quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a building deconstruction matrix

1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 PSRB40_proof ■ 27 December 2016 ■ 1/5 Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e5 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect H O S T E D BY Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w j o u r n a l s e l s e v i e r c o m / p a c i fi c - s c i e n c e review-b-humanities-and-social-sciences/ Q7 Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix Q6 Negar Mohtashami Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Studies, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Available online xxx This study investigates how deconstruction theory has influenced architectural design in semantic, physical and technical characteristics of buildings and proposes a new assessment tool for measuring key deconstruction criteria in every building An overview on contemporary architecture styles traces new philosophical notions, such as deconstruction within the theoretical realm In this study, after a review on deconstruction philosophy, an assessment tool is arranged based on building characteristics and deconstruction criteria Using this matrix, twenty-three famous deconstruction buildings are evaluated from two perspectives: according to their designers and based on deconstruction criteria The results indicate that deconstruction criteria are mostly realized in physical characteristics of buildings, rather than semantic or technical characteristics, which has been the primary objective of deconstruction theory in the first place It is also observed that deconstruction theory has been quite successful in fostering creative thinking and developing personal styles by emphasizing a certain deconstruction criterion Copyright © 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Keywords: Deconstruction Derrida Building Deconstruction Matrix Creativity Introduction Q1 Q2 Architecture on the verge of the twenty-first century was deeply ingrained with various philosophical approaches and ideas, which has led to major changes in the design process and therefore the final product (Billings and Akkach, 1992; Wong, 2010) Individual centrism was welcomed by the post-modern world and caused many thinkers, writers and artists to look forward to implement these principles into their artwork One of the most notable philosophical trends that has inspired the post-modern architecture is the ‘Deconstruction’ theory Deconstructivism in architecture has spread rapidly and become quite popular as the current leaders of architecture consider themselves to be deconstructivists (Durmus and Gur, 2011) Deconstruction, as explained by Derrida, is questioning ideas and common concepts Therefore, it can be considered to be an old behaviourial model in the history of architecture evolution (Gur, 2008) In fact, the logic behind Derrida's questioning brings up the possibility of re-reading and re-evaluating traditional E-mail address: negar.mohtashami@modares.ac.ir Peer review under responsibility of Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University structures and architectural concepts in the present time This is why some experts believe that the Deconstruction theory can act as an operational tool in architecture (Durmus and Gur, 2011) Many architects face serious challenges between humanity values and market requirements in their projects Successful architectural solutions rely on ideas and metaphors, which originates at a designer's level of creativity Solutions to the design problem mostly start at the beginning of the design process (Agabani, 1980; Eastman, 1970; Lawson, 1997), and creative designers usually identify their best ideas at the beginning of the process (Davies and Talbot, 1987) More importantly, designers tend to use formal ideas for a better cognition of the problem rather than logical argumentation (Rowe, 1987) Deconstruction theory as a method for finding solutions and even questions has the same function similar to concept of creativity (Durmus and Gur, 2011), and can be used as a method at the beginning of the design process to foster the architect's imagination However, we should understand how the mechanism it affects our design and its final product, which includes the sematic, physical and technical characteristics of the building Among the deconstruction projects, we encounter various design styles and forms Concision in deconstruction projects brings up the debate whether we can specify certain design criteria http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 2405-8831/Copyright © 2016, Far Eastern Federal University, Kangnam University, Dalian University of Technology, Kokushikan University Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 PSRB40_proof ■ 27 December 2016 ■ 2/5 N Mohtashami / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e5 and principles, such as modern architecture, or is the buildings made out of each architect's creativity