Simulations and counterfactuals

In contrast to digital reconstructions of damaged or destroyed buildings, digital simulations of unbuilt architecture do not have physical remains as a reference source. Therefore, as opposed to using hindcasting to analyse what once was, simulations are used to counterfactually investigate what could have been.

Counterfactuals literally mean scenarios that are counter to fact, or events that did not happen. Predictably, this type of enquiry has been regarded with suspicion in the broader field of historical research, with investigation into the subject often dismissing it as being mere ‘parlour-games’ (Climo and Howells 1974, Carr 1990). In architecture, digital simulations of the unbuilt can be used to form the starting point of a counterfactual line of enquiry, with the created simulation being used to test ‘what if?’ scenarios. Mitchell adds to Carr’s concern by stating that;

“...counterfactuals, in general, are very slippery things. They are only of real interest if the counterfactual premise specifies an apparently

plausible alternative at some particular juncture in history.” (Mitchell

1998, p.11)

The inclusion of plausibility and realism is essential in arguing the case for counterfactual history; without plausibility the enquiry becomes mere fantasy. In this sense, the subject is repeatedly its own enemy as it has a tendency to discredit itself by suggesting implausible scenarios (Ferguson 1999). This is because central to all historical enquiries is evidence, and in many cases of historical research you cannot have direct evidence when dealing with a scenario that is by definition counter to fact (Bunzl 2004). This opinion comes from a deterministic approach which frequently prevails in history; the view that everything is predetermined along a chosen path over which we have no control. This attitude consequently renders counterfactuals as useless, as no alternatives could have possibly occurred anyway. Similarly it has been argued that history should not try to explain what may have occurred, only what did occur based on the evidence available with conclusions prepared from that alone (Oakeshott 1986).

However, architecture is unique in the sense that representation techniques are required to construct a building, therefore by their very nature they leave behind representation evidence of what could have been physically built, hence validating research into counterfactual scenarios. Ferguson (1999) defends the use of counterfactual scenarios in line with Oakeshott’s comments;

50

“The historian attaches his own meaning to the surviving remnants of the past which he finds in his pursuit of an answer to a given question. Equally clearly, his answer, when it is published, must make some kind of sense to others. But who chooses the original question? And who is to say whether the reader’s interpretation of the finished text will correspond to that intended by the author? Above all, why should

counterfactual questions be ruled out?” (Ferguson 1999, p.52)

This alludes to the fact that if a number of historians studied the same subject, although they may produce similar conclusions, they will all vary to some degree. This is important as it highlights that counterfactuals are one way of interpreting events that happened; to suggest that there can only be one overall or definitive version of a historical event is false as previously discussed in earlier sections of the chapter. Deterministic approaches to history results in all of the options or different possible scenarios being closed as they have already happened and are set along a predetermined course anyway. In contrast, in the present there is an unlimited number of paths we can take into the future if we reject deterministic principles. What counterfactuals allow us to do is put ourselves in the place of the actor at the time and try to understand the different options they had available in their present.

Suggesting alternative truths in history must be as plausible and realistic as possible. This is achieved by studying contemporary empirical evidence such as architectural drawings, images and text which gives them their explanatory power (De Mey and Weber 2003). Based on this, an investigation into all of the alternatives available to the person/scenario can then be considered. Often, the counterfactual argument considered would have been more likely than the actual outcome at the time (Ferguson 1999). For example, when Lutyens began designing the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral in 1929, it is highly unlikely that he would have considered the prospect of completing the crypt only, and introducing a new design by another architect.

Counterfactuals enable us to show the importance of an event, for instance ‘X happened and consequently led to Y, but if it had not then Z might have, which shows us how important X was’. We can enhance our understanding of what actually happened by understanding what did not; which is referred to as contrastive reasoning. In this sense, counterfactuals are useful for augmenting the traditional aim of historical discourse, even if they are inherently fictional (De Mey and Weber 2003). If the aim of counterfactuals is to understand the difference an event made, the role of determinism is also irrelevant as it does not matter whether an event is

51

predetermined or not; the value lies in how significant it was (Bunzl 2004, Bulhof 1999).

