Diagram Deployment

This is an excerpt from Reiser & Umemoto's Atlas of Novel Tectonics. I think this is applicable to all of you whether you're working with a diagram drawn from nature (DNA or flower) or a diagram about circulation. Very simply put, they propose that the scale of the diagram is extremely important in terms of generating relationships with the context in which the work is situated. So perhaps a flower is more potent as a diagram if the building enclosure doesn't resemble flower petals, but rather appears (or parts of it) at other scales such as the detail.

I would also add that the diagram is capable of evolving as the work progresses, and in many cases should, in the spirit of finding new and stronger relationships. So while one may decide that the helical nature of DNA should inform, say, the structure of a building, one may decide through the course of development that the helical nature is better at, say, distributing program.

Finally, keep in mind that the diagram is best at creating models of organization (space and event, force and resistance, density and distribution to mention a few), especially at multiple levels.

making the difficult look easy...

I'm going to post ideas specific to individual projects as well as the collective, since I think everyone might benefit from looking at all of it.

Aaron- I’ve given your proposal a little thought and have a suggestion. I think the incongruency between the two forms has to do with one being orthogonal and the other being triangular. I think you ought to consider a triangular frame and see if that solves some of your problems while also making the two forms more consistent in language. I also think a triangular form can often time take on more complexity than an orthogonal one. A lot of the tessellation that you see in very current work is really a product of a triangular language.

Take a look at the project above. This is from the Architecture’s 1999 Progressive Awards issue, but I feel it’s still very relevant. The form in this case is simply the roof, but you can see how the rotation along one axis really establishes some interesting relationships with adjacent walls and the space below and above. And it’s all done with a single frame, just rotated. Perhaps you can explore more gradual rotations in some areas and more accelerated rotations in others. In other words, instead of rotating just, say 3 degrees, it varies in some areas to accommodate program and dissolution into the other form.

One last thing, I looked at Cohen’s work and the materiality is very different (almost all concrete) and therefore not as helpful as I thought. I will keep looking for more relevant examples.

plans

I was thinking about some of the plans I saw yesterday and wondering how to add clarity and information to them, while simultaneously increasing visual interest. I also think plans can often be boring to read, which is why you all may want to consider ways to make them interesting.

Above is an example that I found to be quite effective at conveying the typical plan information while also selecting one area to be delineated with material and shadow. This is most effective when you are trying to communicate an opening in the floor or some vertical connectivity across several floors, otherwise it may draw more questions than answers. If you decide to appropriate this idea, make sure that if you model it in 3d, that you use an orthographic projection and not perspective. That way both areas are consistent. I suggest you use shadows that are more soft than harsh; otherwise they may become distracting and confused with other elements in the plan. Finally, this can easily be done in Photoshop in case you are not familiar with a 3d program.