CONTEMPLATING CHANGE

Contemplating Change | Executing Transformation:

Psychological Constructs + Behavioural
Considerations in the Pursuit of Open Building
DR. BRIAN R. SINCLAIR
University of Calgary + sinclairstudio inc.

Architectural and urban design in our modern

ethos is ever more complex, driven in part
through
remarkable
advancements
in
technology,
in
part
through
escalating
regulatory demands, and in part by dramatic
shifts in demographics, expectations and
needs. Designers and developers of projects,
across a range of scales, struggle to ensure
relevancy, viability, potency and sustainability.
To achieve such ends the exploration and
application of Open Building theories and
practices proves increasingly important.
In
reaction to static and immutable conventional
environments
(e.g.,
interiors,
buildings,
landscapes, etc.) Open Building and Agile
Architecture methods foster a milieu of
flexibility, modularity, adaptability and change.
This vital notion of change has numerous
dimensions, including key qualities that take
account of the technical and the social. While
the vast majority of research efforts have
focused on scientific, technical and quantitative
characteristics of Open Building, the present
paper argues that the human, social and
qualitative attributes are equally critical.
In our quest for heightened mutability and
adaptability of environments it is essential to
consider change in a broader fashion. While
the technical capabilities of change in an
environment can be developed and realized,
such possibilities prove moot if the users of the
resultant space(s) are resistant to adjustment,
unwilling to take action, and reluctant to
transform. In other words, the provision of
flexibility in environments does not, de facto,

translate into environments that will be

modified by users.
Key to the equation of
greater mutability is not merely the ability of a
user to effect change, but more importantly
the willingness and desire to effect change. In
the present paper the author, an architect and
psychologist, critically considers the literature
on change as it pertains to human perception,
cognition and behavior. Theories drawn from
cognitive
and
organizational
psychology,
including research on states of change, are
imaginatively examined in light of Open
Building aspirations.
Building from the foundation of a Holistic
Framework for Design + Planning (see Sinclair,
2009 2010), and weaving in seminal research
on the psychology of change, this paper
envisions and delineates an approach whereby
designers more fully consider and deploy
knowledge of human behavior when pursuing,
crafting and constructing more flexible
environments.
While it is argued that
technological progress effecting Open Building
has been outstanding over recent decades, a
parallel awareness of human factors has been
lacking. In order for Agile Architecture to be
more fully accepted, embraced and executed it
is imperative that scientific, quantitative,
human and qualitative facets of projects be
examined, promoted and addressed in concert.
A building deemed green through a checklist
approach may fail if it is not enjoyed and
accepted by users. In a similar vein, a project
that embraces mutability and affords flexibility

on a technical level may fail if users are

incapable of acting, unwilling to consider, or
disinterested in realizing change. Cognitive
dissonance and psychological barriers, for
example, may impede a users readiness to
transform space. Moving Open Building and
Agile Architecture forward, in our current
times, demands intense attention to a broader
array of variables that, at the end of the day,
prove essential to heightened acceptance,
advancement and deployment.
Design
matters.
Technology matters. Above all,
however, people matter.

more flexible, far more adaptable, and far

more
accommodating
than
conventional
buildings and predictable interiors. Evoking a
Holistic Framework for Design & Planning
(Sinclair 2009), and considering advances in
Open
Building
(Sinclair,
Mousazadeh,
Safarzadeh, 2012), this paper critically
contemplates the status quo and imaginatively
charts new paths forward that advocate and
invocate enhanced, inventive and meaningful
Agility in Architecture. The complex notion of
change is examined from various vantage
points, including psychological.

