that's Mies van der Rohe's "Brick Country House" project (unbuilt) --- like a de Stijl painting turned into a floor plan.

not sure if this is what you're looking for - but a project i've always found interesting is Herzog & de Meuron's winning competition entry for "New Link Quay, Tenerife" - find it in El Croquis. The plan is generated from a super-scale halftone image - scaled up to the point where the "dots" are big enough to enclose volume and define space.

not sure if this is a good idea or not....

You could look at Koolhaas and Bruce Mau, but that's not really what you are looking for.


Really, though, most architect's I admire do their own graphics. So, in a sense, it is all the architect doing both the architecture and the graphic design.


There are tons of examples of architect's using 'graphics' as generative force (or at least post rationalizing bs to state that). Such as pixels, grids, fields, etc., etc.

It all overlaps here and there.

wow trace - i like how u trademarked your username! that's g.

Neil Denari and the use of the super graphic. Not to mention the graphics of his drawings..of which Enric Mirales could be included.

There was this thread a little bit ago about graphics being used on buildings, if that's what you're looking for.

Important signage at Sir Norman Foster's Cambridge Law Library

I studied Graphic Design, and got degree in it. One of my instructors was an architect that became a graphic designer. He taught us how to set up grid systems to use in design. Later when I went back to school to study architecture and receive my M.Arch, I remembered the grid system lessons in Graphic Design and use it as my WMD "Weapon of Mass Design" in architecture. I set up a grid system, then begin my mass model. using Revit, I can set up my grids then start my mass model work as the precusor to architectural schematic design. In creating renderings, and graphics for architecturea a day does not go by that I am not in this schiziod arch-graphic mode. Look at the work of BIG Bjarke Ingalls Group - where they use diagrams to drive architecture. BIG.DK.com

vado, that is hilarious. I've always wondered why libraries have atriums or open space plans!

i imagine that most students today and most recent grads have a working knowledge of most of the graphics programs out there. it seems that the next step(and maybe you all have this knowledge as well) is in interactive media and animation. most firms i think when they are hiring are not really looking for cad pushers so much as they are looking to take advantage, at a very low price, of interns who know and have access to the soft knowledge that their staffs lack and that they are unwilling to invest in. therefore, the easiest thing to do is hire a kid who has the knowledge. actual architectural knowledge is picked up on the job while the real useful knowledge is peripheral to "architecture" in that it is more important as a presentation/marketing sales tool.

I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days, and I think what bothers me is this: there is no such thing as "graphic design theory." Anything that can be said to be an actual theory is something that crosses disciplines already, and anyway graphic design seems to have stolen most of its theory from architecture in the first place. So it's very difficult to see what you're trying to get at here: buildings where the plan "looks like something"? (frequently tacky) Or something deeper that you're just not expressing well?

well for example - i guess a lose example may be, an architect when developing a building may decide to put a particular room in location A of the building, and then the graphic designer, while developing a wayfinding system may realise that it would be better for the users of the building, if the room was instead situated in location B?

My tutor also mentioned (briefly i might add) that designers are now saying that graphic designers should have more say on the layout and design of airports because they function around the presentation of information for people to know where they need to be.

This all steamed from a wayfinding project. we were asked to design a wayfinding system for our college's future building. Because it isn't built yet it involved us looking heavily at the plans, building models etc to become familiar with the environment. we had to become very familiar with the architecture and talk closely to Foreign Office Architects so that our systems would not only function well, but also fit the concept of what the new building was all about. Along with all the fabulous new development in exhibition design i couldn't help but wonder "could a graphic designer be an architect?"

And that, as loose as it may sound, has been the driving lead question towards my research.

I guess im not necessarily thinking about aesthetics of a building, im thinking more about the physical route a person might take through the building to get from one place to another. Is a graphic designer likely to come up with something architecturally incorrect? does an architect anticipate that a person may react one way within a space, and a graphic designer assume that they may react in another way. then i begin to wonder whether such questions are even able to be answered without being able to carry out some sort of experiment.

this is news to me.. who hired FOA to do an academic building?

I dunno, I am with rationalist.

As someone that does graphic design (and web and 3D and architecture) professionally, I can fully attest to the thoroughness of a good architecture background being applicable to graphics. We learned about grids, we learned about symbols, we learned about visual hierarchies, we read the best books, etc., etc.

