When do we actually need a massing diagram?
Why do we make diagrams like this? I was first introduced to this sort of ‘indexical’ approach during my second year of architecture school. It’s a simple and effective tool when trying to explain your decision making process. However, I’m not sure there’s anything of substance to learn from diagramming that process.
Eisenman states that “[o]ne tendency is to presume architectural form to be a recognizable transformation from some pre-existent geometric or platonic solid. In this case, form is usually understood through a series of registrations designed to recall a more simple geometric condition. This tendency is certainly a relic of humanist theory.” Or, form is meant to be presumed from a collection of fragments (Post-Functionalism, 239).
Typically when I make one of these diagrams (similar to shown above) it has only existed to justify design decisions that were intuitive– simply driven by defining form. So my question is, can we justify designing a form without rationalizing its functional needs? And is there any need for diagrams such as these when the form is already defined?
Jesse, this is a great point! I often find myself wondering the benefit of massing diagrams, specifically when projects' forms come from context of site or other defining boundaries. It is a great question to ask if we can design a form without rationalizing its functional needs, and I would argue that we can because there are a multitude of other reasons for designing a form apart from function.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your points made here. I think most of the times when I make these form diagrams for projects, they are often made as an after thought after I have already come up with my form using the site, the program, and many other factors of the project.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question! Having little studio design experience with architecture, I haven't engaged in this process myself, but the way you, Diana, and Laurel describe the process as a representation of something previously designed through intuition and context seems to justify your conclusion that they are not really a design tool. That said, they seem to be a useful communication tool and, given how hard it often is to communicate and document design decisions and processes, I'd say they do have a use in that way. I's also add anecdotally, that when I've designed in themed entertainment, particularly within existing buildings or other major constraints (ride systems, etc.), I often start with something similar to these massing diagrams and work back from there, so I'd say that perhaps they have a place in design, but it is simply context dependent, or maybe it just depends on how each individual designer thinks about things.
ReplyDeleteSometimes people need an explanation on how we got from something simple to something so dynamic and so unique. For example, I would definitely like to see a form diagram of the Guggenheim however, like how you posed your question, does it really matter how we got from a simple block to something completely different? Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't really matter.. maybe it helps someone who isn't invested in architecture.
ReplyDelete