Keywords: Open Building, Agile Architecture,

Psychology, Perception, Cognition, Behaviour,
Change, Adaptability, Flexibility, Integration,
Holism

SLOW, STAID AND STUCK IN THE STATUS

QUO

INTRODUCTION
Architecture over the past several centuries
has been defined by relatively rigid, static and
immutable approaches to the conception and
construction of form and space. Even with the
arrival of industrial and then information
technologies, many of the methods of building
design and production have been narrowly
prescribed and conservatively developed.
While there have been numerous attempts to
introduce more malleable and inter-connected
systems, they have often seen minimal uptake
and have resided at the periphery of the
profession and practice.
In the mid 20th
century some provocative designers and
unconventional thinkers, such as Kisho
Kurokawa, Cedric Price, Yona Friedman,
Gordon Pask and Constant Nieuwenhuys,
critically explored the need for greater
mutability of environments and encouraged
greater responsiveness to user needs, desires,
actions & activities.
Unfortunately their
progressive ideas were well ahead of the
capacity and readiness of their times. Today a
number of pioneering theoreticians and bold
practitioners are rekindling such innovative
agendas, with an understanding that modern
technology can now more effectively address
and support more interactive + symbiotic
relationships
between
environments
and
people. The present paper builds upon a series
of investigations and theories developed by the
author, with an overarching concern around
more holistic, integrated, responsive and
responsible ways to develop an Architecture of
the 21st Century. Such solutions must be far

A concern for greater flexibility in buildings

arose in the 1950s as a reaction against the
excesses of form-follows-function, which
argued that all parts of a building should be
determined by, and destined for, specific uses.
In practice, however, even if these uses could
be determined, no allowance was made for
new developments over time, yet
alone the changes of use that
happen in many buildings.
Richard Weston
Despite the pioneering image of architectural
practice being highly progressive and forward
thinking, in reality the vast majority of
buildings designed and constructed in the past
have been relatively conservative, arguably
conventional and, in the end, hugely difficult to
modify. Most buildings are constructed for
single purpose use for example an office, a
hospital, a school, a residence, etc.
The
architectural program for such structures is
usually tightly delineated in terms of spaces,
areas, arrangements and qualities. The nature
of the construction process, and especially in
North America, is best defined as incremental,
fragmented, and even inefficient. A wealth of
agents
and
players,
from
architects,
developers,
and
financiers
to
general
contractors, sub-trades and manufacturers, all
struggle to find their place, posturing and
timing within an overly complicated, perplexing
and long-established milieu. Factors such as
access to materials, availability of trades,
market pricing on structural systems, policies
& codes, and, of course, approval by
regulatory authorities all contribute to a
daunting modus operandi regarding the design
and delivery of Architecture.

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE

While historically design and construction

processes and products have been quite
routine, predictable and wasteful (e.g.,
massive contributions to landfills via the
building industry), recent concerns about the
state of the planet, the degradation of our
environments, and the significant damage
inflicted through erecting and operating the
built fabric of cities, have raised more than a
few flags. The rapid ascent of green and the
strong subscription to sustainability have put
designers and builders under intense scrutiny
with
regard
to
ethics,
values
and
responsibilities. The world is now more urban
than rural.
Populations in many nations
continue to burgeon. Our building stock is
aging with pressures to retrofit existing
buildings, and requirements to construct new
ones, simply remarkable. While many new
materials,
innovative
constructional
approaches and energy saving systems are
emerging, they tend to build upon commonly
accepted ways of seeing, thinking and acting
that is, despite emerging technologies and
novel tools, adherence to the status quo
remains severe. In light of the urgency around
climate change, resource limits and widespread
pollution (e.g., air, water, ground, light, noise,
etc.), it seems imperative to transcend the
status quo. In fact, considering the plethora of
variables
in
flux,
including
changing
demographics, shifting needs, intensity of
churn, etc. it is undeniable that the design and
construction sectors must undergo critical and
substantive transformations, including a total
reconsideration of means and ends around
human habitation and city building.
While serious attempts are underway, and
often good progress realized, around green
building mantras, methods and metrics (e.g.,
Leading in Energy + Environmental Design),
even they fall into quite predictable realms of
creating & operating. Certainly such systems
call for, and even reward, innovation and
ingenuity.
Some systems move beyond a
rather prescribed scheme to promote and
pursue
regenerative
buildings
and
communities. A key aspect that is missing,
however,
from
the
present
authors
perspective, is considerable and meaningful
adoption of agility in architecture. As long as
buildings
remain
slow
to
respond
to
technological possibilities, stuck in the confines
of convention, and staid in their ability to
accommodate shifting needs, our buildings will
remain a major part of the problem rather than

arising as prime players in a more sustainable

world.

