Resilient Environments Vs. Resilient Architects: Creativity, Practice and Education

AbstractWithin the paradigm of “Resilient Built-environments”, in order for Architecture to be resilient, “Resilience” should be identified as an essential component of the Architect’s notion of creativity. In much simpler terms, “Resilient Built-Environment” should necessarily be a by-product of the “Resilient Architect”. The inherent influence of individualistic notions of creativity upon the practice had intensified the dichotomy between Theory and Practice, unless the notion of “Resilience” is identified as an integral component of the Architect’s notion of creativity. Analyzing the architectural position is an ideal way of understanding the Architect’s notion of creativity, therefore, in exploring the notion of “Resilience” and the “Resilient Architect” within the Sri Lankan platform, the Architectural Positions of two renowned Architects; Geoffrey Bawa and Valentine Gunasekara were explored and analyzed. The Architectural Positions of both the architects asserted specific rules and methodologies adopted within the process of problem solving that had subsequently led to a traceable language/pattern within their Architecture. The dominance of such rules within the practice could be detrimental to adaptation of theories/notions, such as “Resilience” and the formation of the “Resilient Architect”, unless methodologies itself are flexible, robust, despite rigidity, or else the notion of “Resilience” should exist in the form of a methodological rule.

Keywords – resilience; theory; practice; creativity; architectural – position

Yashodha Perera1, Milinda Pathiraja2
Department of Architecture
University of Moratuwa Katubedda,
Sri Lanka



“Sustainability”, casted in the crucible of ecology, remained the ‘protagonist’ within the integral political movement concerned with the protection of the environment, for the past 45 years or more. It taught us all about Reduce, Reuse, Re-Cycle,
Up-Cycle, and many other theories and conceptions throughout the decades, and presently, with the consolidation of the concept of “Adaptability” into the sustainable movement, the epithet of the “protagonist” is shifted from sustainability to the notion of “Resilience”, within the realm of architecture, thus, The Resilient-Built Environment.

Despite these repeated plays of words, concepts and positions, very little or no credible application of these theorems can be seen in regions where such interventions are mostly relevant and required: the so-called economically developing parts of the world. Over the past few decades, countries commonly attributed as developing economies have experienced drastic increases in population numbers, subsequent expansion to their urban realm, proliferation of informal labour markets, compartmentalization of wealth, and an unprecedented rise in environmental disasters – from floods and landslides to typhoons and Tsunamis. Sri Lanka is no exception. The human, physical and environmental costs of such devastations have been magnanimous in scale and atrocious in impact. Yet, the response from professional spheres – particularly architects – towards finding credible solutions to these burning challenges of our times has been far from the ideal. This begs the question whether the real problem lies in our inability to formulate strategies, theories and frameworks to ‘resist’ the environmental – and social – degradation, or in the confines of the way design thinking, approaches and ethos are cultivated and executed within the practice of architecture despite of the understanding and acknowledgement of the need to apply aforementioned theorems in real-world conditions.


In order to explore this apparent distance between the ‘theory of resilience’ and the ‘practice of resilience’, one must first inquire the etymological meanings, which scaffold this inflating discourse on ‘Resilient Environments’.

The scientific definition of Resilience explains it as ‘the ability of a substance or object to spring back into shape; elasticity or the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; or toughness’. Therefore, the interpretation of the notion of Resilience within the realm of Architecture is imperative to the distinction of definitive parameters of relevance.

As the director of Built Environment Policy at AIA, Rachel Minnery [1] says:

In our effort to be more resilient as individuals, families, businesses, and communities, architects will need to carefully plan buildings, select products, and design systems that are easily adaptable to changing needs, holistic in acknowledging adjacencies and regional impacts, and finally see the environment as their client inasmuch as they see their paying patron as their client.

