
MachweATParmeeIC. Introducing machine learning within an interactive evolutionary design environment. In: DS 36: proceedings DESIGN 2006, the 9th international design conference. Dubrovnik, 15–18 May 2006, pp. 283–290.