The idea of constructing counterfactual or fake scenarios of the architectural unbuilt via digital simulations are used to propose ‘an alternative version of an object, or a set of facts surrounding that object to provoke debate and reaction’ and ‘to foster richer debates, and to challenge accepted premises’ (Brown 2001, p.698). Brown (2001) investigates counterfactual scenarios using an incomplete scheme by the architectural practice Connell, Ward and Lucas in London (see Figure 3.8). The drawings found to construct the digital model were predictably incomplete; therefore the context of the design had to be understood, such as investigating the architect’s other work in terms of innovative techniques they utilised, what the contemporary climate was like in terms of prevailing styles and economy, as well as understanding the urban and physical context of the design (Brown 2001).

Figure 3.8: Original drawing of the Lords Court design by Connell, Ward and Lucas (left) and the digital simulation (right). Image credit: Brown (2001, p.701 and p.703).

One finding from analysing the digital simulation revealed that the building was completed physically to first floor level, rather than just the foundations as previously thought. The research suggests that the digital model can be used to pose lines of enquiry such as ‘whether the practice deserves a more prominent place in the history of the Modern Movement’ (Brown 2001, p.700). Studies prior to this tend to be less analytical and more focussed on producing images captured from a three- dimensional digital model as well as providing digital walkthroughs. This can be seen in examples illustrated by Novitski (1998) such as a digital simulation of Wright’s Illinois Mile High Skyscraper, which was discussed in section 2.2.3. However, such studies were crucial developments in digital studies of unbuilt, damaged or destroyed architecture, and the time the research was produced reflects the lack of analysis illustrated as such techniques were relatively new.

52

In terms of source data, some unbuilt works of architecture remain primarily as written documentation, for example Wojtowicz’s study of Le Corbusier’s vision for a set of villas as discussed by Novitski (1998). The research investigated the architect’s writings, one in which he describes the geometric logic that forms a basis for his designs. Only a few sketches of the villas were produced, but primarily based on the writings available describing their geometry, Wojtowicz was able to produce simulations of the villa designs using guidelines set out by Le Corbusier such as the use of the golden rectangle (see Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9: Wojtowicz’s visual simulations of Le Corbusier’s unbuilt villas are produced primarily on written documentation. Image credit: Novitski (1998, p.89).

Sass (2001) also primarily used written sources to investigate Palladio’s unbuilt villas and how rules he wrote can form the basis of a simulation. These took the form of a ‘villa manual’ which would ultimately lead to the simulation, or ‘villa model’. Examples of rules generated from studying the written sources were ‘staircases may not obstruct other places, nor be obstructed by them’, and ‘three openings are required in staircases’ (Sass 2001, p.217). Such rules begin to suggest how models of historic unbuilt or destroyed architecture could be represented parametrically. The rules created were not always successful; for example, a comparison between plan and elevation drawings revealed that they did not match. Therefore the author created a series of logical steps to ensure clarity in the modelling process, such as making sure the initial shape was correct and then adding further detail (Sass 2001). These rules were based on a grid which was formed on the dimensions of a Vicenzentine brick. The very process of constructing the model using Palladio’s rules revealed elements that did not work such as windows being too tall to fit floor to ceiling heights on some floors. This process helped to redefine the rules as well as providing new information about the designs;

“Conflicts were the project’s greatest asset as they lead to design investigation or intention. Palladio’s designs thrived on conflicts between the rules. Adhering to major design rules while breaking lesser rules

53

forced him to invent new design solutions to classical design problems.” (Sass 2001, p.223)

Some sections of the model which were unknown such as determining which historic order the columns were. Therefore several alternatives were presented showing different column types based on research into similar contemporary buildings. The project demonstrates how simulations of unbuilt works of architecture can enhance knowledge of an architect through a process of rigorous questioning and analysis. Other investigations into Palladio’s unbuilt work have focussed more on producing a photo realistic simulation and consequent spatial analysis this enables, as well as the morphology of the design development (Sdegno 2008). The intention of this research is closer to the first Palladian example which reveals there is much that can be learnt from the modelling construction process and resulting analysis in addition to straight forward spatial analysis via techniques such as digital walkthroughs.