With all due respect, graphic design is just not as thorough or, dare I say, deep, as architecture. I remember when companies like The Horus Project or Design Graphik were 'pushing' the envelope, visually. Great stuff, no doubt, but that's what we were doing long before them and it was just a exploration into the beginning of what could be 'architecture'!

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for those guys, particular the WWFT/DG, but graphic design is simply a hell of a lot less intensive, conceptually and through execution, than architecture. I am not, however, saying it is easier.

This is why I started my business - it takes less to be paid more, less thinking, etc. (I am thinking the best buildings vs. graphics, not some generic box) I love it, it is wonderful stuff and truly fulfilling, and it does have an impact that can, arguably, be as large or larger than the best building out there (think Helvetica).

I love that with graphics you can push farther, quicker and see an impact much faster. I love design, period.



I can't see how someone could design a building without understanding space. You can't understand space by learning a 3D program or being a good graphic designer, you just can't.


Some of the best graphic designers are architects that just do graphics to present their work. Look at the Morphosis book series (and, indeed, the primary designer for two books ago left to graphic/web design, but was trained as an architect).

All that said, I do believe that someone that is talented in any design field can move into another, successfully. BUT they must go through an educational process (such as I did when I decided to jump careers, I didn't just assume I 'knew' everything, I had to learn the correct process, etc.) to reach that point.

Too many architects think they can be graphic designers or web designers. I think it would be far worse if graphic designers thought they could start designing buildings.

I would say that graphic design can be more than that, but only when the designer deals with the communication aspect of it thoroughly, dealing with the ways information is delivered instead of just how things look.

But, back to the topic and in response to cstanton's latest post... do you really think that architects didn't do that already? Do you really think that they don't consider whether the building makes sense to the user when determining placement? What do you think all those proximity diagrams are for then? What you are talking about is either a naive view of architecture (assuming that graphic designers would do this better) or based on working with second-rate architects.

not assuming graphic designers could "do it better" at all, and i am in total agreement also with trace's point that there is a great difference in intensity between the two fields. i was merely asking the question that due to the processes of learning how to be a graphic designer and the process and factors of learning how to be an architect, surely there are going to be some differences as well as similarities in the way that both fields may try to reach a similar end result (conceptually at least). so therefore combining these two view points could surely bring about some positive achievements? surely to assume it may not would be equally as naive. The educational process of being an architect is over double that of graphic design, i should think its quite obvious that architect have more to consider!

dont worry, just because the graphic designer in my example happened to mention the word 'user' doesn't mean he though about it first, rationalist.

so if an architect, an architect, and a graphic designer, where sitting around the table, maybe having a coffee... the graphic designer might be a smoker, he might not, its doesn't matter. and then he casually said, while they were all having a friendly chat, "by the way lads.. erm, i gave it a bit of thought last night, and you know what - it might actually be that little bit more convenient if that when you came in through the lower floors that a partition m..." just then one of the architects puts up his hand and says "what do you think your doing boy?! it's guys like you that make me sick!". the other architect gives the graphic designer a smack round the mouth, they pick up their bags and leave...

no?
yes?
no?

then just as it cant get any worse, the graphic designers the one who has to pick up the check. shame shame, we know your name.

the college that foreign office architects have designed a building for is ravensbourne college of design and communication currently situated in chislehurst, england. the new building will be situated in greenwich peninsula next to london's O2 arena. its quite a funky building really. there have been a lot of problems that they've had to work around because the design of they building, they have said, is rather unique. the appearance of the building from the outside is made of a tessellated and has a split level floor plan.
our current building is just one long building that cuts off other areas. once your in your studio you don't really have any idea about what's going on else where in the building. so the point of the new building is to stop this and allow for collaboration between the courses. as well as being closer to central london as well.

tessellated shape*

Oh, don't imagine me overly offended. See, I'm trained in both architecture and graphic design, so my comments come from experience with both disciplines. I do think that if you put five people in a room, whether they all be architects, graphic designers, or people of any mix of professions, you will get five different views of how a building should be laid out. So far your argument is of mediocre value insofar as collaboration or second opinions in general are cocerned; however its merit as far as graphic designers in particular are concerned is far less. Graphic design has no original theory to speak of, few graphic designers have a good grasp of solid strategy in general, and the methods within the profession vary so widely as to not form a cohesive approach. The basic principles of design they might apply are those also taught to architects, so I do not see what original approach they would bring to the project. Understand that I don't say this out of some maliciousness towards graphic designers: I consider myself mostly one myself these days, but this proposition still seems to me to shortchange the immense thought that goes into building planning in the first place. I think your exchange would likely go something like this...