According to Minnery’s above position, “Resilience to Adaptation” approach avoids the exploitation of the notion of ‘Resilience’, in its sheer conception and eliminates possibilities of becoming one of pure idealism within the realm of the Built Environment, with its interpretation under the parameters of “Adaptability”. Thus, in both theoretical and practical premises, “Resilience” could be conceived as the particular attribute of a built environment that sustains, withstands pressure; stresses and forces, most essentially, through adaptation.

Such reflections on the notion of Resilient Built Environments promote – Adaptability as an in-built, invisible armour as opposed to exposure and vulnerability.

Elasticity /Flexibility, Graceful adaptation are amongst imperative connotations that convey the same idea as the notion of “Adaptability”. In a similar perspective, these connotations could be identified, explored and utilized as essential design principles within the creation of the Resilient Design, thus, the formation of “Resilient Built Environments.

A. Resilience as Resolution

Within the realm of Architecture, concept of adaptability inherently holds the notion of Resilience accountable to its entire outer construction; social, cultural, economic, environmental surrounding, in much simpler terms, the very ground it stands upon. The resilient Design is one that is responsive towards social, cultural, economic, environmental and technical problems, pressures and limitations, similarly, in a slightly diverse perspective, one that holds the capacity; necessary to
‘adapt’ to various pressures, limitations and possibilities of the built environment, without compromising its expected performance, neither socially nor economically, environmentally or technologically.

Thus, the Resilient Built Environment transpires as a Resolution, which is robust and flexible; well rooted to its ground and to the entire outer construction, sustaining itself through the certainty of ‘Change and Transformation’. Resilience articulates the danger of solving problems in isolation. The inclusion and consideration of important social, cultural, economic, environmental and technical factors of the outer construction is imperative to the creation of the Resilient Design.

Resilient design strives for environmental, social, and economic sustainability with the ability to adapt to known and unknown risks and vulnerabilities. [1]


What cannot be grasped often transcends into the oblivion, in the eyes of the humans, and remains oblivious. Unless, the Oblivion, is of wholesomeness and clarity, as believed by famous English author and poet, Richard Le Gallienne; a state which exemplifies the beginning of wisdom. Oblivion in that sense is a virtue to be nurtured, often visited and cultivated by creators. On the contrary, Oblivion formed as a consequence of the continuous “obliviousness” towards entities that cannot be grasped or comprehended, becomes more of a comfort zone for the creator, thus, confining him to a specific set of rules and procedures. Seldom, will the creator put an effort to tread beyond these self-incarcerations and confinements. Such Rigidity is detrimental to creativity and nevertheless hinders the formation and growth of the perceptive, resilient creator – within the architectural discourse, The Resilient Architect.

With time, the materialization of an sensitive, fragile and a non-resilient creator is transpired, feeding himself the vital truism of the obvious, pushing himself, more and more, towards the oblivion, thus, distancing and detaching himself, from the realities of the entire outer construction, which is the very ground he stands upon and the environment that surrounds him. In such circumstances, the tendency of the resultant creations to be robust, ability to withstand pressure and gracefully adapt to change is comparatively low, effectively contributing to the existence of sensitive, fragile, and non-Resilient Built Environments.

In his seminal book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Robert Venturi [2] raises similar concerns about architecture being increasingly excluded from the complexity, experiences and needs of the environment that surrounds it.

Rationalizations for simplification are still current, however, though subtler than the early arguments. They are expansions of Mies van der Rohe’s magnificent paradox, “less is more.” Paul Rudolph has clearly stated the implications of Mies’ point of view: “All problems can never be solved…. Indeed it is a characteristic of the twentieth century that architects are highly selective in determining which problems they want to solve. Mies, for instance, makes wonderful buildings only because he ignores many aspects of a building. If he solved more problems, his buildings would be far less potent”” The doctrine “less is more” bemoans complexity and justifies exclusion for expressive purposes. It does, indeed, permit the architect to be “highly selective in determining which problems [he wants] to solve.” But if the architect must be “committed to his particular way of seeing the universe,” such a commitment surely means that the architect determines how problems should be solved, not that he can determine which of the problems he will solve.

