Architecture communicates. Through its appearance it can communicate a function, time or place, or some kind of ideal. However, architecture does not communicate with words like humans do: instead, it communicates through a four- dimensional, non-verbal language consisting of forms, spatial organisation and materialisation. The problem is, architecture is usually not designed to communicate but to function and architects are often unaware of the message their design can communicate. In other words: they do not design from a communication perspective. It can, however, be interesting to elaborate on this subject in order to gain a better understanding of communicative meaning in architecture and to design architecture from a communication perspective.

This research connects the fields of architectural and communication inquiry in order to find out what and how architecture can communicate. The outcomes of this research are translated into the design of a multi-interpretational market and event space in Haarlem.

This series – “Speaking – is part of a graduation project for a double degree in Architecture and Science Communication at the Delft University of Technology. The overall aim of this project was to design a form language that can be used in complex problem-solving processes in the field of science communication. The graduation project consists of three parts:
Part I: “Speaking architecture, a semiotic study toward understanding visual communication in architecture;
Part II: “Speaking architecture, design and analysis of a multi-interpretational market space in Haarlem;
Part III: “Speaking through form, an analogy between architectural form and communication to contribute to complex problem-solving processes.
Part I describes the research for MSc Architecture. This research was part of the Explore Lab graduation studio. This part tried to understand visual communication in architecture. The framework of visual communication that derived from this research formed the foundation for the graduation design, described in Part II. The architectural meaning of the design of a Market Hall for Haarlem was later analysed using the same method as in Part I. Based on this fourth case study, the framework of architectural communication was refined.This review was necessary to better understand the subject of architectural communication in order to cross the border into the field of science communication. Part III, lastly, translates the way in which architecture communicates to the design of a form language.