Building Anatomy: Rethinking Internal and External Dynamics in Architecture

Abstract

Conventional frameworks often reduce architectural production to a linear sequence of deterministic technical and managerial stages. This study challenges that paradigm, arguing that such a view overlooks the adaptive, multi-layered, and context-responsive nature of contemporary built environment creation. Grounded in systems theory, biomimicry, and human physiology, a novel “Building Anatomy” model is proposed that treats architectural practice as a living organism. This conceptual framework is first established, and its validity is then tested through a mixed-methods empirical study conducted with 126 Turkish architects, analyzing the continuous feedback loops between internal (e.g., designer identity, team dynamics) and external (e.g., regulations, socio-cultural currents) factors. It was confirmed that the dynamic interaction between these internal and external factors is central to architectural processes. “Systemic dysfunctions” were identified and diagnosed that arise from breakdowns in these metabolic feedback loops, providing empirical evidence for the model’s explanatory power. By offering a systemic lens, this study shifts the focus from a product-centric to a process-oriented view of design. The Building Anatomy model demonstrates its potential for diagnosing “metabolic failures” and redefining the architect’s agency, ultimately advocating for more adaptive, responsive, and resilient architectural outcomes.

1. Introduction

There are many different methods of building. These methods generally conclude with the commissioning of the work, followed by design studies and the subsequent construction process. However, throughout history, various designers and architects have sought alternative methods for buildings. Among these are Henry McLaughlin (1976), John M. Kurtz (1978), and Jay Farbstein (1981) [1], whose process models were developed to explain the building-production process and to search for order within it. These process models emphasize approaches that identify client needs through cyclical consultations and post-occupancy evaluations, define performance standards, analyze potential solutions, integrate design and programming with continuous assessments from planning to post-use, and highlight iterative programming that incorporates client input and design modifications throughout the project’s lifespan [1]. Although these approaches influence both the time and outcome, they ultimately follow a linear working principle. A similarly structured process model was introduced by Henry Sanoff (2000), who, in his book, proposed a linear sequence beginning with the client’s intentions and analysis, proceeding through feasibility, design, and construction and concluding with the completion of the building and the evaluation of its success [1]. Likewise, at different periods, Gavin Tunstall (2006) described a process that begins with defining the objectives of the building and ends with post-occupancy evaluations assessing its success [2]. With the emergence of feedback mechanisms, however, it becomes evident that the process entails more than a strictly linear order.

Building design and construction, traditionally viewed through linear models, is increasingly recognized as a far more complex and dynamic process than conventionally understood. These conventional frameworks, which often reduce design and construction to a sequence of deterministic technical, managerial, and regulatory stages, tend to overlook the adaptive, multi-layered, and context-responsive nature of contemporary built environment creation. Schön (1983) emphasizes that, despite the apparent diversity of architectural schools, they are in fact “stylistic variations of a design process that is essentially the same for all schools,” a characterization that reflects the conventional linear design process [3]. However, fragmented perspectives not only diminish architectural agencies but also fail to account for the intricate interplay of diverse forces shaping the built environment. This study posits that the architectural process functions as a living system, constantly influenced and reshaped by a myriad of internal and external dynamics. As Alexander (1964) argues, “no complex adaptive system will succeed in adapting in a reasonable amount of time unless the adaptation can proceed subsystem by subsystem, each subsystem relatively independent of the others,” highlighting the necessity of self-organizing, homeostatic structures that allow continuous feedback and adjustment within the design process [4]. This perspective positions the built artefact not merely as a physical object but as an entity in the continuous interaction with the context and society to which it belongs [5]. These include the architect’s identity and team organization (internal factors), alongside societal structures, economic fluctuations, technological advancements, and regulatory frameworks (external forces). Unlike static operational chains, architectural creations emerge from a responsive, evolving ecosystem acutely attuned to social, economic, political, and environmental transformations. The formation of built artefacts is inherently linked to social, natural, economic, and political forces [6]. Consequently, a critical gap exists in current architectural theory, which often treats these internal and external dynamics in isolation, preventing a holistic understanding of the form’s social production. This deficiency arises because architectural discourse has largely failed to evolve a systemic language capable of capturing these intricate interdependencies. Instead of merely criticizing this gap, this research introduces a novel framework to actively bridge it.

Although architectural process is often defined as the act of “creating the physical environment” [7], detachment from cultural and social contexts leads to spatial outputs that are hollow, disconnected, and unresponsive. The architectural artefact that truly “exists” is one that engages with and is embedded in the systemic relationships surrounding it.

To address this deficiency, this research introduces the “Building Anatomy” model, a novel conceptual framework that re-conceptualizes the creation of buildings through the metaphor of a living organism. Drawing inspiration from the human body’s interoceptive (internal sensing) and exteroceptive (external sensing) systems, the model frames design decisions as being shaped by ongoing feedback loops between intrinsic parameters and environmental influences. This transdisciplinary approach integrates insights from systems engineering, the foundational principles of biomimicry [8], and adaptive systems theory to analyze architectural processes as a function of interdependent internal agency and external imperatives.

The primary objective of this study is two-fold: first, to theoretically propose the “Building Anatomy” model as a systemic, contextually embedded process; and second, to empirically evaluate its applicability in real-world architectural practice. To achieve this, the methodology uses a mixed-methods research design that combines a conceptual framework with empirical fieldwork. Through a mixed-methods field study involving architects in Turkey, this research investigates how reciprocal internal and external factors shape architectural output across critical phases: pre-design, the design process, implementation, and post-construction.

To effectively address this gap, the proposed model builds upon and critically differentiates itself from other systemic approaches. For instance, while Actor-Network Theory (ANT) illuminates the distributed agency of both human and non-human actors in a network [9], the theory may not fully capture the metabolic and self-organizing qualities that this study proposes, tending to describe networks rather than explain their internal processes of transformation [10] Similarly, while the Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) provides essential tools for assessing building performance [11] and Resilience Thinking offers frameworks for adaptability [12], they often remain detached from the holistic, organismic framework that links design intent to long-term systemic health. In contrast, drawing on the principles of complex adaptive systems [13] and biomimicry [8], the Building Anatomy model, by framing architecture as a living system, integrates these fragmented perspectives into a cohesive framework that emphasizes continuous feedback, adaptability, and self-repair.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that prevailing standardized approaches often suppress internal decision-making processes and, under the influence of external pressures, lead to systemic dysfunctions comparable to metabolic breakdowns. A notable example can be found in the large-scale social housing estates developed by TOKİ (Housing Development Administration of Turkey), which were initially intended to meet the housing needs of broad segments of society. Over time, the rapid and serial production of these estates primarily aimed at addressing the economic demands of lower-income groups generated sustained demand and consequently led to a continuous increase in mass housing production [14]. While the system functioned effectively in its early stages, over time it transformed into a typified and high-density mode of mass production. This shift has inevitably resulted in monotony, uniformity, loss of identity, scale disjunctions, and undefined open spaces [15]. By exposing these limitations, the Building Anatomy model not only provides a diagnostic tool for identifying architectural pathologies but also advocates for a fundamental shift from a product-centered paradigm toward a processual and organismic understanding. Such a transformation fosters a discipline that systematically documents architectural production within a broader systemic framework, one that actively learns, adapts, and evolves through its complex internal and external ecologies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Aim and Scope

This study re-conceptualizes the formation of the built environment as a multi-layered, dynamic system driven by the reciprocal interplay of internal and external factors, moving beyond linear stages. Contemporary practice involves continuous negotiations between internal parameters (e.g., architect’s identity, team structure, client relations, ethical positioning) and external forces (e.g., economic pressures, regulations, climate, societal dynamics). This research aims to theorize these interactions holistically from a feedback-oriented system perspective.

