See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278849415

ModRule: A User-Centric Mass Housing Design Platform

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47386-3_13

CITATIONS READS

14 12,416

3 authors, including:

Marc Aurel Schnabel Tian Tian Lo

Victoria University of Wellington Victoria University of Wellington
251 PUBLICATIONS 1,463 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Aurel Schnabel on 29 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ModRule
A User-Centric Mass Housing Design Platform

Tian Tian Lo1, Marc Aurel Schnabel2, and Yan Gao3

1
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Ph.D. student, Hong Kong
skyduo@gmail.com
2
Victoria University of Wellington, Professor, Wellington, New Zealand
marcaurel.schnabel@vuw.ac.nz
3
University of Hong Kong, Assistant Professor, Hong Kong
yangao@hku.hk

Abstract. This paper presents a novel platform, ModRule, designed and

developed to promote and facilitate collaboration between architects and future
occupants during the design stage of mass housing buildings. Architects set the
design-framework and parameters of the system, which allows the users to set
their space requirements, budgets, etc., and define their desired way of living.
The system utilizes gamification methodologies as a reference to promote
incentives and user-friendliness for the layperson who has little or no
architectural background. This enhanced integration of a both bottom-up
approach (user-centric/player) with a top-down approach (architect-
centric/game-maker) will greatly influence how architects design high rise living.
By bridging the gap between the architect and the user, this development aims to
instill a greater sense of belonging to people, as well as providing architects with
a better understanding of how to give people more control over their living
spaces. The paper also presents an evaluation of a design process that employed
ModRule.

Keywords: Mass housing; Collaborative design; Participatory system

1 Introduction

Mass housing has constituted a major concern for city dwellers, especially with the
increasing numbers of city dwellers, resulting in increases in population densities and
limitations of urban land resources. It has, at different levels, become a major topic of
discussion, politically as a form of nation building [18], economically in search of ways
to provide affordable housing to the masses [16] and using housing as a form of
investment [6], and socially to develop community bonds and identity [1].
Mass housing, as the name suggests, is intended for the masses. Participation in
building design can come in many forms [27]. Most of the time, urban planners have
invited government officials, and even the public community, to be involved in the
projects to provide better knowledge of the locals [17]. In the context of housing, there
are cases [30], such as Okohaus by Frei Otto, NEXT21 by 13 architects owned by the
Osaka Gas Corporation, La Meme, and Zilvervloot by Lucien Kroll, that demonstrate
the possibilities of participation of the occupants. However, the main industry is still in
such a top-down state that the occupants do not have much input in the design process.
In conventional design of high-rise mass housing, developers will plan based on their
experience and market analysis. They will then proceed with their design based on their
visualization and realize it in a profitable and cost-effective manner. In order to provide
efficient and affordable housing, modular systems and fabrication techniques are
adopted. Developers and architects even developed standards to further enhance the
efficiency and fitness of housing products. This has not only suppressed creativity and
opportunities for innovation in the housing industry, it has also changed the notion of
the home in modern living.
While housing design is being simplified to increase efficiency, family structures
have become more complex. For example, the typical ‘two parents, two children’
family has become much less common [4]. This results in many mass housing designs
not reacting effectively to multi-facetted social needs, ‘forcing’ these people to live in
identical units designed and prefabricated for efficiency and affordability. Using old
China housing as a comparison, these old houses are designed for gatherings of family
members or even entire families. Now, mass housing is just stacked container boxes to
‘house’ families. Modernism and advancement of construction techniques have also
unified design typology so much so that it is currently quite difficult to distinguish the
identity of each mass housing building, even in different countries. Architects have
been trying to elucidate the desires of people [31] and translate them into design:
however, the outcome has largely remained the same.
With the advancement of computer-aided, -generated, and -supported architectural
design, novel possibilities have emerged to allow the user to participate in mass housing
architectural design. User-centric design processes [11], such as the ‘Barcode housing
system’ [32] are such early attempts. However, their full potential has not been
exploited in order to allow full participation and individual design variations of the
occupants. At present, most of the computational methods address only a fully
parameterized design, i.e., they are mainly generated by a top-down approach and are
controlled by architects without, or with only little, involvement of the users. It has
been a well-established praxis to offer a housing design that highly engages occupants.
These were generated by using non-digital methods [2], and subsequently mostly do
not exist in large scale mass housing. Currently, sophisticated computational systems
can aid architects in their choices of designs, while at the same time allowing for
customized mass production of housing that is economically viable [13].
Design tools, such as Rhino-Python™ script, Grasshopper, and Autodesk Revit™
that focus on Building Information Modelling (BIM) could aid architects in providing
alternative and better solutions for housing design. The abovementioned design
constraints and issues can be re-examined to liberate architects in the process. By
adopting open-source systems and open-collaborative design strategies, this research
examines the need to develop a platform for a bottom-up design approach that allows
for mass-customization, and maintains efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the housing
industry.
2 Open Design in Mass Housing

