Generative design utilizing genetic algorithms provides architects with innovative opportunities for form exploration; however, excessive automation may restrict their engagement in the creative process. This study investigates the influence of architects’ regulation of geometric parameters on creativity during initial form exploration. Experiments were performed on two cohorts of architects with 3–6 years of experience: one cohort was permitted to customize the design parameters, while the other cohort was restricted to selecting from system-generated options. The design process was examined through Protocol Analysis, and design creativity was evaluated using a Consensual Assessment Technique. The findings indicated that enhanced control facilitated increased exploration of form, augmented creativity, and yielded more innovative design solutions. This study establishes that creativity in generative design relies not solely on algorithms but also on the proactive engagement of architects. The results advocate for the creation of a generative design system that enables architects to engage in form exploration more interactively while maintaining algorithmic efficiency.
ParkEJLeeS. Creative thinking in the architecture design Studio: bibliometric analysis and literature review. Buildings. 2022; 12: 828. doi:10.3390/buildings12060828.
2.
MondolTBrownDG. Computational creativity and aesthetics with algorithmic information theory. Entropy2021; 23: 1654.
3.
Domínguez-GómezPCelisF. Creative programming in architecture: a computational thinking approach. Inf Educ2024; 23: 541–570.
4.
WangYIrwinDToweyD, et al.Creativity using generative AI vs. Physical modeling: a case study of architecture workshops in a SfHEI. In: 2024 IEEE 48th annual computers, software, and applications conference (COMPSAC), Osaka, Japan, 2 – 4 July 2024, pp. 1520–1521, IEEE.
5.
GuNAmini BehbahaniP. A critical review of computational creativity in built environment design. Buildings2021; 11: 29.
6.
MukkavaaraJSandbergM. Architectural design exploration using generative design: framework development and case study of a residential block. Buildings2020; 10: 201–217.
7.
SinghVGuN. Towards an integrated generative design framework. Des Stud2012; 33: 185–207.
8.
DongX. Optimization of landscape garden greening design based on multi objective genetic algorithm. J Electr Syst2024; 20: 226–236.
9.
HasanNWSaudiASKhalilMI, et al.A genetic algorithm approach to automate architecture design for acoustic scene classification. IEEE Trans Evol Comput2023; 27: 222–236.
10.
BuonamiciFCarfagniMFurferiR, et al.Generative design: an explorative study. Comput Aided Des Appl2020; 18: 144–155.
11.
ErhanHChanJFungG, et al.Understanding cognitive overload in generative design. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the association for computer-aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China, 5–8 April 2017, pp. 127–136.
12.
ArismanAWidiastutiIIndraprasthaA, et al.Architect’s responses to practicing generative design for form-finding in the schematic design stage. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference of the association for computer- aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2024, 23-25 April 2024, Singapore University of Techology and Design, Singapore, 2024, CAADRIA, pp. 29–38.
13.
BilgeEÇYamanH. Multi-objective early-stage design optimization of multifamily residential projects. Int J Architect Comput. 2024; 1–18.
14.
Pérez-MartínezIMartínez-RojasMSoto-HidalgoJM. A methodology for urban planning generation: a novel approach based on generative design. Eng Appl Artif Intell2023; 124: 106609.
15.
SchwartzYRaslanRKorolijaI, et al.A decision support tool for building design: an integrated generative design, optimisation and life cycle performance approach. Int J Architect Comput2021; 19: 401–430.
16.
WangLChenKWJanssenP, et al.Algorithmic generation of architectural massing models for building design optimisation: parametric modelling using subtractive and additive form generation principles. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference of the association for computer-aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2020, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 5-6 August 2020, The Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), pp. 385–394.
17.
ChenKWJanssenPSchlueterA. Multi-objective optimisation of building form, envelope and cooling system for improved building energy performance. Autom ConStruct2018; 94: 449–457.
18.
PasternakAKwiecihskiK. High-rise building optimization: a design Studio curriculum. Proceedings of the international conference on education and research in computer aided architectural design in Europe. Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, 16-18 September. Vienna, Austria: Vienna University of Technology, 2015, pp. 305–314.
19.
CaldasLGNorfordLK. A design optimization tool based on a genetic algorithm. Autom ConStruct2002; 11: 173–184.
LeeJHOstwaldMJGuN. Design thinking: creativity, collaboration and culture. Salmon Tower Building, New York City: Springer, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-56558-9.
22.
LeeJHOstwaldMJ. Creative decision-making processes in parametric design. Buildings2020; 10: 242.
23.
YuRGuNOstwaldM. Evaluating creativity in parametric design environments and geometric modelling environments. Archit Sci Rev2018; 61: 443–453.
24.
GülLF. Studying architectural massing strategies in Co-design mobile augmented reality tool versus 3D virtual world. In: Proceedings of the international conference on education and research in computer aided architectural design in Europe, 20-22 September 2017, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, 2017, pp. 703–710.
25.
LeeJHGuNOstwaldMJ. Creativity and parametric design? Comparing designer’s cognitive approaches with assessed levels of creativity. Int J Des Creat Innov2015; 3: 78–94.
26.
YuRGeroJGuN. Architects’ cognitive behaviour in parametric design. Int J Architect Comput2015; 13: 83–101.
27.
LenchukIGMosiiukOO. Constructive geometry in icmplementations of modern 3D graphics. Inf Technol Learn Tools2023; 94: 19–37.
28.