The study has a two-fold aim:

Theoretical: To propose the “Building Anatomy” model, analogizing architectural production to the human body’s interoceptive and exteroceptive systems. This model conceives architecture as an adaptive organism where design decisions are shaped by internal dynamics and environmental influences, filling a critical gap in architectural theory.

Practical: To evaluate the Building Anatomy model’s applicability in real-world architectural practice via a field study with Turkish architects. Using questionnaires and content analysis, this study explores the model’s utility as both a theoretical framework and a practical tool for interpreting production dynamics, offering actionable insights.

The study’s scope encompasses the architectural process in its entirety, moving beyond isolated project designs or specifications to view it as a continuous, feedback-driven process-organism. This systemic structure is examined across four critical phases:

• Pre-design: Commissioning dynamics, client-market expectations, needs analysis.
• Design Process: Team decision-making, creative strategies, technical development.
• Implementation Phase: Regulatory compliance, economic constraints, licensing procedures.
• Post-construction: User experience, social feedback, transformation potential.

By situating the architectural process within this systemic context, the study elucidates how standardized “type” projects lead to mechanization, how architect agency is constrained by institutional and economic forces, and how design intent is displaced by procedural compliance. Ultimately, this study proposes an integrative framework bridging conceptual theory and empirical practice, offering new insights for critiquing and reconfiguring architectural systems.

2.2. Contribution to the Field

This study innovatively presents the “Building Anatomy” model, a conceptual framework reinterpreting architectural production as a living organism, informed by human interoceptive and exteroceptive systems. It repositions design as an adaptive system of continuous feedback and contextual dependencies, enriching architectural discourse.

The core contributions are multifaceted:

Theoretical Contribution: This research introduces a paradigm shift in understanding the architectural process. Employing the organismic metaphor, it frames building design and construction as a dynamic, responsive entity that self-regulates and evolves through internal–external force interplay, providing a holistic theoretical lens for future architectural research.

Applied Contribution: The Building Anatomy model is empirically tested via fieldwork with Turkish architects. Findings reveal typified, standardized project approaches that often suppress internal decision-making, dominated by external pressures. These patterns confirm the model’s proposition that architectural production is susceptible to systemic dysfunctions, akin to biological metabolic breakdowns, thus offering a diagnostic tool for real-world scenarios.

Interdisciplinary Contribution: Drawing on systems engineering, biomimicry, and adaptive systems theory, this study significantly extends architectural thought’s epistemological horizon. The Building Anatomy model fosters a transdisciplinary approach with potential applications beyond pure theory, including design management, architectural education, and institutional policymaking, bridging academic and professional domains.

2.3. Method

This study uses a mixed-methods research design to investigate the reciprocal relationships between internal and external variables in building production. The internal and external factors analyzed in this study were derived from an extensive literature review and refined through preliminary interviews with practicing architects. This iterative process ensured that the variables selected were not only theoretically grounded but also relevant to real-world practice. Furthermore, our analysis of external factors explicitly incorporates a political dimension, as political conditions and governmental policies in Turkey often have a significant impact on the architectural production system’s dynamics and outcomes.

The methodology involves two interlinked phases:

• Theoretical Phase: This phase conceptualizes the Building Anatomy model using interdisciplinary sources from systems theory, body–space studies, biomimicry, and complex adaptive systems. The model reframes architectural production not as discrete stages but as a dynamic system defined by feedback loops and reciprocal interdependencies.
• Empirical Model Testing: Empirical Model Testing: The second phase assesses the model’s applicability via field research with 126 professional architects and academics across Turkiye. Participants comprised diverse professional roles, including 25 “Architect (Office/Company Owner),” 4 “Architect (Office Employee),” 4 “Architect (Academic),” and 4 “Architect (Public Sector),” with 89 falling into “other/unspecified” categories. In terms of experience, 24 participants had 1–5 years, 20 had 5–10 years, and 64 had over 10 years, while 18 were “other/unspecified.” Within the study’s scope, participants evaluated buildings with various functions (residential, public, commercial, office, cultural facilities) and structural systems (reinforced concrete, steel, hybrid) based on their professional experiences. This detailed distribution enhances the study’s scope and the representativeness of its findings regarding architectural practice perceptions. However, it is crucial to acknowledge certain limitations in participant distribution; interpretations derived from less represented sub-groups should be considered indicative of emerging trends and specific perceptions rather than statistically generalizable conclusions. Future research could focus on targeted sampling strategies to achieve more balanced representation across all professional roles and experience levels, enabling more robust and widely generalizable sub-group analyses.
• Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of TOBB University of Economics and Technology (5 September 2024, Decision No. E.64706).

The research instrument collected both quantitative (Likert scale) and qualitative (open-ended questions) data. The Likert items used a 1–5 agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Example items include the following: “Regulatory processes reshape design intent during implementation” and “Team coordination ensures continuity of design decisions across phases.” The Likert scale assessed the influence of internal and external factors at various production stages, identifying shifts in dominance, external pressures, and systemic balance breakdowns. Qualitative responses provided contextual narratives, enriching statistical findings with practical insights.

Quantitative data underwent descriptive statistical analysis, while qualitative responses were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Emerging themes were then compared with the Building Anatomy model’s conceptual propositions, enabling a multidimensional evaluation of the model’s theoretical and practical coherence.

Field findings were interpreted using the organism metabolism metaphor underpinning the Building Anatomy model. For instance, marginalizing internal design decisions during licensing and implementation was seen as “metabolic disruption” or systemic blockage. Likewise, the weakening influence of internal systems during project progression was framed as declining internal resilience to external stressors. These interpretations support the model’s validity as a robust explanatory framework for understanding real-world architectural production. Guided by this conceptual framework, the survey was structured as follows:

The survey instrument applied in the study consisted of five structured sections. The first section presented participants with an introductory text explaining the purpose of the research and obtained informed consent in accordance with ethical approval requirements. In the second section, a short video was provided to visually elaborate on the content of the study. The third section collected basic demographic and professional information, including the name or pseudonym, field of work, years of professional experience, prior involvement in the building-production process, and details regarding the building selected for evaluation. In the fourth section, participants were asked to assess a nine-step sequence defined as the building-production process and to share any additional comments they wished to provide. Finally, the fifth section posed similar questions but framed them in relation to internal and external factors, encouraging participants to reflect on these dimensions in their evaluations.

3. Conceptual Framework: Building Anatomy as a System

This section argues that the proposed “Building Anatomy” model conceptualizes the architectural process not as a sequence of technical, managerial, or procedural stages, but as a multi-layered, adaptive system governed by continuous feedback loops, rooted in the principles of general system theory [16]. Drawing on the systematic functioning of the human body, the model reimagines architectural production using the metaphor of an organism. In doing so, it reframes building production as a dynamic structure embedded within a holistic system, in which internal and external forces remain in constant reciprocal interactions.

