Scribd
Upload
4 views14 pages

Shape Grammars and Q-Analysis Explained

The author reflects on a previously published paper that discusses the use of shape grammars and Q-analysis for classifying architectural designs, noting its technical nature may hinder readership. The paper proposes a systematic approach to classification that overcomes the inconsistencies of traditional methods by generating a hierarchy of subclasses based on design similarities. The author emphasizes the general applicability of this approach and the potential for Q-analysis to provide numerical measures of similarity among designs.

Uploaded by

matuku alex
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views14 pages

Shape Grammars and Q-Analysis Explained

The author reflects on a previously published paper that discusses the use of shape grammars and Q-analysis for classifying architectural designs, noting its technical nature may hinder readership. The paper proposes a systematic approach to classification that overcomes the inconsistencies of traditional methods by generating a hierarchy of subclasses based on design similarities. The author emphasizes the general applicability of this approach and the potential for Q-analysis to provide numerical measures of similarity among designs.

Uploaded by

matuku alex
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Preface, 36 years later

The present paper is one of my favorites among the articles I have published.
But, I'm sad to say, it is also among the least cited. One reason may be its
highly technical nature: In order to understand it, a reader must be familiar
not only with the parametric shape grammar formalism (before Stiny
generalized it to include shapes of higher dimensions), but also with Q-analysis
and its terminology. In combination, these two methods may form a barrier
too difficult to overcome by readers not accustomed to this level of technicality.

This is too bad because I believe the main point of the paper is generally
interesting: Shape grammars provide a very promising approach towards
classifying corpora of designs according to a host of features or
aspects by locating each instance in a hierarchy of subclasses
representing degrees of similarity between the instances. Q-analysis
is only one possible technique to derive such a hierarchy, given a shape
grammar that generates a corpus. That is, readers should not get hung up on
this aspect of the paper—there is a forest to be seen for the trees.

Let me elaborate. My long-standing interest in bungalows, and later Queen


Anne houses, derives from a more general interest in the vernacular and
popular house types of the United States. In order to make this vast and
diverse body of buildings comprehensible at all, every account I came across
presented them based on some sort of classification. But I found these
classifications highly unsatisfactory. They were ad-hoc, unprincipled, and
therefore incoherent. For example, there was the "octagon house", the
"Italianate house", and the "bungalow"; i.e., the overall form was used in one
case, decorative details in the second, and a combination of shape and
functional organization in the third. Where would one place a Italianate
octagon? The classifications didn't tell me; that is, they did not satisfy what I
consider a fundamental criterion a useful classification should satisfy, namely,
that one set of criteria should be used consistently for all objects of interest. In
addition, these classifications were coarse in the extreme and did not provide
any means to define classes within classes.

This is where shape grammars entered the picture. Instead of describing a


design by a static list of attributes, as is common in architectural history, a
shape grammar describes for each instance in the corpus under consideration
how it can be generated, and the rules (or schemata)* used in its generation can
be considered a constructive description of the instance. Once we realize
this, we can use a shape grammar to find similarities between the instances at
various "degrees of separation" based on the rules they share or do not share in
their generation. A division of the corpus into a hierarchy of subclasses along
an axis of similarity follows naturally from this.

* For the purposes of this preface, there is no need to make a distinction between rules and
schemata.
Note that this approach is completely general. It can be used to classify designs
according to whatever set of aspects a particular shape grammar captures, and
it is as fine-grained as the designer of the grammar wants it to be.

Q-analysis is only one possible technique to compute the similarities and


derive the class hierarchy, albeit one I found especially useful. One aspect I
liked in particular was its ability to provide a numerical measure for the
similarities, or the "distances", between instances. As the diagrams on pages
401 and 403 illustrate, the results of the analysis can be pictured in the form of
"family trees" as we know them from evolution: The longer two designs belong
to the same class, the more similar they are.