In product development, open source, as a philosophy, promotes universal access via

free licenses to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution, including
allowing subsequent improvements to be made to it by anyone [15]. Opening the source
code enables diversified customization to further develop the original products to break
through the limitations of the initial creators of the source codes, i.e., collective
intelligence for innovation and development. Open source has been nurturing the IT
industry for developing programs. Consequently, different virtual communities have
formed around the source code.
Open Source Architectural (OSA) is an emerging paradigm describing new
procedures for the design, construction, and operation of buildings, infrastructure, and
spaces. Drawing from references as diverse as Open Source Culture, avant-garde
architectural theory, science fiction, language theory, etc., it describes an inclusive
approach to spatial design, a collaborative use of design software, and transparent
operation throughout the course of a building’s and city's life cycle [35].
In the architectural field, the ideas and the approaches of Open Source Design have
been borrowed for years. However, it could not yet produce a new practice of
architecture due to the complexity of the architectural industry, including but not
limited to design, procurement, construction, and numerous other intertwined issues.
The recent Wiki-house could only deal with the simplest house solutions, without truly
exploiting the power of collective design with participation of the end users for
collective housing, i.e., the type of architecture that requires negotiation between
multiple users, the designer, and the stake holders.
Open building is an approach for building design that was promoted by John
Habraken (1961) and was recognized internationally during the 1960s to constitute a
new wave in the architectural field. The idea of a bottom-up design approach is not
new. Specifically, Habraken proposed two main domains of action - the action of the
community and that of the inhabitants. Without the individual inhabitant, the result is
usually uniform and brutal, which can be seen in most mass housing projects currently.
On the other hand, the community, which in this case involves the designers, is
necessary as well. Without design control, the spontaneous result will be chaotic and
disturbing. Achieving a coherent balance between individual participation and top-
down design manipulation is challenging, as it involves all parties during the building
process, which is ideally led by the building makers, i.e., the architects.
Building design can be divided into three levels of decision-making: the tissue, the
support, and the infill. They are separate, yet dependent on each other. The town fabric
(tissue level) constitutes a higher level than the buildings, positioned within the town
fabric. Buildings can be altered or replaced, while the town fabric remains consistent.
The buildings, in turn, can be divided into the base buildings (support level) and the fit-
out (infill level). The higher level (support) accommodates and limits the lower level
(infill), which in turn determines its requirements towards the higher level [9]. On every
level, there is an 'ultimate customer': the consumer on the infill level, the housing
corporation or developer on the support level, and the municipality on the tissue level
(Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Open building (John Habraken, 1961)

“Open design” is made possible from the two previous definitions; open source
provides information, and open building provides the methodology. The main
characteristics in open design are that professionals and laypersons are on equal footing;
only then can communication and collaboration occur smoothly. Any stakeholder who
shares an interest in the design will be able to influence it.
Open design examines the two main aspects, social optimization and technical
optimization, which cannot be separated. “A professional design also incorporates the
social views of the professionals and therefore implicitly includes their social group
optimum. And a social design incorporates the technical views of the non-professionals,
thus implicitly including their technical group optimum.” [41].
Mass housing is one of the building typologies that requires open design. The
outcomes from the design process should not be dictated, but rather communicated.
Much housing that is built by architects or governments is based on past experience,
and proven concepts and methods. For example, new urban areas in Amsterdam appear
to have come from this process due to the authorities following rules and proven
designs, creating dissatisfaction among the residents [41]. Although it is in an urban
context, mass housing is the same. In fact, housing demands much more individuality,
as it aims to house a single family compared to urban areas, which serve the general
public.

