40,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Drawing is an important means to analyse information and develop rigorous arguments both conceptually and visually. Going beyond the how-to drawing manual, this book provides an instrumental approach to drawing, especially computer-generated drawings; it outlines how drawings should be used to convey clear and analytical information in the process of design, as well as the communication and discussion of a project. In depth examples are provided how to communicate effectively. The final section demonstrates how to transform case-studies, directly connecting an analytical approach with the design process.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 169
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Acknowledgments
This book developed from many discussions with students and colleagues on why and how to analyse case studies and why this is relevant to design methods and design research. Many of the included projects continuously re-emerged in conversations on design.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the book, often in more than one way. Without them, it would not have been possible. The direct and indirect contributions included reviews of the book proposal, debates of case studies, helping with the production of drawings, provision of essential drawing material, analysis and sources, and permission to use drawings and images for reproduction. I thank: Adrian Lahoud, Alvaro Arancibia Tagle, Aristide Antonas, Charles Rice, Chen Shao, Christopher Lee, Cyan Jingru Cheng, Freda Yuen, Gabriella Nunes Pinta Gama, Guillem Pons, Hillia Lee, Jie Zhu, Ji Yoon Gu, Leonhard Clemens, Longning Qi, Marcin Ganczarski, Miao Yu, Monia De Marchi, Naina Gupta, Qinhe Yi, Runze Zhang, Seokjae Song, Simon Goddard, Shazia Ahmed, Tarsha Finney, Tianyi Shu, Ungers Archive for Architectural Research (UAA), Valerio Massaro, Yana Petrova, Yang Sun, Yating Song, Yu-Hsiang Hung and Yuwei Wang. The book would, of course, also not exist without the unwitting contribution by the authors of the analysed projects and, as I believe, their critical knowledge of precedents.
I am especially indebted to Sakiko Goto and her tremendous assistance in researching the case studies and producing the drawings. Without her tireless efforts, this book would not exist.
Thank you also to the editorial team Calver Lezama, Miriam Murphy and David Sassian, but especially to Helen Castle at Wiley for supporting the book and their patience.
The research was financially supported by the Architectural Research Fund from the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London.
Drawing Architecture and the Urban
Sam Jacoby
This edition first published 2016 ∐ 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-ondemand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: while the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-118-87940-5 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-118-87947-4 (ebk) ISBN 978-1-118-87949-8 (ebk) ISBN 978-1-118-87950-4 (ebk)
Executive Commissioning Editor: Helen Castle Project Editor: Miriam Murphy Assistant Editor: Calver Lezama
Cover design, page design and layouts by Artmedia, London Printed in Italy by Printer Trento Srl Cover images ∐ Sam Jacoby with Sakiko Goto
For further content go to: www.wiley.com/go/drawingarchitecture
CONTENTS
Introduction
1 Conventions
Point, Line, Plane and Volume
Plan Conventions
Orthographic Projections (Elevation)
Cut-Away Views (Plan and Section)
Paraline Drawings
Perspective Drawings
Graphic Conventions
Line Weight, Style and Type
Line Weight
Hatching, Texture, Material and Shading
Colour
Drawing Scale and Paper Size
Annotation and Dimensioning
2 Architecture
Description
Context: Location Plan and Site Section
Building: Plan, Elevation and Section
Building: Axonometric and Perspective
Analysis
Context: Figure-Ground Plan
Context: Orientation
Building: Massing
Building: Structural Organisation
Building: Programme
Building: Circulation-to-Use
Building: Part-to-Whole
Building: Repetitive-to-Unique
Building: Geometrical Order
Building: Parti
Comparison
Free Plan vs Raumplan
Deconstruction of Whole to Parts
Vertical vs Horizontal (Collective Forms of Living)
Sectional Organisation
Landscape and Landform
Modularity
Comparative Matrices
Massing
Conceptual Organisation
Disposition
Distribution
Circulation
Difference
Growth
3 The Urban
Description
Urban Plan
Land Use
Density
Circulation (Transport)
Open Spaces
Infrastructures
Analysis
Figure-Ground Plan
Hierarchies and Organisation
Part-to-Whole and Repetitive-to-Unique
Built Environment
Phasing
Comparison
Block
Urban Plan
Enclave
Ground
Infrastructures
Comparative Matrices
Size
Distribution
Hierarchy and Layering
Difference
Growth
Architectural Types and Urban Morphology
4 Transformation
Typological Transformation
Timeline: Prison Architecture
Comparative Matrix: Parliament Buildings
Comparative Diagrams: Plenary Types in Parliament Buildings
Typological Transformation Diagrams
Transformative Matrix: Merged and Offset Types
Design Examples
Tokyo Podium
The City Campus
