Research Article

International Journal of
Architectural Computing
Architectural space as an open, 2023, Vol. 21(4) 602–621
© The Author(s) 2023
adaptable system: A design Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14780771231162382
experiment journals.sagepub.com/home/jac

Dimitra Tsoumpri 

Abstract
Flexible and adaptable spaces have been a field of interest in western architecture since the 1930s and
Modernism’s “Open plan.” Even though it started as a design problem, as cybernetics became a more active
part of the design process, adaptable space became dependent on technology and mechanical systems. A lot of
methods tend to diminish the role of architectural design and offer deterministic implementations that limit
the user’s creative freedom and interaction with the adaptable system. This study explores how adaptable
space can be approached through design and how adaptability can be implemented in existing spaces through
a computational approach. The paper is structured in two parts, the analysis, and the concept method. The
first part includes the literacy review and known architectural examples of adaptability. The second part
focuses on proposing a design method for approaching adaptable spaces with a high degree of user creative
freedom. The method is tested through a case study regarding the implementation of a spatial adaptable
system in a 1970s apartment.

Keywords
adaptable architecture, adaptive reuse, algorithmic design, computation, design, methodology, shape algebra,
space adaptability, versatile

Introduction
The term adaptability refers to the ability of an object or organism to adapt to the ever-changing conditions of
its environment by changing certain attributes like its form, color, or energy consumption.1 Regarding spatial
design, the changes relate to the environment, its users, and their activities. The current paper is driven by
three questions: (A) How can the adaptability of the designed space be defined? (B) How can the adaptable
space be approached through design? (C) Why do designers need to design for adaptability? (D) How can a
computational approach help bridge the gap between design intention and space actuation?

School of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens School of Architecture, Athens, Greece

Corresponding author:
Dimitra Tsoumpri, School of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens, Stournari 35, Athens 10682, Greece.
Email: dim.tsoumpri@gmail.com
Tsoumpri 603

Even though adaptability has been a field of interest since the Modern movement, western architecture
continues to produce mainly rigid spaces with a slower adaptability rate than that of their surroundings.
However, the anthropogenic environment is often challenged by radical changes, such as technological,
social, and environmental changes2 that often affect designed spaces. Take for example the recent pandemic
that called for a spatial adaptation3 at a rate that was not possible under the current practice of design and
building. Built space can be considered obsolete rather fast, resulting in a radical change through demolition
which is a time, energy, and material-consuming practice that cannot guarantee the lifespan of the freshly built
space. Some users turn to affordable, flexible spatial systems, but most are limited to deterministic
mechanical-kinetic systems,4 such as movable partitions or convertible furniture. The flexibility offered by
these solutions is minimal and users have little control over the changes they need in their space.
The study aims to explore how adaptable space can be approached through design and how adaptability
can be implemented in existing built spaces in a non-deterministic way. The goal is to explore a design
strategy for upgrading existing spaces and expand the discussion around adaptable reuse, the user’s place in it,
and how a computational approach can address it.

Research framework
Spatial adaptability has been approached in many different ways. However, some of its most known examples
are often based on predesigned and predetermined scenarios by a central figure or a high-tech control system
with specific and finite commands. Yona Friedman’s Flatwriter5 or Peter Cook’s Plug-in city,6 for example,
are driven by deterministic systems with a finite database of shaped spaces and components. That kind of
approach treats the User like a consumer or a passive receiver, who cannot actively affect the system. The
current study attempts to use design and shape computing as a tool to bridge the gap between theoretical
research and state-of-the-art technology tools, to explore the appropriate theoretical space in which spatial
adaptability can be redefined and focused on the User and his daily life.
The paper is organized into two parts, analysis, and concept method. The analysis aims to define the designed
adaptable space through the theory of the virtual,7 system theory,8 and synergy,9 as well as explore different
strategic approaches of the adaptable through the analysis of well-known examples. The goal of the first part is to
structure a method of approaching the adaptable space with up-to-date design and building tools. The second part
is focused on the concept method and its testing through a case study. The case study is focused on the conversion
of an existing 1970s apartment into an adaptable, multi-use space that can host the daily activities of its User. The
goal is to test the method on a design level and lay future steps or changes that may arise through that process.

