This study is dedicated to the examination of safety requirements and the enhancement of resilience against security breaches and targeted violence in the architectural design of school building floor plans. For this purpose, the study utilizes Cellular Automaton (CA) as a design tool, as a means of generating possibly infinite number of solutions according to the set design rules. The initial phase of the study involved the abstraction of existing school floor plans (sourced from European and US architectural practices) to a diagrammatic level suitable for subsequent CA cell definition. Further, additional safety-oriented criteria were incorporated, resulting in the emergence of innovative architectural configurations. The safety parameters applied drew insights from the redesign endeavors of Fruitport High School in Michigan in 2019, with a particular emphasis on the implementation of angular, mazelike corridors for defensive purposes. The findings presented in this research demonstrate that, despite the perceived intricacies within contemporary architectural practices, the employed methodology facilitates an expanded repertoire of architectural solutions while concurrently addressing heightened security requisites. The emerged set of generated architectural layouts shows the properties of a new architectural typology of school buildings, to which additional ambiental values can be associated, while recommended net areas have been preserved. Furthermore, the results underscore the adaptability of this approach to various architectural challenges, particularly those centered around the corridor as a pivotal element in the functional organization of spatial layouts.
UdukuO. Spaces for 21st-century learning, Routledge Handbook of international education and development. Taylor & Francis, 2015, pp. 196–209. DOI: 10.4324/9781315797007.
2.
OuyangF. “People oriented” planning and architectural design practice of primary and secondary schools. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual international Conference on social science and contemporary Humanity development (SSCHD 2020). DOI: 10.2991/assehr.k.210121.192.
3.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education(OESE).School infrastructure programs (SIP). Washington, DC: U.S. Education Department Lyndon Baines Johnson(LBJ) Department of Education,last updated January 04, 2024. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/school-infrastructure-programs-sip/(accessed 12 February 2024).
4.
BellADymentJE. Grounds for health: the intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools. Taylor & Francis, 2008, pp. 77–90. DOI: 10.1080/13504620701843426.
CarpoMThe alphabet and the algorithm, the MIT press, 2011. CarpoM. In Introduction, the digital turn in architecture 1992–2012, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2015.
15.
CarpoM. Introduction, the digital turn in architecture 1992–2012. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2015.
MitchellM. An introduction to genetic algorithms. A Bradford Book The MIT Press, 1999.
18.
Antoni GaudíBMOttoF. Essential precursors to the parametricism manifesto. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
19.
BurryM. Scripting cultures- architectural design and programming. John Wiley & Sons, 2013, p. 15.
20.
KolarevićB. Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. Taylor & Francis, 2003, p. 17.
21.
MengesAHenselMWeinstockM. An evolution of form finding as design. Emergence: Morphogenetic Design Strategies2004: 27–33.
22.
ĐorđevićAMilovanovićAMilojevićMP, et al.Developing methodological framework for addressing sustainability and heritage in architectural higher education—insights from HERSUS project. Sustainability2022; 14: 4597. DOI: 10.3390/su14084597.
23.
Ristić TrajkovićJMilovanovićANikezićA. Reprogramming modernist heritage: enhancing social wellbeing by value-based programming approach in architectural design. Sustainability2021; 13: 11111. DOI: 10.3390/su131911111.
24.
MilovanovićANikezićARistić TrajkovićJ. Introducing matrix for the reprogramming of mass housing neighbourhoods (MHN) based on EU design taxonomy: the Observatory case of Serbia. Buildings2023; 13: 723. DOI: 10.3390/buildings13030723.
25.
Atanacković-JeličićJRapaićMMarašI, et al.New Comfort: towards the post-pandemic Living, SAJ Serb Archit J2021; 13(3): 187–211.
26.
HenselMMengesAWeinstockM. Morphogenesis and emergence (2004-2006). AD. John Wiley and Sons, 2013, pp. 158–181.
27.
FrazerJH. An evolutionary architecture. London: Architectural Association, 1995.
28.
KamaoğluM. The idea of evolution in digital architecture: toward united ontologies?Int J Architect Comput2023; 21(4): 147–634. DOI: 10.1177/14780771231174890.
29.