QUEST FOR GREATER ADAPTABILITY

AND HEIGHTENED RESPONSIVITY
Technology is the answer
but what was the question?
Cedric Price
The 1960s were a significant period within the
annals of modern architecture, with many
theoreticians and practitioners filled with
enthusiasm of the modern age, equipped with
new materials & technologies, and ripe with
ideas on how to construct cities of the future
that would usher in harmony, happiness and
utopian lifestyles. The Japanese Metabolists,
for example, led by bold and brilliant thinkers
like Kisho Kurokawa, imagined cities where the
parts were in synergy, where the systems
intertwined, and where the lifelessness and the
static was swapped with the living and the
dynamic.
Leading figures such as Price,
Friedman, Pask and Nieuwenhuys denied the
shackles of the past and sought environments
that were fluid, flexible and responsive. Prices
Fun Palace, for example, proposed interiors
that could be reconfigured based on needs and
redeployed, by users, as demands shifted. It
was an era that considered the fantastical
opportunities for buildings to accommodate the
needs of users, versus the more typical (and
certainly so today) arrangements whereby
people are shoehorned into spaces (where they
must struggle to feel comfortable physically,
thermally, psychologically, etc.). The vision of
the day was spectacular that is, to create
cities, buildings and spaces that reacted to
needs in real time, that altered composition
based on conditions, and that pushed + pulled
according to expectations. While the concepts
were advanced and inspiring, the main
challenge was the serious lag in technology.
Simply put, the science and systems of the day
were not sophisticated enough to rise to the
occasion. Only now, in our present times, has
science and technology progressed to the point
where the thoughts & theories of these
architectural pioneers might be realized in built
form.
A relatively recent movement worth exploring
is Open Building. Open Building (OB), as an

evolving architectural methodology, allows our

buildings, similar to ecological systems, to shift
and adjust over time. Embedded flexibility
enables such buildings to adapt to different
circumstances and be mutable in terms of
systems upgrades and ongoing maintenance
(Kendall & Teicher) hence, in the larger
picture, they prove more resilient and less
wasteful. The adaptability in OB has become
possible through separating the structure or
support from the interior or infill -- in
essence ensuring that the systems in a
building are independent yet inter-related.
This innovative approach challenges the typical
entangled systems in conventional buildings
and provides much greater degrees of
flexibility. John Habraken introduced support
and infill as new categories among existing
levels in his theory of decision-making levels
in the built field. In this theory, Habraken
divides the built environment into different
aspects that have varying lifespans and across
which the decision-making and control is
delegated to different parties. In these various
environmental levels, users have the ultimate
control over the flexible interior or infill level
to adapt it to their own needs and desires. In
this system, support is the continuation of
urban fabric in the third dimension -- its longer
life-span and relative permanence supports
stability with respect to long term community
interests while infill accommodates change in
respect to individual preferences in the shorter,
more immediate, term.
Debatably Open Buildings evolution has been
more dedicated to the technical development
of support and infill; while the discussion over
the design, character and aesthetics of these
buildings have been largely overlooked. In a
previous paper, the author introduced the
notion of aesthetic flexibility (Safarzadeh,
Mousazadeh
&
Sinclair,
2011)
as
a
complementary concept to already established
notions of spatial flexibility and functional
flexibility. The notion of aesthetic flexibility,
as a novel dimension in Open Building theory,
holds promise to celebrate identity, foster
customization within the design equation, and
strengthen built outcomes. The idea of
aesthetic flexibility, in this sense, applies to
two different levels in the theory of decisionmaking levels. First, it applies to the infill,
which allows the users to adjust their interior
environment according to their changing
spatial needs but also modify it to reflect their
personal character, culture and aesthetic

preferences. Second, it applies to the faade of

the building, which interestingly lies between
the domain of community interest and
individual preference. Consideration of such
duality is arguably a crucial and innovative
step in the advancement of Open Building. The
concept
of
aesthetic
flexibility
further
positions itself within a broader understanding
of the design & construction milieu, including a
significant resonance with the notions of and
framework
for
Agile
Architecture
and
Integrated Design (Sinclair 2009, 2010).
While the author has researched and written
extensively on Open Building and Agile
Architecture, the focus has been (as it tends to
be in the field) overly concerned with the
physical outcomes of design and construction.
The following section of the present paper
introduces & highlights a model that moves
well beyond the physical realm to explore and
encourage other, equally vital, dimensions of
agility. This grounding is an important step
towards more fully understanding various
aspects of change that are essential to the
deployment, embrace and success of Open
Building.

