I can't believe you were taught that the process wasn't important .

"It’s the final result that was important, not the process. "

It can be argued that design as a process has been tested and refined for at least 5000 years. Architecture is just one of the art/science fields that embrace and learn develop and tailor this process. Of course it's not necessarily designing by numbers, but you know - Brief, Feasibility, Analysis are all valid inquiry expressed using all communication skills to the team / client.

I love a concise clear diagram (with colour). Adjacency diagrams are the best!

Look at Norman Foster and Cecil Balmond.

You don't need a computer to diagram effectively.

BOTS,

I can’t believe it too! That’s just the kind of education when you have to impress by the result of your work, not by your thought process. I know it sounds weird to you. It’s like Palladio or Brunelleschi weren’t making diagrams ( I believe they were). At work it’s the same - when you present your work to a client, he’s interested more in the final result, how it’s going to work (and sell) and not in your philosophical connotations.

Thank you for the examples!

so... anyone else?

I wouldn't call that an 'old fashioned' education, I'd just call it lacking.


You can teach yourself somethings, but it is extremely rare that someone can learn to design (and understand) on their own.

Yes, I would find another school if they are skipping the process of design, you'll just end up drafting someone else design in the future.


Solving problems is what design is all about. Without understand a process, working on refining yours over time, etc., then you'll just be regurgitating the same crap over and over (that, sadly, is the norm).




Good for you for wanting more, though. I did a similar thing when my school, imho, sucked. I took my great grades, took a year off and applied to better schools. One of the best decisions I've ever made and has positively influenced every day of my life.

surely you have a process though? how do you design without one?

there is no reason in the world to show your process to anyone unless it provides clarity in presentation to some audience. you make it sound gratuitous. diagrams, by whatever name, are just a way to get across complex ideas in a simple way. and maybe they are an organising tool for the designer. but they are not strictly necessary.

so don't worry about it. lots of fantastic architects do great buildings without them - siza, zumthor, others come to mind. better to find your own way than to worry about whether your way looks like everyone else...

i am probably misunderstanding your point a bit, but really, the point is architecture not process. the product is a building, not a piece of paper. how you get to the building is almost inconsequential.

Hmm, I'd disagree with that. Not until you are working in the profession is the final result a building. First should come an understanding of spatial relationships, of materials, and mostly of experience.

When you are an accomplished professional, I agree, you can do things however you want and you've surely developed your own way of doing things, but until then, you have to discover and develop your own process. The only way I know how to do that is to start of slow, working on space (not buildings with programs), experimenting with different approaches, then gradually building to design a full building.

Plus, showing process is a way of understanding your thoughts and ideas, which a critic can then look at and discuss what is good, bad, etc. If all you have is a final building then you can't really understand what the thinking was from start to finish.


Maybe that's just my background and what makes sense to me, but it seems to work (in general).

Thank you, Jump, that’s interesting point. Of course I have a process, I just wasn’t learned to record and keep it. It’s in my head only. I have difficulties finding my undergrad sketches, I think they were mostly thrown away.


Trace, maybe it is lacking, I would call it difference (cultural, methodological or whatever). But still I’m fascinated by the diagramming approach as something I don’t possess, so I’m going to study it as close as I can.

trace, my understanding is that neubau is working as architect in an office already. could be wrong about that...

not that continuing to learn is bad at any time of life.

all of the things you mention about what needs to be learned before thinking about buildings only make sense if there is a building involved, or some reasonable facsimile thereof. my point is not that diagrams are bad though, only that they aren't required. millions of ways to skin cat, but best way is he one you make up on your own.

as far as drawings and so on go, i came to architecture through art school so i draw every day for at least an hour or two (just architecture, not art). i keep most of the sketchbooks, but seldom if ever are they part of what i present. if you can do without then why not? if the work suffers because of the lack then better to pick up some new skills, but utherwhise why bother....

I guess it just depends. At UF and UCLA you wouldn't do well if you didn't have a wall of process and diagrams to show every thought, how you explored and tested it, etc.

As T. Mayne once told us (in so many words) "if you don't show any process then it is just a matter of 'do I like it or not', there is no room for discussion on how you reached your conclusions".

I buy into that.


Obviously, jump, you have your own process that is quite unique (I don't know of anyone that sketches much at all, for any reason). Personally, I need some contextual diagrams/sketches to help me layout the site, choose formal directions, etc.

Diagrams can be loose sketches, too, they don't have to be anything based on 'data' or strict rules.

i agree with t. mayne. but only because he needs to have something to say as educator. in real world, who cares? "i like it" is more than enough. in fact for those who wish to comment on the built world it is their responsibility to find the entry point for analysis, not the architect's. diagrams make it easy, but still may not be relevant.

for me diagrams are also impt to how i work, as is sketching, model building the whole gamut really. i dont subscribe to a single method, myself. whatever works is great for me. whoever comes up with a great idea is also kool. i don't care too much about authorship really, because ultimately i just want to make a great building, masterplan, city, whatever. the rest is just for the pundits.

my point is not that diagrams and process are not impt, only that they are not necessarily impt. really, if you go to the thermal baths at vals do you reserve opinion until you can see the process sketches? do you have nothing to say without them?

anyway, i am not disagreeing with you , just trying to put to rest the idea that without diagrams a modern architect is going to be inadequate. that is just not the case.

and I am not disagreeing with you :-)

I was just emphasizing it because he/she was asking about learning and the lack of information he is being given.

I do not think you can learn without going through the entire gamut. But i do think you can design without doing that, but only after you know how you work and after years of practice.