3 Collaboration of Open Mass Housing Design

Collaboration poses an enormous challenge, especially in the mass housing context. As

spatial preference is very personal, conflicts are sure to arise and are mostly difficult to
resolve. This is usually because the decision-making models in current practice are all
‘black box’, in which the control unit is closed and often fixed [41]. In order for
collaboration to work, the decision model should be a ‘glass box’ instead, in which the
decision variables and parameters are open and transparent.
To find a means to achieve collaboration between the various stakeholders and the
architects is not simply to create a digital platform for them to communicate. This could
easily be accomplished with technology or a social network platform. The main
objective is to understand how mass housing design can be ‘simplified’ into simple
rules and parameters for the stakeholders to engage in the design process easily. The
various stakeholders in this research are given higher priority than the occupants. BIM
is currently only focusing on higher authorities, such as government personnel,
developers, and contractors. Occupants who are actually the ‘real clients’ are usually
not involved. Therefore, this research will focus on the facilitation of collaboration
between the occupants and the architects (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Collaboration between occupants and architects

Considering this objective, there are sub-questions that need to be addressed. Since
the focus is on the occupants, there are some social aspects that need to be examined.
Especially in the mass housing context, many sensitive issues could hinder this
research. Instead of resolving these issues, this research aims to increase those
possibilities. One such possibility is the introduction of a computational platform to
engage the occupants at the early stage of the design process to build up the community
bond. By setting the parameters optimally, the platform could achieve a balance such
that there is fair play among everyone. The controls have to be optimized so that the
collaboration of the occupants will not dictate the design too much, which might cause
the design to lose control, yet will not be too constrained to the extent that participation
is meaningless. In addition, these parameters have to be simplified, such that anyone
can easily understand them to ensure the possibility of collaboration. Another sub-
question is how to enable the stakeholders to change their decisions during any point
of the design process. For an open system to work, the goals and criteria of the
occupants have to be incorporated. This must also be done in such a way that they can
reach a consensus at some point. Thus, the modeling process in this case has to be ‘free’,
so that it can be discussed, negotiated, and changed during use. This is where the digital
platform comes into play. As the modeling process has become part of the design
process, with changes becoming constant throughout, the speed and efficiency of
computers is necessary to organize the unstructured collection of possibilities.
To quite a great extent, these also revolve around the parameters used. The
organization of the design options have to be controlled in an optimized manner such
that it is easy to manipulate, yet manageable at the same time. In addition, the
parameters must also be controlled such that the design provided will not go out of
control yet maintain the freedom available to achieve individuality among the
occupants. Essentially, this research actually focuses on the design parameters and the
workflow process that could encourage collaboration and enhance data management.

4 Studio 1: Preliminary Work (Manual)

To further understand the possible problems that would occur in collaborative design,
a preliminary design studio is set up to explore the progress without any digital tools as
an aid. The only use of computer software is to generate the final design outcome. The
studio is conducted with 16 students with various levels of design background. They
play the role of designers, designing for a group of occupants which is set by them. The
duration is only one semester, which is usually not enough to conduct a fully detailed
collaboration process. However, it is somewhat enough to obtain data to analyze and
understand the needs of the process.

4.1 Description
The studio observed the struggle between flexibility and control, i.e., the conflict of the
top-down versus bottom-up approach. It investigated the potential problems faced
while designing parts of a building. With each designer having his or her own ideas and
goals, the research focus was to monitor their collaboration. Two groups of eight
MArch students were given a brief summary to examine the parameters of housing
designs that designers would tend to choose. The studio was organized into four phases:
Phase one. This phase was with reference to the open building concept, in which the
housing design was divided into support and infill. In a top-down manner, a main
architect (the authors) developed a building form in terms of layout and structure, in
this case, typical mix-use building with commercial at the bottom and residential at the
top (Fig. 3). The latter, the focus of this research, was fragmented into a certain grid for
flexible selection and customization.
Figure 3. Setup of the design

Phase two. This phase relied on a bottom-up approach, in which each designer acted
as a potential occupant with specific demands-and-needs, and a design to accommodate
them. In order to examine how the level of constraints would impact the designers’
choice, two groups of eight designers were given different sets of parameters to follow
during the design process (Fig. 4). In a grid system, the designers arranged the massing
units into habitable spaces. Functioning as a potential occupant, each of them had the
chance to choose their neighbors.

