Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Diagram Process Method The Design of PDF
The Diagram Process Method The Design of PDF
net/publication/291355754
CITATION READS
1 9,269
3 authors:
Caio Castriotto
University of Campinas
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Interfaces em Ação: sobre interações e layers comunicacionais nas práticas de projeto remoto View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Luciana Bosco e Silva on 22 January 2016.
483
ARCHTHEO ‘14
The Diagram
The procedures on architectural design, appears to have shifted from drawing
to the diagram, over the second half of the twentieth century, according to Somol
(2007). That does not mean that the diagram is the only form of architectural design
or that diagrams were not used on the process of architectural design along the
history. However, it was on the lately thirty years or so that the diagram effectively
became an important tool in the design process of architecture.
The diagram as a functional method arises as an architectural design option,
according to Pai (2002), based on two modern precepts. First, the separation of
subject and object, and the subsequent pursuit of their reunification. As Pai defends,
the gap that emerged from the dissolution between conception and execution was
the propelling of the emergence of diagrams as a mechanism of a modern way of
representation. At the same time, it is plausible to say that the same perception
that defends the link between the scientific management to the birth of diagram
as an option to a modern way of representation, can also defines the diagram as
metaphor. The construction, specially, on the modern society, of analogies that
can interpret natural and mechanicals systems, more specifically on the production
of architecture became essential to the gain of significance on the proceeding of
architectural design.
In contemporary, the design methods itself have gained extreme significance,
according to Bun (2008), which means that the theory that revolves around
diagrams as a source of architectural design process have improved their way of
seeing diagrams. Within this context, it is reasonable to say that diagrams are no
longer pure geometry or structure, but rather contained all the meanings that
underline its essence. The very own conception of the diagram it is not unique,
each architect develops its own concept on the use of diagrams in his process of
designing.
484
ARCHTHEO ‘14
possibilities, and in pursuit of this new discourse of the possibilities is the use of
diagrams.
485
ARCHTHEO ‘14
486
ARCHTHEO ‘14
ground projects and it reinforces the idea of the trace, a “figure-figure urbanism”
diagram which portrays different layers related to the city.
In the City of Culture of Galicia (1999 - ongoing), the undulating form of all the
six buildings is evolved from the layering of three sets of information: the plan of
the medieval center of Santiago de Compostela, a cartesian grid that represents
the modern city and the topography of the hilltop, which distorts the preview
flat geometries. The superposition of the old and new layers are combined in a
simultaneous matrix which creates the topological surface and the fluid movement
of the ground and rooftops. The “figure-figure urbanism” diagram emerge as a
parametric junction of the patterns of different layers. Once again the concept is
strongest connected to the shape, but the geometry resulted is unexpected and
totally different to the context. The struggle over seemingly disparate paths also
represents a search for an internal disciplinary logic for architecture. This reflection
would be an amalgam of projects and their critical reflections, an excessive
hipertext, as it were combining text and objects beyond their limits of their former
textuality (Davidson, 2006).
More recently, this archaeological path discourse is also reflected on the Yenikapi
Project, in Istambul, designed in partnership with Aytaç architects. Eisenman’s
proposal deals with the site at different scales: the architectural, the site and the
urban scales. The design is based on analysis of the context, identified through
two grid systems which, after rotated, built up a different framework. The same
matrix and logic were re-proposed to the interior of the architecture and connects
virtual and real spaces to different contexts. In fact, this fragmentary approach of
the project pieces, a random collage of seemingly disparate layers of information,
confronts to the nature of the site, but at the same time proposes a transformation
of the place itself. It is a generative operation through the overlapping fragments
from the context and the final result is as geometrically complex as the site, despite
it does not represent it figuratively.
Although Eisenman’s work changed from the first Cartesian experimentations
to a second phase of the crossing layers of the context, the diagrammatic thinking
explores the networking of superposing paths, in which the time becomes a part of
the process. The record of several stages of the design allows it to exist in time, as
precisely a map of the event, a method for architectural generation as a text.
