The Theoretical Relation of Patterns and Regulations in Architecture

In lands with a rich historical background, architecture contains principals that is created through the cultural interaction of architecture and society. These principals known as “Patterns” were passed down through generations to another and ensure the quality of buildings without limiting creativity in design. After the industrial revolution and with the appearance of the modern movement, developments such as industrialization and standardization created fundamental changes in architecture and as a result, a clear line has drawn to divide the architecture of today and the past. This is when Patterns started to see a decline and replaced with another organizational method called “Regulation”. In this era, architects devoted to structural, physical, functional or technical aspects of building more than the so-called Patterns. However, the quality resulted from using regulations established in this time is far from the result of using patterns in past architecture and therefore, architecture faced a dramatic transformation. Since then, the terms “Pattern” and “Regulation” are among the two most used words in the literature of Architecture and Urban Design. Regulation has been proposed as interventions by the governing party to ensure the presence of minimum quality for the built environment that shape the city image. Patterns also have been considered as one of the main concerns of architects that ensure the connection and continuation of former architectural principals in today’s constructions. Putting these two terms alongside each other is of interest to this paper since both have a role in systematizing and organizing the built environment, but at the same time resulting in different outcomes. This raised several questions such as: • Do patterns have the capability of reviving and being expressed in the form of regulations in today’s architecture?• Do they have the same correlation with the built form? Therefore, this paper explains the correlation of patterns and regulations with the built environment through analyzing today’s architectural changes in comparison with the one used before. This effort ends up contributing to the knowledge landscape by defining a theoretical framework through a model. 

In terms of methodology, logical argumentation seems to be appropriate and effective in developing theories and filling the existing research gap, and therefore, was selected as the main research method for this paper. The main element in this method is the conceptual demarcation of the framework’s content, which in the case of this paper is words that describe pattern and regulation. To gather these necessary terms in making the model, Delphi technique used in a group of 350 architects and urban planners, who are active both in academia and practice. This technique helps to extract what is inferred as pattern or regulation both in the research environment and the operational knowledge in practice.

According to the findings of this research, patterns showed a subjective and abstract nature due to being theoretical and therefore, they can be identified in the form of concepts in the design process. However, regulations are formulated and based on high-level decision-making in the governing parties in each context and developed to control the quality of the built environment and therefore, their application requires less skill or expertise. The results showed that today’s regulation has reduced chances of creativity in design and limits architects in providing the design question with wider answers because of their very nature. Investigation of this research showed regulation by themselves cannot guarantee the presence of former architecture’s principals in today’s one. The reason for this phenomenon is the restricting role of regulation in design. This study showed that this role not only limited creativity, but also shaped new templates. These templates are on the verge of becoming patterns of today’s architecture, but in nature, they are fundamentally different from the patterns used previously. The reason found is the origin of these newborns’ patterns, which is limitations, as opposed to cultural and structural innovations.

Since it is necessary to obtain regulation to organize cities, we cannot eliminate their existence, rather we need to modify their role in the design process. In this regard, the modification of regulation is one of the basic needs of today’s built environment. Therefore, the main achievement of this research forwarded to policymakers and urban planners, who by modifying the nature of regulation, can transform them to an effective asset in the design process.