AMPLIFYING AGILITY IN
ARCHITECTURE
Flexible buildings are intended to respond to
changing situations in their use, operation or
location. That is architecture that adapts,
rather than stagnates; transforms, rather than
restricts; is motive, rather than static;
interacts with its users, rather than inhibits.
Robert Kronenburg
Open Building and Agile Architecture have
been almost exclusively focused on the
tangible qualities of design and construction
perhaps best illustrated by attention to support
and infill.
The author, an architect and
psychologist, argues that other less tangible
parts of the equation now warrant our serious
attention from a research perspective, from a
testing viewpoint, and from an application
outlook. Moving beyond concentration on the
physical,
also
key
to
conceiving
and
constructing
more
flexible,
adaptable,
responsive and responsible architecture are
heightened
awareness
of
regulatory
considerations, individual concerns, and group
expectations.

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE

The proposed synergistic model for amplified

agility in architecture encompasses four areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Physical
Legal
Psychological
Sociological

Figure 1: Sinclair Multifaceted Model for Agility

Physical:
The
construction
of
agile
architecture
encourages great mutability and adjustability
across all realms of the building (and beyond).
Such flexibility includes not only moveable
walls, fixtures, and fittings, but also structure,
infrastructure and envelope.
As noted the
author has written extensively on the more
tangible aspects of agility, most recently
exploring the limits that the faade can be
dynamically configurable, and the unique roles
of the envelope as part of the building shell but
also part of the urban sphere. In this instance
many questions arise concerning opportunities
and obligations from both a private citizen and
public entity point of view. From a physical
perspective, the provision of changeable
components is tied to technical capacity.
However, as will be discussed later in the
paper, physical mutability is only one part of a
relatively rich equation equaling truly agile
architecture.
Legal:
There has been some research conducted,
within the academy as well as in practice,

concerning policy, code, statute and regulatory

dimensions of Open Building and Agile
Architecture.
Some of this work has
considered ownership questions, such as
support versus infill, government versus
citizen, etc. While such efforts are important
and influential, examination of prevailing legal
aspects and development of new systems of
regulation are crucial. Legal challenges will
need to be realized in order to push Open
Building to new levels, and especially so in
traditionally resistant markets (such as North
America). In order for buildings to be far more
responsive, and by extension responsible,
many established ways of working will need to
be overturned. A key pursuit in this regard is
towards performative rather than prescriptive
guidelines and measures.
Also urgent is
reform around litigation on the construction
field. In the authors view movement toward
greater agility, modularity, prefabrication and
systems approaches hold promise to reduce
building failures, heighten abilities for solving
problems (e.g., due to plug + play), and foster
more reasonable renewal of buildings (versus
the typical age-in-place story of decay, death
then landfill).
Undeniably this area of the
model will require assumption of risks. Exactly
how such risk is managed and exposures
limited remains to be explored.
When
considering the potential for change in
environments, a plethora of legal and
regulatory points quickly move to the forefront.
Due to the remarkable diversity of jurisdictions
and associated laws and guidelines in place,
the author argues that international model
guidelines be delineated for refinement,
customization and adoption at local levels.
Psychological:
Individual reaction, resistance or acceptance to
change within Agile Architecture is a topic that
has seen virtually no serious and scholarly
consideration. The author, as a psychologist,
has begun to study concepts of change,
including cognitive and behavioral aspects of
living and working in mutable environments.
The simple fact of providing the ability of a
space to change (even if its straightforward
and effortless) does not translate into spaces
that will actually be changed by users. There
are many variables that must be considered,
including personality, knowledge of systems,
understanding of implications, levels of comfort
(physiological, mental, cultural, etc.), and
willingness to act. Historically in buildings

limited control has been afforded to end users.