3.1. Analogical and Phenomenological Relations Between the Body and Architecture

Throughout architectural history, the relationship between the body and space has been examined not only through proportion and form but also across experiential, sensory, and existential dimensions. Vitruvius regarded the human body as the measure of architectural order, defining units based on limbs such as fingers, palms, and feet [17]. He posited that architecture should emulate the symmetry and proportions observed in nature [18]. This perspective was famously illustrated in Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man and echoed in Renaissance architectural drawings [19].

Le Corbusier’s “Modulor” system extended this lineage into modernism by promoting spatial design aligned with the golden ratios of the human body, thereby ensuring comfort and scale compatibility [20]. However, from the mid-20th century onwards, the body–space relationship evolved, transcending mere metrics and symmetry to engage with the body as a rational and dynamic presence, rather than a mathematically bound object [20]. Post-World War II vulnerabilities, critiques of modernism and rapid technological changes catalyzed this shift. Architecture, once the result of tradition-bound routines, transformed into a rational endeavor composed of analyzable autonomous layers, systems, and conceptual components [21].

Experimental approaches such as those of Coop Himmelb(l)au abandoned the notion of bodily unity and redefined the body as fragmented and unstable: “Its limits, interior or exterior, seem infinitely ambiguous and extensive… its power lies no longer in the model of unity, but in the intimation of the fragmentary…” [22]. Concurrently, phenomenological perspectives have gained prominence by expanding spatial thinking beyond the perceptual limits imposed by mathematical norms [18]. Maurice Merleau-Ponty asserted that the body encompasses not only physicality, but also perception and sensation [23]. According to Pallasmaa, while vision separates us from the world, the other senses connect us to it; thus, architectural experience is inherently multisensory, encompassing tactile, auditory, and kinesthetic dimensions [22]. Peter Zumthor describes architecture as producing atmospheres akin to bodily presence: “It’s like our own bodies… that’s what architecture means to me” [24].

Despite these philosophical shifts, architectural tools and methodologies still rarely foreground bodily movements or sensory experiences in the design process [25]. Rather than limiting its framework to proportion or perception alone, the Building Anatomy model draws inspiration from bodily functions, such as neural feedback, hormonal regulation, and musculoskeletal balance, to reconceptualize architectural production as a living system. Here, the concepts of interoception (internal sensing) and exteroception (external sensing) establish a metaphorical yet structurally coherent foundation for a model in which internal factors (e.g., architect identity and design ethics) and external factors (e.g., regulation and economy) remain dynamically interconnected [26]. This model synthesizes insights from biomimicry, systems engineering, physiological equilibrium theory [27], and organismic systematics [28], offering a transformative, interdisciplinary framework for analyzing architecture. It proposes a new epistemological lens for categorizing and interpreting the use of human and natural analogies in architectural processes based on structural or functional similarities.

3.2. Transition to a Systems Approach

To transcend formal analogies and instead operate within the logic of systemic organization, the “Building Anatomy” model must adopt a systems-based approach that translates the organizational principles of living organisms into architectural terms. In this context, the equilibrium achieved by nature between internal mechanisms and external stimuli becomes a critical point of reference [29]. Building on this biological premise, the proposed model introduces a paradigm shift in understanding building production not solely rooted in bodily proportions but grounded in the dynamic equilibrium that results from continuous interactions between the internal and external systems.

The human body operates as a complex system that interprets internal signals (from the nervous, skeletal, and muscular systems) in response to external stimuli (such as temperature or irritation) and issues adaptive responses via feedback loops to maintain the organism’s integrity [30]. In this manner, the body preserves its homeostasis and physiological and psychological balance [26]. By translating this into architectural terms, building production may be envisioned as a dynamic system in which interoceptive (internal) and exteroceptive (external) forces interact interdependently throughout all stages of development, regulated by feedback mechanisms [1]. Historical examples show that both visual and functional matches were made between the body and building. For example, Toviyah Kats’s 1708 (Figure 1) anatomy drawing brought the body’s systems to the architectural level by matching human internal organs with spaces [31]. This approach grounds the building as a spatial projection of inter-system operation.

The body’s interoceptive system detects internal physiological and emotional states and generates corresponding responses [26]. In contrast, exteroception involves perceiving environmental changes and formulating appropriate perceptual inferences and reactions [32]. Harmony between these systems ensures the well-being of an organism. In architectural terms, maintaining a balance between internal mechanisms (e.g., architect identity, design ethics, and team structure) and external constraints (e.g., legal frameworks, economic pressures, and social expectations) is essential for sustaining a functional production process. Disruption of this balance results in what can be termed “metabolic deterioration” within the production system [33].

As Pallasmaa observed, traditional architectural cultures emphasize bodily engagement in space-making, akin to how birds construct nests with their bodies [22]. This analogy suggests that the body serves not only as a unit of measurement but as a system holistically guiding the design process. In the current context, this perspective underscores the need for a systemic model where architectural decisions are informed by both internal and external data. The “Building Anatomy” model articulates the architectural process as an adaptive system governed by dynamic interactions between internal and external inputs, where feedback mechanisms ensure coherence and continuity. This framing transcends purely technical approaches, proposing a model mirroring the organismic behavior of living systems. Likewise, architectural analysis should pivot toward a relational and evolutionary mode, foregrounding systemic interactivity rather than formal sequencing [34]. Inspired by human physiological subsystems, this model provides a directly applicable analytical tool for architectural practice, enabling practitioners to interpret the built environment’s formation as a function of interdependent internal agency and external imperatives. Crucially, the “Building Anatomy” model employs this analogy not for aesthetic or proportional resemblance, but for its functional and organizational principles. It is a purposeful metaphor designed to enable a systemic critique, not a superficial stylistic comparison.

Figure 1. Illustration by Toviyah Kats (ca. 1652–1729) Venice, 1708. Source: Michael Sappol, Dream Anatomy (Bethesda MD and Washington DC: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, 2006), 88 [35].

Figure 1. Illustration by Toviyah Kats (ca. 1652–1729) Venice, 1708. Source: Michael Sappol, Dream Anatomy (Bethesda MD and Washington DC: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, 2006), 88 [35].

3.3. Linear Production Models: Limitations and Transition to Adaptive Systems Thinking

For many years, architectural production has been defined using linear and deterministic models comprising sequential stages, such as “needs analysis design approval implementation delivery” [5,6,7]. These schemes assume a mechanical logic where each step follows a predetermined order. Prominent examples include Kulaksızoğlu’s Industrialized Building Planning (1978), Davis and Szigetti’s Programming Process (1979), Tunstall’s Building Production Process (2006), Sanoff’s Design Integration (2000), Taş’s Workflow Chart (2003), TMMOB’s Services Specification (2011), the Integrated Building Design Approach (2016), and TSMD’s Existing Structure Acquisition (2023). While these models aim to define unique structural characteristics, they paradoxically apply universal protocols [33]. Common limitations across these frameworks involve insufficient design process engagement, the neglect of a post-occupancy evaluation, weak digital integration, and a focus on isolated factors over systemic functioning or comprehensive actor relationships.

Contemporary conditions shaped by climate crises, socio-economic upheavals, technological innovation, political instability, and evolving spatial practices have revealed the limitations of such linear thinking. These models often overlook the need for iterative feedback mechanisms, thereby generating systemic disjunctions between critical stages such as design, implementation, and post-occupancy. Consequently, architectural knowledge risks being reduced to the mere production of “projects and rationalized structural information” [36], thereby excluding the complex and dynamic interrelations between production processes and their contextual, cultural, and societal dimensions [23].

