We recently interviewed Will Bruder for the spring issue of Arcade Magazine. In addition to being a master architect, Bruder is acutely insightful and the discussion was full of wisdom that you’ll be able to read all about in the next issue of Arcade. In speaking about academics and the learning process of an architect, Bruder said something that really hit home. Here’s a teaser:
BUILD: As a self-trained architect and a teacher, you bring a fresh perspective to the nature of academics; are architecture schools preparing students to be good architects?
Will Bruder: It’s challenging to teach architecture in such a way that students capture the spirit of understanding. We’re so fascinated with the machine and the software that it’s often at the expense of the intellectual tools. Once you’re in line at the laser-cutter, so much of the design is already lost.
Once you’re in line at the laser-cutter, so much of the design is already lost.
KA-POW! Only a master architect can throw down like that. Only an architect with 40+ years of experience can deliver a zinger of that caliber. It really got us thinking. And if you’re a student of architecture (young or old, in school or practicing) it should get your gears spinning too.
We’re big on handmade physical models around the BUILD world headquarters; in fact we’ve got so many physical models that they no longer all fit in the office. But we keep building them because they are integral to an architectural understanding of a house or a building; they are a necessary part of good design. As great as digital models are, they do not replace the physical model – the two have different qualities and in a modern design firm, it takes both to properly understand and communicate a project.
So for today’s post we thought we’d celebrate the physical hand-built architectural model by showing off a couple that have been recently completed in the office. A big thanks to Duff, Charles, and our intern Kate for wielding knives, straight-edges and tweezers to generate some beautiful physical models. Enjoy.
Cheers from team BUILD
I have to register my dissent. I love physical models, beautiful ones like yours above, and even more so study models cobbed together with masking tape and glue. But they more often scratch my fetish than help with my design process.
I’m not down on models, I just believe that the often presented argument that a physical model is the best way to study and/or present a design is simply not true.
If you are an architect that can not see your design in your minds eye – and there is no shame in that, there are many great architects who can not – for them modeling is essential so they can see and make design decisions. But if you can, then models in real space or on the computer become largely for the benefit of explaining to others, colleagues or clients.
So what of your client? Doesn’t this help them understand? Some. Others not so much, some scared by the crappy appearance of a study model. Everybody is different. But almost universally a client can not put themselves inside a space by looking at a model. As such models feed a propensity towards treating buildings as objects.
So. Always a welcome addition. If your clients are willing to pay you to make them. Essential, no. Helpful or harmful, mixed bag. But always love them, and they are always impressive.
I for one agree with the post and love the models and amount of info in them (enough, but not too much, which is important I think), but different strokes for different folks… I do have one specific question:
What scale do you typically build them at?
@Matt -we typically build the models at 1/8″ = 1′-0″
Why not use 3D cad and export to an FDM or other kind of rapid prototyping machine? Seems like that would be a lot easier.
Congratulations Chris, you’ve just entirely missed the point.
Has Chris missed the point?
How many principals or lead designers build their own models? Or do they have Kate the intern do it? If someone else builds the model, then how is it any different from a 3d print?
If Bruder is seeing young architects that have not developed their design skills, maybe it is because most firms have their young folks working on the computer nearly 100% of the time. It seems like it is hard to learn design from a principal if you are not working in the same medium.
I also find it funny that those that do know how to make a digital model constantly criticize digital models.
Maybe the digital model is similar to the digital model in that most of the value of the final model as a design tool is found while making the model and must somehow be shared by the modeler in order for the value to be realized in the design.
Excuse me, I meant to write:
Maybe the digital model is similar to the PHYSICAL model in that most of the value of the final model as a design tool is found while making the model and must somehow be shared by the modeler in order for the value to be realized in the design.
Dear Rob,
why is the intern a female named kate?
Sincerely,
Lisa
Lisa,
You’ll have to ask her mom and dad that question. That’s the name she was given. (See the original posting.)
What happens to the models? Do you ever have a yard sale?
I loved seeing photos of the models, all the more so, as I am a lousy model builder. And I get frustrated with how long it takes to make one!
I am also interested in the start of a discussion about how to best translate an idea into a media that can communicate that idea..maybe different tools are useful at different points along the way.
I think that there is a need for both the physical and digital models. Both serve different needs and should be justified as so. If you are a BIM software user then the digital version is a by product of the work flow process. The physical version needs to be developed early on for quick design variations and then presentations at varying design stages.
buildllc crew touched on a few things that i wholeheartedly agree with, but i will elaborate on why i think handmade physical models are essential to the design process [and partly a response to commentators].
#1] Comprehending. How can you fully understand something without building it first? 3D software has become very convenient to quickly realize a vision, but it limits the human perception. A model does not have a screen to distance yourself from the work. I would argue that to fully understand something you need to touch it, actually feel it. Someone once mentioned to me that they don’t like making models. My [somewhat snarky] response was: you must not like making buildings either, because a building is just a larger version of them. Full comprehension of a space does not come until construction phase has finished, so why waste time guessing until then? Making a model won’t get you all the way there, but it’ll help. Full scale mock-ups are even better for understanding, but of course not always in the project budget.
#2] Communication. In my experience, the best type of communication is the most direct. Clients seem much more responsive to models which can convey a sense of depth, dimension & texture. The model has a much more direct relationship to the eye, and therefore the brain. When presenting 3d models to a client [sketchup, etc.], I’ve noticed there is always a period of dis-orientation and adjustment needed for what is being observed. In addition–I’ve also found that the best way to communicate usually means using both-digital & physical- tools of presentation. The physical model can make the digital version more comprehensible and vice versa. We still live and build in the real world, so shouldn’t our design process reflect that?