Analysis
Theory framework
The term “adaptable space” can be found in a vast field of theory and material structures. Most often, the
common element is the ability of space to be flexible and change under different circumstances. According to
Levy,7 a space such as that could be characterized as virtual, a term different from that of the “possible” or
“dynamic.” The “possible” is already shaped but not yet actualized while dynamic is the actualization of the
“possible,” a fluid state that can change on moving parts and already shaped scenarios. On the contrary, the
virtual is something that is not yet shaped finitely but is constantly defined by a node of problems and has all
the necessary tools to actuate the best solution at a given time. The adaptable space could be defined as a
virtual space defined by a node of problems regarding its use, function, form, and structure.
The traditional Japanese house, for example, unlike western houses, is built to be part of the greater cosmos
and change according to the season and its users’ activities.10 Its interior can transform using movable
604 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

partitions to create different rooms. The space is conceived as a versatile system that is interchangeably
connected to other systems, such as its surroundings, the social system its users adhere to, their activities, and,
of course, time. In order to respond to this multiplicity, space is actuated differently according to the occasion,
affecting its form and function. It is in constant feedback with its surroundings using a finite number of
materials, unlike the rigid, finite form of western architecture. As Negreponte has said, it is impossible to
manage versatility with the paternalistic methods of the past.11
Fuller’s “Do more with less”12 seems to follow this notion of versatility in the way spatial problems are
approached. Spatial problems can be seen as virtual problems whose solutions are realized through
different actuations. Time is an important factor for spatial problems as it is connected to the inevitable
change of every system and entity that can affect it. For example, the anthropogenic environment is part
of a greater environmental system that also includes the natural environment. Fuller defines designed
space as an immediate continuation of the cosmos, a vast term that could otherwise be described as an
assemblage13 of multileveled subsets. The subsets are interdepended and interact with any change
capable to affect every subset until the assemblage can balance again. Fuller calls this unpredictable
behavior Synergy.9
Concisely, “designed adaptable space” could be defined as a virtual space, part of a greater assemblage that
affects it and is affected by it. This virtual space has all the necessary tools to actuate the best possible spatial
solution in reaction to any change in the assemblage. This definition is set for this paper only, as “adaptability”
is a vast term that can be interpreted differently in each case.

Study of known architectural examples

The current study is set in the anthropogenic environment,14 which includes the built space, the User, and the
digital environment. The following examples represent different approaches to the adaptable space and the User,
through different tools, theories, and frameworks. The analysis checks four different points: the User–system
dynamic, the interaction of the system-general Surroundings, the different degrees of flexibility,15 and the tools of
actuation used in every example. The “User-system dynamic” checks the user’s involvement in the system’s
control, the “system-general surroundings” point checks if the system is affected by its surroundings and how and
the “flexibility” point checks the degrees of flexibility that appear in each example and how they are controlled.
The different kinds of flexibility used in the analysis are predefined and non-predefined. Spaces with predefined
flexibility can transform between shaped scenarios and layouts, while in non-defined flexibility the scenarios and
layouts rise through the system’s interaction with other systems. Regarding the control of flexibility, they can be
categorized as controlled, if they are completely controlled by a central system, controllable, if they are controlled
by a system but the user can intervene and control it, and finally, self-organized where the components mutually
adjust through communication.15 The last checking point, “tools of actuation,” checks how adaptable space is
actuated in each example and the technology that supports it. The process aims to help yield a better under-
standing of the systems that make a space adaptable and how they affect its function.
The examples used in the table are Friedman’s Flatwriter,5 Archigram’s Plug-In city,6 Cedric Price’s Fun
Palace,16 Takis Zenetos’s Aghia Galini,17 and RnSie(n)’s “I’ve heard about.”18
Following Table 1, we can observe that each example has a unique objective or focus. Flatwriter follows an
optimal-centric process to educate the User in self-planning. Archigram emphasizes the ephemeral and radical
change rate of space while Price aimed at an interactive polyvalent community center.19 Takis Zenetos uses a
spatial adaptor to create an adaptable urban sprawl. RnSie (n) create a whole symbiotic community with an
adaptable structure. Every example is set in a very specific social and cultural framework in order to be
functional. Flatwriter, for example, is set in Villa Spatial, a theoretical project that has specific rules of
function and living.20 Through this, we can understand that adaptability is not just a design tool but is also
charged with the social and cultural background in which it is used.21
Tsoumpri 605

Table 1. Analytical and comparative table of significant examples in adaptable architecture. The analysis of the examples
is made on five pillars: Framework, User System, System Surroundings, Flexibility, and tools of actuation.