487
ARCHTHEO ‘14
488
ARCHTHEO ‘14
diagrams of the project show four layers of functions, each one corresponding
to a tower of an specific activity: a tower of a laboratory (thinking), an elevator
core (circulation), a stack of meeting rooms (community), a tower of accountants
(money). The sections combine graphics and words in an architectural discourse of
assembly of information through the shape.
In the same programmatic logic, the project for LACMA Museum Competition
shows how the scale shifts from architecture to urbanism. Simple diagrams
demonstrate “layer-by-layer” numeric solutions for the architectural problem.
LACMA’s collection planes illustrate significant connections between the old
buildings and also the paths into the exhibition. Colorful pieces split different
programs, cultures, departments and ages and the diagrammatic sections are able
to reflect, in the shape, the historic convergence and rupture through time.
In the Seattle library project, the sections illustrate platforms as programmatic
clusters and the spaces in between function as trading floors, interfaces where the
different platforms are organized (spaces for work, interaction and play). These
schemes helps to understand the complexity of a “mass-building”, to split and
combine different layers of contents. For Koolhaas, the iconography is an important
tool for the design process.
But, besides this creative intent, some critics argue that the diagrams do not
have logical relationship to the final architectural object. For them, the content is
not related to the generated form and the process is an autonomous entity, later
illustrated by these graphs.
Despite all discussions about the validity of these graphics to the design
process, the ideograms of Rem Koolhaas are indeed interesting narratives related
to the project. They are creative approaches to communicate the concept and for
the comprehension of the complexities of mass-buildings related to contemporary
cities.
Conclusion
The practice of the diagram as graphic notation method to generate form
is different in Koolhaas and Eisenman’s practice. But, despite of all difference
between the architects’ design process, the inspiring force of the diagrams, reflects
not only their descriptive or explanatory capacity, but their generative architectural
possibilities and also the multiple associations of ideas they allow. More than
expose, the diagram stimulates creativity; more than “explain” situations, it
presents possibilities.
But, despite the operation through layers of contents or geometric notations
reveals unexpected situations, in some cases, the final object may be similar to
each other. The design of Peter Eisenman’s Max Reinhardt Haus Project, in Berlim,
and Rem Koolhaas’ CCTV Headquarter, in Beijing, for example, are very similar in
form, scale and in their relation to the city. Maybe, the result of the diagrammatic
process is somewhat predictable in both, or their reciprocal influences are deeper
than the use of this diagrammatic language.
489
ARCHTHEO ‘14
References
BUN, Z., 2008. Between Analogue and Digital Diagrams. Budapest: ARCC Journal
/ Volume 5 Issue 2. [pdf] Available at: www.arcc-journal.org/index.php/arccjournal/
article/download/13/12 [Accessed 05 October 2014].
DAVIDSON, C., 2006. Tracing Eisenman: Peter Eisenman Complete Works. New
York: Rizzoli.
KOOLHAAS, R., 2004. Content. Köln: Taschen.
MONEO, R., 2008. Inquietação teórica e estratégia projetual na obra de oito
arquitetos contemporâneos. São Paulo: Cosac Naify.
MONTANER, J.M., 2009. Sistemas Arquitetônicos Contemporâneos. Barcelona:
Gustavo Gili.
__________________ 2013. Arquitetura e Crítica. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.
PAI, H., 2002. The Portfolio and the Diagram – Architecture, Discourse, and
Modernity in America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
RAUTERBERG, H., 2008. Entrevista com arquitetos. Rio de Janeiro: Viana &
Mosley.
SOMOL, R.E., 2007. Dummy Text, or The Diagrammatic Basis of Contemporary
Architecture. Risco – Revista de Pesquisa em Arquitetura e Urbanismo. N° 5,
1° Semester. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.revistas.usp.br/ risco/article/
download/44701/48329> [Accessed 05 October 2014].
490