"by the way lads.. erm, i gave it a bit of thought last night, and you know what - it might actually be that little bit more convenient if that when you came in through the lower floors that a partition moved a bit to the left to accomodate a wider entry hall and give better space to the directory."

"well, that's all well and good, but it would take away square footage from the offices which are there, allowing the owner space for three fewer people. Would you like to choose which three they should fire, or should we let them decide?"

"can't that office space come from somewhere else?"

"sounds like a plan. We could shift that towards the back, interrupting the module of the structure and costing an additional $200,000. Or maybe we could change the building envelope, and apply for a variance so that we don't have to follow the setback code. Or, well, maybe if we took out the bathrooms..."

Which illustrates that the architect is juggling a dozen different concerns when arranging the building, from structure, to user group overlap, plumbing, to size requirements, already including the things the graphic designer would consider. Having another person considering only one facet of what they are already dealing with would likely be of little value, certainly not of more value than any other new opinion would be.

you are talking about programmatic issues that are dealt with long before anyone is doing wayfinding. the thing of it is if you are tasked with the design of a building lets say an academic building, every faculty person, every student group who uses that building, every uni architect, every regent, every uni construction manager and bean counter are all going to have a say in this building before it gets to the point you are talking about. so, if you have had the discussion you are supposing be sure that everyone with a vested interest in the building has weighed in and if this room is next to that room and if this is here and that is there it has been gleaned over by everyone with a pair of walgreen readers propped on the end of his/her nose.

we took a course on wayfinding in undergrad as part of our research methodologies training. architects do that sort of thing as matter of course in most instances. nothing wrong with hiring specialist to offer advice when project is really complex, and that can include graphic designers or any other specialty...no worries.

i would not personally be offended by input from anyone, really.

like rationalist says however most of the decisions we make are intricately interlocked with lots of other issues and so we try to find a way to manage them all in a way that works. her conversation is eerily familiar.

but thats the point im trying to make! im not talk about the graphic designer coming in, and just looking at one tiny things and goin, "hmmm, i duno, i think you should change that". im talking about the graphic designer and architect, and whoever else. Im not even really talking about a new thing really surely? what about movements in the early 20th century like the Dutch De Stijl or archigram? sure they are different still because we've been hit with a massive wave in digital technology which has allowed all fields to step out of their usual box. having some sort of brainstorming session together from the very beginning could potentially be amazing no a graphic designer walking in to an architect firm pointing the finger and saying 'your wrong'. or is it truer that a camel is a horse designed by committee?

i understand that loads of things have to link together and they're are many of them, but im trying to demonstrate a little multidisciplinary unit i suppose, hypothetically. there would be clashes, there would be disagreements, there will by physical imposibilities, sure! but thats going to be the case whether the team was mixed, or whether it was a group of interior designers or graphic designers or architects? though its seems like rationalist would sooner lock himself behind a door that reads "architect at work - do not disturb" haha (with, you dont know the half of it) scratched into it. only jokin rationalist x

also consider the fact that many architecture firms have graphic designers/wayfinders already on staff.

Anyone can point out valid suggestions. My mom can do that (and she does, quite well actually ;-) ), but I still don't see how someone in the graphic profession has an understanding of space or a better input than my mom (which, again, is great).

Architecture is not a one dimensional thing, it is not static, like graphic design (you could argue web design isn't static, but that's another discussion). Architect's have to consider so many things, from the design, to the circulation to the costs to specific client needs, like maximum floor space. The list goes on and on.

"Space" is not a floor plan, a diagram or a sign on the wall. It is something experiential, and to me, the greatest difference between architecture and graphic design.


It is fine to bring in consultants, but keep in mind that everyone has an opinion. Jo Bob on the street corner will tell me how the entrance should look and where the bathrooms should go! Anything that is 'designed' requires a vision and execution that is based on experience (and education). You simply cannot just 'test' every possible idea out there that comes from anyone. Even ideas from the client, which makes the final decisions and pays the bill, aren't always worth pursuing.


What I would say, again as someone that does both professionally, is that you get a degree in architecture, work a little, then come back to the discussion. I promise you your view will have changed.