System
Framework User system Surroundings Kind of flexibility Tools of actuation

Flatwriter (Spatial Self-planning and User-end driven; The system Predefined – the Contractors
City) self- the User can receives input system has a
expression give input and and checks the database of all
through interact with existing possible spaces
building space the system. conditions to and layouts
They cannot propose the
alter it best possible
solution that
affects it the
least
Plug-in City Consumerism as User-end driven; The system takes Predefined and Prefabricated
(Megastructure) an expression the User can input and controlled – the components
of radical give input and checks the Users’ choice is
change feedback existing limited by a
considering the conditions specific number
changes they acting as an and kind of
want to make interim choices
between the
Users and the
components’
production
Fun Palace Fluid, interactive Reactive – the Reactive – the Self – Mechanical moving
(community space for an system takes system takes organizational parts
center) immersive input through input through a but also
experience sensors creating network of controllable.
behavioral environment The system can
patterns but can sensors and can be trained to
also take self-adapt recognize the
immediate input patterns and
from the Users initiate the
change but can
also be changed
on demand
Aghia Galini The adaptable Low tech – User- The system is Predefined and Big Scale spatial
(existing village landscape for end driven. devised to controlled. The adaptor with
turned tourist extendable Urban space can maintain the types of smaller-scale
resort) use change use by form and components and prefabricated
removing, character of the spaces are finite components
adding, or natural that can be
altering environment installed in it
prefabricated
components

(continued)
606 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Table 1. (continued)

System
Framework User system Surroundings Kind of flexibility Tools of actuation

I’ve heard about Symbiotic End-User-driven The system takes Independent, self- Open-source
(organic existence open system. input from its organizational CNC machines
megastructure – between The Users can surroundings but controllable. that can reform
symbiont) Users and give input but through a The system will the structure
structure also change the UbiComp initiate change in using
systems’ network order to adapt programmable
protocols to changing matter
through conditions but
democratic, Users can also
bottom-up interfere with
procedures the living
protocols

Another point that is worth mentioning is the use of control systems. Even if a system is organized bottom-
up, the User’s creative freedom seems to be limited, replacing the architect’s figure with a control-centric
system. For example, in Plug-In City, inhabitants can make changes only if the system allows it and only by
using prefabricated components.22 In addition to that, we can observe that the space’s transformation method
varies, not only regarding the available tools but also the User – system dynamic and the User’s role in the
process. It can be as simple as putting the User in complete control, like the low-tech Aghia Galini project,17
or as complicated as making a self-organizing system that changes and adapts depending on the collective
input from its surroundings, the User, and their activities, like in “I’ve heard about.”18 However, the latter
risks producing an unbecoming space that may make the User feel uncomfortable and unsafe in their daily
life. That could prove problematic if the adaptable space is meant to be a daily, familiar space for the User.
Zenetos’s approach regarding this transition in the Aghia Galini project17 is rather interesting. His proposal
consists of a long-term strategy and a spatial adaptor that is meant to gradually introduce the users to a flexible
system while preserving a familiar form. Zenetos used slopes, which are common in the area, as an adaptor for
prefabricated elements in the existing urban sprawl. In the second part of the paper, the author will examine
the integration of a similar strategy in a conceptual method of approaching adaptable space through design.

