design work’, arguing that sketching helps reinforce his
visual memory, and Alsop does the same. Farrell thinks,
too, that his earlier New York sketchbooks may have
influenced his approach to design although today Farrell
sees sketching as a ‘way of seeing rather than a way of
designing’. Six of the architects interviewed (Cullinan,
Foster, Fraser, Grimshaw, Gordon Murray and Allan
Murray) did, however, admit to using the sketchbook as a
method of recording the site and analysing its visual
characteristics – these early sketches then being used to
test design proposals. The use of referential drawings
where the design ideas interfaced with the site context
proved useful to explaining design concepts to clients or
community groups. Alsop took the opposite view, stating
that he never draws the site, preferring to use digital
cameras, which produce images that can be scanned and
used to interact with emerging freehand designs. Farrell,
too, prefers the camera to record the site, which he can
then reproduce and draw over. In both cases (as explained
in chapter 10, the photograph can be painted and
sketched over, then scanned digitally, allowing the design
to be tested against an accurate record of site
characteristics.
THE FINDINGS: DRAWING AND SPATIAL
INVESTIGATION
The type of freehand drawing first employed often
depended upon the nature of the architectural problem
posed. Seven of the architects talked about the primacy
of the plan as the main generator of built form, often
combining a sketch site plan with an embryonic diagram
of building functions drawn to scale. Although the plan
was the primary generator it was normally merely a
diagram of circulation, functional disposition or urban
relationship. However, the word ‘diagram’ should not
belittle what is often a thinking drawing of importance to
all later stages of design development. Order in plan and
its correspondence with site characteristics appears to be
the main concern of most architects. However, in the
case of Murphy and Fraser the first drawing was
frequently a marriage of plan and section explored on a
single sheet. For Cullinan, on the other hand, the first
drawing was generally an overhead axonometric and for
Farrell it was frequently a diagrammatic section. For Alsop
the first drawing that followed the painting stage was
often an abstract composition of lines and marks in soft
pencil or charcoal that encouraged him ‘to see something
in interesting and unfamiliar ways’. Alsop also talks about
‘mark making’ rather than the use of conventional
architectural drawing techniques but after this explorative
stage the first drawing is a plan. Conversely, Grimshaw
approaches the design problem from both ends (site plan
and construction detail), allowing the marriage of
technology and materials to influence his thinking right at
the beginning of the design process.
All of the architects interviewed drew first and then
somewhat later interacted with CAD and model-making.
CAD remains, in spite of considerable software
development, a mechanical drawing and testing tool
rather than a design aid. Foster, like most architects, is
interested at the start of a project in how things work
rather that how they look and this he thinks is better
explored through freehand drawing. Also since he spends
some of his time re-shaping projects developed by others,
the drawing allows for the ready identification of key
design changes in a fashion which is interactive with
members of the team. In Murphy’s view the role of
drawing is to ‘test the mental diagram that solves the
problem rather than represent the object’. Again the
importance of the diagram is highlighted with the
perception that CAD does not represent the thinking
drawing well.
For all ten architects the traditional freehand drawing is
the main development tool with models and then CADDrawing in architectural practice 245