features of being an architect.
Second, since many architects, especially the more
experienced, design in their heads and often visualise the
external form of a building in their imagination, the
progression of design thought consists of setting down in
drawing the first concepts and developing these via tools
such as models and CAD. These early drawings are
generally diagrammatic rather than real plans and contain
the essence of architectural thinking. Generally the sketch
plans diversify into sections, perspective sketches and
studies of details, materials or light. Elevations tend to
come late in the process. In some instances, the section
diagram assumes authority over the plan especially when
environmental considerations are paramount. Although
less experienced architects rely more upon freehand
drawing at the initial design stage, there is a consistent
progression from the architectural diagram to plan
drawing, then to other drawing types (section,
axonometric), to investigation via models and finally CAD.
Hence CAD remains essentially a drafting, documenting
and presentation tool.
Third, CAD is not only rarely employed as a design tool
at the early stages of concept gestation by the country’s
senior architects, it is felt by many interviewed to hinder
initial design investigation. Several architects deliberately
avoid its use until the building has been relatively resolved
by other means. In fact, the view expressed by some was
that the use of CAD too early undermined architectural
exploration and had a detrimental effect on the quality of
architectural thought. Furthermore, two of the architects
interviewed thought that graduates today from UK
schools of architecture were too dependent upon CAD.
One large Edinburgh practice, for instance, preferred to
recruit new staff from Europe because they were still
trained to think through traditional drawing. Another
regretted the loss of spatial inquiry through the interfacing
of drawing and model-making, which he had found
prevalent in the USA. He found UK graduates too eager to
move to CAD to explore questions of space, thereby
neglecting the potential of freehand drawing.
Four, a surprising number of experienced and
successful architects kept a personal sketchbook and
others commonly used sketches of the site to influence
their design thinking. Sketching was seen to be useful in
terms of visual thinking, in undertaking spatial analysis
and in carrying out site investigation. Such sketches were
not just views but rough plans and analytical studies of
existing buildings. The discipline of looking through
drawing was as important as the role of sketching in mere
recording of site features. Since four of the architects
interviewed had won prizes as students for their drawings
(Foster, Grimshaw, Farrell and Allies) this was hardly
surprising but it remained significant that sketching was
closely aligned with the creative side of design drawing.
In reaching these conclusions, the author admits
several methodological limitations. First, the generational
aspects of the inquiry make the results specific rather
than universal. One suspects that younger architects and
those educated outside the UK will give quite different
responses to the questions posed. The tensions
displayed between modes of exploration reflect in many
ways the Britishness of architectural design with its
emphasis in the post-war years upon programme,
technology and urban redevelopment. Freehand drawing
is both a tool and the product of an era faced by this
generation of architects. Another limitation concerns the
small sample and the prestige of those interviewed.
However, the smallness of the sample is balanced by
depth, both in terms of the questions posed and the time
given to the interviewer (usually an hour). Those
interviewed were also architects of whom a great deal
has been said elsewhere, thereby allowing the answers
given to be set against existing scholarship and a large
body of published buildings.258 Understanding architecture through drawing