Moreover, conventional frameworks tend to compartmentalize internal and external forces in a hierarchical structure. Internal parameters such as design intent or the architect’s authorship dominate the early phases, whereas external pressures such as regulations or cost constraints are assumed to intervene only during later stages. This artificial separation ignores the nuanced tensions that occur throughout the production cycle and defines a system’s capacity to adapt [6,37].

To address these deficiencies, the proposed “Building Anatomy” model reimagines architectural production as a living organism shaped by the dynamic interplay of interdependent internal and external forces. Feedback loops are central to this model, ensuring continuity, adaptability, and responsiveness throughout the phases of the process. In this reconceptualization, the architect is not just a designer but also a system manager, who continuously negotiates between competing variables across the lifecycle of a project [38,39].

Reviewing existing models reveals that feedback between actors remains weak, programming often relies on static inputs, and contextual adaptability is limited [40,41]. The post-construction stages, that is, user experience, recycling, and re-functioning, are frequently absent or treated as symbolic afterthoughts. This perpetuates an architectural paradigm in which the building’s “existence” is considered complete at the moment of construction.

However, as a discipline, architecture must evolve beyond object production and embrace the orchestration of processes. These processes should be layered, cyclical, and informed by feedback, extending from initial design decisions to post-occupancy performance [42,43]. Within this framework, the “Building Anatomy” model presents the building as more than a physical construct; it is an evolving organism continually shaped by and reshaping its socio-economic, cultural, technological, political, and ecological milieu.

3.4. Reconceptualizing Production with Adaptive Systems Thinking

This system-based perspective offers not only interdisciplinary insights but also a scientific and conceptual foundation for challenging conventional linear paradigms. The model advances a robust theoretical lens for rethinking building production by integrating knowledge from systems engineering, biomimicry, physiological systems theory, and organismic analogies [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Complex adaptive systems theory provides a powerful analytical framework for explicating this potential in multi-actor production environments such as architecture [45]. In contrast, systems thinking makes sense of processes through relations, feedback loops, and contexts that link their components [46]. Likewise, architectural practice must be understood not merely as a sequence of design or construction steps but as a system in which all actors and decisions form a dynamic, interdependent network. Unlike other models that primarily focus on information flow (network theory) or technological components (platform theory), the organismic metaphor uniquely captures concepts of self-organization, inherent resilience, and the capacity for self-repair. This distinction is critical because it allows for the diagnosis of systemic pathologies not merely as technical glitches but as fundamental breakdowns in a living, adaptive entity.

Ultimately, by exposing the constraints of entrenched production models, the “Building Anatomy” model justifies its necessity, identifies the theoretical voids it addresses, and articulates the paradigm shift it proposes. The intersection of this theoretical model with the field data is examined in the next section.

4. Building Anatomy Model: Internal–External System Dynamics and Organism Logic

The architectural process today should be understood not merely as a sequence of technical steps but as a complex system of production continuously reshaped by social, economic, environmental, and technological influences. In this context, the “Building Anatomy” model conceptualizes the architectural process as a multi-layered, feedback-driven, and adaptive system akin to a living organism.

The model’s foundation lies in an approach inspired by the human body’s interoception (internal perception) and exteroception (external perception) systems, focusing on process over output. Just as the body’s functional integrity depends on neural, circulatory, and hormonal system interactions, the architectural process involves design, implementation, regulation, market conditions, and social structures as systemic actors that continuously influence and reconfigure one another. Unlike classical linear production models, “Building Anatomy” interprets this multi-interactive approach as an ever-evolving, feedback-based, multidimensional system, where each variable affects its own domain and the entire built organism. Thus, architecture is not conceived as a static sequence but as an organism that continually rebuilds itself in response to internal and external conditions [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].

4.1. Internal Factors (Interoception)

Internal factors are dynamics that regulate the structural balance within the architectural organism. Although not always directly observable, these factors profoundly influence the long-term vitality and systemic performance of the production process. Like the human body’s nervous and hormonal systems, they shape how architectural production “feels” from within and how it behaves in response to internal stimuli.

• Architect Identity: The architect’s role in production transcends technical expertise and encompasses a multidisciplinary actor identity shaped by ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability [38]. From Vitruvius to the present, the architect has served as the “inner voice” of production, a consciousness managing the organism’s internal balance.
• Internal Dynamics and Operational Processes: Planning, intra-team communication, and collaborative decision-making mirror the body’s internal coordination systems. The quality of the feedback mechanisms embedded in these processes determines the adaptability and resilience of multi-actor architectural production.
• Designer–Client Relationship: The modalities of project acquisition, such as direct assignment, tender, or competition, function as sensory thresholds, acting as contact zones between internal equilibrium and external demands [48]. These thresholds initiate a design process that operates as a dynamic subsystem, shaped not only by individual decisions but also by continuous interaction across all stages [38]. Research has consistently demonstrated that most of a building’s environmental, social, and economic impacts are determined during these early phases, as critical choices regarding design strategies, material selection, stakeholder expectations, and project objectives are made [49].
• Physical and Social Environment: Topography, natural resources, environmental data, cultural norms, social structures, and user habits are considered internal factors. They influence how the architectural organism’s internal design decisions and operational logic respond to and internalize external stimuli. These elements are localized, project-specific contextual components, actively engaged and shaped from within the design process, reflecting the designer’s interpretation and integration of the immediate site and user dynamics. Unlike broader environmental and societal pressures such as “Climate and Environmental Conditions” or “Social Structure and Cultural Norms,” this internal factor specifically addresses how the built environment metabolizes and reflects its immediate physical and social surroundings through design. Viewing the building as a social body underscores the importance of these integrative interactions [50,51].
• Technical Processes: The architect’s internal communication with engineers, consultants, and implementation teams operates like a metabolic or neural network, transmitting vital information to other systems and sustaining the organism’s operational coherence [52].

4.2. External Factors (Exteroception)

External factors represent the stimuli architectural production encounters from its surrounding environment factors that challenge, constrain, and reshape the system’s balance. The model evaluates these inputs as environmental pressures affecting an organism’s structural and functional integrity.

• Legal and Administrative Systems: Regulatory frameworks, building permits, and inspection mechanisms function as external control systems. Like an organism’s immune or nervous responses, they stabilize systemic performance but can induce dysfunctions if applied with excessive rigidity [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53].
• Economic Parameters: Economic crises, cost pressures, and investment imperatives create volatile conditions that impair the organism’s harmony with its external environment. These parameters significantly influence architectural decisions and may suppress internal dynamics [53,54].
• The Multiple Roles of the Architect: Today’s architect functions as a multifaceted professional, encompassing roles beyond designer, such as strategic planner, ethical guide, user advocate, and contextual interpreter. This adaptability mirrors an organism’s cognitive faculties in navigating complex environments. Crucially, the architect’s individual identity (an internal factor, detailed in Section 4.1) constantly interacts with the broader “Architect” external factor—comprising professional standards, public perception, and educational frameworks. This dynamic interplay represents a continuous negotiation among personal vision, design ethics, and external societal or collective professional expectations. This dualistic influence highlights the profound impact of the architectural profession as a “super-organ” that both reflects and shapes the building production ecosystem’s overall health and adaptability [55]. This multi-role identity is not static but shifts across the project lifecycle. For instance, an architect might act primarily as a strategist during the pre-design phase, a designer during the conceptual stage, and a mediator negotiating between technical teams and regulatory bodies during implementation. This dynamic negotiation of roles is the organism’s primary mechanism for maintaining internal–external equilibrium, allowing it to adapt to contradictory pressures without compromising its core integrity. These shifting roles are a core component of the organism’s adaptive capacity.
• Information and Technology: Technological systems, including AI tools, BIM platforms, and digital fabrication, reshape an architectural organism’s responsiveness to external conditions. These innovations function as digital extensions of the nervous system, accelerating information processing and structural adaptability [56,57].
• Social Structure and Cultural Norms: Cultural demands, traditions, and social transformations exert environmental pressures that both constrain and inform spatial production. These forces act as stressors and shapers, necessitating responsive and integrative design strategies [58,59].
• Climate and Environmental Conditions: Climate change, natural disasters, and ecological sustainability require a systemic capacity for environmental adaptation. While traditional architecture once achieved this intuitively, contemporary practice must deploy strategic responses embedded in the organism’s logic [60,61].