FowlerPWGuestSDOwenJC. Applications of symmetry in point-line-plane frameworks for CAD. J Comput Des Eng2021; 8: 615–637.
TurrinMVon BuelowPStouffsR. Design explorations of performance driven geometry in architectural design using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms. Adv Eng Inform2011; 25: 656–675.
31.
ChewZXWongJYTangYH, et al.Generative design in the built environment. Autom ConStruct2024; 166: 105638.
32.
CaetanoISantosLLeitãoA. Computational design in architecture: defining parametric, generative, and algorithmic design. Front Archit Res2020; 9: 287–300.
33.
ChenKWChooTSNorfordL. Enabling algorithm-assisted architectural design exploration for computational design novices. Comput Aided Des Appl2019; 16: 269–288.
34.
DriscollJC. Fractal patterns as fitness criteria in genetic algorithms applied as a design tool in architecture. Nexus Netw J2021; 23: 21–37.
35.
MaherMTangHH. Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res Eng Des2003; 14: 47–64.
36.
MitchellM. Introduction to genetic algorithms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996. DOI: 10.1007/BF02823145.
37.
SongHGhaboussiJKwonTH. Architectural design of apartment buildings using the implicit redundant representation genetic algorithm. Autom ConStruct2016; 72: 166–173.
38.
LiL. The optimization of architectural shape based on Genetic Algorithm. Front Archit Res2012; 1: 392–399.
39.
ScheibehenneBGreifenederRToddPM. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J Consum Res2010; 37: 409–425.
40.
KołataJZierkeP. The decline of architects: can a computer design fine architecture without human input?Buildings. 2021; 11: 338. doi:10.3390/buildings11080338.
JordanousA. Evaluating evaluation: assessing progress in computational creativity research. In: Proceedings 2nd international conference on computational creativity ICCC, 27-29 April 2011, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2011: 102–107.
JordanousA. Four PPPPerspectives on computational creativity in theory and in practice. Connect Sci2016; 28: 194–216.
45.
GeroJSMilovanovicJ. A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains. Des Sci; 6: e19. DOI: 10.1017/dsj.2020.15.
46.
AkinOMoustaphaH. Strategic use of representation in architectural massing. Des Stud2004; 25: 31–50.
47.
AbuzuraiqAMErhanH. Designing with sense: a critical review and proposal for enhanced design space exploration in generative design. Int J Architect Comput2024; 23: 5–26.
48.
GuoZHEZhangZZhangZ, et al.Perceptual materialization for space interface:exploring the interactive generation design method and application of space interface via EEG reveled visual-perception. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference of the association for computer- aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2024, 23-25 April 2024, Singapore University of Techology and Design, Singapore, 2024.
49.
WattersPSpasJ. Finding creativity in the extrinsically motivated environment of architecture students. Innovat Educ Teach Int2020; 57: 231–241.
50.
KaufmanJCLeeJBaerJ, et al.Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: new evidence of reliability. Think Skills Creativ2007; 2: 96–106.
51.
FeinECGilmourJMachinT, et al.Statistics for research students: An open access resource with selftests and illustrative examples. Toowoomba (AU): University of Southern Queensland; 2021.
52.
HerzogMHFrancisGClarkeA. Understanding statistics and experimental design: how to not lie with statistics. Salmon Tower Building New York City: Springer, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-03499-3.
53.
ChristiaansHHCM. Creativity as a design criterion. Creat Res J2002; 14: 41–54.
54.
American Institute of Architect (AIA). Technology, culture, & the future of the architectural firm [Internet]. Washington (DC: The American Institute of Architects, 2021.
55.
ArismanA. Penerapan Metode Konvensional dan Digital dalam Proses Perancangan Arsitektur Pada Konsultan-Konsultan Arsitektur di Bandung. Bandung, Indonesia: Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2019.
LeavyP. Research design: quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York: The Guilford Press, 2015. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195395099.003.0002.
58.
Gutiérrez de RavéEJiménez-HorneroFJ. A 3D descriptive geometry problem-solving methodology using CAD and orthographic projection. Symmetry (Basel). 2024; 16: 476. doi:10.3390/sym16040476.
59.
CuminoCPavignanoMSpreaficoML, et al.Geometry to build models, models to visualize geometry. Digit Exp Math Educ2021; 7: 149–166.
60.
LeeT. Geometric transformations via matrix multiplications using hardware/software Co-design. Adv Comput Sci2014; 3: 91–96.
61.
SuwaMPurcellTGeroJ. Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Des Stud1998; 19: 455–483.
62.
HayesJR. Cognitive processes in creativity. In: Handbook of Creativity. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1989, pp. 135–145.
63.
GeroJ. Creation and characterization of design spaces. DRS2022: Bilbao. Bilbao, 2022. doi:10.21606/drs.2022.265.
64.
NielsenJ. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst - Proc1994: 152–158.
65.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived Ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q1989; 13: 319–340.
SwellerJ. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci1988; 12: 257–285.
68.
KotianALNandipiRUshagGM, et al.A systematic review on human and computer interaction. In: 2nd International conference on intelligent data communication technologies and internet of things, IDCIoT 2024, 4-6 January 2024, REVA University, Bengaluru, India, 2024, pp. 1214–1218.
69.
NormanD.The design of everyday things. Revised an. New York: Basic Books, 2013.
70.
CheungLHDall’AstaJC. Human-computer interaction (HCI) approach to artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) in architectural design. Eidos2024; 17: 109–131.