Figure 4. Parameters for the two groups (Serdar, 2014)

Phase three. In this step, collaborative decision-making for the unit distribution,
circulation and common area organization, and green/planted area allocation were
observed. The designers assessed their options.
Phase four. At this stage, the design addresses the façade part of the building. Each
designer had to decide on opening types and material. Privacy issues were taken into
account, which necessitated reassessing the decisions made in the previous stages. The
main architect would step in to maintain a semi-controlled process.
4.2 Studio Progress and Outcome
The designers could change the constraints as they saw fit, as long as both the whole
group and the main architect (the authors) agreed. Especially in the first group with
more constraints, some constraints had to be removed in order to open up more space
for more optimized design outcomes. Regarding the group without much constraint,
new rules were developed to ensure a certain ‘style’. The constraints in each group were
then compared to determine the type of parameters, so that the main designer could
define the overall building level. This allowed an optimal control versus freedom by
which the individual designer’s creativity was enhanced.
Under the condition of a plan layout fixed by the main architect, the designers were
given a number of unit cubes to fill up the plan. The designers then worked together to
generate a circulation such that each space was accessible. Safety and fire escape issues
were considered minimally. The basic requirement was that the circulation should reach
the core. The main architect then assessed the designers for moving to the next stage
(Fig. 5). The more the discussions continued, the more the cubes shifted around.

Figure 5. Manual collaboration process from using colored cubes to allocate desired space to
spatial plans

Problems occurred constantly, as well. For example, crashes of model components,

inconsistent plan organization, and issues of privacy due to windows placements
occurred. At the same time, the main architect would request each group to provide
additional public spaces or to increase the porosity of the building for more ventilation.
Physical models were built for better and faster simultaneous assessment. This
encouraged another level of discussion, which might necessitate returning all of the
way back to the planning stage (Fig. 6).
Figure 6. Design proposal of a mass housing building assembled using colored cubes after one
week of discussion

After every conflict was settled, the façades were designed individually. One of the
groups established that each façade had to have strong vertical elements. They also tried
more parametric relationships through computational tools, such as Grasshopper, while
the other group focused on virtual visualization and physical modelling (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Final design results of the two groups

At the end of the studio, a survey was given to every designer to obtain feedback
with respect to this design methodology. Although they encountered many difficulties,
95% of them expressed the desire to use this design method, if available, to design a
place of their own in the future.

5 Studio 2: System Development (Computer-Generated)

The information collected from the first studio was used to design a digital platform.
The objectives of this platform were that the design parameters could be controlled
better, communication could be recorded, and data collection could be managed more
efficiently.
5.1 ModRule: Mass-housing Design Platform
By integrating the concept of open architecture, we developed a collaborative design
platform, named “ModRule”. By setting the best rules and parameters, the modular
system is able to work diversely to generate a wide variety of design options for every
individual occupant. It is a system that allows the architect to work more closely with
potential inhabitants. The setup, therefore, is quite different from a normal design
process. In ModRule, the housing design process is divided into four parts: i) the overall
form; ii) the spatial layout of units; iii) structure; and iv) architectural components. The
architect uses ModRule to plan a framework within which prospective users of the
system are engaged (Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Workflow of ModRule

The ModRule platform (version 0.1), although it is divided into two main groups,
i.e., the administrator for the architects and the public for the users, has three kinds of
interfaces: i) admin interface – in which the architect sets the initial design rules and
parameters; ii) public interface – in which the public interacts with the model to ‘design’
its desired living space; and iii) admin-watch interface – in which the architect
communicates with the public and oversees the whole collaboration process with data
gathered from each individuals’ movement.
Admin interface. The administrator interface (Fig. 9) is where the architect prepares
his or her framework of the design. With reference to most games, “gridding” the plans
helps to simplify the collaboration process. The architect can grid the plans with respect
to his or her plan geometry, i.e., it does not need to be a square grid if the architect is
designing a unique housing plan.