4.3. Feedback Mechanism and System Dysfunctions

Continuous feedback loops between internal and external factors maintain systemic equilibrium in a healthy organism. In the “Building Anatomy” model, the production process similarly relies on such cycles: design decisions are tested in execution and reassessed through user experience, and the system is updated accordingly.

In contrast, typified projects, standardized programs, and context-detached productions clog this metabolism: ruptures appear in the system, decision chains break down, and feedback is lost [33]. This leads to a loss of authenticity in architecture and the progressive degradation of the system over time.

As stated in Cherry’s work “Programming for Design,” although the programming process may seem linear in theory, the designer discovers its holistic and feedback-driven nature through experience [33]. Based on our field findings and the model’s logic, a typology of systemic dysfunctions is proposed, which can be seen as “metabolic failures” within the architectural organism. These include the following: “feedback disconnection” (when information from one stage, such as post-occupancy data, fails to inform another, like initial design), “role misalignment” (when the architect’s multi-role identity is constrained, forcing them to prioritize procedural compliance over creative problem-solving), and “temporal decoupling” (when key project phases, such as design and permit acquisition, operate in isolation, leading to a loss of coherence and design intent). Identifying these specific dysfunctions provides a clearer analytical lens for diagnosing architectural pathologies. The “Building Anatomy” model provides a systematic framework for this discovery (Figure 2).

5. Findings: Diagnosis of System Disorders in the Production Organism

The survey data gathered during field research was analyzed within the systematic framework proposed by the “Building Anatomy” model. In this respect, the quantitative data can be seen as the “vital signs” of the architectural organism, while the qualitative responses provide a richer “clinical history”. The findings indicate that a healthy balance between internal (interoceptive) and external (exteroceptive) factors is often not achieved throughout the building-production process; feedback mechanisms operate weakly, and systemic integrity breaks down at various stages. These observations can be interpreted as metabolic blockages and system dysfunctions within the production organism, as diagnosed by the model’s organism logic.

A survey was conducted with the participation of 126 architects with different experience levels (0–5 years, 5–10 years, 10 years and above) and professional roles (office owner, employed architect, freelancer, etc.). Of the participants, 54% are actively working in residential buildings, 28% in public buildings, and 18% in commercial building programs. This diversity enhances the contextual validity of the data and reveals the multi-layered nature of the production organism.

5.1. Disturbances in the Internal–External Factor Balance

Participant responses indicated varying degrees of dominance between internal and external factors at different stages of the building-production process. Data reveal that external factors such as legislation, economic pressures, and bureaucratic procedures predominantly shape the production trajectory (

Table 1. Distribution of internal–external factor effects in building production processes (survey data, n = 126).

Process Stage	Internal Factors (%)	External Factors (%)
Recruitment and Idea Development Process	45	64
Design Studies	52	57
Application/License/Approval	64	47

). Conversely, internal factors, including architectural intention, design identity, and creative decisions, are frequently relegated to a secondary role, particularly during the implementation and permission stages. This pattern is also evident in the graphical analysis presented in Figure 3, which visualizes the participants’ perceptions of the relative influence of internal and external factors at each production phase. Whereas external influences are perceived to dominate the early design phases, the impact of internal dynamics increases significantly in the later stages, following the completion of regulatory and permit-related procedures (Table 1).

As the participants were asked to evaluate the impact of each factor independently, the total percentage may exceed 100%. This reflects the perceived influence of each factor, as assessed separately. Systemic imbalances have been identified, particularly at the following points:

• Transfer of Design to Implementation: The architectural intentions and aesthetic decisions that come to the fore during the design process are reshaped in the implementation process depending on external obligations (license, cost, and approval processes), which leads to interruptions in the internal metabolism of the organism. This interruption creates an erosion from the inside out in the decision chain, surrendering the direction of the design to external conditions.
• Permitting and Approval Processes: Permit procedures reshape architectural decisions, constraining design autonomy; decisions are now made according to regulatory frameworks rather than the architect’s intent.

5.2. Positive and Negative Correlations: Adaptation and Systematic Discontinuities

Sequential relationships between building production stages were further evaluated using Spearman’s correlation analysis (Figure 4), numerically representing interactions predicted by the “Building Anatomy” model. Spearman’s correlation is a non-parametric statistical method assessing the strength and direction of the association between two ranked variables (ρ from −1 to +1), suitable for ordinal data or monotonic relationships. This analysis helps reveal which stages are functionally linked and which remain disconnected, mapping the production organism’s inner coherence or fragmentation [62]. Correlation analyses demonstrate that the process is not linear; instead, it exhibits a multi-dimensional and fragmented structure, with strong relationships between some stages and disconnections elsewhere (Figure 4).

Strong positive correlations indicate closely interconnected, sequential, or directly influencing stages. For instance, the strongest correlation (0.67) was between Implementation Project and Structural Production, suggesting the strong determination of outcomes by through the implementation of phase decisions. Other strong correlations include Project Permit Acquisition with Obtaining Occupancy Permit (0.67) and Emergence of Needed with Contract (0.61). Design Studies also showed strong links with the Implementation Project (0.60) and Receiving the Project (0.59). Usage/Benefits and Structural Production correlated at 0.58, indicating a relationship between production quality and user satisfaction. These patterns confirm critical junctions where tightly coupled stages maintain local coherence despite overall fragmentation (

Table 2. The strongest positive correlations.

Stage 1	Stage 2	Correlation Coefficient (r)	Interpretive Meaning
Implementation Project	Structural Production	0.67	Strong transfer of design to physical production: internal structural integrity of the system is maintained
Project Permit Acquisition	Obtaining Occupancy Permit	0.67	Consistency between bureaucratic processes; external system coordination is working
Emergence of Needed	Contract	0.61	Structural co-ordination in the first steps of the process
Implementation Project	Design Studies	0.60	Strong transfer of conceptual design into practice; internal harmonization signaling
Design Studies	Receiving The Project	0.59	The design process relates strongly to the initial ideas of the process
Usage/Benefits	Structural Production	0.58	Production quality and user satisfaction are related; indirect feedback works
Structural Production	Design Studies	0.53	High harmonization between implementation and conceptual decisions
Design Studies	Contract	0.48	There is co-operation between design and formal/financial processes

).

Despite these positive correlations, coherence is usually confined to the middle stages, with weak links to initial (needs definition) and final (user experience) stages. Thus, these strong relationships alone are insufficient for overall organism integrity; a circular and feedback structure operating in all system phases is required.