Concept Method
Approaching a daily adaptable space through design
The second part of the paper explores a concept method of designing an adaptable spatial system for upgrading
existing static spaces into adaptable spaces. The method is structured in five steps: a) long-term strategy for the user’s
introduction and familiarization to the adaptable system, b) definition of the virtual space’s node of problems and the
assemblage of systems in which it belongs, c) analysis of the existing space into systems and elements based on their
flexibility and adaptability, d) definition of the spatial adaptor, the transformation process and material tool of its
implementation, e) algorithmic process simulation. The method will be analyzed through a case study regarding the
implementation of an adaptable spatial system in an existing apartment, in Athens, Greece. The goal is to create a
tool that will connect the designers’ intention with local building restrictions and the user’s need for independence.
The concept of changing space from a certain state to another is pretty simple. Architectural space consists of a set of
tangible elements, such as partitions and furniture. It also includes a set of non-tangible elements such as shapes,
intentions, and rules. The process of adaptation requires the computation of new space shapes and the transformation
Tsoumpri 607

of an existing set to a new one if certain conditions apply. If space is represented by sum A and the elements’ sums
are represented by Set1 and Set2 then the process could be described by the following:

If (condition) ->
Set1 2 A → Set1 \ A → Set2 [ A → Set2 2 A

As the process is taken away from the architect’s control, it needs to be described by finite steps and clearly
defined rules of computation. The method will include three different kinds of computing, a) computing with
the fabrication module, b) computing with architectural elements and c) computing with shapes.

Strategy
The first step towards a long-term strategy is to establish the social and cultural background of the Users for
which the space is meant.23 As the paper is written in the early 21st century, the User’s social and cultural
background that will be used for the case study will be that of the western cultured, 21st century, User, who is
familiar with the hybrid, physical and digital, essence of being. By defining the User’s background, we can
define the technology and the materiality the User might be familiar with and would be comfortable utilizing
at a basic level. Taking into consideration the different dynamics between the Users and the systems noted in
the examples, the long-term strategy is developed in three stages. The first stage is about the introduction of
the User to a User-end driven adaptable system15 that can also receive data from its surroundings. The goal is
to make the User familiar with the system, the platform interface, and the process of spatial change, by giving
them full control of the process. The User can also be educated by tips and information the system gives as
feedback, regarding the data it receives. The second stage introduces the function of proposed automatic
actions and changes, that can be actuated only with the User’s permission. The third and final stage is the
introduction of a hybrid system24 where the User can co-exist with an intelligent system but also control its
degree of independence and creative freedom. During the third stage, the system rises from a controlled, non-
defined adaptable space to a controllable, self-organizing adaptable space letting the User free to decide where
they feel comfortable being in the spectrum of intelligent, self-organizing, adaptable space.

Defining the node of problems of the virtual space and its assemblage
The case study is a 30 m2 ground-floor flat in a 1970s building in Athens, Greece Figure Image 1. This
sentence reveals the relations between the case study and its surrounding systems.8 The flat is small, meant for
one or two users. It belongs to a larger system, the building, which was built during the 1970s, thus it has
specific characteristics regarding materials, insulation policies, and networks. The building belongs to a
network of buildings that can affect it directly as a structure or indirectly, through neighboring activity
(Figure 1). The neighborhood is part of the city of Athens that has certain characteristics and regulations.
Information like that can help form a greater picture of the assemblage and the problems that partially define
the adaptable space. The second part of this definition is based on the scenario of the daily use and the
activities that will partake in the adaptable space. The case study is focused on upgrading the flat into a dual-
use space meant for living and a making lab for small-scale DIY projects. The scenario takes place in the first
stage of the long-term strategy and it is based on a single User fitting the background mentioned previously.

Analysis of the existing space into systems and elements based on their flexibility and adaptability
User Framework: Early 21st century, western User, familiar with open-source technology.
Utility framework: Living Space – Makerspace
608 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Figure 1. The case study flat is part of a greater network of systems that can affect and can be affected by it. As the
systems include more sub-systems, the assemblage’s interelations thicken.

Image 1. The case study flat is a 27 sq.m flat in a 1970s building. It is a semi-underground flat with an opening to the
building’s backyard.

Step 1. Analysis of material elements and recategorization based on their ability to change or move25: a)
Static, elements that are unable to change due to the space’s original structure or can only change once to
accommodate the new system, b) Flexible, elements that can change in form and place with relative ease, c)
Movable, elements that can change in form but can also be moved around easily by the User.
Tsoumpri 609

Step 2. Utility analysis of the Living Space and the Makerspace.