Figure 9. Administrator interface

Next, the architect sets the parameters of each grid, giving each grid a value for any
factors that are desired by the inhabitants. For example, the most apparent parameter
will be the cost of each grid. The architect can also set the daylight factor, sky-view
factor, privacy, and views. In addition, some grids can be set as “fixed”, in which users
will not be able to select them. These are mainly spaces, such as the core of the building,
the circulatory systems, utilities, and even public spaces where sole control would
belong to the architect.
Public interface. Users only see the plans of the buildings. Certain information, such
as orientation, available view types, and amount of sunlight is indicated in the diagram
as part of the model. Through the interface (Fig. 10), the users first set their targets or
factors that contribute to their desired home design.

Figure 10. Public interface

In any collaboration process, it can be assumed that conflicts will exist. To address
this, an interface in ModRule 0.1 appears for any conflict that a participant has with
other users. Negotiations are then necessary. A resolution of the conflict can be
negotiated by referring to the pre-established target values of the participants. The
architect acts as “judge” in this case and facilitates a successful solution of the conflict.
 Admin-watch interface. In the administrator interface, there is an additional
feature, in which the architect can oversee the entire “playing” process (Fig. 11). The
interface is quite similar to the public interface. Every conflict is visible, and the
architect would have to consider the targets of each user to provide the best win-win
situation for everyone involved. For example, the user with “view” as the first target
will have a higher priority to choose units with a high view value compared to another
user with “view” as the second target. However, if the former user has already achieved
80% or more of his or her target, the latter would then be given priority to achieve his
or her target.

Figure 11. Admin-watch interface

After all of the prospective inhabitants fulfil their targets, the architect moves on to
the next phase, in which every individual user plans his or her interior spatial layout.
The process is simplified such that users with no knowledge of design will still be able
to utilize it fully. The users will only need to drag the room types, make the connections,
and the plan will appear immediately.

5.2 Studio Progress and Outcome 2

The second design studio was conducted in ModRule 0.1. There was no group of
individual designers. Each designer was responsible to setup his or her own parameters
and rules. Moreover, no constraint was defined beforehand, so that they were freer to
setup their design than was the case in the previous studio. Since the setting up requires
a certain level of understanding of rule-setting and parametric design thinking, the
designers, MArch students, were exposed to a series of programs.
Firstly was ‘Prison Architects’, a game designed for people to design their own
prison. Although it is a game, the rules set, the parameters, the design components, and
even the spatial relations are setup very comprehensively for the players to design their
own prison. This game relates to BIM to a great extent. For example, by telling the
system what space it is, the players can only include certain furniture and require certain
amounts of utilities, such as water and electricity. Although it is as complex as
architectural design, the way that they provide guidance and requirements for each
spatial type enables the players to design the prison without much difficulty. However,
as simple as it may be, players still have to play a few times in order to truly grasp the
whole gameplay. This is very similar to housing design, in that the players should ‘play
around’ and configure their living space as much as possible to determine which one
best suits their needs and works out practically. Yet, this is in the end still a game, and
the result is just a two-dimensional plan with agents moving around.
Secondly, the designers were introduced to ‘Starlogo TNG’, a system developed by
a research group at MIT to teach programming to children. The interface is designed to
be very intuitive, yet the interaction with the system is very rich. The objective in this
exercise is to allow the designers to have some hands-on experience with setting up
rules. To gain more established skills for programming, coding in Processing
Programming Language was taught.
ModRule 0.1 was then a prototype, and therefore many design setups had to be
established manually. So, the designers will build a general massing form, and write
down a detailed plan to prepare for the ‘gameplay’ (Fig. 12). The rules are set quite
generally so that the gameplay can be more flexible, which as the design progresses,
the rules might change to allow the design to diverge to a more specific outcome.
Initially, every designer will have to design one overall form. With the experience
gained in the previous exercises, the designers can even design the roles of each player
so that the gameplay can be more interactive and simulated. The interesting part is that
there is one designer who over-sets the rules, and therefore there is basically little or no
freedom for the players to choose their desired spot in the building design. Not only did
the designers set the parameters, the unit types are also specified for every role such
that the players are just finding suitable spots to place their units (Fig. 13). The outcome
is very limited, and the players experienced difficulty most of the time. The result was
very similar to what the designer planned.
Figure 12. Rules and parameters set by one of the designers