Negative and weak correlations indicate that stages operate more independently or are inconsistently perceived. The correlation matrix displays very low or negative values between several stages. Notably, negative correlations exist between early-stage steps like “Emergence of Need” and later outcomes such as “Project Permit Acquisition” (−0.21) and “User Feedback” (−0.10). This suggests a broken learning circuit across the entire process network (

Table 3. The weakest correlations.

Stage 1	Stage 2	Correlation Coefficient (r)	Interpretive Meaning
Emergence of Needed	Project Permit Acquisition	−0.21	No link between initial requirement and end-user output
Design Studies	Project Permit Acquisition	−0.19	Conceptual design, unrelated to the end-of-life documentation of the building
Emergence of Needed	Obtaining Occupancy Permit	−0.10	Requirements do not drive the legal process
Receiving The Project	Project Permit Acquisition	−0.11	Systemic disconnection between the beginning of the process and the completion of the structure
Receiving The Project	Usage/Benefits	−0.02	The early stage of the process and the user experience are almost irrelevant
Design Studies	Obtaining Occupancy Permit	0.04	Design decisions are independent of the legal process
Contract	Usage/Benefits	0.08	Weak link between financial/organizational process and user output
Receiving The Project	Obtaining Occupancy Permit	0.12	There is almost a disconnect between the start-up phase and the licensing process

). These correlations show that some parts of the production organism are not related to each other; the system has lost the ability to develop insights within itself. The fact that the needs defined at the beginning cannot be followed until the end of implementation suggests that the system’s ability to “remember” is weakened. The fact that there are such low correlations between stages, such as design and user output, which should be directly related to each other, shows that the system is not only fragmented but has also evolved into a structure that cannot learn and transform within itself.

While strong positive correlations highlight well-integrated segments of the architectural process, the observed low and negative correlations demand a rigorous interpretation, revealing critical systemic fragilities. For instance, the weak correlation between “Design Studies” and “Project Permit Acquisition” (0.04) signifies a systemic disconnect. This suggests that conceptual design often operates independently from, or is minimally influenced by, the rigid demands of the permitting process. In a healthy “Building Anatomy,” these stages should exhibit a more integrated feedback loop, allowing early design considerations to inform regulatory requirements and vice versa. The observed low correlation implies a “metabolic blockage” or “broken feedback loop,” risking design intent being compromised by disconnected bureaucratic hurdles rather than mutual adaptation. Such fragmentation can lead to a “loss of authenticity in architecture and the progressive degradation of the system over time” as projects are forced to comply with external legal frameworks misaligned with original design studies. These systemic failures underscore the model’s utility in diagnosing where the production organism loses internal coherence and adaptability, ultimately hindering its capacity for learning and sustainable evolution (Table 3).

5.3. Internal and External Factor Interactions Across Stages

Each stage of the building-production process is characterized by unique relationships with different internal factors. The correlation map highlights three distinct pairings: Construction Process and Technical Actors, Design Studies, and Architect Identity, and Need and Social Factors (Figure 5). These strong pairings show that the building is not only a technical, but also a social and creative, entity. Each stage’s unique internal dynamic provides critical ground against the standardizing logic of the “type project’s approach.”

The internal factors with the highest frequencies are Technical Actors, Governmental Institutions, Legal Framework, Architect Identity, and Social Factors (

Table 4. Summary of key internal factor frequencies per stage.

Building Existence Stage	The Most Intense Internal Factor	Frequency (n)	Description/Comment
Structural Production	Transition Between Design and Construction	80	The technical staff are also shown to be decisive for the feasibility of the process.
Design Studies	Architect Identity	65	At the conceptual level, the architect’s original contribution stands out.
Emergence of Needed	Social Factors	57	The definition of requirement cannot be considered independent of the social context.
Project Permit Acquisition	Laws Regulations	54	The legal framework is central at this stage.
Implementation Project	Technical Actors	52	Technical details prior to implementation are decisive in terms of the accuracy of drawings and compliance with regulations.
Obtaining Occupancy Permit	Laws Regulations	47	Bureaucratic control is decisive at the end of the process.
Obtaining Occupancy Permit	Governmental Institutions	46	Bureaucratic control is decisive at the end of the process.
Transition Between Design and Construction	Technical Actors and Plan-Project-Studies	43	Technical harmony is sought between application knowledge and design decision.

).

These components indicate that socio-cultural sensitivity is as decisive as technical competence in the existence of the building. On the other hand, unethical solutions such as Emergency Exit Door and Factors Related to the Method of Recruitment or Physical Environment are mentioned at a lower frequency; however, even the visibility of these factors points to potential “short circuit” points in the system (Figure 5). Specifically, the “Emergency Exit Door (Formal and Unethical Solutions)” refers to short-term solutions adopted during unexpected blockages or deviations from the ideal flow in the architectural process, which can negatively impact the system’s long-term health. In its measurement, participants evaluated the frequency of resorting to such formal or unethical methods and their interaction with relevant building existence stages within the survey’s scope. Although this factor generally showed a low selection frequency in overall analyses, its mere presence is considered a “short-circuit point” within our “Building Anatomy” model where feedback mechanisms are weakened or disconnected. Such “pathological” conditions weaken the system’s long-term adaptation and repair capacity, leading to deviations from the project’s original quality and disrupting healthy metabolic flow, thereby harming systemic integrity. Consequently, these “emergency exit doors” highlight the need to diagnose and manage not only the ideal flow of architectural creation but also its potential dysfunctions.

The level of internal factor selection by the participants throughout the process is as follows:

Table 5. The level of selection of internal factors by participants.

Internal Factors	Frequency (n)	Description/Comment
Technical Actors	171	The overwhelming weight of technical expertise throughout the process
Governmental Institutions	147	Bureaucratic–administrative influence is strong at all stages
Laws Regulations	145	Decisive role of the legal framework
Architect Identity	130	Design-centered identity, impact felt throughout the process
Social Factors	129	The determinism of the social context at the level of need and use
Factors Related to the Physical Environment	46	Spatial/environmental factors are less visible
Methods	43	Limited decisive influence at the beginning of the process
Emergency Exit Door (Formal and Unethical Solutions)	23	Low visibility but represents potential breaking points in the system

.

External factors also exert significant influence. The heat map shows the phase interaction with specific external dynamics (Figure 6), highlighting three strong pairings: Design Studies–Climate and Geography, Obtaining a License Official Functioning, and Construction Process–market conditions. These pairings show that architecture responds directly to internal creativity and environmental, administrative, and economic contexts (

Table 6. Summary of key external factor frequencies per stage.

Building Existence Stage	The Most Intense External Factor	Frequency (n)	Description/Comment
Emergence of Needed	Society and the World	81	Social dynamics and global developments have a guiding role in determining the building needs.
Design Studies	Architect	72	The architect’s individual cultural background, education, and worldview provide an external framework for the design process.
Structural Production	Construction Economy	59	Economic fluctuations and material and labor costs directly affect the physical realization of the process.
Contract	Construction Economy	57	Contract terms are defined by the market order and sectoral economic structure.
Usage/Benefits	Society and the World	55	The elements that determine user satisfaction are social values, habits, and lifestyles.
Project Permit Acquisition	Education–Institutions	53	Bureaucratic and legal processes are related to the structure of the relevant administrative institutions and educational policies.
Obtaining Occupancy Permit	Education–Institutions	53	Inspection and acceptance mechanisms depend on organizational structures and professional qualification systems.
Receiving The Project	Construction Economy	45	The start of the project is directly linked to access to economic resources and market conditions.
Receiving The Project	Architect	41	Starting decisions are often shaped by the architect’s relationships with the external environment, reputation, and managerial experience.