Architects being highly selective in determining which problems to solve is a clear indication of the obliviousness towards certain problems and their extreme comfort within a particular compass, thus, the reluctance to explore and venture into diverse platforms within the realm of architecture.

Venturi’s arguments confer upon an autopoietic nature of the architects relentlessly attempting to maintain identity and organization.

Through his text, he claims that architects being committed to a particular way of seeing the universe – Own Position/Notion of creativity is deterministic of how problems should be solved – the way of problem solving but should not be deterministic of which problems will be solved. While justifying the former, Venturi criticizes the latter for separating architecture from the experience of life and the needs of society.

Thus, the question arises if being oblivious to certain problems and being deterministic of which problems to be solved is also a part of an architect’s “particular way of seeing the universe – Notion of creativity” as well.

Autopoiesis Theory offers an intelligible answer within its explanation upon Autopoietic closure in living systems, in a similarly but a slightly diverse perspective. As conferred by Wolfgang Jonas [3]:

Autopoiesis characterises the self-referential logic of self- (reproducing) systems… living systems are organizationally closed, i.e. without any input or output of control information. Operations only refer to themselves and the system’s internal states… A system cannot enter into interactions that are not specified in the pattern of relations that define its organization. In the sense, the system’s environment is a part of itself. The theory of autopoiesis thus admits that systems can be recognized as having “environments” but insists that relations with are internally determined; systems can only evolve only along with self-generated paths.

Venturi’s explanation on the impact of Architect’s commitment to a particular way of seeing the universe upon the determination of the way of problem solving and the enlightenment offered by the concept of Autopoietic closure in regard to the living systems’ relations with the environment are internally determined and that systems could only evolve along self-generated paths, though two diverse knowledge sources, both accentuate upon the dominance of the ‘Individual Characteristic” of the creator.


While the common logic and rationale is derived out of consciousness, most ideas that occur as insights or inspiration in the mental faculty are left aside without robust reasoning for their occurrences and existence. “Hardcore” is the core of an individual which has a direct influence upon all ideas, decisions and actions of a person. Derived of consciousness or unconsciousness, the hardcore has a saying upon each action of the creative process.

The hardcore includes of all basic codes that is connected and related in a particular way or pattern in the construction of self.

What we essentially pick up from the external/outer construction, from what surrounds us are highly influenced and affected by the hardcore. What is oblivious and what will be retrieved by the individual from capturing are the ones that do not relate to his hardcore. Same phenomenon is conferred within the concept of autopoietic closure in living systems as ‘relations with the environment are internally determined’, in other terms, ‘The Hardcore’. These specific relations/matters will not have specific codes in the hardcore of an individual, hence, will not be a part of the internal construction, thus forms, what Venturi confers upon as “the particular way of seeing the universe”.


An architect develops his notion of creativity over a long period of time with practice. In most instances, the creations of an architect depict a particular approach or a certain way of achieving creativity, which will be eventually recognized as one’s personal style or identity within the field of architecture. This steady and established way of achieving creativity is explained as the architectural position of an architect and the position has a direct connection with the hardcore of the architect.

Thus, the principles, the rules, the ways and patterns of achieving creativity would be essentially based upon the hardcore as well. Therefore, the architectural position would be an ideal way to observe and analyze an architect’s notion of creativity.

British Architect and Teacher, Royston Landau explaining the architectural position,

“A position can result from different theoretical perspectives, but also from different disciplines (psychology, philosophy of mind, epistemology etc.). Of key importance are the concepts of belief, intention and action, out of which I have given most attention to the problem of what produces action, while being aware that beliefs and intentions are evident in the action.” [4]


Explaining the position of an architect, Royston Landau diverts his interest and attention to the intellectual component that are being transmitted and converted into actions. He further emphasizes the subjective and personal nature of the matter by referring to it as ‘Individual action’. These individual actions are the source of a programme, thus “The programme of action”. According to Landau, this programme of action is what eventually constitutes the position of an architect as well.