and personal taste? The purpose of this study is to achieve a model for assessing deconstruction buildings in order to answer the question of how much have deconstruction criteria been realized in different building characteristics, and how can we explain different building appearances in the deconstruction style in comparison with other architectural styles? The present study investigates Deconstruction theory in its original philosophical and linguistic form Next, according to different parameters required for designing and building of a project, we extract a few keywords that can be generalized from Deconstruction theory into architecture After that step, the most fundamental characteristics of every architectural building is identified in order to create a matrix for assessment of deconstruction buildings This matrix can determine the amount of success in every architect's design according to deconstruction criteria In the final step, we apply the matrix on famous deconstruction buildings, and the results are interpreted according to both key deconstruction criteria and different architects Deconstruction theory Defining Deconstruction contradicts its own nature according to Derrida's theory because definitions delimit concepts, while Deconstruction's goal is to break links between concepts (Benedikt, 1992) Deconstruction has a Latin root and was first introduced in the realm of linguistics and philosophy The prefix ‘De’ implies a redefinition in foundations of architecture that brings up new definitions and concepts, while restructuring old ones (Broadbent, 1991) Deconstruction does not mean re-construction of concepts, but it implies on constructing them again Derrida also emphasizes that this word is not a concept, but a state of deconstructing and, at the same time, constructing (Matthews, 1996) Deconstruction Theory opposes the so long believed constructivism thoughts that recognized language as the factor structuring human contemporary life and the notion that people can communicate through the use of words (Kurt, 2011) However, Deconstruction theory introduces language and words as misleading signals for communication as it cannot reflect the whole reality and distorts human intentions (Derrida, 1992) In other words, Deconstruction enables various interpretations of every text and does not qualify a single interpretation as the correct one (Derrida, 1988) Deconstruction and architectural assessment model The starting point of Deconstruction trends in architecture occurred when architect, Peter Eisenman, tried to generalize Derrida's theory into architecture Eisenman adopts the re-writing concept of Deconstruction and uses architectural elements as words to create a new essay in form of a building (Jodat, 2007) In architecture, the Deconstruction theory questions structural, economical and climatic logic of long achieved building science (Broadbent, 1991) In fact, Deconstruction de-attaches basic elements of a building, divides them into smaller components and reveals its unseen contradictions (Jodat, 2007), bringing up a new essay to be read by different perspectives In this regard and through a free interpretation of the concept, creative architects have designed revolutionary buildings that founded the later styles and ideas in the realm of architecture According to a literature of Deconstruction theory and its background in architecture, we can identify the following key deconstruction criteria that a designer can implement in architectural projects Ambiguity: the project does not reveal its message explicitly, and arouses questions in the audience's mind Multiple cognitions: each audience acquires understanding of the building through his own thoughts and experience All cognitions are correct, and there is no single interpretation of the building Uncertainty: the building destroys its existing concept before the audience builds a coherent and relatively stable concept in his mind In other words, the building deconstructs its concept before even constructing it Loosing logical structure: The building is no longer bound to logical structures that was used by architects and engineers for many centuries (e.g common logical beams and columns structure, the logic of economically efficient buildings, and the insideeoutside relationship of a building, etc.) Establishing new foundations: the building establishes new foundations based on denying past perspectives and principals in order to create new innovations Contradiction of different interpretations: perceived interpretations by different audiences might vary so much that they often contradict each other The specified criteria are directly extracted from Derrida's theory On the other hand, there are several parameters to assess a building, which are qualitative, physical and technical characteristics (see Table 1) Q3 Building Deconstruction Matrix Because of the interdisciplinary nature of architecture, creative works that inspire creativity in various trends can be generalized into