Theorising site analysis: from analysis-synthesis-evaluation to co-evolution

Abstract

Architects undertake site analysis to assess whether a particular site can accommodate a given building. Despite extensive literature, the theoretical basis of site analysis is unclear. This study aims to build a theory of site analysis consistent with practice. A review identifies two approaches in current site-analysis literature: normative, centring on checklists and procedures; and positive, which utilises scientific methods to eliminate subjective judgement. The literature review also reveals the origins of site analysis in analysis-synthesis-evaluation. Critiques of this design-process model show that information is not necessarily gathered prior to commencing design, indicating that there is a third approach absent from the current site-analysis literature — the intuitive, which centres on the use of solution conjectures to explore design problems. To explore how these three approaches are deployed in practice, 21 architectural practitioners were interviewed. The findings show that the normative approach is used where practitioners have limited experience, the positive when handling complex sites, and the intuitive allows design processes to proceed when information is missing. The concept of co-evolution is expanded to show how the three approaches are inter-related; the approach utilised — normative, positive, or intuitive — affects the transition time, when switching back-and-forth between exploring design problems and potential solutions.