HenselMMengesAWeinstockM. Emergence in architecture, architectural design. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester2004; 74(3): 11–15.
30.
CaetanoISantosLLeitãoA. Computational design in architecture: defining parametric, generative, and algorithmic design. Frontiers of Architectural Research2020; 9(2): 287–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.foar.2019.12.008.
31.
WeberREMuellerCReinhartC. Automated floorplan generation in architectural design: a review of methods and applications. Autom ConStruct2022; 140: 104385. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104385.
32.
JeličićJARapaićMKapetinaM, et al.Urban planning method for fostering social sustainability: can bottom-up and top-down meet?Results in Engineering2021; 12: 100284, 2590-1230 DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100284.
KrawczykRJ. Cellular automata: Dying to live Again, architecture, Art, design. In: AdamatzkyAMartínezG (eds). Designing Beauty: The Art of Cellular Automata. Emergence, Complexity and Computation. Cham: Springer, 2016, vol 20, pp. 39–52. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27270-2_5.
35.
HerrCMKvanT. Adapting cellular automata to support the architectural design process. Autom ConStruct2007; 16(1): 61–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2005.10.005.
36.
HerrCMFordRC. Cellular automata in architectural design: from generic systems to specific design tools. Autom ConStruct2016; 72(Part 1): 39–45.
37.
Çalışır AdemPÇağdaşG. Computational design thinking through cellular automata: Reflections from design Studios, Journal of Design Studio2020; 2(2): 71–83. DOI: 10.4647/jds.816833.
38.
NisztukMMyszkowskiPB. Usability of contemporary tools for the computational design of architectural objects: review, features evaluation and reflection. Int J Architect Comput2018; 16(1): 58–84. DOI: 10.1177/1478077117738919.
39.
HardingJEShepherdP. Meta-parametric design. Des Stud2017; 52: 73–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.005.
40.
KharvariFKaiserLE. Impact of extended reality on architectural education and the design process. Autom ConStruct2022; 141: 104393. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104393.
41.
LawsonB. Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Des Stud2004; 25: 443–457. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.
42.
Castro PenaMLCarballalARodríguez-FernándezN, et al.Artificial intelligence applied to conceptual design. A review of its use in architecture. Autom ConStruct2021; 124: 103550. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103550.
43.
NavinchandraD. Exploration and Innovation in Design: Towards a Computational Model. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1991, vol 13.
44.
LoganBSmithersT. Creativity and design as exploration. In: GeroJSMaherML (eds). Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-based Creative Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1993, pp. 139–173.
45.
GoldschmidtGMatthewsB. Formulating design research questions: a framework. Des Stud2022; 78: 101062. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2021.101062.
46.
DorstKCrossN. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud2001; 22(5): 425–437.
47.
HönigRNashedL. Grundrissfibel Schulbauten. 30 Wettbewerbe in der Schweiz 2001-2015. Zürich: Edition Hochparterre, 2015.
RigolonA. European design types for 21st century schools: an overvie, CELE Exchange 2010/3. OECD, 2010.
50.
NeufertE. Architects’ data. University of Michigan, 2007.
51.
BattyM. Cities and complexity, understanding Cities with cellular automata, Agent-based models, and Fractals. MIT Press, 2007.
52.
EspínolaMPiedra-FernándezJAAyalaR, et al.Contextual and hierarchical classification of Satellite images based on cellular automata. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2015; 53(2): 795–809. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2014.2328634.
53.
KiesterARSahrK. Planar and spherical hierarchical, multi-resolution cellular automata. Comput Environ Urban Syst2008; 32(3): 204–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.03.001.
54.
ToffoliTMargolusN. Cellular automata machines: a new environment for modeling. MIT Press, 1987, p. 60.
55.
BattyM. (ed). GeoComputation using cellular automata in GeoComputation. CRC Press, 2000, pp. 96–103.
56.
BattyM. (ed). GeoComputation using cellular automata in GeoComputation. CRC Press, 2000, pp. 96–103.
57.
DepthmapX and the space Syntax methodology are tools developed at the Bartlett school of architecture, University College London. For more information, visit the Space Syntax Laboratory website at Space Syntax Laboratory, UCL.