It just seems like you are still underestimating the depth of process that goes into a great building.

it's not at all as though I think the architect should be locked away. I just think you're making some big deal ("THE fullest potential?") out of something that is unlikely to be anything remotely special.

not at all really im not. i just wondered what views would be on the hole idea. id rather write my dissertation on something interesting than mediocre. im not doing this to be an architect so please dont feel like im being intrusive you your craft. all i want is your thoughts a reactions to what is written above. so on the whole we can conclude a graphic designer wouldn't be able to design an architecturally sound building? and there may be a mild point in listening to design ideas from other disciplines ... but don't get too excited?

"anyone can point out a valid suggestion" ... then if its valid then im sure you could still have a view on how something like that could work (or fail to work) in this day and age?

what about the work currently going on with graphic designers and architects - although its still mainly interior work, can you not see that progressing?

and what do you also think about the already existing chatter that graphic designers should have a say on the designs of buildings such as airports that work around information? - one of they key things thought got me interested in such a topic.

i know graphic designers wont have a great idea of space etc - but isn't that the idea of collaboration? working with people that do know how to go about things? then the architect would be they to say 'no your fool you can't do that'.

As the architect/s would you simply prefer to work on it without any outside collaboration?

surely i dont need to get a degree in architecture, work for a bit and come back to the discussion to here some architects views on some questions? i could however just polish your shoes for you? i have the stool and everything!

Well, the stance you are taking I think you do need to understand how thorough the process will be with a talented and knowledgeable architect. It is so much more than opening a 3D program and drawing some construction drawings, far more than I think most graphic designers could grasp (or stay awake for). It is just different, different time frames, different expectations, different end result.


There is collaboration, environmental grahics and signage, etc. These are things that an architect could do, but most often a graphic designer has more specific and applicable skills.

This also goes for websites and print materials.

Any profession hires specific talent, a la collaboration, for a specific need. I don't tell my programmers how to write their code (although I could) because I know they know how to do things much better than I, as an example.


Would you like to have an architect give you feedback on every logo you designed? Or website? Of course not. Everyone has an opinion, but you simply cannot try to include every person's thoughts all the time, you would get nothing done and jeopardize the thoughts of those that are qualified (or paying your bill).



I just dont' understand why you want to force graphic design on architecture? They overlap in certain areas, such as presentation, signage, environ graphics, etc., but not in the building design itself.


I do not see graphic design influencing architecture more, I just don't. If anything, I see more and more architect's entering the graphic (and web and 3D and video) professions, simply because the economy sucks, graphics is less stress and can pay more.


Personally, if you want a topic, I'd look at some of the best architect's out there and how they perfected their presentation style. In undergrad, a prof (great, great prof) asked us to find styles of presentation that complimented our specific kind of work.

This was the first time I realized that Meier's ink on mylar vs. Morphosis's collages were distinctly calculated. They were perfect representations of the architecture, a clear extension of the overall design ideology. Hadid, Libeskind, and Wright and many others also perfected their own styles of presentation that speak directly to their work and ideals.

Personally, I find it quite amazing the depth of talent the best architects have. They could be amazing graphic designers, artists, but with architecture they have included all of this.



My shoes do need some polishing, now that you mention it. I am also always looking for talented graphic/web designers (NOT architects).

i remember hearing in undergrad that "we experience buildings in section" (not in plan) and that has stuck with me--although I'm not sure I completely agree. Circulation/progression certainly depends on the plan. I think corbusier said the "plan is the generator." What to do, what to do....

As mentioned above, koolhaas + mau -- have a look at the downsview park entry (not the later stuff; and it's not exactly the scale you're after....) Also, koolhaas' park de villette entry is kind of interesting to look at....

"They were perfect representations of the architecture, a clear extension of the overall design ideology. Hadid, Libeskind, and Wright and many others also perfected their own styles of presentation that speak directly to their work and ideals."

In this instance, graphic presentation (you could say design) becomes the extension of the architecture, and is something that every decent designer should strive for. This was something I was taught in my undergrad days, which where neither graphic design nor architecture, but industrial design.