Figure 13. Rules and parameters set by another designer

 After every designer has set his or her design framework and parameters, discussion
and even trial play is done with each design to rate its advantages and disadvantages in
terms of flexibility and constraints of the set parameters. One design is then chosen
(Fig. 14) for further development into a full design building. Everyone played the
specific role assigned by the designer of the chosen design to achieve the requirement.
For example, a family of four should not be located beside a single family who hates
children, an elderly family is preferably located at the lower level and closer to the loft
core to have better access to the ground level, etc. In order for every role to fulfil their
desired living environment, another round of discussions and negotiations has to be
performed. The digital platform enables the design to change and adjust easily. The
parameters enhanced the negotiation with a clearer understanding of each other’s needs
and criteria. Lastly, the designers will return to do what they do best – design the units
for the role that they played. The detailed plans are then generated from the abstract
units to define the function of the houses. The outcome (Fig. 14) was successful to a
great extent, as the demands of every role are almost fulfilled.

Figure 14. Final outcome of the chosen design

As compared to the previous preliminary study, the designers showed better

understanding in rule-based collaborative design. The exposure of various games and
programs before introducing ModRule 0.1 gave the designers a better understanding of
the purpose and flow of ModRule. During the planning of their rule sets and parameters,
the designers know what to look for to ensure collaboration and a design language to
be communicated. As compared to the previous study, the previous group took a longer
time to reach the stage of generating rules. In addition, the rules generated by the
previous group caused quite a lot of conflict among each other and a substantial amount
of time was spent to have the design adjusted and refined. For the current group,
however, although the users only played a role that did not reflect what they would
really demand, fewer conflicts appeared, as the players attained their targets and aims.
The only setback was that the architects need to have a different design thinking
(computationally) to be able to set up the model parametrically to allow this
collaboration to work. A post-design interview conducted with both groups of designers
also proved that with the help of a digital platform, the designers have an easier and
more effective way to engage with the users.

6 Further Development

Remote Discussion. ModRule is designed to host discussions between experts and

laypersons. To encourage participation, gamification techniques are exhausted in the
first version. Further improvement requires these methods to be more prevalent in both
their interface types and structure. Gamification provides intrinsic motivation for the
players to interact with the system and collaborate with other players. The next version
is planned to focus on designing Points, Badges, and Leaderboards (PBLs). In the
previous studio work, the designers often needed to meet physically, i.e., remote
discussion occurred only at a minimal level. To test the impacts of collaboration from
different destinations, ModRule 0.2 will use PBLs to encourage virtual discussion
during the process.
Virtualization-and-Visualization. ModRule 0.1 is substantially lacking in visual
capability and setting up the context of the design. The current studies are done by
designers imagining the site condition. The availability of views, the amount of
daylight, and orientation are all drawn on paper and referred to during the collaboration
process. Even designers participating in the research studio have difficulties imagining
it. One development is to fuse the system with a visually advanced software which
relates very closely to BIM – Fuzor, which is an interactive and real-time virtual reality
visualization and evaluation plugin for Revit™ developed by Kalloc (2014). To be able
to answer the research question more directly, visual enhancement is necessary. The
aim is to provide a much more visually clear model so that the public can understand
the design and objective intuitively instead of requiring an explanation of the details of
the models, since the public is not architecturally trained and the current abstract
building form is quite difficult for the public to understand. The availability of a
visualization of site environment and conditions will aid the public to set their desired
living condition more clearly (Fig. 15), and hence enable the research to be conducted
with much more fruitful results.
Figure 15. Screenshot of user interacting with model in Fuzor – a Revit-Plugin by Kalloc

Developing Spatial/Parametric Relationships. Last, but not least, our research

focus is mainly on turning the rule-based design system of ModRule 0.1 into more
parametric relationships. In other words, Space Syntax methods exploited in the
previous two design studio works will be enhanced with parametric spatial relationships
through shape grammar. ModRule 0.2 will be primarily focused on remote discussion
and visualization. However, with the third version, our target is to integrate shape
grammar into the system.