#3] Quality. The success of the first 2 points above depends on quality. Would you really show a client a crappy, taped together study model? On the other end of the spectrum-do you really need to carefully construct a basswood model for in-house use only? Shouldn’t the level of quality required be dependent on what its intended purpose is? A good model takes time, and it’s not supposed to be easy.
#4] Rigor. Put simply-who can really claim that they get it right the first time every time? That’s why we call our profession a “practice”, and that meaning should be reflected in every task. Be willing to chop, slash, dismantle, blow up and re-build your own ideas. There is inspiration in the messiness of it all. Laser cutters are great for making jewel boxes, but no one lives, works or plays in a scaled-up jewelry box. Not so easy to modify a 3D printed model either…
Thank you Build for initiating the conversation–the insights into your practice are always a welcome dose of fresh perspective.
I’m a big fan of physical models, but I take issue with what Mr. Bruder said regarding the laser cutter. I think he’s right to question the fascination we have with the machine, software, digital technologies, and fabrication tools. From my recent experience at school, there is a heavy reliance on the digital as some sort of magical wand that can make the worst design look good. Many times even the professors would praise a student for an excellent digital rendering or virtual model while they remained mute about the most obvious design flaws.
That said, I think that there is a time and place for the digital, but with it there must be an understanding of the appropriateness of whatever technique is used to design. The laser cutter DOES NOT make a good model, nor does hand-cut basswood, the designer (and model maker, if they are not the one and the same) does.
The laser cutter should be understood as just a tool used in the process and nothing more. It should carry no extra weight than say a band saw or an x-acto blade. The trouble comes when designers try to design for the laser cutter, or use it exclusively. In other words, if all you know is a hammer you can drive a screw into a 2×4, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way.
The most recent model I built was an envelope detail that consisted of a pretty standard rain screen with perforated panels serving as shading devices. The entire model was built by hand using a variety of shop tools except for the perforated panels. Yes, I could have taken the time to measure, mark, and drill the perforations with a drill press or hand drill, but there was a better tool for the job. So the laser cutter fabricated the panels for me while I worked on the rest of the model. My personal opinion is that none of the design was lost while I ‘waited’ in line for the laser cutter.
@archaalto, re: #4; The argument can be made that given the proper situation a laser cutter or even 3D printer is an excellent tool for the rigor you write of. It lends itself to modifications and rapid prototyping by churning out another iteration of a design. One can still slash, chop, and dismantle a laser cut model just as easily as a hand built one.
@ brian:
quite right! i was thinking more of the built-up ones using sand and adhesive, but it was more about the process of making it with your your own hands and the direct connection to the material. side note–i’ve never been a fan of the burned off black edges the laser cutters leave, and it feels like the disassociation from the material is still present.
As a former architect-now-government-employee, i’ve got 3 models now decorating my office cube. 2 former competition models (both placed/advanced), and 1 multifamily model (related to what i now do). Models are beneficial for all the reasons listed. And to add one more; they provide a small indication of the construction process. They’re excellent for learning how pieces and parts go together, and revealing details missed in renderings. For me, it’s the difference between listening to music, and actually playing it.
will bruder’s a cool dude, but this is nonsense. if you know the limitations and affordances of your tools you won’t be instrumentalized by them. burn marks do look crappy though.
A cork tile, cardboard, exacto knife and glue versus laser cutters and solid computer modeling.
Paying homage to the masters versus mastering once self.
Modern architecture build on a ubiquitous concrete foundation, two by fours and plaster board, made modern by an appropriate period paraphernalia and must haves hanged on to a modified craftsman bones.
Re: Crappy burn marks; It’s all about planning ahead and using sandpaper. And I’m not talking about just sanding off the burnt edge and gluing together a butt joint. Take a sanding block and miter your corners, you’ll be glad you did
I have to chime in here. I am an architecture student, and I have a background in building houses, and graphic design. For the first year and a half or so of school I hated the laser cutter, because I always thought that the hand built model showed more craft and emotion. But after spending 30 hours on a model, and then to have people look at it for 3 minutes, the time vs payoff just doesn’t add up. I agree that they look beautiful. But, shouldn’t time management be one essential thing that we should learn to do well as architects? In my opinion, a good digital rendering that can start to mimic a photograph can be extremely expressive, and more understandable to a client. the problem with tiny models is that they are pretty, and they can be tactile, but I don’t think that running one’s hand over some basswood, or looking into the tiny windows, gives a sense of what the real space will be like. I don’t want to be totally disparaging, because I love building with my hands, personally. But, in my opinion, if time should be spent on building a hand made model, then it should be spent doing full scale mock ups of details, or wall constructions. I would also rather spend more time doing energy modeling than basswood modeling. This is what would actually create better buildings. Sell clients on energy savings and air quality, and things of that nature – things that affect them every day, and not on how cool their building facade looks.
at Ben HD -well we’ve seen the work that Mr. Bruder is capable of (masterful libraries, offices, residences, etc). So let’s see your work…
@Geoff *sigh* really?
I wasn’t slamming Bruder’s work. He’s awesome, his buildings are awesome. He’s a hero of mine too. He’s still wrong on this point though.
laser cutters won’t replace hand modelling, so everyone calm down. They are really good at some things, and not so good at other things. Just like framing hammers and autoCAD.
hi Ryan,
I don’t agree with you. Architecture must be more than mere construction or energy efficiencies… if you really believe this you should get into mechanical engineering as a complete understanding will be required. We are here to bring JOY into peoples lives. We rarely suceeed…but you must try with all your knowledge on every project. Keep you energy efficent box and give me phenomenology any day.