).

The selection scores of the external factors by the participants are as follows:

Table 7. The level of selection of external factors by participants.

External Factors	Frequency (n)	Description/Comment
Construction Economy	270	The most dominant external factor is that market conditions and economic balances play a decisive role in the entire process.
Architect	237	The architectural profession, education, and standards are seen as a strong professional/perceptual external factor that directs building production.
Society and the World	172	It reflects the impact of large-scale social, cultural, and global contexts on architectural production.
Education- Institutions	150	Professional institutions, universities, and regulatory structures constitute a structural external pressure mechanism on the process.
Knowledge and Technology	122	New materials, software, and production techniques that transform building production constitute the external modernization parameters of the process.
Environment and Climate	49	Relatively less emphasized, it is a critical exogenous factor in terms of sustainability and local context.
Individual	42	Individual influences, such as employers or users, are perceived as weaker external influences compared to overall systemic factors.
Education (General)	25	It was less preferred since it is perceived as an abstract “training” factor independent of the institutional structure.

.

These findings demonstrate that building production is a multi-layered process shaped by both internal and external forces. Specifically, the determining role of factors like “Construction Economy” and “Architect” reveals that professional decisions are closely related to the external environment. However, the background presence of critical areas such as “Environment and Climate” points to a remarkable lack of awareness regarding sustainability. In conclusion, the “Building Anatomy” model clearly reveals the guiding role of external influences within the architectural process. This analysis emphasizes the model’s multifaceted interaction with the external environment, making it clear that each stage possesses a unique external pressure profile. Thus, architectural creation is shaped not only by physical actions but also by a broader production ecosystem comprising environmental, managerial, and economic interactions (Table 7).

5.4. Overall Evaluation: Systemic Dysfunction and Future Directions

When the overall findings are analyzed, it becomes clear that there are structural problems and systemic imbalances at various stages of the building-production process. The survey data (

Table 8. Distribution of systemic problems detected in the building-production process (n = 126).

Problem Area	Quantitative Indicators	Comment
Discontinuity between stages	−0.10 (Permit–Need), −0.11 (Occupancy–Project Initiation)	Feedback chain broken
Weak effect of the usage phase	Average score: 5.95	User experience is not reflected in the process
Bureaucratic phases stand out	Contract and license stages have the highest interaction	The process is shaped by technical priorities
Dominance of external factors	Architect (237), Construction Economy (270)	Internal decision-making is weak; external pressures dominate

) numerically support these findings.

The general findings reveal that the holistic system construct of the “Building Anatomy” model breaks down at various stages of building production: feedback circuits do not work, and the process’s metabolism is blocked. While a healthy system requires balanced internal–external factor interaction and continuous feedback, findings indicate a serious disruption of this vital operation.

For instance, quantitative data shows negative correlations (r = −0.10, −0.11) between “Emergence of Need” and “Obtaining Occupancy Permit” (Table 8), documenting a broken learning and memory circuit within the production organism. Moreover, the “Usage” phase’s average interaction score (5.95) is among the lowest, indicating user experiences are not effectively reflected or re-integrated into the design process. This systemic disconnect stems from factors like contractual limitations that terminate architect engagement, a lack of formal post-occupancy evaluation, and an underdeveloped industry feedback culture. Such deficiencies severely limit the production organism’s capacity for continuous learning and adaptation, as vital performance data from the built environment are not re-integrated into subsequent design cycles. The “Building Anatomy” model, by emphasizing continuous feedback that loops across all stages, directly addresses this critical gap. It advocates for formalizing feedback collection and integration through, for instance, long-term performance monitoring, digital platforms for user input, and contractual clauses extending architect involvement to post-occupancy evaluation. These steps would ensure that lived experiences inform future architectural endeavors, fostering a truly adaptive and responsive design ecosystem. This entire process is predominantly driven by external factors, especially “Construction Economics” (n = 270) and the institutionalized “Architect” (n = 237), revealing design decisions shaped by external pressures rather than internal qualities or architectural intuition. This situation weakens the architect’s constitutive role and fragments decision mechanisms.

These findings indicate that building production systems are losing their ability to continuously develop and adapt to changing conditions. Broken interconnections, non-functional feedback mechanisms, and external dependence in decision-making point to a production organism that struggles to develop insights, transform, or learn, a challenge central to the concept of a learning organization [63].

Hence, future production models, as suggested by the “Building Anatomy” model, must be rethought as living organisms. These structures should constantly interact with their environment, be centered on feedback mechanisms, and be capable of establishing a dynamic balance between internal and external factors. Integrating user experiences, local contexts, ethical principles, and environmental sensitivities into the design process is necessary for the system to evolve into a learning and developing structure, rather than merely functioning. Therefore, survey findings demonstrate that the production organism should be considered not only a technical chain, but also a multi-layered life form shaped within cultural, social, ethical, and economic networks.

6. Discussion: Recoding Architectural Production with a Systems Approach

This chapter discusses the intersection of the “Building Anatomy” model with field data, its systemic perspectives that overlap with Turkish architectural practices, and the model’s theoretical contribution within systems engineering and adaptive theories.

6.1. The Intersection of the Building Anatomy Model with Field Data

Field study data confirm the “Building Anatomy” model’s predicted problems. Turkish architectural production shows a loss of inner logic, especially during design-to-implementation transitions. Internal systems (e.g., architectural intention, design coherence) are often overruled by external systems (e.g., institutional procedures, economic constraints), leading to systemic imbalance and making production reactive. Intrinsic factors are consistently superseded by legal compliance, cost-effectiveness, and procedural requirements in licensing, implementation, and economic evaluation stages.

This reflects the model’s “organism blockage” metaphor (Figure 3). Like nervous or hormonal system disruptions, architectural output loses functionality due to weakened feedback loops and external system suppression. These findings signal a collapse in architecture’s cognitive core: the architect’s role narrows to a formal technician, team dynamics lose continuity, and institutional pressures dominate creative judgment. This indicates not only functional disruption but an ontological shift from design as an authorial act to bureaucratic performance. The marginalization of architect identity and designer decisions further reflects the disruption of the organism’s internal balance by external pressures (Figure 3).

6.2. Evaluation from the Perspective of Systems Engineering and the Adaptive Systems Theory

Systems engineering literature argues that explicit and continuous feedback mechanisms between subsystems of complex systems are essential [64]. This perspective understands architectural production not only as a linear chain from drawing to implementation but also as a multi-actor, feedback-based, and dynamic process.

The adaptive systems approach proposed by the model defines building production as a system that adapts to environmental changes and reorganizes itself, not just as an “output-oriented” production line [43]. The field findings show that, in the Turkish context, this structure remains in closed circuits, and feedback mechanisms function poorly.