7 Conclusion

ModRule is a user-centric mass-housing design platform. Mass-housing includes

different levels of understanding. It is designed and developed to promote and facilitate
collaboration between architects and future occupants during the design stage of mass
housing buildings. But it is much more than just an architectural design instrument; it
is also social, political, and economic. Its aim is to bifurcate the decision-making
process toward the end-user. The system utilizes gamification methodologies as a
reference to promote incentives and user-friendliness for the layperson who has little
or no architectural background. Therefore, ModRule focuses on different aspects to
translate a design environment into a digital platform and to improve on remote control
discussions, visualizations, and profound parametric design techniques. The
collaboration tool instills a greater sense of belonging to the people, as well as giving
the providing architects with a better understanding and control of how to give people
more control over their living spaces. The adopted open-source strategy and open-
collaborative design approach of this research developed a platform for a bottom-up
design methodology that allows for mass-customization, and maintains efficiency and
cost-effectiveness in the housing industry. Future developments of ModRule will allow
a better connection to BIM software and a refinement of the algorithm allowing more
parameters to be set. The here presented studies have shown that ModRule not only
 enables stakeholders to engage seamless in a collaborative process, but also that the
resulting design successfully expresses the design desires of users and architects
leading to a novel architecture.

References
1. Bauer, C.: Social questions in housing and community planning. Journal of Social Issues,
7(1-2), 1-34 (1951)
2. Bech-Danielsen, C.: De-signed ecology. Actapolytechnica scandinavica. Design. Evolution,
cognition. Selected and edited papers from DEcon '94 symposium: Civil engineering and
building construction series no. 105, 3-11 Helsinki: T Oksala & GE Lasker (1996)
3. Benrós, D., Duarte, J., & Branco, F.: A System for Providing Customized Housing.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design
Futures, 153-166 Sydney, Australia (2007)
4. Blessing, M.: Types of Family Structures. Retrieved from LoveToKnow:
http://family.lovetoknow.com/about-family-values/types-family-structures (n.d.)
5. Britannica, T. E.: Prefabrication. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica:
http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/474611/prefabrication (20 August, 2013)
6. Case, K., & Shiller, R.: Forecasting Prices and Excess Returns in the Housing Market. In
Real Estate Economics, 18(3) 253-273 (1990)
7. Chien, S., & Shih, S.: Design through Information Filtering. Computer Aided Architectural
Design Futures 103-110 (2001)
8. Chuen, H., Huang, J., & Krawczyk, R.: i_Prefab Home - Customizing Prefabricated Houses
by Internet-Aided Design. Communicating Space(s), 690-698 (2006)
9. Cuperus, Y.: An introduction to open building. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction. Singapore (2001)
10. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L.: From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference, (MindTrek '11) 9-15 Tampere (2011)
11. Fabian, E., Janssen, P., & Lo, T.: Group Forming: Negotiating Design Via Web-Based
Interaction and Collaboration. Open Systems: Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2013),
271-280 Singapore (2013)
12. Frazer, J.: An Evolutionary Architecture. London: Architectural Association (1995)
13. Gao, Y., & Su, Y.: Computational Design Research For High Density Social Housing in
China. Global Science and Technology Forum Journal of Engineering Technology (2012)
14. Gao, Y., Lo, T., & Chang, Q.: Integrated Open Source Architectural Design for High
Density. Proceedings of 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture. Athens,
Greece (2014)
15. Gerber, A., Molefo, O., & Van der Merwe, A.: Documenting open source migration
processes for re-use. Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2010 Conference - Fountains of
Computing Research 75 – 85 Paula Kotze, Aurona Gerber, Alta van der Merwe, and Nicola
Bidwell. ACM Press (2010)
16. Grimes, O.: Housing for low-income urban families: Economics and policy in the