In his paper on British Architecture; The Culture of Architecture: A Histography of the Current Discourse, Landau introduces Imre Lakatos, A Hungarian philosopher of mathematics and science, who proposed a logical framework for the concept of programme. Though he used this framework within the domain of science and scientific knowledge, Landau had successfully applied it into the domain of Architecture, for the position analysis of architects.

Moving ahead, Lakatos’s programme is of two key components:

  • Hardcore
  • Heuristics
A. Hardcore (The Heart of the Programme)

The hardcore of the programme of actions, also known as the heart of the programme, differs from the Hardcore of the creative individual. At this instance, the reader is confronted with two types of Hardcore, where one represents the Hardcore of the creative individual (the big “H”) and the other represents the Hardcore of the programme.

The Hardcore of the programme (the little “H”), are the beliefs and intentions which are most critical to the programme that rejecting those means abandoning the programme and thus commencing a new investigation.

Ever since all actions, beliefs and intentions of the creative individual is rooted and based upon the Hardcore, it would be accurate in hypothesizing that the little “H” is a byproduct of the big “H”.

B. Heuristics (The Methodological Rules)

The heuristics are the other key component of the programme of action. Lakatos explains the heuristics as the methodological rules and introduces the two classes of heuristics:

  • Positive heuristic
  • Negative Heuristic


1)   Positive Heuristics

Positive Heuristics depicts the operational rules of the programme of action.

The necessary operational strategies in design will steer the wheel to the expected direction and guide a designer to focus on a particular approach that is true to his or her belief system( The hardcore or the big “H”), thereby overcoming the diversity of irrelevant possibilities.

As explained by Landau [4], the positive heuristics are the rules of the programme that contribute to the establishment of a formal language, peculiar and distinctive of the architect. The formal language will be a clear depiction of the architect’s notion of creativity, thus the architectural position.

2)   Negative Heuristics

Whilst the positive heuristics avoid all irrelevant possibilities and leaves the designer with the operational rules that aid in guiding the programme to the expected outcome, the negative heuristics instruct the designer, never to tamper with the Hardcore (the little “H”). As explained by Landau [4], tampering the Hardcore means abandoning the programme.

The influence of methodological rules of an Architect’s Programme of Action upon his Architectural Response is depicted below in (Fig. 1).

Figure1. Analytical Method of Architectural Response

Figure1. Analytical Method of Architectural Response

C. Heuristics Resilience

In correlation to the key theoretical premise, ‘Resilience to Adaptability’, question arises, if the formation of Heuristics; Positive and Negative as pre-determined rules within the programme of action, inherently oblivious to multiplicity, may regulate and restrict ‘Adaptability’. Unless, these specific pre- determined rules are Resilient; flexible, adaptable and robust, works in favour of enhancing multiplicity, providing the architect with adequate ammunition in adopting new ways of problem solving and practicing across a variety of platforms.


According to Venturi [2], unless “Resilience” falls under

‘the particular way of seeing the universe’, in other terms, as an essential component of the Hardcore and the notion of creativity, or as the autopoietic theory confers, If not ‘internally determined’,  Positive  Heuristics  or     pre-determined  rules becoming flexible, adaptable and robust is an impossible scenario.

But then, the question arises, can rules ever become flexible? Aren’t they inherently rigid? Within the architectural discourse, the formation of heuristics cannot be completely disregarded, as heuristics form the programme of action, thus the analysis of an architect’s architectural position had become a possibility, offering a substantial scientific means of exploring the notion of creativity of the architect as a creative individual.

Therefore, it  would be accurate to  state that  within the paradigm of “Resilient Built-environments”, in order for Architecture to be resilient, “Resilience” should be identified as an essential component of the Hardcore, Architect’s notion of creativity.