Comparing the tables (Tables 2-6), it is evident that some of the utilities are connected to the elements of
the Static category, like the sewage network, and cannot be part of the adaptable system . To surpass this
problem, utilities like the kitchen and the bathroom can be redesigned as static elements of the new system in
order to get the most out of the remaining area (Figure Image 2).
After the re-arrangement of the static elements, the available space for the adaptable system is reduced to
20 m2 and the available utilities are the following.
Categorizing the utilities based on their attributes, characteristics, the activities they host, and the furniture
they need.
Comparing the tables, it is evident that some of the utilities are connected to the elements of the Static
category, like the sewage network, and cannot be part of the adaptable system. To surpass this problem,
utilities like the kitchen and the bathroom can be redesigned as static elements of the new system in order to
get the most out of the remaining area.
If the three tables are put together, it is easy to notice that some of the spaces which will accommodate
the utilities have similar characteristics, like the dining room and the office, while others cannot co-exist
because of contradicting activities, like a Sleeping Area and Making Lab. This observation can be used to

Table 2. Analysis of the flat’s elements in three categories depending on their flexibility. The categories, Static, Flexible,
or Movable, can determine what part of the flat needs to be re-arranged conventionally to facilitate the adaptable system,
and which elements can be a part of the adaptable system.

Static or unable to change often Flexible Movable

Outer walls Partitions Furniture

Structural elements (columns, beams, etc) Framing (doors, windows, etc) —
Network supplies (water, sewage, electricity, etc) — —

Table 3. Comparative table of the utilities of the two different states of the adaptable space in the experiment. The
utilities have been chosen, taking into consideration the average utilities existing in conventional space that match the
utility framework.

Living space Makerspace

Sleeping area Office

Kitchen Kitchenette
Dining room Making lab
Bathroom/WC WC
Living room Exhibition space

Table 4. After comparing the utilities, it is evident that some are similar, therefore can be excluded from the transition.

Living space Makerspace

Sleeping area Office

Kitchen Kitchenette
Dining room Making lab
Bathroom/WC WC
Living room Exhibition space
610 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Table 5. Remaining utilities of the adaptable system after the rearrangement of the static elements and common utilities.

Living space Makerspace

Sleeping area Office

Dining room Making lab
Living room Exhibition space

Table 6. Analysis of the remaining utilities based on their spatial characteristics, their attributes, and their general use in
conventional space.

reduce the complexity of the adaptable system by excluding certain combinations of utilities while
establishing others. The User can only use one established combination of utilities or a single utility for
the whole space.

Defining the spatial adaptor, the transformation process, and the material tool
The spatial adaptor is a design method to introduce adaptability in a static space. The goal is to
intervene as little as possible in the existing space’s structure but also prepare it for the new, adaptable
system. Takis Zenetos uses the spatial adaptor in the Aghia Galini project to transform the village from
a static settlement to a versatile settlement where houses can be added, changed, and removed easily.
The spatial adaptor affects the flexibility degree of the system, its response, the transformation process,
and the user’s creative freedom. Based on Table 7 to 9, we can hypothesize that the user may need
small-scale, short-term transformations, or large-scale transformations that may require the change of
space function. In order to accommodate both and preserve high creativity freedom, we need to choose
a spatial adaptor where the material tool and actuation medium will coincide and allow locomotion in
different directions.
Tsoumpri 611

Image 2. The space after the re-arrangement of the static elements. Elements such as water supply and drainage cannot
be changed constantly. The first step in the experiment is to re-design space in a way that leaves as much free space as
possible for the adaptable system.

Table 7. Analysis of the remaining utilities based on the activities they are most likely to accommodate.

The chosen material tool of actuation, for this case study, is based on self-organizing, self-moving, modular
components, that can function as a swarm. Even though there are plenty of such platforms, the one used as a
reference for this, is MIT’s self-reconfigurable modular M-blocks.26 The reason is that they appear to have a high
response speed and can be used as both an actuation and material tool to create anything the User may need without
the need for post-processing. We hypothesize that the User can interact with the system through a familiar device, a
tablet or smartphone, which holds appropriate. To test the degree of complication that the User’s creative freedom
may create, the following process is held with the admission that the User can draw the spaces they require as they
wish, based on a grid that corresponds to the modular platform. The process will use algorithmic design27 and
612 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Table 8. Analysis of the remaining utilities based on the kind of surface they use in furnishing. Different activities require
different feel of the furnishing, something that needs to be taken into consideration in a monolithic system.