Environmental systems have been centrally
driven.
Windows have not always been
operable. Lighting is typically predetermined.
So, when the environment shifts from highly
regulated and rigid to highly adjustable and
dynamic it is difficult to determine how people
will respond.
This realm of inquiry is a
significant focus for the author, with an
awareness that all aspects of the present
model need to be advanced in unison if agile
architecture is to see wider deployment and
more meaningful embrace. The psychological
dimensions of change will be reviewed, in an
initial yet broad manner, in a subsequent
section of the present paper.
Sociological:
Lastly, it is critical that architects and
researchers
grasp
the
relationships,
perceptions and expectations at play at a
broader community level (e.g., the residents of
a building, the members of a community, the
politicians on a council, etc.).
Better
understanding
of
the
group
dynamics,
including reaction to agility, resistance to
change, willingness to pioneer, etc. proves
essential to the successful introduction of more
agile architecture. At a sociological level a
given community must be able to overcome
fears and to seize the novel, untried and
untested if consequential change is to occur.
We have witnessed impressive cultural swings
as society has become more cognizant of the
seriousness and significance of global warming.
A similar renaissance must occur in the way we
conceive of and construct buildings. Rather
than fixed objects that deliver service over a
set period then see demolition, buildings must
be seen as living, dynamic and mutable
entitles that can be assembled, reconfigured,
upsized,
downsized,
repurposed
then
disassembled (e.g., for recycling and/or reuse
in subsequent projects). This dramatic shift in
mindset will be especially difficult to realize in
North America, due in large measure to a very
entrenched, complicated and conservative
modus operandi.

INITIAL THOUGHTS, CONCERNS AND

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF CHANGE
Cognitive dissonance happens when actions
are inconsistent with beliefs. It is commonly

believed that there are two ways to reduce this

dissonance: by changing behaviors
and by changing beliefs.
Matthew Rabin
As was previously noted, the physical ability of
a space, form or surface to change does not
immediately equate to agile architecture.
Simply because a wall can be moved by a user
does not mean it will be moved.
In any
architectural proposition the central concern,
and indeed the quality that enlarges the
pursuit from fine art to also embrace social
aspects, is people. We design buildings and
their spaces for people to use. User needs are
a fundamental driver of architectural program,
of architectural design and of ongoing facility
operations and maintenance. Given the core
positioning of building users it is vital that
architects, as they pursue Open Building and
heightened mutability, clearly understand
psychological qualities, including peoples
attitudes and actions around change.
It is worth noting that generally in design
education, and many schools of architecture,
include little or no curriculum addressing
psychology,
architectural
programming,
hierarchies of needs, and environment &
behavior studies.
To the contrary, many
design schools are increasingly obsessed with
the commodification of architecture and an
obsession with building as object (sculptural
statement versus container for living).
If
architects, and the architectural profession, are
to embrace agility as a goal and deploy Open
Building as a strategy, then architectural
education will need to review and revise
curricula accordingly.
Most pressing is the
need for designers to clearly grasp the fears,
opportunities, obstacles and potential of users
concerning greater adaptability, mutability and
change. Also crucial, in terms of knowledge
and skills of practicing architects (and by
extension
students of architecture
and
architectural educators) pertains to research.
In order to design more respectfully and
responsively architects must know how to
conduct research, how to attain the products of
research (i.e., literature and knowledge base)
and how to apply findings moving forward (i.e.,
to raise the quality of output, to reach new
markets, and to strengthen and adapt to
current markets).
When we consider the psychology of change, in
order to better understand the possibilities of

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE

Open Building, we need to look closely at

human behavior. Understanding behavior is
fundamental to understanding behavioral &
environmental change.
In terms of agile
architecture, if we create interiors that are
mutable
or
exteriors
that
users
can
manipulate, how do we know they can and will
effect change? What steps do we as designers
need to take to ensure users are aware of the
qualities, limits and implications of changing a
space or surface? Change can be empowering
or intimidating, so we need to be empathetic
concerning how users might react to
environments we design and freedoms we
afford.
What obligations do we have, as
designers, to effectively predict behaviors of
users in our spaces and buildings? What does
the research tell us about the nature of human
behavior and are we ethically obliged to seek
out the knowledge that can make our projects
more successful not only on artistic and
physical terms but also on psychological and
even spiritual terms?
These questions are
difficult to tackle yet vital to any equation for
success in terms of fostering much more agile
architecture of the 21st century.
When we provide the ability to change
environments, even in modest and simple
ways, often minimal change happens over
time. In some cases, for example with Kisho
Kurokawas Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo,
the technology lagged far behind the thinking
which meant that even though change might
have been possible it was so daunting from a
technical perspective that it seldom or never
happened. This is the case of a technical
obstacle limiting change.
In some ways
technical issues are relatively straightforward
to understand and at times easy to solve. The
psychology of change, however, is often very
complex to grasp and very difficult to alter.