Once the notion of “Resilience” becomes an integral component of the Architect’s notion of creativity, it will inevitably become an intrinsic, inherent constituent of his way of problem solving, making its way to the architect’s programme of action/Architectural Position. Thus, the formation of Resilience as an “Architectural Response”.

The key argument formulated within the first phase of the conversation connotes ‘Resilience’ to ‘Adaptability’ as a principle approach to be utilized within the creation of the resilient design. Drawing the connection, ‘Resilience’ as an integral  component of  the  ‘notion  of  creativity’,  invariably implies the  need  for  Adaptable thinking for ‘creativity’. In similar terms, it evokes the need for ‘Adaptable ways of seeing’, inherently resulting in ‘Adaptable ways of problem solving’, which in-turn defines the creator’s notion of creativity.




Distressed by the atrocities of environmental disasters, the present moment critically demands architects to find credible resolutions for the real-world conditions, than ever before.

Though the prerequisite is such, the individualistic notions of creativity, architectural positions, formulation of Positive Heuristics within the architect’s programme of actions, seem to over-power the demand for the formulation of ‘resilience’ as an architectural response. These two propositions are certainly at a

crossroads, pulling themselves at opposite directions, at the same time, in which, the heuristics of the architect’s programme of action struggles to prevent the ocean of anomalies and never to tamper with the “Little ‘H’” – Hardcore- The Heart of the Programme, thus, making the architect oblivious to the notion of resilience, as an anomaly, preventing the formulation of theorems and frameworks that “resist’ environmental – and social – degradation.

As conferred within the introduction, the above phenomenon could be the reason that heightens the inability of the architects in formulating the notion of resilience as an architectural response, confines Design thinking and promotes the cultivation and  execution of  architectural  ethos  within  the  practice  of architecture that are oblivious to the demand for credible resolutions for the real-world conditions.




These conditions could not get more real than it is at the present moment for the developing economies due to economic instability and limited access to precautions and resources -in comparison with the developed countries. Sri Lanka, holds no exception, positioning itself under the category of developing economies.  As  conferred  within  the  introduction itself,  the recent floods, landslides, and the Tsunami occurred few years ago provides adequate precedents to consider the notion of “resilience” as an architectural response within the Sri Lankan architectural platform, specifically within the practice of architecture, as theories had already been established decades back, yet, the practice remains incapable of providing architectural resolutions that “resist”.




In exploring the over-powering nature of Heuristics within the architect’s programme of action; essentially Positive Heuristics as operational rules that contribute to the establishment of a formal language, the concept of stylistic consistency within Sri Lankan platform, the Architectural Positions of two  renowned architects of the  field  Architect Geoffrey Bawa and Architect Valentine Gunasekara were analysed. The analysis will be explanatory of two diverse ways of achieving creativity, diverse architectural positions and thus two diverse notions of creativity.


Ordering of space and form – and their subsequent tectonic and social manifestation – comprise the fundamental vocabulary of an architectural design program. More specifically, spatial ordering, technological definition and social response can be considered as  the  three  critical  areas,  which  determine  the morphological organization of architectural form and space. Moving from the above hypothesis, the study had used three areas of compositional analysis in evaluating the specific architectural programs of the selected practitioners.


  • Ordering systems: plan, section, elevation
  • Mass and trabeation: the tectonic organization
  • Real and virtual: broader social obligations


Ever since, the purpose is to explore the over-powering individualistic notions upon creativity within the practice of architecture that obscures the ability of the architect to create architecture that ‘resist’ and formulate the notion of resilience as

an architectural response, the architectural positions of the above two architects would be explored through the analysis of their traceable stylistic consistency within the programme of actions. The case study analysis depicted below will only confer only upon the Positive Heuristics (as a manifestation of the stylistic consistency/formal language), under the two areas of Ordering systems and Mass and Trabeation.


