employed at later stages. Models, either plasticine or
card, tend to be used to explain ideas to clients, and CAD
becomes essential when engineers are involved. The
sequence of diagram, then sketch design in plan and 3D,
followed by more formal drawing and rough model,
followed then by CAD is employed by seven out of the
ten architects interviewed. The only significant variation
concerns whether CAD emerges significantly in the
second rather than third stage of design development. For
Allies, CAD can deceive the designer and alter the quality
of the built product. Alsop goes further, believing that
CAD can ‘produce a believable building too soon’ and
undermine creative exploration, which is the central
responsibility of being an architect.
The increasing employment of complex forms in
architecture means that CAD inevitably becomes a
modelling tool in projects early on (Foster, Grimshaw).
The respondents make a useful distinction between CAD
as a design tool and CAD as a means of visualising
complex ideas developed by other means. In Grimshaw’s
office, for example, rough models are made at an early
stage (rather than use professional model-makers)
because these can be integrated more readily with
freehand drawing and through digital scanning with CAD.
Grimshaw has reservations concerning the ability to
develop sketch designs on the screen, believing that
drawings and models used together are better ways of
‘understanding the visual tensions and weight of
architecture’. The point made by all ten architects is that
CAD is used in their offices almost entirely as a drawing
tool, and when it is used to develop spatial design ideas it
tends to diminish the quality of the resulting architecture.
A similar point was made over a decade ago (Lawson
1994 p14), suggesting that in spite of improvements in
software technology mainstream architectural practice in
the UK relies little upon CAD for initial design
development. However, this is not to suggest that many
smaller and younger practices do not use CAD right at the
inception of a design project or that CAD is not
indispensable at later stages. In fact, much of the current
renaissance in architecture is due to the amplifying
potential of digital media at both a creative and technical
level.
Many of the respondents made an interesting
distinction between freehand drawing in design
development and its parallel role in communication.
Farrell talks about the drawing having three functions in
architectural practice – problem solving, communication
and persuasion. The problem solving role has already
been discussed but because design by drawing is an
iterative process, many people can become involved at
different points in time using different levels of sketching
skill. This helps the design idea (according to Allies, Alsop,
Farrell and Grimshaw) to become owned by a wide range
of stakeholders, including the client. Hence the process is
one of a small initial doodle or diagram that grows to A4,
then A3 and perhaps A1 format. In Alsop’s case, where
community involvement is encouraged it may entail large
rolls of paper and coloured markers, perhaps augmented
by video. Freehand drawing allows more authors to
participate than had design development been
undertaken solely on the screen.
Often early sketches prepared by senior partners are
worked up by others at a later stage. What starts as a
design diagram quickly becomes corporate and
increasingly complex as more players become involved.
In Grimshaw’s office sketchbooks are provided to
encourage visual thinking and Alsop provided staff with
evening life classes. Foster believes the most effective
drawings in terms of design generation are those often
prepared spontaneously in the confines of a design team
meeting. Here Foster alludes to the role of drawing in
responding to the perspectives of others – their critical
thinking acting as a catalyst for design insights. What246 Understanding architecture through drawing