My brother is a graphic designer... what he does bears zero resemblance to what I do beyond the very basic fundamentals of trying to express something through design principles.

cost aside, if your looking at architecture purely as the design and function of a space and environment ... can a graphic designer be an architect? The overall atmosphere here seems to suggest no. but i'm looking at lots of stuff that shows otherwise. i think logo's were mentioned above, but to be honest i'm not sure if your fully aware at the way and depth that graphic design is being taught recently and is far more out there that a simple visual identity. i may not be able to deal with the grand task of architecture but everyone seems to have a rather dated idea about current graphic design learning. my course is completely conceptual and our print work is quite a minor part.

I don't think anyone is looking down on graphic design, I certainly am not. However, even a huge corporate identity, with style sheets, guide books, font selections, websites, etc., etc. is still not going to be anything, in terms of 'conceptual depth', compared to quality competition entries or the better building designs.


Of course a graphic designer can be an architect, but you still need the education. Just like an architect can be a graphic designer, but just because you use Illustrator to color plans, that doesn't mean you are a graphic designer.

The big difference, imho, is that you can jump right into graphic design. There are plenty of stars out there that have little education. The software is simple to use, anyone can create a quick logo or website (and it may suck and probably will), but not anyone can just whip out a home design. There is just too many parts that need to work together.



Be really careful about over generalizing people's opinions on here. There are many wise folk here, not to mention people like myself that have a graphic based business.


No one is discrediting the value of graphics, you could argue that they have a larger impact on the world, but there is a big difference between how something 'looks' in the architecture world and the depth of thought that created it.

The key words are 'space' and 'experience'. Those you need to learn in school and can't simply be shown in a cool plan or section.

thank you very much indeed for all your help trace. you've been a great help.
just this thread alone and all of you have said has been very valuable. hopefully we may speak again in the future. i'll always keep this thread about to try and contact you.

All the best and thanks again

Charles Stanton
Ravensbourne College
Chislehurst
Kent
England

hmm, cstanton -- I confess to skipping a lot of the later comments -- but it seemed to me that you started out wondering whether a building could be envisioned as an information system, is that true? Your comment about airports was interesting, in that, it's true, their layout does have to, by nature, convey more information than most buildings. Are you seeking a way that a graphic designer might help an architect conceptualize a building, in informational terms?

yes that would be one of my key initial interest, yes! wayfinding and buildings based around the cycle being influenced by information was the beginning spark for my interests. Then i thought that could help be expressed further within the aesthetics, and also information being even expanded within collaboration of product design and graphic design. we have also collaborated with product design students and spatial design students in previous projects.

The wayfinding system that my group and i also designed (as an experimental project) for the new building for my college was also based entirely around the presentation of information. The idea of the college is that there are to be no fixed location areas for courses. the rooms would be completely free for continual change of space - baring in mind that this is not always going to be possible with some rooms. particular hardware we knew must stay grounded for places such as at least one computer lap. but the idea is that everyone will have a lap top. digitally the college is looking to being the bee's knee's.

our building at the moment has been around since the late 60's and is quite typical of a modernist educational facility. it's one long strip so once you get to where you need to be in the building you never really have much of an idea what's going on elsewhere. Our college is quite big on collaboration, as i'm sure you can tell from all i've had to say, and our new building is to cater to that.

We decided that because the building is to have forever changing locations for different classes, that of which will be changing all the time throughout the day, it would therefore be a good idea to go digital.

The building is a split level building so we coded one tower as blue and one tower as yellow. we were'nt completely satisfied with the colours, but it was hard to agree as a group and green and blue was the closest we could get when considering colour blindness and allowing the lettering to be seen from a good distance on digital screens.

We set up a screen in the main entrance which is also a public area. The screen indicated where each class was currently being held and where it was to be held in the next period (like that of a railways station or airport). on each floor there where sub screens. these screens indicated what was taking place on that particular floor and they were also interactive so you can see what was going on each other floor while you were on the move. the main screen i mentioned before can also be used to showcase particular events or guest lecture and more and push technology is also involved for alerts to phones and live internet feeds for student locations.

This project got me thinking about the architecture and so on and so forth.

sorry, to confirm the towers were yellow and blue. at first they were just presented to us as a and be. but we changed it to yellow 1-5 and blue 1-6.
then each room would just be a number of 1-6. we figured that 'blue 1, room 3' would be the simplest way to know where you need to be. then we used colour around the room to show clear location towards stairs and lifts.
the sub signs themselves where ceiling height at 4 meters tall. the area's were then highlighted further by coloured glass and spot lights.

RTKL are painting quite a different picture from all of the above.