architecture Derrida's Deconstruction theory is conceived as a new and innovative experience in the field of architecture However, the mechanism that affects the architectural design should be investigated Therefore, in order to achieve a model to compare different deconstruction buildings with each other and with fundamental Deconstruction criteria, we propose the Building Deconstruction Matrix where we can assess each building's success in realizing key Table Parameters for assessing a building Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 PSRB40_proof ■ 27 December 2016 ■ 3/5 N Mohtashami / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e5 deconstruction criteria in different building characteristics This matrix allows us to understand different aspects of deconstruction buildings for a better critic The six key deconstruction criteria form the matrix are shown as rows, and the parameters for the building assessment are shown as the columns This way, we have a  matrix with 54 elements (Table 2) that are categorized in qualitative (12 elements), physical (24 elements) and technical (18 elements) characteristics of the building An example of filling and interpreting this matrix for the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre of Hong Kong is illustrated for a better understanding Fig To start filling the matrix, all deconstruction criteria is observed in different characteristics of the building and marked with a star if that characteristic has the specified deconstruction criteria To conclude, the matrix, we define both vertical and horizontal interpretations As a result of the vertical investigation, the percentage of each deconstruction criteria in all parameters for assessing the building will be determined For instance, the multiple cognitions criteria in Table exists in out of building parameters and, as a result, the percentage of existence in total is 4/9 or 44% In the horizontal investigation, the existence of all deconstruction criteria in three different qualitative, physical and technical characteristics of the building will be measured For example, in Table 2, a total of criteria exist out of 12 possible elements Therefore, the presence of the mentioned deconstruction criteria in qualitative characteristics of the building is 5/12 or 41% In this paper, we provide the results of applying this matrix on 23 important deconstruction buildings The general data are presented in Tables and Discussion The results of 23 case studies suggest that the fundamental principles of Deconstruction theory is mostly realized in physical characteristics of the buildings with approximately 68% compliance with the deconstruction criteria It appears that architects generally focus on deconstructing plans and especially the form of buildings, as it is the first and most influential aspect of a building on people In addition, architects rarely have deconstructed sections, which seems to contradict with fundamental Deconstruction concept mostly because architecture is naturally an act of constructing At the next level, deconstruction criteria was, respectively, Table Assessment of Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre using Building Deconstruction Matrix Qualitative characteristics Physical characteristics Technical characteristics Conclusion Design concept Relationship with context Form Plans Facade Sections Structure Materials Decorations Ambiguity Multiple cognitions * * * * * * * * * * 89% * 44% * Uncertainty Loosing logical structure Establishing new foundations * * * * * * * * * 89% * * * * * * * 89% Contradiction of different interpretations Conclusion 41% * * * * * * * 78% * * * 88% 50% 33% Fig Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre, form, internal decorations, ground floor plan and section (URL 1, 2) Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Q4 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 PSRB40_proof ■ 27 December 2016 ■ 4/5 N Mohtashami / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e5 Table Results of assessing 23 deconstruction buildings in different characteristics using the Building Deconstruction Matrix Q5 Architect Building Qualitative characteristics Physical characteristics Technical characteristics Coop Himmelb(l)au Akron Art Museum Riva Del Garda Fair Groninger Museum Open House Rooftop Remodeling Falkestrasse e des Confluences Muse UFA Cinema Center 50% 50% 83% 33% 66% 75% 41% 57% 75% 50% 50% 83% 65% 8% 83% 67% 67% 41% 58% 54% 8% 8% 33% 16% 25% 8% 16% 47% 79% 79% 79% 100% 100% 100% 83% 89% 29% 25% 75% 54% 46% 58% 79% 100% 42% 88% 87% 76% 29% 33% 70% 71% 63% 46% 52% 68% 61% 56% 66% 83% 78% 72% 89% 72% 33% 16% 27% 56% 33% 61% 39% 78% 72% 50% 72% 62% 8% 16% 27% 27% 44% 56% 30% 52% Average Peter Eisenman Wexner Center for the Arts Nunotani Office Building Haus Immendorf New Hamburg Library Average Daniel Libeskind MGM Mirage shopping center Imperial War Museum North Royal Ontario Museum Military History Museum Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre Denver Art Museum Average Zaha Hadid Grand Canal Commercial Development BMW Central Building Eli & Edythe Broad Art Museum Hoxton Square Guangzhou Opera House Dongdaemun Design Plaza Average Average of all buildings Table Results of assessing 23 deconstruction buildings in different criteria using the Building Deconstruction Matrix Architect Building Ambiguity Multiple cognitions Uncertainty Loosing logical structure Establishing new foundations Contradiction of different interpretations Coop Himmelb(l)au Akron Art Museum Riva Del Garda Fair Groninger Museum Open House Rooftop Remodeling Falkestrasse e des Confluences Muse UFA Cinema Center 67% 78% 100% 78% 78% 89% 67% 80% 67% 33% 44% 67% 62% 33% 56% 100% 56% 89% 100% 72% 11% 11 44% 56% 33% 56% 35% 63% 67% 67% 56% 67% 89% 78% 56% 69% 44% 11% 11% 33% 25% 44% 56% 89% 22% 44% 89% 57% 22% % 22% 22% 44% 67% 33% 35% 49% 78% 78% 78% 67% 100% 78% 89% 81% 11% 33% 56% 56% 39% 44% 67% 78% 67% 78% 78% 69% 22% 22% 56% 78% 33% 22% 39% 60% 67% 67% 89% 89% 78% 100% 89% 83% 44% 33% 78% 78% 58% 56% 78% 89% 89% 89% 89% 82% 33% 44% 56% 56% 56% 67% 52% 70% 56% 56% 100% 78% 78% 89% 78% 76% 33% 22% 67% 67% 47% 67% 67% 89% 78% 89% 56% 74% 11% 33% 44% 22% 56% 56% 37% 64% 56% 44% 33% 89% 89% 78% 56% 64% 44% 44% 67% 89% 61% 44% 67% 67% 33% 33% 56% 50% 11% 0% 56% 11% 44% 11% 22% 49% Average Peter Eisenman Average Daniel Libeskind Average Zaha Hadid Wexner Center for the Arts Nunotani Office Building Haus Immendorf New Hamburg Library MGM Mirage shopping center Imperial War Museum North Royal Ontario Museum Military History Museum Run Run Shaw creative media center Denver Art Museum Grand Canal Commercial Development BMW Central Building Eli & Edythe Broad Art Museum Hoxton Square Guangzhou Opera House Dongdaemun Design Plaza Average Average of all buildings investigated 52% and 47% in technical and qualitative characteristics of buildings, which shows the almost equal importance of these aspects and that most architects were not significantly successful at deconstructing them Looking into adherence of deconstruction criteria and design concepts identifies that loosing logical structure is the most common deconstruction criteria with 70% implementation in buildings After that Establishing new foundations and Ambiguity Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 PSRB40_proof ■ 27 December 2016 ■ 5/5 N Mohtashami / Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e5 with, respectively, 64% and 63% were equally found in architectural buildings Uncertainty is 60% implemented in different characteristics of the buildings, and Contradiction of different interpretations as well as multiple cognitions was the least generalized deconstruction criteria with 49% implementation In general, we can highly assess the decorations, form and facade of the buildings as successful, while architects are mostly reluctant in deconstructing structure, materials, and sections Table specifies how the studied buildings are evaluated using the Building Deconstruction Matrix and shows the level of their success in different building characteristics Investigating the mentioned projects according to their designers has more interesting results It appears that the Himmelb(l) au office has been more successful than other architects in deconstructing the technical characteristics and structural model of the buildings For instance, generalization of deconstruction criteria in the building technical characteristics is 89% for UFA Cinema Center, and 83% for open house, which is considerably higher than the average 50% in other architects' projects The office is more successful in deconstructing the sections due to appropriate deconstruction of structure and materials Qualitative characteristics and its adherence to basic theoretical deconstruction principals are better realized in Eisenman's projects Relatively, Libeskind has been able to deconstruct all building characteristics more equitably with a minor twist in deconstructing forms and plans He is also more successful in deconstructing sections as we can vividly observe a 100% compliance in the building's physical characteristics with deconstruction criteria Contrary to Himmelb(l)au office that deconstructs the sections based on deconstructing the structure, Libeskind deforms some routine building spaces, such as staircases, decorations or mechanical systems to achieve a deconstructed section Hadid holds the lowest deconstructed qualitative characteristics ratio among other architects (i.e., between 8% and 33%) In Hadid's projects, generalization of deconstruction criteria in the physical and technical characteristics of the building is, respectively, 50% and 30%, which indicates that she is not concerned with implementing basic, deep deconstruction concepts in her projects and uses this notion as a platform to achieve creative free forms Table presents details on results of different architects' projects according to deconstruction criteria Conclusions Most books and articles categorize