Readers should not be distracted by the technicalities on page 397, where I


show how the rules applied in the generation of a corpus can be mapped onto
the formal structure underlying Q-analysis. It may suffice to just look at the
binary incidence matrix on page 400, which associates each instance in the
corpus at hand with the rules that generate it. This matrix forms the input to
the computer program executing the analysis.

But note also that for a Q-analysis as used here, all rules are equally important
for the classification. I therefore suggest in the paper that all be conceived at
the same level of granularity; i.e., that each modify only a small portion of an
evolving design (as indicated by the relatively simple left-hand sides). This may
not always be desirable, in which case a different technique, perhaps one that
allows for rules with weights, may have to be employed.

Northford, Connecticut
February 2017

Common questions

Powered by AI

The primary reason the author believes their paper has been under-cited is due to its highly technical nature, which could pose a significant barrier to understanding for readers not familiar with the specific methodologies of parametric shape grammar formalism and Q-analysis. This suggests that despite having valuable and interesting content, a paper may not be widely disseminated or cited in academic circles if it is not accessible to a broader audience, highlighting the importance of balancing technical complexity with clarity .

Q-analysis uses the metaphor of 'family trees,' similar to those seen in evolution, to visualize the relationships between designs. This visualization implies that the longer two designs remain within the same class, the more similar they are, akin to a genetic relationship in biological evolution. It helps to visually conceptualize the hierarchical and similarity-based connections in the classification of designs .

Some readers might find the paper difficult to engage with due to its highly technical nature, requiring familiarity with both parametric shape grammar formalism and Q-analysis. These methodologies might form a barrier for readers not accustomed to such a level of technical complexity, overshadowing the generally interesting main point of using shape grammars to classify design corpora comprehensively and consistently .

The main critique is that traditional classification systems for architectural styles are often ad-hoc, unprincipled, and incoherent. These systems use inconsistent criteria for categorizing objects, such as overall form in one case, decorative details in another, and a combination of shape and functional organization in a third. This inconsistency leads to an inability to categorize unique combinations of styles, and the classifications are typically very coarse and do not provide a means to define classes within classes .

The document suggests that in the context of Q-analysis, all rules should be considered at the same level of granularity, modifying only a small portion of an evolving design. If this uniform granularity is not desirable, the document proposes the use of a different technique that allows for rules with weights, indicating that weighted rules could accommodate variations in rule significance across the corpus .

The application of shape grammars differs from static attribute description by generatively describing designs. Rather than listing static attributes, shape grammars provide rules for how each design can be generated, creating a dynamic constructive description. This allows for identifying similarities based on shared generative rules, offering a more robust and nuanced analysis of architectural instances than static listings, which are limited by rigid and coarse categorizations .

Shape grammars address issues in traditional architectural classifications by providing a principled and coherent method for describing designs. Instead of relying on static lists of attributes, shape grammars describe how each instance can be generated, with the rules used in generation offering a constructive description. This allows for the classification of designs based on the similarities in the rules they share or do not share, naturally leading to a hierarchy of subclasses and enabling a more nuanced classification system .

The method of shape grammar classification offers flexibility in terms of granularity and application as it can be as fine-grained as the designer of the grammar desires. It can classify designs according to any aspects captured by a particular shape grammar, allowing the application to be tailored to specific needs and interests. This flexibility enables a broad range of classifications, from minute distinctions to broader categorizations, making the method versatile .

Q-analysis enhances the classification process by providing a numerical measure for the similarities, or the 'distances', between instances. It allows for the derivation of a class hierarchy based on these measurements and can illustrate the results in the form of 'family trees', showing the evolutionary relationships between designs. This makes the classification more scientific and measurable, adding depth and precision to the hierarchy formed by shape grammars .

The binary incidence matrix used in Q-analysis associates each instance in the corpus with the specific rules that generate it. This matrix serves as the input for the computer program executing the analysis, providing a systematic and organized representation of the relationships between designs and their generating rules. It facilitates the computation of similarities and the subsequent derivation of class hierarchies, making the analysis process more structured and computable .

You might also like