Precedents

To select a canonical housing project from a given list and apply the two analysis methodologies. These methodologies approach two fundamental concerns raised by the creative demands of contemporary urban housing; they are specifically inter-related by the fact that they address the issues of why and how.

Introduction to Methodology
Confrontation analysis questions the role of architecture as a mediator between competing interests. The objective is to assess a specific building within the particular social, economic, political and market context, as well as the architectural culture of the chosen architect. The implicit and explicit values built into the residential fabric are to be distilled- not only from the point of view of their overall image, but also in terms of its basic organization, mode of approach, amenities, etc. The following issue are to be investigated:

1. Context: an analysis of the way in which the housing fragment does or does not relate to the urban fabric in which it is situated, and the significance of this implicit statement as a contextual and social standpoint.
2. Image: the implicit value systems incorporated in ‘dwelling form’, as these are represented by architectural images or by other ideological inferences.
3. Dwelling Form: the domestic organization (the housing form) and the provision of social amenities (the residential fabric)

Methodology

Issues of Confrontation Analysis

• How far can HOUSING go against MARKET LOGIC?
• What are the CULTURAL implications of the architectural (HOUSING) expression?
• Can HOUSING be the mediator between the UNIT (new ‘family structure) and the PUBLIC REALM (new ‘civitas)?
• How, within today’s ‘culture of fragmentation’, can housing contribute to the construction of personal and collective IDENTITY?
• What are the possibilities of HOUSING in the definition of SOCIAL INTERACTION?
• What is the ethics of architecture (HOUSING) within MARKET conditions?

Introduction to Methodology
LCDD stands for Lowest Common Design Denominator. LCDD is a process of 2 and 3 dimensional architectural analysis. Its distinction from other analytical methods is the introduction of dynamic links made possible through computer technology.

Methodology:
Lowest Common Design Denominator analysis is a process of reductive identification and recomposition using the following guidelines and principles:

1. Identify, rotate and remove symmetry at the building and component level.
2. Identify, rotate and remove repetition at the building and component level.
3. Unwrap or unroll curvilinear and non planer components and apply rule one and two.
   Note that this system interprets design by way of projection.
4. Identify, rotate and remove any item that repeats at any scale.
   For clarification all doric columns of similar proportional construction are represented by one doric column.
5. Remove reference of feet, meters and cubits from consideration. Establish a base of one. Column spacing is an example.
6. Identify geometric order first, followed by material subset identification. Different materials are not the basis of a separate components.
7. Reconstruct the architecture with dynamic LCDD components.

   The dynamic link is the capability of the computer to affect changes from one component to all related components simultaneously. Mastery of the dynamic link allows you to re-establish the original design control of the architect; to understand the intention and conception from the detail to whole. It brings analysis to life.

ACA and LCDD were developed by architects and educators Kelly Shannon and Robert Flanagan. Upper architectural graduate students employed these complementary analysis methods to contemporary Japanese and European housing projects. The analysis was done in preparation for an international student design competition, Urban Housing, sponsored by Otis Elevator