A. Ordering Systems: Plan, Section, Elevation


This concerns with elements – and principles – that serve the organization of the building’s spatial layout and formal volumes. These ordering principles can be seen as visual devices that allow diverse forms and spaces of a building to co-exist perceptually and conceptually within an ordered and unified whole.


The manner in which spaces are arranged can clarify their relative importance and functional or symbolic role in a building’s organization; organizational principles are used to formalize this relationship among the forms and spaces, and established a perceived order (or disorder) – and meaning – in architectural composition. The subsequent symbiotic relationship of form and space can be evaluated by analysing the building’s two-dimensional documentation: i.e., plans, sections and elevations.

B. Mass and Trabeation: The Tectonic Organization


This concerns with elements – and principals – that serve the

organization of the building’s constructional logic. The term

‘tectonic’ is first coined by Frampton [5] to elaborate the poetic manifestation of a building’s technological environment. The terms ‘mass’ and ‘trabeation’, on the other hand, are loosely based on Edward Ford [6]’s elucidation of construction in to two

types of approaches: monolithic and layered. ‘Monolithic’ construction refers to the conceptualization of building as a load- bearing mass, whereas ‘layered’ connotes with a process of building which follows incremental layering of building systems around a load-bearing frame (trabeation). The compositional principles designers pursue to transform these constructional strategies to reflect specific architectural and ‘poetic’ readings of buildings were discussed under this theme.




As shown in (Table 1), the Positive Heuristics of Architect Geoffrey Bawa and Valentine Gunasekara are a clear manifestation of the influence of individualistic notion of creativity upon the practice. With such power-play from the aspect of individualistic notions, the accuracy of the aforementioned statement; within the paradigm of “Resilient Built-environments”, in order for Architecture to be resilient, “Resilience” should be identified as an essential component of the Hardcore, Architect’s notion of creativity, is thus, Reaffirmed.

Due to this scenario, the notion of “Resilience” is still being conferred upon in many platforms in general, and within this particular platform, it is being conferred under the theme of “Building the future – Sustainable and Resilient Built- Environments”, whereas, the future cannot be more visible than it  is  at  the  present. It  is  high  time  the  devoted focus and commitment towards theory could be distributed in a balanced approach that inherent impact of individualistic notions of creativity, programme of action and architectural positions within the practice, should not be disregarded or considered trivial within the formulation of theories.




Positive Heuristics


Ordering Systems

Architect Geoffrey Bawa Architect Valentine Gunasekara


·     Creation of a definite physical boundary

·     The composition of Pavilions

·     Experiential route

·     The Combinatorial Space

·     The play of solid and Void



·     The Curvaceous Form

·     The Free Space

·     The Vertical Space


Mass & Trabeation



·     The Breathing Wall

·     The Cantilevered Section Form

·     The Extended structural frame

·     The Concrete Portal frame

·     The Colonnade



·     Structural Expressionism

·     The Poetic Form

·     Geometric Fenestrations

·     The play of light and shadow

·     Modular Construction

·     Deconstruction of Structure


Above mentioned Positive Heuristics of Architect Geoffrey Bawa and Architect Valentine Gunasekara were identified and derived by analyzing at least five cases which depict each Positive Heuristic. Samples of each analysis are portrayed by (Table 2) and (Table 3) below.




Explicit or tacit, found in books or in the backburner of a person’s mind, whether in the state of an abstract cognition of the psychomotor, theory or derived out of practice, despites its origins, knowledge is Knowledge and falls under preordained constituents that forms the universal wisdom.