architects into two major deconstructionist and deconstructivist groups based on their adherence to basic deconstruction concepts and criteria (deconstructionists) or by following the formal movement of the 1920s structuralists (deconstructivists) However, comparing projects of different architects in this study shows that there are severe differences among them that we can not only categorize them into two groups but also have to consider each one of them as subsets of a major theoretical movement In other words, incredible flexibility of deconstruction philosophy as well as different personal interpretations has caused numerous personal approaches It appears that we can achieve different styles of architecting as much as the number of architects who have been investigating the Deconstruction theory In addition to major similarities among these styles, there are several differences, which is caused by emphasizing different deconstruction criteria or building characteristics That is why we observe buildings with different appearances and sometimes even ideologies under the flag of deconstruction architecture The study also revealed that the deconstruction criteria that could be generalized into architecture, is mostly realized in physical characteristics of a building, and after that in qualitative and technical characteristics, respectively Architects have implemented the criteria of loosing logical structure among different deconstruction criteria, which represents a rejection of the past perspectives, turning it into a starting point for creativity and new ideas in a different world Therefore, it appears that this theory has mostly touched the idea of the formation phase during the design process by disrupting the common logical concepts In this regard, Deconstruction as a new approach towards complexity and contradictions has created diverse and unfamiliar forms that not only motivates creativity by decrypting the differences but also has a positive effect on fostering the building technologies for fabricating new design and construction tools in order to realize them References Agabani, F.A., 1980 Cognitive Aspects of Architectural Design Problem Solving (Ph.D Diss.) University of Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Benedikt, M., 1992 Deconstructing the Kimbell: An Essay on Meaning and Architecture Sites-Lumen Books, New York Billings, K., Akkach, S., 1992 A study of ideologies and methods in contemporary architectural design teaching: part 1: ideology Des Stud 13 (4), 431e450 Broadbent, G., 1991 Deconstruction: A Student Guide Academy editions, London Davies, R., Talbot, R.J., 1987 Experiencing ideas: identity insight and the imago Des Stud (1), 17e25 Derrida, J., 1988 Margins of Philosophy Harvester, Trans., Alan Bass, Brighton Derrida, J., 1992 Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, in Caputo, Deconstruction in a Nutshell Routledge Press Durmus, S., Gur, S.O., 2011 Methodology of deconstruction in architectural education Proc Soc Behav Sci 15, 1586e1594 Eastman, C.M., 1970 Cognitive Processes and ill-defined problems: a case study from design In: Walker, D.E., Norton, L.M (Eds.), Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C Gur, S.O., 2008 What is creative? Creativity in architectural theory, practice and education In: Design Train Congress, Proceedings Book e Part I, 9e25, June 4e7 2008 Amsterdam Jodat Consultants, 2007 Deconstruction Architecture, Deconstructivist Architecture Ganj Honar Press, Tehran Kurt, S., 2011 Use of constructivist approach in architectural education Proc Soc Behav Sci 15, 3980e3988 Lawson, B., 1997 How Designers Think, third ed Architectural Press, , London Matthews, E., 1996 Twentieth-century French Philosophy Oxford University Press, England Rowe, P.G., 1987 Design Thinking MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Wong, J.F., 2010 The text of free-form architecture: qualitative study of the discourse of four architects Des Stud 31 (3), 237e267 URL http://www.idesignarch.com/the-run-run-shaw-creative-media-centre-bydaniel-libeskind/ (Accessed 25 June 2016, 11:18 p.m.) http://libeskind.com/work/the-run-shaw-creative-media-centre/ (Accessed 25 June 2016, 10:58 p.m.) Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using a Building Deconstruction Matrix, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.11.001 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ... Hoxton Square Guangzhou Opera House Dongdaemun Design Plaza Average Average of all buildings investigated 52% and 47% in technical and qualitative characteristics of buildings, which shows the almost... Hoxton Square Guangzhou Opera House Dongdaemun Design Plaza Average Average of all buildings Table Results of assessing 23 deconstruction buildings in different criteria using the Building Deconstruction. .. each building'' s success in realizing key Table Parameters for assessing a building Please cite this article in press as: Mohtashami, N., Quantitative assessment of deconstruction buildings using