Figure 2: Nagakin Capsule Tower, Ginza Tokyo by

Kisho Kurokawa. (photograph brian r. sinclair)

Related to change are habits those engrained

behaviors that are deeply shaped through
routine and repetition. It is human nature to
become comfortable with actions we have
encountered, trust and understand. While at
the onset of the behavior we may experience
apprehension, confusion and anxiety, the more
we gain experience the more comfort we
realize. As we all know, habits are hard to
break. Heimlich and Ardoin (2008) note that
Most behaviors are learned habits which are
carried out sequentially through routines,
therefore in order to change a behavior it is
the routine that should be altered as opposed
to the actual behavior itself.
The act of
inhabitation is, of course, ripe with engrained
and routinized behaviors or habits. When we
introduce maneuverability and mutability into
such realms, however well intentioned the
offer may be, it often causes concern,
discomfort and even fear. Breaking habits is
difficult, as is learning new actions.
It is interesting to consider the fear that can
arise when we confront change. The fear is
generally of the unknown of shifting
directions from the proven and known to the
untried and unfamiliar. In light of anticipated
or experienced anxiety we often raise

resistance.
For designers considering the
introduction
of
more
mutability
into
environments it is helpful to understand
resistance to change. Oreg (2006), noted that
resistance can be understood as a negative
attitude towards change comprised of the
three dimensions of affective, behavioral and
cognitive. The affective component refers to
an individuals feelings regarding the change,
the behavioral refers to actions and intentions
responding to the change, and the cognitive
component refers to what the individual thinks
of the change. To consider these dimensions
from a design perspective, the architect needs
to strive to grasp how a user might feel about
a proposed level of flexibility, how they might
act when faced with executing a change, and
how they might think of this feature of their
dwelling or workplace. While it can be argued
that providing choice is generally positive, it is
important for the designer to comprehend the
real implications, both positive and negative, of
heightened choice. With no choices users can
experience a condition known as learned
helplessness whereby users give up efforts to
impact the environment due to its futility. On
the other hand, truly flexible environments
remain quite novel and generally untested. It
is likely the case that too much openendedness may cause anxiety, fear and
resistance. The architect needs to find the
most appropriate path, and balanced solution,
based on evidence (i.e., existing literature), on
research (i.e., with the actual user groups for a
given project), and on professional judgment
(which, in the authors view, by necessity must
include serious attention to local knowledge,
user desires, etc.).
It is useful to consider resistance to change in
greater detail. With a growing interest and
application of flexibility in architecture comes
increasing responsibility for architects to
understand the mindset of users of these novel
environments. Oreg (2003) notes six main
sources of resistance to change, all driven to
varying degrees by individual personality
traits:
1. Reluctance to lose control; 2.
Cognitive rigidity (i.e., close-mindedness); 3.
Lack of psychological resilience (i.e., inability
to cope with stress); 4. Intolerance to required
adjustment period; 5. Preference for low levels
of novelty and stimulation; and, 6. Reluctance
to give up old habits (i.e., familiarity breeds
comfort). If architects are aware of such
factors contributing to resistance to change
they have a better chance of creating and