Table 9. Possible utility combinations derive through the analysis and comparison of the previous tables. The user is
most likely to make use of said combinations, should they wish for more than one utility.

Sleeping area Dining area

Sleeping area Office
Dining room Living room
Dining room Making lab
Living room Office
Living room Making lab
Office Making lab

vector analysis of drawings, to manage the inputs, checks, and actuation. The design can be further processed by
boolean functions and CNC commands.
A spatial adaptor can be either a design tool or a material system in the physical space. Its purpose is to
accommodate the actuation tool without the need for the existing space’s radical change. The adaptor chosen
for the case study is a cubic grid of 200 × 200 × 200 mm with the admittance that the modular robotic
platform’s modules are also 200 × 200 × 200 mm. The purpose of the grid, both as a design and computational
tool, is to organize the flexible elements’ dimensions based on the module of the actuation tool (Table 10) but
also drive the modules during the locomotion phase,28 acting like a coordinating system [Image 3].

Algorithmic Process Simulation

The following algorithmic simulation will go through the entire process in which the User chooses to
change their space from a single “Sleeping Area” to a combination of “Dining and Making.” The
simulation goes through the three steps of computation. The first step is to compute the user’s input with
the fabrication module (200 × 200 × 200) and recalculate the shapes to follow the grid [Image 4]. The
second step is about computing with shapes. The computation is simple as it follows simple algebras like
sum, difference, and computation [Image 5 and Image 6]. The third step is to compute architectural
elements like partitions [Image 7 and Image 8], openings, and entrances. All of the above must adhere to
local building restrictions.
The pseudocode will be used to check the algorithmic process of the transformation and the con-
nection between the User, the database, and the actuation tool. A pseudocode is an informal way to
Tsoumpri 613

Image 3. Case study flat after the re-arrangement of the static elements. The free space has been computationally
calibrated into a 200 mm × 200 mm grid, in order to drive the building element of the adaptable space.

develop an algorithm independently of coding syntax. However, in this example, the pseudocode has
been based on the Processing language29 syntax. The reason is that the simulation acts as a check of the
programming limitations of a possible implementation. The choice of the Processing language was made
due to combining design through coding, Arduino,30 and User Interface, for future research on the matter.
The code has two functions, a small-scale adaptation function, and a large-scale adaptation function. The
simulation will go through the large-scale function called CombMode. The process is described in the
code comments.
614 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Algorithm.
Tsoumpri 615

Observations and discussion

The main questions of the study concerned the definition of designed adaptable space, its approach through
design, why designers need to design for adaptability and how can a computational approach help. Through
the study, it became evident that creating a general definition for spatial adaptability might present limitations

Image 4. Analysis of the spatial geometry and position in the grid. The grid acts as a calibration system for the blocks’
movement. Every point in the layout has a specific position (x,y) relevant to (0,0).

Image 5. Possible intersections of new spaces. The program needs to identify the spatial relation between the two
spaces. Since the check is made on a 2D level the two spaces might intersect with two common points, have a
neighboring edge, or not meet at all.
616 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

on the different interpretations and implementations of the term. As presented in Theory Framework,
adaptability might refer to different systems that fall into different frameworks such as the theory of the virtual
space, the theory of the possible space, or the dynamic space. The analysis in Study of known architectural
examples showed that structuring an adaptable system is affected by the cultural framework in which the
system is set, by the available technology, and by the user’s role in it. Such methods need a multi-leveled
structure with strong intersystem relations, as suggested by the synergy theory.9 Even though adaptability can
be a generic term, when used for space design, it needs to be defined according to the needs of the project,
before the design process begins Table 11.

Image 6. The possible boolean intersection between the new spaces. If the new spaces intersect, the user needs to
decide if one space will be dominant or if they wish for an in-between space. (up) If the spaces overlap, the system asks
the User what kind of Boolean overlap they would prefer. (a) S1 overlaps S2, (b) S2 overlaps S1, (c) S1 and S2 have a
Boolean split, creating an in between space.