The Chinese Unit
CitÉ Housing
Drawing Acknowledgements and References
Index
EULA
List of Illustrations
Introduction
Alvaro Arancibia Tagle, Cité Housing in Santiago de Chile (AA Projective Cities, 2013)
Figure 1: ‘Plate 1’ showing the comparative proportions of the five architectural orders (Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite) as measured by the petit module, in Claude Perrault, Ordonnance des cinq espèces de colonnes selon la méthode des anciens (Paris: Coignard, 1683)
Figure 2: ‘Les cinq Ordres d'Architecture dans une mème hauteur suivant Vignole’ [The five Orders of architecture drawn at the same height after Vignola], in Pierre Nativelle, Nouveau traité d'architecture (Paris: Dupuis, 1729)
Figure 3 : ‘Plan des églises les plus remarquables bâties depuis l'an 326 jusqu'en 1764’ [Plans of the most remarkable churches built from 326 to 1764], in Julien-David Le Roy, Histoire de la disposition et des formes différentes que les Chrétiens ont données á leurs temples depuis le règne de Constantin le Grand jusqu'á nous (Paris: Desaint & Saillant, 1764
Figure 4: ‘Plate 1’ showing the parallel, formal development of the temple type, in Julien-David Le Roy, Les Ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Grèce, 2nd Edition (Paris: Delatour, 1770)
Figure 5: ‘Plate 20, Ensemble d'édifices, résultants de divisions du carré, du parallélogramme et de leurs combinaisons avec le cercle’ [Building ensembles, resulting from the divisions of the square, the parallelogram and their combinations with the circle], in Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Précis des leçons d'architecture données á l'École Royale Polytechnique, Volume 1 (Paris: the author, 1802)
Figure 6: ‘Plate 21, Marche á suivre dans la composition d'un projet quelconque’ [Procedure to be followed in the composition of any project], in Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Précis des leçons d'architecture données á l'École Royale Polytechnique, Volume 1 (Paris: the author, 1813 edition)
Figure 7: Sketch of morphological transformation of rectangular formal elements. Oswald Mathias Ungers with Jürgen Sawade and Jonas Geist, competition for student housing for the Technische Hogeschool Twente in Enschede, Netherlands (1963). Courtesy of the Ungers Archiv für Architekturwissenschaften
Figure 8: A panopticon and panorama based on the principles of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon model (1791) and Robert Barker's panorama building (1792). Drawn by Longning Qi and Qinhe Yi (2014).
Guide
Cover
Contents
1
Pages
ii
iv
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
Alvaro Arancibia Tagle, Cité Housing in Santiago de Chile (AA Projective Cities, 2013)
Introduction DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS AND TRANSFORMATION
DRAWING AS DIAGRAM
Drawing is the basic means to communicate and reason an architectural or urban design. During the design process, drawings are produced that ‘describe’, ‘analyse’ and ‘generate’ ideas and structures. Yet in architectural drawings, these three modes overlap and are often difficult to distinguish. Description of architectural designs through graphic representation always requires some abstraction of reality and is therefore partially analytical. Analysis itself depends on conventions of description and often a comparison to established norms. And a generative drawing frequently is the conclusion of a comparative analysis, especially when deriving from a design method based on case studies. A sketch then can be descriptive, analytical and generative, depending on its context. In fact, context is critical to all drawings. We read a drawing differently when it is presented by students to explain a speculative project, is used by designers and clients to discuss how quantitative or aesthetic requirements are met, or is part of a tender package detailing building parts and elements for construction. Different drawing conventions have thus developed that are suitable to each context.
Defined by the interactions between description, analysis and generation, architectural and urban drawings are diagrammatic reductions that generally convey abstract spatial relationships and orders – which can serve as blueprints for building. To materialise physically what are, despite representing a ‘reality’, essentially conceptual ideas, translation is required, as a diagram substantially differs from the reality it describes. But whether a project is meant for realisation or not, the principle of conceptual and material transformation is part of all design relying on representation and its translation.1 Any spatial concept is generative and can always be realised at different scales and in different materials, in each case demanding a new analysis and set of drawings, details, construction methods, etc. Therefore, the generative can be defined in these terms as a transformation that follows from analysis. It is not simply an artistic vision. Drawing Architecture and the Urban is structured around the three principal concepts of drawing as a means of description, analysis and transformation.
