„Survival of the Fittest. A Biological Conception of the Architectural Project”, in: Karin Christof (Hg.): Working with Architectonic DNA, Heijningen: Jap Sam Books 2010, S. 42–44
Darstellung bei Podium voor Architectuur
But what does architectonic DNA mean for architecture itself? Is it only rules–explicit like building codes and implicit like aesthetic ideologies, ways of designing that several architects learned from one master or a group of masters establishing a school? Benthem describes the architectonic DNA of Schiphol airport as created by, if that is fair to say, Kho Liang Ie’s “simple rules”: brightness, clarity, simplicity, neutrality, naturalness, balance, unity. What is, then, the rule that defines architectonic DNA? Is it typology? Definitely not, in the classical sense of this concept. Of course, many (but not all) of the above mentioned rules will be accepted by most airport architects for most airports, and the same essence existing in every type of execution is part of this concept. But typology is a design method, it is considered from the perspective of the designer, whereas Kho Liang Ie’s rules seem to be defined from the user’s perspective. Is it something like vernacular or regionalism? Not quite, because that means implicit rules, rules that “planners” cannot avoid because they do not know the alternative. Is it a design style guide? Also, not quite, because such guides usually define certain basic aspects to the highest level of accuracy while they completely leave other, more complex decisions open.