constructing environments that are sensitive,

facilitating and accessible.
It is instructive to examine processes and
stages involved in realizing change. Much of
the research into change processes arises from
the health and wellness areas, including health
behavior
and
organizational
change
management. Prochaska and Velicer (1997)
developed a Transtheoretical Model of Change
that clearly delineates sequential phases
encountered in the act of change. They outline
the following six stages: 1. Precontemplation
(not
yet
intending
to
change);
2.
Contemplation (becoming aware that change
may be needed); 3. Preparation (plan of
action); 4. Action (executing behavior); 5.
Maintenance; and, 6. Relapse (return to any
stage is possible). These stages make sense
when we consider the act of altering ones
environment.
If, for example, an architect
provides a homeowner with the ability to move
a wall, these steps would be typical. The final
stage, relapse, may be encountered if the act
of change is deemed to be too difficult, too
time consuming, too costly, etc. As we pursue
greater levels of agility in our environments,
within buildings, on facades and in the
landscape it is prudent to understand these
stages of change so that we can develop
solutions that might find resonance and not
resistance with end users.
Returning
to
the
notion
of
learned
helplessness, it is crucial for architects to
comprehend the pros and cons of control,
flexibility and accessibility in design. More is
not always best in fact it could be argued
that the search for an optimal balance is
paramount. When there is no control over the
environment the users often give up efforts
and encounter a state of apathy.
This
phenomenon is often seen in nursing homes
and other highly controlled ethos. While there
are clearly environments where greater control
is necessary, in most environments some level
of user choice and empowerment is healthy
and important.
Webb and Sheeran (2006)
noted that The perception of having personal
control over behavioral performance is a key
factor in the intent to successfully engage in a
particular behavior. However, to perform an
intended behavior, an individual must have
actual control over the behavior, not just a
perception of control.
In other words,
creating environments that appear to afford
choice proves insufficient users must be able

CONTEMPLATING CHANGE

to execute intentions and move beyond

perception to reality.
For the purposes of
design the challenge is finding the appropriate
point of balance in the solution fixed versus
flexible elements and environments. As with
all architectural problems, the culture, context
and conditions will demand unique and
customized solutions. A part of professional
training and development should prepare
architects to deal with this increasing call for
heightened mutability as a key ingredient of a
more sustainable world.
A final point on the psychology of change
pertains to the role of reason in decision
making and attitudes of end users.
If
environments provide flexibility to users, the
extent to which environments may be changed
is significantly influenced by reasoning.
Madden, Scholder and Icek (1992) proposed a
Theory of Reasoned Action. In their model
they suggest that an individuals willingness to
engage in a given behavior is primarily
affected by behavioral intent. The aforesaid
researchers note that The intent to perform is
based upon two factors: 1. Attitude, which is
based beliefs about the outcome of a behavior,
and 2. Subjective norms, which relate to how
other people perceive the behavior and what
the outcome should be.
In the present
researchers model sociological aspects were
noted as important. While the present paper is
most concerned with the personal psychology
of change, the notion of Reasoned Action does
highlight the impact that groups can have on
the realm of change.
If contemporary
buildings are afforded higher levels of agility,
having all the users in a given building
understand, support and exercise choice seems
especially strategic. Peer pressure and peer
support provide incentives for tackling change
in buildings.

FLEXIBILITY, MANEUVERABILITY &

CHANGE ACROSS FOUR DIMENSIONS
People are very open-minded about
new things - as long as they're
exactly like the old ones.
Charles Kettering
There is little doubt that architects and
contractors must find new and more effective
ways of seeing, thinking and acting. The days
of buildings moving from the downtown to the
dump are all but over.
While renovating

existing buildings will be a reality, it seems

imperative that we entirely reimagine how we
create and operate new buildings. Rather than
continuing with the status quo with the
erection of rigid and immutable structures
we must push hard to envision and assemble
remarkable dynamic, vibrant, robust, resilient
and agile architecture.
It is an ethical
imperative for the building industry to not only
do no harm, but to go well beyond this benign
posturing to assume ownership of more
regenerative, positive and inspiring outcomes.
The present paper has developed and
delineated a synergistic model for advancing
the cause of Agile Architecture at a global
level.

Figure 3.
Artist Yuki Sinclair, Architect Kisho
Kurosawa and the Author. Tokyo, Japan.