The need for abstraction in architectural drawings is intensified by computer-aided design (CAD), as the idea of a single drawing is obsolete, and potentially an infinite number of drawings are produced from the same file. What seems a simple observation of a mechanical process has a significant effect on the way we can instrumentalise drawing and conceive its role. A drawing produced by CAD requires continuous rethinking of scale, detail and graphic design. While hand drawing emerged within a tradition of imitative representation, computer drawing is associated with a generative process of abstraction, in which generalisation and its transformations have become operative for design and its description – a fact that is recognised in the building industry through the increasing use of building information modelling (BIM). Thus with CAD, the conventions and problems of drawing have changed from the logic of hand drawing. The inherently generative nature of CAD requires a new judgement as to what and how we draw – indeed, even as to how we conceive a project. The great potential of the computer drawing and model partially explains why, during its rise in the 1990s, an entirely three-dimensional and self-referential formal generation was pursued that deliberately avoided being analytical. Computer generation was turned into an end. Yet this book is a return to an analytical approach. It argues through the drawings themselves that graphical thinking is a central means of architectural reasoning, one which with the advent of the computer has established not only new forms of analysis and graphic knowledge but also a new aesthetic and style.
The three functions of diagrams to describe, analyse and transform refer respectively to three more historical architectural concepts: convention, interpretation and invention. By following conventions – agreed meanings of representation and order established by practice – it is possible to describe and communicate clearly. Drawing is in this case a learned skill obtained through practice. Analysis on the other hand is interpretative, but relies on conventions of description and at times becomes the basis of invention through conceptual and formal transformation. The skill of analysis is part of the training of an architect. Yet the relationships between the six concepts directly reflect on changing practices and disciplinary knowledge, and are therefore continuously changing themselves. This is apparent when looking at the larger historical and theoretical context in which problems of drawing shaped the architectural profession and its approach to design. It transformed a descriptive drawing into a generative diagram and developed a comparative study of precedents into a design method while introducing the idea of a typological transformation. These concepts of the diagram, comparative study of precedent and typological transformation, are explored in the different chapters of this book.
FROM DESCRIPTIVE DRAWING TO DIAGRAMMATIC DESIGN METHOD
In the second half of the 17th century, the problem of accurate description through drawings was a major motivation for early archaeological studies of classical Roman precedents, with the aim to clarify the proportions of architectural orders.2 These surveys uncovered the incommensurability of proportions in different classical buildings, which eventually led Claude Perrault to conclude in his Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns after the Method of the Ancients of 1683, that proportions are relative. He resolved the problem of comparing different proportional dimensions by introducing a new convention of measurement that permitted him to express proportions as whole numbers and not fractions (figure 1).3 Following Perrault's empirical approach, notably Pierre Nativelle in his Nouveau traité d'architecture (New Treaty on Architecture, 1729) proposed a new graphic abstraction. He radically eliminated the differences between architectural orders by conceiving them as an abstract and generic scheme for design (figure 2). This transformed a previously descriptive system of drawing into a diagrammatic matrix of possibilities.
While Nativelle introduced a new diagrammatic thinking, at the same time he diminished the role of precedents, which Jacques-François Blondel in contrast saw as the foundation of architectural practice and training. Blondel introduced the case-study method from law, and understood architectural precedents only as meaningful when maintaining relevance to practice by providing principles on which similar current design problems could be judged and decided on.4 Precedents were thus defined as potentially a historical. His method required comparative drawings to analyse case studies, and redefined invention as a modification and recombination of received forms. Blondel's position further necessitated a clarification of the role of history in the process of design and its analysis. This was provided by Julien-David Le Roy in The Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece (1758), who was the first to formally introduce history as a counterpart to theory in architecture. Le Roy posited that without accepting historicism, architecture could not be freed from the constraints of first origins – by which he meant classical Greek or Roman styles. By introducing the concept of history, it could be separated from the practice of architecture, which was then considered its theory. Complementary to his writing, Le Roy instrumentalised drawing, especially in two pivotal diagrams. The ‘Plans of the most remarkable churches built from 326 to 1764’ showed Jacques-Germain Soufflot's design for Sainte-Geneviève as the synthesis of three formal developments: the cross-shaped plan, parallel rows of free-standing columns in the basilica and the dome (figure 3). Although the diagram appears simply comparative, it suggests that a typological progression and transformation underlies the judgement of design, permitting one to recognise Soufflot's plan as superior. The second important diagram similarly compared a progressive transformation, that of Egyptian and Phoenician, Greek, Roman and Christian huts into temples with increasing scale and complexity (figure 4). The graphic comparison proposes a clear typological sequence of transformation, and is an explicit example of a typological and diagrammatic reasoning, as it relates generic and specific form in order to construct a lineage and classification of a group of buildings.
Figure 1: ‘Plate 1’ showing the comparative proportions of the five architectural orders (Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite) as measured by the petit module, in Claude Perrault, Ordonnance des cinq espèces de colonnes selon la méthode des anciens (Paris: Coignard, 1683)
Figure 2: ‘Les cinq Ordres d'Architecture dans une mème hauteur suivant Vignole’ [The five Orders of architecture drawn at the same height after Vignola], in Pierre Nativelle, Nouveau traité d'architecture (Paris: Dupuis, 1729)