The “Building Anatomy” model proposes a shift in understanding architectural endeavors: not merely as a design-implementation chain, but as an adaptive and responsive ecosystem. By borrowing from biological systems, it redefines buildings not as static artifacts, but as the output of dynamic, semi-intelligent environments. Yet, this metaphor demands critical scrutiny: to what extent can architectural systems truly be considered organisms? Alternative metaphors, such as machine, network, or platform, might seem to better explain resistance, failures, or specific adaptations. For instance, a “machine” metaphor could clarify technical malfunctions or regulatory rigidities, while a “network” might elucidate distributed agency and complex interconnections. A “platform” metaphor could highlight scalable and customizable digital aspects. However, these alternatives often fall short in capturing the holistic, self-organizing, and inherently adaptive qualities that the “Building Anatomy” model uniquely addresses. Unlike machines, which perform predefined functions and break down, or networks, which can struggle with centralized control, the organismic metaphor inherently encompasses concepts of growth, self-repair, metabolic processes, and continuous feedback loops defining a system’s vitality and evolution. While acknowledging the utility of other metaphors for specific aspects, the “Building Anatomy” model’s strength lies precisely in its ability to integrate these diverse dynamics within a unified, living system framework, providing a more comprehensive diagnostic and generative lens for understanding architectural complexity, where resilience and adaptation are fundamental properties of a healthy, evolving system.

Beyond merely elucidating systemic coherence, feedback, and adaptation within architectural processes, the “Building Anatomy” model necessitates considering how the practice’s inherent human, cultural, and technical dimensions are comprehensively captured by this metaphor. Specifically, qualitative aspects of architectural practice, such as inherent aesthetic values and artistic expression, are primarily embedded within the “Architect Identity” and “Internal Dynamics and Operational Processes” factors. These reflect the designer’s internalized vision and collaborative creative processes, conceptualized as vital “internal organs” that critically shape the organism’s unique form and character. However, acknowledging architecture’s multifaceted nature, future extensions of the “Building Anatomy” model could further explore how these highly subjective and qualitative inputs are metabolized and expressed within the systemic framework, potentially identifying more specific “sensory organs” or “interpretive pathways” that process aesthetic and ethical values and demonstrating their systemic impact beyond mere functionality or regulatory compliance.

Buildings emerge within a multi-layered network of actors, conditions, and interactions. For the organism to function healthily, internal systems (the architect, team, design process) and external systems (regulations, market, social structures) must remain in equilibrium. However, findings reveal that this adaptive structure does not operate fully: 72% of design decisions are revised during implementation, 73% of changes never loop back to the office, and 69% of user interventions cannot be linked to the original design. This means that the system adapts externally but fails internal information integration, severely limiting its learning and sustainable evolution.

While the “Building Anatomy” model frames architectural processes as interacting parts, it asks the following: can architectural practice regain agency within systems suppressing internal feedback? This model suggests that architecture’s health depends on its ability to reconfigure itself to recognize blockages, broken decision loops, or compromised design ethics. Thus, “Building Anatomy” is not just an analytical tool, but a fundamental call to rethink architectural agency in bureaucratic and economically driven environments. It compels us to ask the following: can buildings remember? Can systems learn? Can design decisions genuinely evolve, rather than adapting reactively?

7. Discussion and Conclusions: The Building Anatomy Model

This study fundamentally redefines architectural production, moving beyond mere physical form creation to a dynamic, living, and evolving system shaped by reciprocal internal and external interactions. The proposed “Building Anatomy” model challenges traditional linear schemas, introducing a robust systemic and adaptive framework inspired by human physiological operations and homeostatic logic. Within this model, architectural processes are conceptualized through intricate feedback loops, dynamic balances, and systemic dysfunctions, mirroring a living organism’s anatomy and metabolism.

Grounded in empirical data from Turkish architectural practice, the model reveals a significant shift in agency. External systems (bureaucratic, economic, regulatory) increasingly govern design trajectories, while internal systems (architect identity, ethics, collaborative decision-making) are marginalized. This structural imbalance disrupts feedback mechanisms, reduces systemic memory, and limits design process adaptability. Consequently, architecture risks becoming reactive rather than reflective, producing buildings that respond but do not learn.

This paradigm shift yields four significant contributions:

• Integrated Theoretical Framework: The study offers a novel, transdisciplinary framework bridging architecture with systems engineering, adaptive theory, and anthropomorphic reasoning. It reconceptualized production as a holistic socio-mechano-organism system, a layered field of actors, decisions, and feedback.
• Diagnosis and Management of Systemic Dysfunctions: The model provides a critical diagnostic lens for identifying “metabolic blockages” in architectural processes, offering concrete guidance for practitioners and policymakers to pinpoint and address weakened feedback loops and dominant external pressures. It advocates for implementing transparent, multi-actor, feedback-driven process management across all stages (design, implementation, supervision, post-occupancy), thereby transforming reactive practices into proactive, system-aware interventions. For practitioners, this translates into establishing clear feedback channels from construction and post-occupancy phases back to design and an initial needs assessment. For policymakers, it implies designing regulatory frameworks that encourage, rather than hinder, iterative design processes and incorporate mechanisms for continuous learning from built outcomes, moving beyond a purely compliance-driven approach.
• Redefining Architectural Agency and Pedagogy: Beyond theoretical insights, the “Building Anatomy” framework offers strategic implications for urban policymaking, design management, and studio pedagogy. It urgently calls for a re-evaluation of the architect’s role, shifting from a formal technician to a “system manager” capable of orchestrating complex internal and external dynamics. This necessitates a fundamental educational shift towards process-based systemic thinking, equipping future architects with tools to foster healthy, adaptive Building Anatomies in diverse contexts and to actively challenge “type project” limitations. Specifically, architectural curricula should integrate system dynamics, feedback loop analysis, and interdisciplinary collaboration from early stages, preparing students to navigate the intricate “ecology” of architectural endeavors and to become proactive agents of systemic health.
• Leveraging Disruption as a Catalyst for Evolution: The model reframes breakdowns not as failures but as opportunities for recalibration and growth. By embedding crisis responsiveness into design thinking, it frames disruption as a generative force transforming inertia into adaptive change and failure into feedback.

Ultimately, this study invites a fundamental shift in architectural thought from a product-centered to a processual and organismic understanding. The “Building Anatomy” model stands as an initial theoretical–practical framework articulating this transformation, advocating for a discipline that learns, adapts, and evolves through its own intricate internal and external ecology (Figure 7).

In conclusion, while the empirical fieldwork is confined to Turkish architectural practice, the principles of our model have a global reach. The observed marginalization of internal systems by external pressures and the resulting metabolic blockages are not unique to this context but are a widespread challenge in contemporary architectural production. Our findings, therefore, provide a diagnostic mirror for the discipline. This study directly addresses a critical gap in the literature and provides a foundational framework for future research. A primary limitation of this study is its singular focus on a specific geographic context. Future research should therefore aim to test the model’s applicability in different cultural and regulatory environments. It is also believed that the model’s integration with emerging technologies, such as digital twins and AI-based design tools, represents a crucial next step. These technologies function as potential “digital nervous systems” that could dramatically enhance the organism’s capacity for information processing and adaptation and should be the subject of future research. Furthermore, the development of system-aware design education and the implementation of cross-national comparative studies are crucial next steps in furthering this paradigm. By reframing architecture as a living system, the Building Anatomy model offers a generative philosophy for navigating the complexity of practice and a call for architectural agency to regain its health and purpose within the intricate ecology of the built environment. Ultimately, this study invites a fundamental shift in architectural thought from a product-centered to a processual and organismic understanding.