Image 7. The possible boolean intersection between the new spaces. If the new spaces intersect, the user needs to
decide if one space will be dominant or if they wish for an in-between space. (down) the system checks the available
space remaining after the implementation of the new spaces, where AS is the existing space, and S1 and S2 are the new
spaces. If the remaining space meets the criteria of the system, then the process continues.
Tsoumpri 617

Image 8. Process of implementing new spaces. Design of S1 (green), design of S2 (green), checking for overlapping edge,
choose physical boundary between S1 and S2, check remaining space for entrance eligibility, choose to implement an
opening in the physical boundary, fabricate the partition.

The observations following the case study show that the design process diverges from designing spaces, like
Flatwriter, and moves towards designing a tool for space realization. Using the spatial adaptor as a case study
proved that such a practice requires a thorough analysis of every architectural element and redefining it as a
parametric entity of the modular system (Table 10). Although the choice of the modular robotic platform was made
to test the achievable degree of creative freedom, there were still a lot of limitations because of implemented
618 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Table 10. Parametrizing the minimum size of the virtual spaces based on the building module. Because of the use of a
specific building block, the space dimensions need to be a multiplication of the module size.
Tsoumpri 619

Table 11. Proposed checkpoints for the definition of the designed adaptable space.

Definition check points

Theory What is the appropriate theory for the adaptable space to be designed? (Virtual space, theory of the
framework possible, dynamic systems, etc
Cultural What is the cultural framework the space will follow? (Social culture, tech level, space usage, etc)
framework
User role What role will the User have in the system? (Passive, active, in control, interactive)
Flexibility What kind of flexibility will the system have? (Defined, non-defined, controlled, controllable, open)

protocols. This creates a question, where does the User’s creative freedom stop? Is implementing protocols about a
space’s need for light, an act of system control or is it an educating act?31 To calculate spatial relations of the
required spaces the system needs a shape algebra (Image 6). That requires an algorithm that can handle three major
points: the user’s possible needs, space protocols, and fabrication protocols to maintain the balance between the
User-protocol-architect which is integral for the sustainability of an adaptable system. Spatial adaptability is, at its
core, a design problem. Even though various fields may be needed to handle the system’s complexity, the basis of
space adaptability is the composition and realization of a space layout that is meant to be used by someone, albeit
temporarily. Computation seems to be the key in this. Following a computational approach in the case study, made
it possible to calculate space shapes from the user’s input while following the chosen fabrication tool’s and local
building restrictions. It also allowed the process to adhere to the architecture rules of shape computing set by the
architect, simple as they might be in that stage.

Future steps
The future steps of this research will be a further analysis of specific computational design tools such as Shape
Grammars (27) in connection to a robotic-based manufacturing tool to create a distinct space identity.

Conclusions
The paper’s main goal was to form a multidisciplinary method of approaching spatial adaptable systems
through design. The study was based on the theory of the virtual,7 the synergy theory,9 and the system
theory,8 to form a definition of adaptable space. The next step was the analysis of different approaches of
known architectural examples to the adaptable, based on spatial flexibility, the user’s framework, and
technological means. The results of the analysis lead to the structure of a concept method. The method
was composed of two parts, a long-term strategy for the User’s familiarization with the adaptable system
and a computational method of composition. Finally, the method was tested on a conceptual case study
about integrating an adaptable system in an existing material space. The research aims to bring some new
points up for discussion regarding adaptable space architecture that will enrich the conversation con-
cerning computational design and alternative technology tools of actuation that can bridge the gap
between the designer of adaptable space and its user.

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the contribution of Sotiris Kotsopoulos, Ph.D. Professor atthe National Technical University of Athens.
620 International Journal of Architectural Computing 21(4)

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Dimitra Tsoumpri  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5731-4711