This paper has also strayed into the largely

uncharted realm of the psychology of change.
As architects design increasingly adaptable and
mutable environments, users must be able to
cope and manage with such novel spaces and
places. Rather than having architects blindly
assume they as design professionals know
best, the author argues that serious research is
warranted in various realms of change,
including psychological and sociological. The
main emphasis in the present work was on
personal and psychological responses to
change, with a broad overview presented
concerning some prevailing theories and
germane research. There is a great need for
more research into all areas described in the
authors
model,
including
Physical,
Psychological,
Sociological
and
Legal
dimensions.
Of these four realms the
Psychological may indeed be the most complex
and the most pressing. It is also arguably the
most neglected, in part owing to its very
intricate nature and the intense diversity of

10

people, conditions and responses. In pursuing

and developing the facets and further aspects
of this work the author acknowledges the need
to critically consider and explore how the
proposed model might best relate and
correspond to the design, construction and
occupation of real projects. To this end it will
be important to seek a better understanding of
the logic, levels and locations of change &
control realizing that open buildings and agile
environments call for new ways of envisioning,
shaping and interacting with the world.
Finding the appropriate balance that advances
design, fosters happiness, promotes variability,
and ensures sustainability seems key.
In order to realize progress towards more
responsive and responsible architecture -architecture truly of the 21st century -academics,
architects,
constructors,
consumers, politicians and the public need to
imagine, create and propel a shared and
innovative vision for more agile, open and
sustainable environments. To do otherwise
to turn a blind eye and perpetuate the
untenable status quo -- seems economically
unreasonable, socially unsound and ethically
unacceptable. If we are to realize truly agile
architecture then the design approach must be
remarkably thoughtful, intensely responsive,
undeniably responsible and highly performing.
Holism, integration, interdisciplinarity and
professionalism all factor significantly into any
equation for success.
ENDNOTES
Habraken, John. 1994: Cultivating the field: about
an attitude when making architecture. Places 9, 8-21
Heimlich, Joe E., and Nicole M. Ardoin.
Understanding behavior to understand behavior
change: a literature review Environmental Education
Research, 14 (2008): 215-237.

Oreg, Shaul. Resistance to Change: Developing an

Individual Differences Measure, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (2003): 680-693.
Oreg, Shaul. Personality, context, and resistance to
organizational change, European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15 (2006): 73-101.
Price, Cedric. Re:CP. Edited by Hans Ulrich Obrist.
Basel: Birkhauser. 2003.
Prochaska, James O., and Wayne F. Velicer. The
Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change,
American Journal of Health Promotion, 12 (1997):
38-48.
Rabin, Matthew. Cognitive dissonance and social
change, Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 23 (1994): 177-194.
Safarzadeh, G., Mousazadeh S., and B.R. Sinclair.
2011: Exploring Connectivity + Seeking Integration:
A Framework for Heightened Agility + Adaptability.
Proceedings of the Joint Conference of CIB W104
(Open Building Implementation) + W110 (Informal
Settlements & Affordable Housing) in Boston, pp 9299.
Sinclair, Brian R. 2009: Culture, Context and the
Pursuit of Sustainability: Contemplating Problems,
Parameters and Possibilities in an Increasingly
Complex World. Planning for Higher Education: The
Journal of the Society for College and University
Planning 38 (1).
Sinclair, Brian R. 2010: A Synopsis of the Invited
Inaugural Lecture in the Sustainable Lecture Series.
Zayed University, Abu Dhabi: Responsible Urbanism
Research Lab (RURL).
Sinclair, Brian R. 2012: Flexible | Adaptable |
Accommodating: Advocating + Invocating Amplified
Agility in Architecture. 5th Intl Symposium on
Architecture of the 21st Century: In Search of New
Paradigms. Baden, Germany.

Kendall, Stephen and Jonathan Teicher. 2000.

Residential Open Building. New York: E & FN Spon.

Webb, Thomas L., and Paschal Sheeran. Does

Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior
Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental
Evidence Psychological Bulletin, 132 (2006): 249268.

Kronenburg, Robert. Flexible: Architecture that

Responds to Change. London: Lawrence King
Publishing Ltd. 2007.

Weston, Richard. 100 Ideas that Changed

Architecture. London: Lawrence King Publishing Ltd.
2011

Madden, Thomas J., Scholder Ellen, Pamela, and

Icek Azjen. A Comparison of the Theory of Planned
Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18
(1992): 3-9.

Note:
photographs & diagrams by dr. brian r. sinclair
reproduction with permission only | 2012