developing world. World Bank (1976)
17. Guneet, K.: Participatory Approach / Community Involvement in Planning. 43rd ISOCARP
Congress (2007)
18. Gwendolyn Wright.: Building the dream: A social history of housing in America. MIT press,
(1983)
19. Herr, C., Fischer, T., Wang, H., & Ren, W.: Demand-Driven Generative Design of
Sustainable Mass Housing for China. The Fifth China Urban Housing Conference. China
(2005)
20. Huizinga, J.: Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play element in Culture. Routledge & Kegan
Paul (1955)
21. Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R.: MDA: A formal approach to game design and game
research. 19th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence, 5pgs (2004)
22. Israel, N.: Okohaus, los límites de la participación. Retrieved from La civdad viva:
http://www.laciudadviva.org/blogs/?p=14164 (15 June, 2012)
23. Kalloc: Fuzor: www.kalloctech.com, (30 January, 2014)
24. Kapp, K.: The Gamification of Learning and Instruction—Game-Based Methods and
Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons (2012)
25. Kelly, A.: Decision Making Using Game Theory : An Introduction for Managers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2003)
26. Kendall, S.: Managing Change: the application of Open Building in the INO Bern Hospital.
Retrieved from In Design & Health Congress: www.designandhealth.com/Media-
Publishing/Papers.aspx (29 September, 2009)
27. Kernohan, D.: User participation in building design and management: a generic approach to
building evaluation. Butterworth-Heinemann (1992)
28. Kim, J., Brouwer, R., & Kearney, J.: NEXT 21: A Prototype Multi-Family Housing
Complex. Michigan: University of Michigan, College of Architecture and Urban Planning:
Ann Arbor (1993)
29. Lefaivre, L.: Top Down Meets Bottomup, Spontaneous Interventions: design actions for the
common good. Architect Magazine (August, 2012)
30. Lo, TT., Schnabel, MA & Gao, Y.: Collaborative Mass Housing Design Practice with Smart
Models, International Conference on Digital Architecture (DADA), Beijing, China, (2013)
31. Madigan, R., Munro, M., & Smith, S. J.: Gender and the meaning of the home. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14.4 (1990)
32. Madrazo, L., Sicilia, A., González, M., & Cojo, A.: Barcode housing system: Integrating
floor plan layout generation processes within an open and collaborative system to design
and build customized housing. Annual Joining Languages, Cultures and Visions:
CAADFutures 656- 670 PUM: T. Tidafi and T. Dorta (2009)
33. Mayer, C., & Somerville, C.: Residential Construction: Using the Urban Growth Model to
Estimate Housing Supply. Journal of Urban Economics, 48(1), 85-109 (2000)
34. Nikos, A.: Design Methods, Emergence, and Collective Intelligence, New Science, New
Urbanism, New Architecture? Towards a New 21st Century Architecture, Katarxis No. 3
(2004)
35. Op-ed.: Open Source Architecture (OSArc). Retrieved from domus:
http://www.domusweb.it/en/op-ed/2011/06/15/open-source-architecture-osarc-.html (15
June, 2011)
36. Record.: Largest LAN Party. Retrieved from Guinness World Record:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/3000/largest-lan-party (1 December,
2007)
37. Sass, L., & Botha, M.: The Instant House:A Model of Design Production with Digital
Fabrication. International Journal of Architectural Computing vol. 4 - no. 4, 109-123 (2006)
 38. Schnabel, M.: Interplay of Domains. Learning from the Past a Foundation for the Future
[Special publication of papers presented at the CAAD futures 2005 conference (pp. 11-20).
Vienna (Austria): Vienna University of Technology (2005)
39. Schnabel, M., & Kvan, T.: Spatial Understanding in Immersive Virtual Environments.
International Journal of Architectural Computing vol. 1 - no. 4 (2003)
40. Schnabel, M., Kvan, T., Kruijff, E., & Donath, D.: The First Virtual Environment Design
Studio. Architectural Information Management [19th eCAADe Conference Proceedings 394-
400 Helsinki, Finland (2001)
41. Van Gunsteren, L., Binnekamp , R., & Van Loon, P.: Open Design, a Stakeholder-oriented
Approach in Architecture, Urban Planning, and Project Management: Volume 1 Research in
Design Series. Delft: IOS Press (2006)
42. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J.: The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game
Mechanics to Crush The Competition. McGraw-Hill (2013)

View publication stats