References
1. Manuel G, Vicente G, Willy M, et al. The metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture. ACTAR, 2008.
2. van Ellen LA, Bridgens BN, Burford N, et al. Rhythmic buildings - A framework for sustainable adaptable ar-
chitecture. Build Environ, 2021, p.203.
3. Al-Jubari I, Mosbah A and Salem SF. Employee well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: The role of adaptability,
work-family conflict, and organizational response. SAGE Open, 2022; 12(3): 215824402210961. DOI: 10.1177/
21582440221096142
4. Robert S and Simon A. Adaptable Architecture: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge, 2016.
5. Sabine L, van Vlissingen HF and Friedman Y. Structures serving the unpredictable, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers,
1999.
6. Simon S. Archigram: Architecture without architects. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: MIT Press,
2005.
7. Pierre L. Δυνητική Πραγμτικότητα. Κριτική. Greek translation. Κριτική, 1999.
8. Bertalanffy 1901-1972 L von. General system theory; Foundations, development, applications [Internet]. New
York, G Braziller, [1969] [©1968]; Available from: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999466743302121
9. Buckminster Fuller R. Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of thinking. Machmillan Publishing, 1975, p. 8690.
10. Schmidt R and Eguchi T. Mediating change: A Japanese perspective on adaptable architecture. Archit Design. 2014;
84(2): 74–79.
11. Nicholas N. Meaning as the basis for complexity in architecture. Architectural Design. 1972; (42): 679–681.
12. Buckminster Fuller R. Utopia or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity. Estate Of R. Buckminster Fuller, 1963.
13. DeLanda M. Deleuzian social ontology and assemblage theory. Deleuze and the social: Edinburgh University Press,
2006, pp. 250–266.
14. Dimitra T. Biomimicry: A design tool, Athens: National Technical University of Athens, 2015.
15. Yiannoudes S. Architecture and adaptation: From cybernetics to tangible computing. F Wendy, H Grace and Ed
Gibbons, editors. New York: Routledge, 2016.
16. Hernández J. Del Fun Palace al Generator: Cedric Price y la concepción del primer edificio inteligente, Santiago:
ARQ, 2015; 48–57.
17. Zenetos T. Έρευνα για την πoλιτική της τoυριστικής αναπτύξεως. Τεχνικά Χ ρoνικά 1966; 13–64.
18. Roche F. I’ve heard about, Paris: Musee d’Art Moderne de la ville de Paris, 2005.
19. Lobsinger ML. Cybernetic theory and the architecture of performance: Cedric Price’s fun palace. In: GS Williams and L
Réjean (eds) Anxious modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar architectural culture. The MIT Press, 2001, pp. 119–137.
20. Yona F. L’architecture Mobile. By the author, 1958.
21. Yiannoudis S. Η πoλιτισμική διάσταση στην αντίληψη. In: Πρoσαρμόσιμη Aρχιτεκτoνική: Δυνατότητες και
παράγoντες σχεδιασμoύ μεταβαλλόμενων και ευφυών χώρων. Εκδoτικός Όμιλoς Iων; 2012. p. 242–243.
22. Peter C, Warren C, Ron H, et al.Archigram 6. By the authors, 1966.
Tsoumpri 621

23. Karagianni A. Digital media strategies in architectural design: The user as an active participant in the era of IoT
[Ph.D.], Chania: Technical University of Crete, 2021.
24. TdE S. Beneficial change: The case for responsiveness and robotics in architecture. In: B Kolarevic and V Parlac,
editors. Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change. London/New York: Routledge, 2015. p. 130–134.
25. Ioannis V. In: Μίμησις Πληρoφoρική (ed) Λέγω - συν/λ-λέγω: Μ ερoλoγία. Jola, 2007, pp. 148–150.
26. Romanishin JW, Gilpin K and Rus D. M-blocks: Momentum-driven, magnetic modular robots. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tokyo, Japan, 2013. p. 4288–4295.
27. Stiny G. Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plann B. 1980; 7(3): 343–351.
28. Romanishin JW, Gilpin K, Claici S, et al. 3D M-Blocks: Self-reconfiguring robots capable of locomotion via pivoting
in three dimensions. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA,
USA, 2015. p. 1925–1932.
29. Processing. https://processing.org/overview
30. Badamasi YA. The working principle of an Arduino. In: 2014 11th International Conference on Electronics,
Computer, and Computation (ICECCO), 2014. p. 1–4.
31. Bernard R. Architecture without architects: A short introduction to non-pedigreed architecture. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico, 1987.
Copyright of International Journal of Architectural Computing is the property of Sage
Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.