Within the realm of Architecture, Theory has been in criticism for many decades due to its abstractness and territorialisation of practice, in  contrary, practice cannot be accumulated into specific parameters of a theory and is inevitably,  highly  influenced  by  individualistic architectural positions of the practitioners. On the other hand, “practice” is being criticized for its obliviousness towards theory. Amalgamation of theory into practice and practice into theory, could be a possible resolution in mitigating the tension between abstraction and application as two distant entities. If not perceived as two disintegrated, distant realms, rather as descents of one another; theory which becomes practice and practice which becomes theory, could become a possibility. No doubt that both could operate independently from one another and still be considered as knowledge, but creating ‘knowledge’ that act as a conduit in bridging the gap between Theory and Practice, two solitary components of knowledge in isolation (Theory and Practice) would be the real challenge. One might not have to reinvent the wheel in doing so, rather a diverse perception or a

novel interpretation of the existing knowledge could be helpful. With that thought, Architectural Education could certainly play a vital role in forming the conduits that bridges the gap.


“Rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying [both] theory and technique” [7]


Schon’s statement above vividly explains the possibility of a combinatory approach, where practitioners could combine theory with their individualistic techniques in problem solving whilst Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut confers upon the obliviousness of theory makers towards application and practice, where practice is highly influenced by individualistic positions.


“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.” [8]


The realm of architecture is very much a creative domain that the diversity of individualistic notions of creativity, architectural positions and problem solving techniques cannot be disregarded. The transition or the transformation of a theory into a resolution or an Architectural response, is highly dependent upon individualistic architectural positions and would only occur as long as the theory does not tamper the pre-determined set of rules,  the programme of Action /the Architectural Position, in other terms, the comfort zone of the architect.


The ability to design and to be conscious about this (i.e.   to be retrospective and projective regarding one’s own position in the surrounding world) seems to be the essential human characteristic, distinguishing us from the rest of the living world. The construction of models of the human position and ability of acting in relation to nature is one of the essential and unresolved challenges of modernity. [3]









Jonas’s words clearly articulates the inevitable influence of the inner construction; as the ‘own position in the surrounding world’- upon design – as the creative act. He further professes it as the ‘essential human characteristic’ and confers upon the importance of design which is generated out of the equilibrium of human position and the ability of acting in relation to the nature, the surroundings, rather the entire outer construction. Thus, whereas the built environment is concerned, the unresolved challenges of modernity would be to ‘design’ at an equilibrium, which mitigates the dichotomy between the outer construction (social, cultural, economic, and environmental) and the inner construction – (one’s own position, architectural position, and notion of creativity). Finding the ‘equilibrium’ in the first place, would be a challenge itself. Though seems to be the challenge, it could be perceived as a resolution for the dichotomy between Theory and Practice and the disregard of theoretical notions such as “resilience” as an Architectural Response for the real-world conditions.

Evaluating such behavior of real-world Architectural Responses and finding strategies to overcome the subsequent disparity between Theory and Practice, however, cannot be entirely practice based. Professions rely on higher training and educational institutions, to establish and renew the bases of practical and intellectual knowledge that the new generations of practitioners will have to acquire. If so, then the objective of the Academia of Architecture and the entire Architectural Education system could be the aforementioned challenge itself; Restructuring itself as a vestibule for the students in facilitating the process of finding their own equilibrium and succoring the emergence of knowledge that act as conduits in bridging the gap between Architectural Theory and Practice.


[1]        R. Minnery, "Resilience to Adaptation," 4 August 2015. [Online].Available: architect/aiafeature/resilience-to-adaptation_o.
[2]        R. Venturi, Complexities and Contradictions in Architecture, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977, pp. 16-17.
[3]        W.  Jonas,  "Research  through  DESIGN  through  Research," Kybernetes, pp. 9-10, 2007.
[4]        R. Landau, British Architecture; The Culture of Architecture: A Histography of the Current Discourse, London: International Architect Publishing Limited, 1984.
[5]        K. Frampton, "Rappel a l'ordre: The Case for the Tectonic," in Labour, Work and Architecture: Collected Essays on Architecture and Design, London, Phaidon Press, 2002.
[6]        E. Ford, The Details of Modern Architecture, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.
[7]        D. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner. How Professional Think in Action, New York: Basic Books, 1983, p. 3.
[8]        "Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut," 15 September 2015. [Online]. Available:


Written by

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet