Landscape Architectural Model Making by Joshua Brook-Lawson

2014 Landscape Architectural Model Making Joshua Brook-Lawson

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Landscape Architectural Model Making A study into the way landscape architecture students use models as part of a creative design process.

Joshua Brook-Lawson MSc in Landscape Architecture Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh Edinburgh School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture 2014

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Preface

Architectural model making has been an interest of mine throughout my Landscape Architecture Ba (Hons) degree. I have discovered that it is through modeling that I am able to articulate and communicate my ideas most effectively. When making a model I am able to comprehend complex spatial information of a design that may be overlook with a 2D media. It was through my own model making progression that I began to break down the question of why the modeling process has such prominent effect on a designer â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thought process.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Abstract

This study aims to understand how and in what ways landscape architecture students use a variety of model types as a three-dimensional tool, in order that they may comprehend complex spatial aspects of their design and working process. Though there are texts on the subject of pedagogy in model making in the architectural educational environment, there is a distinct lack of research into the way landscape architecture students make models. The crux of the methodology applied to the case study analysis addresses and utilizes a categorization system conceived by Nick Dunn in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Ecology of the Architectural Modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Subsequently, the methodology to this research has further categorized the explorative model and the need for landscape architecture students to understand the variety of ways in which a model can be applied. A major finding from the case study analysis discovered that it is the working model that is of most importance to the student, as this liberates a students working process. Moreover the working model allows for a fluid application of modeling techniques, and therefore the landscape architecture student may obtain a more informed understanding of their design process. Key words

Landscape architecture, model making, design process, student, working model, re-making, re-working, three-dimensional, explorative, architecture, maquette, scale, design application, didactics, design pedagogy, architectural theory, representation, diagram, conceptual model, descriptive model.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Literature Review

19 20 23 25 25 26 28 29 29

2.1 Design Analysis 2.2 Design Concept development 2.3 Design Program & Strategy Development 2.4 Design Masterplanning 2.5 Detailed design 2.6 2.6 Defining re-working and re-making 2.7 Construction detailing 2.8 Sketch models 2.9 Final Critique

3.0 Methodology

3.1 The Explorative model

4.0 Analysis

4.1 Background 4.2 Student A 4.3 Student B 4.4 Student C 4.5 Student D 4.6 Student E

37 37 38 42 45 48 50

5.0 Discussion

55 56 56 57 58

5.1 The Conceptual Model 5.2 Working Models 5.3 Re-making & Re-working 5.4 The Sketch Model 5.5 Method & Media

Landscape Architectural Model Making

6.0 Conclusions References

Bibliography

Appendices

Image Credits

Model Making

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Introduction

1.0 Introduction

The model throughout history has been used as a representative tool. The words modus and modulus come from Latin to mean measure or scale. (Gomez and Pelletier, 2000) The meaning of the word has shifted over time: in the Italian Renaissance the word modello referred to a three-dimensional sketch; the French term maquette was used by architects in the late nineteenth century to mean ‘preliminary sketch’ that is most closely related to the modern understanding of the working model. (Webster, 2012) It is the working model primarily this thesis will focus on, as I try to demarcate its place within the landscape architecture studio. Model making has been at the crux of architectural design in the studio as an effective representational media since the start of architecture education. Every architectural institution around the world regardless of their Educational philosophy, introduces model making to students, as an effective medium to represent a design project. The model in its simple three-dimensional form offers a universally readable format, whereby even the ‘non-architect’ can engage with a design at a spatially complex level. With just the introduction of a human figure, the observer is immediately aware of scale, function and context. We can begin to comprehend the inter-play and relationships between structural forms at a human scale. In a similar way, land artists aim to grasp the idea of the scale of man in the landscape. Artists such as Richard Long have been trying to grasp the concept of scaling man in the landscape since the nineteen-sixties.

“Each walk followed my own unique, formal route, for an original reason, which was different from other categories of walking, like traveling. Each walk, though not by definition conceptual, realized a particular idea. Thus walking – as art – provided a simple way for me to explore relationships between time, distance, geography and measurement. These walks are recorded in my work in the most appropriate way for each different idea: a photograph, a map, or a text work. All these forms feed the imagination.” (Long, 2012) If the student understands that the architectural model is a measuring tool, and the human form is a gauge, s\he can begin to design spaces. One must also be aware that within the model frame, there also exist different typologies. Different model types are used to represent different design intensions. We use models to represent: light, materiality, tonality, context, function, concept, process and time within our design. However we must also be aware that one model simply cannot display all of the elements listed. This is when the student must decide what task they want their model to perform.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 1 Richard Long, Dusty Boots Line, The Sahara, 1988

Introduction

A key text for my research question is Nick Dunn’s book: The Ecology of the Architectural Model. Dunn’s book provided me with an in-depth insight into the architectural model as a learning tool for student, teacher and course peers to assist with understanding how and why the student should use three-dimensional representation as an aid. This book is of most relevance to my research question as it focuses on the application of models within the architectural educational environment. I will also use Dunn’s theory of model classification to help define the model into different sub-categories, which will be invaluable to my methodology. From this, I shall form a reference point to strengthen the connection between the literature review and discussion. I shall also use another text by Dunn called A ‘ rchitectural Modelmaking’. This text, which also includes educational theory and model classification, takes an insight into the practical application of model making, giving case studies from professional architecture studios. For this reason the text will provide valuable variety of precedent case studies that I will cross-reference through my writing. 1.1 Model Categorization To ensure the student is not overwhelmed by the many tasks a model can perform, it is important to start by compartmentalizing the model into its fundamental categories of use. This will be achieved with the aid of Dunn’s categorization of the model. He breaks down the model into four fundamental categories of use: explorative model , evaluative model, predictive model and descriptive model. Like in any science, a hierarchy is used to understand a complex system. This often takes the form of a pyramid. 13

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 1.2 Model hierarchy diagram

The explorative model is mainly used early on in the design process to test form, function and conceptual ideas. It is this category of model that is most beneficial to the designer, and can help to generate ideas and concepts that often run through to the final stages of a design. The explorative model helps the designer through a more intuitive approach. Often ideas or concepts that are not clear to the designer manifest themselves with little conscious understanding. This is not to say that the designer is not in control of the process, rather that the explorative model is a three-dimensional tool, which stimulates clarity of spatial thinking not achievable with a two-dimensional drawing.

The evaluative model seeks to describe qualitative information external to the main model. It is often used later on in the design process, for comprehending complex spatial, ambient or sociological relationships, and how these non-tangible factors may impact a site or proposed area. There is a strong overlap between the predictive and evaluative model, but they differ in their output of qualitative and quantitative data. However, it is possible for the evaluative model also to display quantitative data as a parallel outcome. The predictive model is used to predict future variables and design impacts. It assumes that the design is already established, in order to test climatic conditions that may not be realized with conventional modeling methods. For this reason it is often used in structural and aeronautical engineering that requires accurate simulation of a realistic environment, often carried out through CAD simulation software. The descriptive model is used to convey a homogenous overview of a design in a climatic or final state and for this purpose is often used as a presentation tool to display a design in its entirety.

Introduction

Fig. 1.1 A studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blue foam working site model, ECA, 2014

Fig. 1.2 A light study model at 1:50 of The Atrium space, Melbourne, 2010

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 1.3 Universal Testing Machine and Test Bridge

Fig. 1.4 Detailed design model, Atelier Loidl, Park Am Lokdipot, Berlin, 2013

Introduction

When using the model as a design tool, (particularly the explorative model) it is clear that the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;user â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, whether that is the student, the tutor, course peers or client, adopts a different perception to the designed reality. The evaluative model obliges the user to augment cognitive linear thought into a framed state: in essence, the design in that specific moment of evolution. This can prevent a design from developing too rapidly, giving the user more time to think upon qualitative intensions such as lighting, spatial quality, form, reflection, usership and function. In order that I interrogate and explore each aspect of the way models can be used by the landscape architecture student, I will separate the literature review into sub headings. These headings will be titled according to the design process as a linear progression. The landscape architecture design process typically follows this narrative: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Design Analysis Design Concept Development Design Development Design Strategy Development Design Master Planning Detailed Design Construction Detailing Final Critique

In practice this design progression is never as clearly defined or as linear, however using this framework will allow for a methodical research method. Under each sub-heading I will explore the different model typologies that a student of landscape architecture would typically use at each stage of a design. I will also make reference to the way professional offices of landscape architecture utilize model making to provide precedent.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Literature Review

2.0 Literature Review

Through collecting my research and reading around my research topic I discovered that a large proportion of books that analyze studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; model making in the design process is limited to the Architecture student and not the student of landscape architecture. For this reason I have cross-referenced texts that explore model making in the Architecture design process. I would like to clarify the difference between the architecture and landscape architecture model as different design objectives apply to the different stages of each design discipline. Although this may appear to be a limiting factor, it will allow me to emphasize differences and parallels between the way architecture students and landscape architecture student apply models to the design process. 2.1 Design Analysis The design analysis is a critical preliminary stage in the development of a landscape design. The student will often be given a set of credentials by the tutor in the form of a site brief. This document will outline the context and scale of the project including socio-demographic information as well as environmental, historical and future issues that the student must address. The student will use the site brief to outline the key aspects of investigation on the site visit. During a site visit it is often beneficial to gather physical objects such as stone, brick, glass and vegetation samples. The physical objects are insightful indicators to the existing site conditions. Once back in the studio the objects become symbolic of a place that frames a specific: time, environment, habitat and demographic. The materials collected provide powerful modeling tools in the concept development stage. 19

A model at this analytical stage in the design process could be defined as an explorative tool that may be used to further a students understanding of existing site conditions. This could help the student to respond instinctively to qualitative elements that make up a space such as topography, orientation, scale, vegetation and hydrology etc. Although it is not normal for a student to respond to a site brief with a model before having undertaken a site visit, the exercise of constructing a topography model or contextual model at this stage could enable a better understanding of constructs of space and place. This may also inform the student of areas within the site that may be of design interest. They may wish to focus on this area more intensely on a site visit in order that they collect the necessary qualitative and quantitative data. In essence, the analytical model is a

Landscape Architectural Model Making

forecasting tool that stimulates spatial thinking and encourages early design intuitions that may become apparent on site. 2.2 Design Concept development At the concept development stage the student starts by synthesizing the qualitative and quantitative data collected from the site visit and begins a process of interpretation. Photographs, film, sketches, samples, questionnaires and all of the collected data is distilled in order that the student may begin to find a concept driver: themes that generate design inspiration that gives a project a site specific, individual identity.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A conceptual model in architecture is typically a 3D diagram produced when a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s idea is still novel. This type of model is usually made rapidly and intuitively using a range of mixed media to represent a personal response to the design brief that may include a theoretical stance taken by a student.â&#x20AC;? (Dunn, 2007, p.220)

Fig. 2 Folding game, Cartografias Urbanas, Chora / Raoul Bunschoten, 2010

It is important that a concept model remains loose and free from the constraints of the presentation model. The student often uses the concept model as a powerful medium for explaining information gathered in the analysis stage. This could also be a satirical collage to motivate political intervention or an object that creates a dialogue between student and tutor.

Literature Review

Günther Vogt Landscape Architects use this process of synthesizing data to generate concept lead design, also known as ‘schematic design’. The project ‘Novartis Campus Green’ that features in the book “Distance and Engagement” is an example conducive of conceptual development that highlights the advantages to working with this approach. The project research was led by a field trip study to a karst landscape in the Swiss Alpine region of Glarnerland. During the study, photographs, sketches and samples were taken of the extraordinary rock formation that was formed by the acid rain erosion of limestone rock. The team used an aerial photograph of the area of study and began to analyze and graphically abstract the karst landscape in order to discover rhythm and pattern within the landscape. The forms discovered in this process of abstraction were then modeled to explore the intricate space making qualities of the new synthesized karst landscape.

“The choice of research method and the related tools have a lasting influence on our working day, and our research findings guide our projects, which are first worked out in models. Field research requires other tools, such as photographs, diagrams and sketches, which provide material suitable for specific types of investigation and allow us to hone our visual and conceptual models.” (Vogt, 2010, p.8)

Fig. 2.1 1:50 detail construction model, Vogt Landscape Architects, Novartis Campus Green 21

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 2.2 Woodland management strategy model diagram

Literature Review

2.3 Design Program & Strategy Development Once the student has established a strong concept driver from their analysis, a program can be devised. This involves taking into account all environmental and socio-geographical factors to understand what activities, facilities and environmental systems will be most beneficial to the site. It often helps at this stage to produce graphic visualizations from the site photographs of the types of activities that potentially could be improved or introduced to the site. Analysis diagrams also help to dissect a space into ‘character zones’ that may give indication to which areas of the site require high or low intensity of program or management. Although the model appears obsolete at this stage in its literal physical form, diagrammatic models are able to convey large amounts of information in multi-layered strata. The diagrammatic model liberates the student from scale and facilitates a more focused understanding of the interweaving systems that filter through a design. In order to design an effective functioning programme for a site, time-based diagrams such as phasing plans must be made to reveal how and when the proposed systems will come to fruition, age and maybe even fade into new programmes of use. It is important to understand that it is the diagrammatic model that is concerned with programme and strategy development fits into a dynamic model category. Dunn presents two types of model:

“Static – where the focus is on the equilibrium of structural features (whether past, present or future) i.e. the position and possibilities at a single given time, and dynamic – where the model seeks to represent processes and functions through time.” (Dunn, 2007, p. 59) Stan Allen describes in Practice: architecture, technique and representation that,

“A diagram is a graphic assemblage that specifies relationships between activity and form, organizing the structure and distribution of functions.” (Allen, 2009, p.51)

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 2.3 Conceptual visualisation strategy model, Atelier Loidl, 2013

Literature Review

2.4 Design Masterplanning Masterplanning as a process is in many ways a form of curating space. It requires a commitment to the concept, program and strategy that now must occupy space, shape and form within a place. Using a working model in the masterplanning phase is an extremely effective three-dimensional tool that liberates that masterplan from an unnatural twodimensional aerial perspective. Therefore masterplanning is often liable to being treated as a ‘static’ process. Using a working model enables the student to explore and understand time-based processes more effectively. The student is also able to record the progressive stages of design development. This may help the student to recognize patterns, rhythms and process emerging within the landscape design. Vogt Landscape Architects often use 1:1 models in the masterplanning phase in-order to test in ‘real’ scale their design implications.

“We design using physical models and simulate a walker ’s perspective. Models are not a product but a process. We revise them time and time again, trying out design solutions and techniques. The simultaneous representation and reality of models influences the way we think about landscape architecture.” (Vogt, 2010, p. 28) There must remain interchangeability between the working model and the masterplan. This generates a design through an ultimate understanding of the human perspective and site conditions. Often the student designing with only a two-dimensional masterplan will overlook the existing site conditions such as topography. This will generate a design that is lacking sensitive orientation towards qualitative and ambient sociological and environmental issues. 25

2.5 Detailed design Once the masterplan has reached a ‘finalized’ state and the student is confident with the spatial organization of a design, they must now choose a core area of the site that will be designed in more detail and intensity at a larger scale. In order to develop a particular site in more detail the student must consider how the design will appear at a ‘real’ scale (1:1). It may be that the student discovers at this enlarged scale that the design moves made at the masterplanning scale are not appropriate at a closer scale. Spatial, organizational amendments of the masterplan are thus required. The use of working models at a closer scale is now ultimately important in comprehending subtle, complex and spatial qualities that give a design a feeling of ‘placeness’.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

2.6 Defining re-working and re-making Under the working model there are two time-based applications of how a student may choose to construct a working model. These fall under the investigative application. These applications are re-working and re-making. There is an important difference between reworking and re-making a model that a student may wish to consider. Re-working suggests that a single form metamorphoses between many states of change. This approach may benefit the student in understanding how a design can be improved with minimal alteration to the existing state. Moreover, re-working enables a more thorough investigation into understanding form and compels the student to engage with the media.

“Working scale models are simple and “incomplete” models made of easily processed materials (paper, cardboard, Styrofoam, etc.) and without much detailing. Usually, a number of these models are made, one to each planned version. Designers primarily used them to examine the volume, correlation between the shapes and sizes, connection with the environment, etc. The purpose of working models is to define, re-define or correct errors in the architectural design process.” (Stavric, 2013, p. 44)

Re-making requires the student to make a series of models of the same design query inorder to reach a desired solution. Re-making as a model application is used more intensely amongst architecture students. This is due to the nature of the investigation of form, allowing the student to view design variations in parallel to one another. This approach is often adopted as a style of teaching in studio based assignments to introduce first year level architecture students to the process of investigating form. The landscape architecture student is also able benefit from this style of application especially in an urban design project context when the student is exploring the many options for an urban design framework.

Literature Review

Fig. 2.4 Re-making process diagram

Fig. 2.5 Re-working process diagram

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 2.6 1:1 Construction models, Vogt Landscape Architects, Novartis Campus, 2010

2.7 Construction detailing Construction detailing is the final design process that a student must focus on in order to explain how the design will transform from models and plans into detailed construction drawings that could potentially be read and understood by a contractor. The student at this stage often explores and experiments with materials and a range of media that could potentially be incorporated into a design. Understanding the structural properties of materials is hugely important to improving the longevity of a design and ensuring cohesion between the different converging media. 28

Construction models are the closest a designer will get to a functioning design. They enable the designer to explore structural capacities of a design. The construction model transverses the explorative, evaluative and predictive model categories depending on what aspect of a design a student wants to understand and represent.

Vogt Landscape Architects take this process a stage further. â&#x20AC;&#x153;At Vogt, model-making techniques for projects at a schematic stage of development mirror, whenever possible, actual construction processes: the cohesive plasticity of earth is substituted in models by a combination of sand and wax; pigmented plaster of paris cast in textured silicon moulds is used to fabricate stones and bricks.â&#x20AC;? (Vogt, 2010, p.119)

Literature Review

2.8 Sketch models In physically constructing a sketch model, the student has begun an important cognitive process that stimulates visual and spatial thinking. Sketch models are implicitly endless in the qualitative and quantitative information that can be conveyed. This can be extracted from either the process of making or later reveled in its visual appearance and form. Jiun-De Chen and Ann Heylighen explain in their book “Shaping Design Teaching” how visual model making exercises in the architecture studio help the student to further explore form and the sequential development involved in the search for a design solution.

“The purpose of this basic design studio assignment was making form to shape space, which is essential to architectural design. It started from a game of playing with one piece of cardboard to construct spatial sequences, and developed into a proliferated exercise for building up several design capacities. A hands-on mode of learning interacting with case-based reasoning evolved to be the backbone of this case.” (Chen, Heylighen, 2012, p.68) The sketch model also expands the dialogue between student and tutor enabling the tutor to explore the student’s design intentions more accurately and to a greater depth of understanding. This visual representation of a design may also prevent misunderstanding between the tutor and student.

“The purpose was not to check the rigourous connection between the cases and the design outcome, but to stress the importance of revealing design processes rather than just showing results. (…) so the evaluation focused more on whether students progressed through the process and obtained the capacity to articulate serial aspects.” (Chen, Heylighen, 2012, p.66)

2.9 Final Critique Although the design may be at an end point in terms of generative design, it is equally important that a project must provide, in a presentation, a holistic overview of every process involved in the design. Models used within a critique can be of huge value as a communicative tool. Whether the student is confident at explaining a design in a critique or not, a

Landscape Architectural Model Making

presentation model enables a wider reach to the audience viewing the project. Typically at this climatic stage in the design process, a student will use the descriptive model that displays a high resolution of design detail. A presentation model may be constructed so the viewer may disassemble the model components for closer interrogation. The graphic language formed should also be readable not only in the model itself, but running through all aspects of visual representation e.g., concept, masterplan, visuals, detail design and final display sheets, so the observer can refer to each medium and comprehend the overall design intent as a legible unity. Therefore, the presentation model should function on the basis of a design dialogue.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;During both tutorials and crits, an understanding exists between the tutor and student with the design model providing a significant mechanism for dialogue.â&#x20AC;? (Dunn, 2007, p.14)

Literature Review

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Methodology

3.0 Methodology

My data collection methods are of a qualitative nature. This is due to the landscape architecture model being part of a creative design process that naturally is outward spiraling. I will therefore analyze the models made by the students at both the group and individual stages of the course. The data collection and research methods selected for my case studies are as follows, • • • • • •

Interview with student Dictaphone recordings Photographs Films Sketches Diagrams

The combined use of a one to one interview with each student and supporting visual information will allow me to investigate each students working process. It is important to realize that each medium of visual representation have different affordances in terms of the output information. Film is an effective medium for representing time-based strategies within a design, but is limited by a restricted frame, controlled by the student. Sketches convey an intimate level of information but may be restricted by abstraction. It is important that I use each medium as a tool to gather a balanced range of qualitative information from each case study.

“Unlike the other case environments in which the use of a tool is assessed in a quantitative way, in architecture education the use of a tool is assessed more qualitatively. This is due to the nature and application of an explorative model that is used to test ideas as part of a process rather than being the summation of a learning experience.” (Dunn, 2007, p. 237) From Dunn’s categorization of the model explained in the introduction, it is clear that the explorative model is an ‘umbrella term’ in which many subcategories of the architectural model can be defined under. I will define these sub-categories as a model: type, frame and application. This will help me to examine the individual case studies with more precision. I also understand that landscape architectural model making is a dynamic process, which entails a dynamic analytical approach. I have further categorized these terms in order to explain how the model function can change to convey multiple layers of dynamic complexity.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

3.1 The Explorative model Type

-Topography model -Site model -Detailed site model -Construction model -Strategic planning model

Frame

- Working model - Conceptual model - Sketch model - Diagrammatic model - Presentation model Application -Objective -Subjective -Investigative (-Re-working / Re-making / Progressive) -Illustrative -Qualitative -Quantitative I will refer to each case study as: • • • • •

Student Student Student Student Student

A B C D E

This is to ensure full confidentiality and to prevent bias from emerging within my results and findings.

Methodology

Type

Frame

Application

Fig. 3 Diagram to explain how the model changes with a different: Type, Frame and Application.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Analysis

4.0 Analysis

In this chapter I broke down the information from each of my case studies into analytical descriptions. Dunn makes in-depth observations into the way students of architecture use model making at different critical stages in their personal design process. I started by using his theory as a way to compare and contrast my five case studies. I listened back carefully to the interview recordings, and wrote detailed summaries for each individual case study interview. I then observed the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model photographs and videos that provided visual support to their descriptions. It was also important to make notations and diagrams on the photographs to further explain complex spatial qualities within their models. In the second phase of analysis, I observed and explained comparisons between the individual case studies. The chosen case studies displayed a wide spectrum of model making methods. There was often a certain degree of overlap between each case study and this was further exaggerated by demographical similarity in that all students were participating in the same project and year group. However, this also revealed interesting parallels in comparison between each case study. 4.1 Background My case study research and analysis is focused on five landscape architecture students at Edinburgh College of Art, studying for their final fifth (MSc) year. This particular year group had a project set in Krakow, Poland on the former concentration site at Plaszow. This was the first year the landscape architecture department had set this particular site for the MLA Landscape Portfolio 3; Design; Strategy and Intervention course. (A site introduction taken from the brief: See Appendix A) The project brief was split up into two halfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The first half of the brief involved a site visit to the Plaszow site. The task was to form groups of five students. The individual groups had to devise a site analysis method that would gather a wide breadth of qualitative and quantitative data. The objective being that the data collected within the groups would also feed through into the individual project research. The second half of the brief was the individual stage of the project. Students were to take the research and analysis from their group work and then use that as a framework for their individual projects. This information would allow the students to form concepts and themes within their own work based on their group findings.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

4.2 Student A 4.2.1 Overview Student A generated and constructed models consistently from the group work stage right through to the detailed design phase. Student A used the landscape architecture model as a primary design tool to inform design decisions on the masterplan. Often when explaining his work he used the working model as an extended gesture to explain concepts and design motives. 4.2.2 Group work model Student A was involved in a group work exercise to generate a conceptual topography model. The model was not designed to be accurate or descriptive like a presentation model, therefore this model may be labeled as an explorative conceptual model . As a group the team created a grid overlaid onto a contour site plan of Plaszow. The end result was a matrix of wooden blocks representing the site topography similar in aesthetic to the Jewish war memorial in Berlin. An additional layer to the model was a film produced by the group that was projected onto the uneven topography model surface. The film showed analytical aerial footage of the site taken from their site visit. 4.2.3 Individual working model

Student A produced a wooden working concept model in order to generate a clear concept driver for the individual stage of the project. This model functioned more like a conceptual three-dimensional diagram. The model as an object alone appears difficult to read, unlike a presentation model that needs no further explanation. Although categorically this model falls within a conceptual model frame, Student A used this model as a presentation and communication tool such as the presentation model.

Analysis

Fig. 4 Student A’s Group Conceptual topography model, ECA, 2014

Fig. 4.1 Student A’s Group Conceptual topography model, Analysis film Projection, ECA, 2014

Landscape Architectural Model Making

The student used the conceptual model as a visual aid to the masterplan. When used in combination the conceptual model and masterplan become a legible unity. They explain critically that,

“I suppose looking at my masterplan now, it some how lacks what my concept site model has in terms of balance. I guess I will link the models that I produce in the detail stage to the masterplan using a key for graphic communication.” (Extract from an interview with Student A, 20/11/2013) Through this explanation it is possible to suggest that Student A may not have purposefully made the connection between how both the model and the masterplan work as a unity but rather that they are two separate exercises. However it is clear that he realizes a stronger connection should be made for the next detail stage models. 4.2.4 Detailed design model Student A constructed two detailed models at 1:100 also made from various types of scrap wood for the detailed design phase of the project. The two models take a dramatic leap in scale and detail resolution from the 1:2000 concept model and masterplan. This leaves the viewer straining to make the transition from masterplan phase to detailed design. However the consistency in material through all of the design phases communicates a clear aesthetic through the project.

Combining several different wood types in the same model helps the viewer to graphically distinguish between the structural elements in the design. The wood grain is also used in a way that is suggestive of direction, movement and scale. They further explain,

“I wanted to represent the ‘grain’ of the site, so wood makes the perfect material.” (Extract from an interview with Student A, 20/11/2013)

Analysis

Fig. 4.3 Student A’s Individual Detailed design model 1:50, PlaszowQuarry night club, ECA, 2013

Fig. 4.4 Student A’s Individual Conceptual topography site model, ECA, 2013 Fig. 4.2 Student A’s Individual detailed design model 1:50, Plaszow memorial intervention ECA, 2013

Landscape Architectural Model Making

4.3 Student B 4.3.1 Group work model Student B’s group did not construct a model. They explained that the group work analysis was routed more within the narrative of the former concentration camp and how this enabled a more sensitive investigation into the holocaust events at Plaszow. 4.3.2 Individual working model The model Student B created involved the working and re-working of a 1:2000 clay site model. Each design decision was photographed and documented in order that a stop-start motion film could be made as an analytical tool. The nature of Student B’s model is a working model that fits within the explorative model category as it was used as a creative design tool. It is possible to deduce from their process that re-working was a key aspect in constructing the site model and not re-making as the same volume of clay was reformed in order to display typological details such as pathways, fields and public and private space. The clay was re-worked by smudging, cutting, scoring and rolling. Student B (See literature review for further explanation between the process of re-making and re-working.)

It is clear that Student B feels strongly about the process of making a model by hand. Clay is a very malleable tactile substance that requires hands on physical interaction. Though the product of the model may not be ‘polished’ in terms of presentational appearance, the model communicates a complex level of qualitative and quantitative information. They explain that,

“There are so many different elements that make up the site. I don’t think you can really understand the connections without modeling it and seeing how they work together with the landform. It is important to understand the relationships between the varying typologies that exist on the site.” (Extract from an interview with Student B, 20/11/2013) Student B created a stop-start motion film in order to record their design process. The stop-start motion film extends the function of the site model from a working model to a design process study and an analytical diagram that explains the changes within the evolving design. The film uses a diagrammatic language of solid and dotted lines, and arrows to convey lines of movement through the site. This additional layer of information clearly

Analysis

Fig. 4.5 A still taken from Student Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis film, Diagram explaining connection points ECA, 2013

Fig. 4.6 A still taken from Student Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis film, Diagram explaining site context ECA, 2013

Landscape Architectural Model Making

explains the design in working process that may other wise be difficult to read. The model and film both help the viewer to understand the design as a time-based process rather than a static entity such as a two-dimensional masterplan. This is especially relevant to the field of landscape architecture that requires an in-depth understanding of ephemeral aspects contained within a landscape design. They describe this process that,

“it’s more about time, if you make a mistake you can you easily change it and smooth it over.” (Extract from an interview with Student B, 20/11/2013) 4.3.3 Detailed design model The 1:500 detailed design model made by Student B was also constructed from clay. They explained that the purpose for constructing the model was to enable a deeper spatial comprehension of the tree planting layout and strategy. Unlike the previous site model, the 1:500 detailed model contains no North point, scale bar and only a fraction of the contexts making the model more difficult to orientate around. The model displays a higher quality of finish but lacks the level of information conveyed in the site model. Although this model contains explorative modeling aspects such as the tree planting strategy it is closer to the descriptive model as the finish takes preference over the level of information.

Fig. 4.7 Student B’s detailed design model 1:500, ECA, 2013

Analysis

4.4 Student C 4.4.1 Group work model Student C’s group work was heavily routed in tracing the historical through the holocaust events at the Plaszow site. Through understanding landscape signifiers such as hydrology and analyzing vegetation growth patterns, the group were able to pin point the concentration camp barracks and cabins. The information from the site visit was carefully mapped using a fifty by fifty meters squared square grid system. The output of the group findings was a multi-layered model set into a Perspex draw displaying the site through its: topography, vegetation, camp buildings, samples (rock and plant), soil PH and information booklets about the site history and context. The model fits the descriptive model category. It contains only quantitative data and the purpose for the model is for a presentation and display of information like you would find in a museum. The content of the model must be legible due to the quantity and complexity of information to be conveyed. 4.4.2 Individual working model Student C’s individual model was in some ways similar to Student B’s model in asmuch that its purpose was for documenting each intricate stage of the design process. Student C explains that,

“I must admit in the beginning I wanted to make a working model that I could film to record my design process. So the model is not just an object. I wanted to create a presentation that would show and record the making in progress.” (Extract from an interview with Student C, 20/11/2013) It is clear that the model fits the explorative model frame and utilizes re-working as the same model was used from start to finish through the design process. Student C favored materials that were cheap, malleable and easy to work with. Cost is an important aspect to factor into a working model. A student will be less precious with lower costing materials enabling a more fluid design process to emerge. Student C chose a process of modeling that was fast pace in order that photographs may be taken on a set timer. She used colouring pencils to render typological details, like the paths and vegetation and card strips to represent connecting roads.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 4.8 Student C’s group model displaying site information, ECA, 2013

The one minute and twenty-five second stop-start motion film clearly breaks down the strategic development in the planting strategy. The live hand render, albeit a little rough, defines the desire lines that flow through the park path network. This sense of live involvement in the design process draws you from an outside onlooker inside the thinking process of the designer/maker. For this reason the model is far more effective on the rolling film than viewed as a static presentation model as the overall finish is not as strong as the working process and analysis. They explain that, 46

“I think that the rendering on the model is not up to standards of a presentation model and so the weakness is that I have lost time for producing a masterplan. It has been good for understanding my own personal development. I feel like I should have rendered the model in more detail so that I could use it for my masterplan as well.” (Extract from an interview with Student C, 20/11/2013) It is apparent from this statement that Student C struggled with balancing the model to function as both a working and presentation model. Their expectations were much higher in terms of the presentational standard for the model. It is possible to suggest that Student C expected too much from just one model and that perhaps it would have been beneficial to create a separate rendered presentation model to display their design at a ‘final’ state.

Analysis

Fig. 4.9 A series of stills taken from Student Câ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design process film, ECA, 2013

Landscape Architectural Model Making

4.5 Student D 4.5.1 Group work model Student D’s group developed a 1:2000 presentation site and contextual model that would display the Plaszow site in an exact current state. Although all group members were involved with the construction of the model, Student D was more heavily engaged due to their in-depth knowledge of three-dimensional modeling software, in this case Rhinoceros and Grasshopper part of the AutoDesk package. The group focused their attentions on an analytical break down of the existing site conditions. The overall finished product was a polished holistic and diagrammatic presentation model that fits only within the descriptive model category. Student D explains,

“The intentions of the model were to select the attributes we wanted to put forward and then render them physically. I guess the model will then inform site specific details.” (Extract from an interview with Student D, 21/11/2013) There is a strong definition between each material and the typological detail it represents. In a sense the model reads more like a landscape analysis diagram that picks out individual landscape features. They elaborate by saying,

“There is something about crafting the model beautifully. The rest of the group wanted something cheap and easy to construct. When I’m thinking about materials I want to generate a sense of wonder. Something you can appreciate for its aesthetic quality.” (Extract from an interview with Student D, 21/11/2013) In order to understand and break down this particular model it is important to understand the modeling capabilities of Rhinoceros and Grasshopper and the way the student engages with the software. Student D started by extruding each individual contour using the ‘create polysurface’ option in the Rhinoceros tool bar. The extruded contour lines were then composed together to create one solid model using the ‘boolean union’ tool. The model now represents the final topography model. In-order to generate a model that is ready for Computer Aided Modeling (CAM) from Rhinoceros, Student D then used a Rhinoceros plug-in called Grasshopper that enables a visual input of algorithm data. In this particular instance Student D chose to create a ‘waffle’ support structure that would support each contour line. This structure is composed of many intersecting section lines in a grid system

Analysis

Fig. 4.10 Student D’s group site model, ECA, 2013

Fig. 4.11 A screen shot taken from Student D’s CAD (Rhino/ Grasshopper) model, ECA, 2013

Landscape Architectural Model Making

often fifty or one hundred millimeters squared. Due to the complex process of creating a three-dimensional CAD model it is possible that Student D became too involved in drafting the Rhino model and may have overlooked the general purpose of how the model should function and serve as a design aid. They expand by saying,

“Since I mainly use CAD and CAM most of the understanding comes before designing it. Putting it back together afterwards is just an exercise and fine workmanship skills but you’ve done most of the understanding in drawing the model before making.” (Extract from an interview with Student D, 21/11/2013) From this statement it is possible to deduce that the purpose for the CAD model construction was not for the process of design comprehension but rather for utilizing the 0.10mm accuracy capabilities and speed of model production that Rhinoceros offers. A limiting factor of this particular model is that the process of modeling construction was limited to only Student D, therefore the ‘hands on’ learning experience is not shared equally throughout the group. The other members of the group were left disengaged which resulted in a disinterest amongst the group to experiment and engage with the software. 4.6 Student E 4.6.1 Group work model

Student E was involved in the same group as Student D. The group separated tasks between the individual members to work on. Student E created an illustrative film that formed part of the group analysis. The film and the model were inter-related and referenced similar analytical information. 4.6.2 Individual working model Student E produced a series of detailed 1:500 working models in conjunction with the masterplan design. The three working models are three-dimensional sectional sketches of the different typologies and situations on the site. Unlike a site model, the small sectional models operate on a localized ‘zoomed in’ fashion to explain and inform the overall site as a whole. They expand by saying,

“I feel these models explain the large-scale aspects of the park. They are representative of

Analysis

the several points on the site.” ( Extract from an interview with Student E, 20/11/2013) The materials used to construct the models consist of: corrugated cardboard, paper, pins and black pens to render. Student E selected the materials for their malleable properties. Although the models were assembled quickly with cheap media and resources, the materials represent the textural qualities of the landscape features whilst retaining a reasonable element of abstraction that allows the models to resist literal representation. There also remains a consistency in the use of materials between all three models. The fine liner pen marks represent the texture and direction of vegetation and path surface. The corrugated cardboard has been ripped and scratched into and rendered with white chalk to represent the lime quarry cliff faces. White pins have been used to convey the density of the tree planting structure. The three models require no extra information as the modeling typography is simple and clear to understand. This series of working models are defined by the explorative model category as they have been used to experiment and test out ideas in three-dimensions. These models could also be defined by the evaluative model category in that they have been used to test qualitative information already established on the masterplan. It is apparent that student E has externalized each model from the masterplan in order to test intricate design information on a micro scale. This makes it easier for the viewer to examine the designed situation under investigation. They explained that,

“Because we were working on a large scale masterplan (1:2000) I needed to test a more detailed scale side by side. So they are just small zoom-in selections of specific designed areas.” (Extract from an interview with Student E, 20/11/2013)

Fig. 4.12 Left, Student E’s sectional sketch models 1:500 ECA, 2013

Fig. 4.13 Right, Student E’s supporting sectional model vegitation key, ECA, 2013

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Fig. 4.14 A series of photographs of Student Eâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s detailed sectional model, ECA, 2013

Analysis

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Discussion

5.0 Discussion

5.1 The Conceptual Model It is important to emphasize at this point that the model type and frame can operate in a more dynamic way when multiple types of application are involved. (See methodology for more detailed explanation) If we break down Student A’s individual stage model we understand that it is a site and topography model in which two explorative model frames are present. It is understood that Student A’s model uses the conceptual frame, however the model was also constructed to graphically represent the desire lines that run through the park. In this instance the diagrammatic model frame is used in conjunction with the conceptual model. Student A’s application was both investigative and illustrative as the model was used to explore topographical possibilities of the design, yet they also used the model to illustrate their concept through an abstract form. It is this emergence of model typologies that produces new hybrid model types. In a similar way Chora Landscape Architects use diagrammatic models to convey many complex layers of socio-geographical data.

“Modelling involves shifting into an abstract and coded form of representation, which has its own materiality. Diagrams are used to shift between ‘found’ reality and the level of abstraction on this level, material can be manipulated, models constructed, relationship drawn and information processed to show only one aspect of a particular environment.” (Bunschoten, 2001, p. 35) Student A was the only student out of the five case studies that constructed a conceptual model for their individual design project. This may be due to the fact that Student A produced the model right at the beginning of the project development while their ideas were still novel. They used the model over the masterplan as a generative tool. Another reason for their use of a concept model was due to the level of abstract information to be conveyed. Such information would appear too literal on the masterplan. The essence of their design intensions would be lost on a two-dimensional drawing. The concept model provided Student A with a suitable frame to convey their abstract design notions, without risking misrepresentation on a more ‘literal’ medium. In Architecture the conceptual model frame is used much more frequently among students in the preliminary design stages. The conceptual model frame in architecture also has an application that is more subjective than objective. This may be explained by the nature of architecture, in that it is concerned more with the exploration of form in the preliminary design stages.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

“A fundamental characteristic of form related concepts and principles is that, on the one hand, they describe rather abstract ideas, but that, on the other hand, they can only be observed as specific and tangible forms.” (Keiding, 2012, p. 217) In parallel a student of landscape architecture is more inclined to investigate wider reaching issues that affect a surrounding region. The difference between the two disciplines may be explained by the change in scale. Therefore the conceptual model frame must be applied according to the parameters of each discipline. It must be reiterated that the conceptual model frame may be applied subjectively and objectively in order to investigate potential concept drivers. This is especially important to the landscape architecture student that is trying to grasp the constructs of both their site and the surrounding context it sits within. 5.2 Working Models From the case study analysis it is clear that the working model has been the most consistently used frame amongst the five students. The students using the working model often chose the medium to clarify spatial thinking and to communicate and document their working process. However there was a strong distinction between each of the student’s working models. This was depending on what; type, frame and application the student adopted to construct the model. Student B and C used similar techniques between their working models. From analyzing their individual working process it is possible to define their application as re-working. (See literature review for re-making and re-working definition.) 5.3 Re-making & Re-working 56

Student B used the re-working of a clay model in-order to understand the site topography. Student B explains,

“I chose the daz clay because you can keep working into it and re-forming it. It also dries hard so you can fix your final decision in a solid form. Using the clay is more a process of understanding through manipulation and observation. It’s more about time, if you make a mistake you can you easily change it and smooth it over.” Student B’s re-working process initiated design motives and decisions that were strongly landscape led. They used their clay working model to discover intricate space making qualities in the landform. Paradoxically Student C used the re-working card model not to

Discussion

reshape the existing landform but to work on the surface, rendering with coloring pencils to explain the subtle planting strategy and to suggest new path networks through the site. Student B and C used the same model type (site/topography model), frame (working model) and application (re-working) however their application differed subjectively. While the topography remained ‘static’ on Student C’s model, Student B’s model was constantly changing form parallel to the design process. In contrast Student A used the process of re-working in an additive and subtractive way. Their conceptual topography and site model evolved by adding layers of wood that were then drilled, carved and sawn. This reflected Student A’s design that was structural and engineered. Student A often reflected upon engineering techniques within their design process by mimicking their proposed construction methods. They drilled into the wood in a way that was reflective of the process of quarrying. They explain that,

“I realized in the model that blasting a channel between the two quarries on the site was a little unreasonable. It would require too much heavy engineering works and disturbance. The model helped me to realize the scale of the operation.” Günther Vogt Landscape Architects use a similar method of model making that replicates the construction method. This enables them to test discrepancies that may have been overlooked in the design. 5.4 The Sketch Model Student E used working models to test and illustrate their design interventions on the site. Although these models fit within the working model frame, they were made separate from the masterplan. By ‘pulling out’ the design intervention sections from the masterplan and modeling them, Student E was able to isolate the specific design problems and focus intensely at a larger scale. Simultaneously, Student E used the sectional sketch models to realize larger issues on the masterplan. They were able to view briefly whether their design intervention functions with the surrounding context of the site design. The sketch model in this case functions differently to the working model frame. The application is more evaluative, as the student is testing preconceived design decisions. At this stage the sketch model operates more like an illustration of a design intervention. Moreover the sketch model may be used as a working model if the student is not satisfied with

Landscape Architectural Model Making

the results of the investigation. Then a process of re-making or re-working is necessary to adapt the design to a desired conclusion. Sketch models afford the student a fast pace evaluation of a design and therefore they are mostly constructed out of cheap easily malleable materials. They too, are an effective form of communication between student, tutor and class peers. Much like a two-dimensional drawn sketch, the sketch model affords an immediate reaction to a problem that is visible to the viewer. 5.5 Method & Media It is important that the student understands the materials they choose to model with as this may affect the way in which a design is formed and understood. The student must also consider the parameters of the material they are working with, as the material they choose will inherently have affordances and limitations due to the nature of its malleability. Student B was frustrated by the clay model as it dried too quickly and cracked meaning they had to rush the modeling process. They explained that this was an oversight and that they should have researched the properties of the material more thoroughly,

“I guess if I was to do it again I would have been a bit more careful and turned it into a presentation model. And it warped because of the wet clay on the cardboard. I didn’t really take the time to understand the materials.”

Student B also explained that this process of making, analyzing and re-working the clay was far lengthier than they had first anticipated. Despite their frustration of their selected media, Student B was able to clearly represent the progression of their design process through a stop-start motion film. Their model type, frame, and application were objectively appropriate for their film output. In this sense Student B succeeded objectively with their selection of method and media. Student A’s modeling intensions aligned with their finished model. This could be reasoned by understanding that Student A had a reasonable amount of past experience with creating wooden models. They felt comfortable with using a wood workshop and this aided in a speedier production time. However he explained that he wasn’t altogether satisfied with the finish of the model,

Discussion

“Its not accurate. A lot of the details on the model have been exaggerated. And I supposed some of the finishing could have been done better.” Student D selected materials for their aesthetic value. They were more concerned with how the materials would graphically communicate their group analytical information. Using CAD & CAM afforded student D more accuracy with cutting. They understood that to make the same model by hand with the same level of accuracy would be nearly impossible within the time frame of the course. They explain that, “Model making is time consuming and expensive. I guess you could say that about modeling in general. Actually if you had to do it by hand it would be much more time consuming and some detailed aspects of the model would not be achievable by hand. I guess my model doesn’t really appeal to an audience of people who are into arty handmade models. Some people cannot connect with this type of model. Of course analogue model making has its merits but some people are afraid of progress and disagree with new progress in technology.”

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Conclusions

6.0 Conclusions

Landscape architecture is an environment of study that relies heavily upon three-dimensional media to convey complex spatial design information and intensions. The crux to the methodology of this study was the use of Dunn’s categorization of the architectural model. His theory enabled a further sub-categorization within the explorative model . This sub-categorization was developed in conjunction with the landscape architecture design process to analyze student models as part of a creative working design process . This system has been categorized as the model: type, frame and application. This enabled me to analyze the student’s models with greater depth and integrity. Although this approach was used only within the landscape architecture environment, it may be considered for further use in other creative disciplines, i.e., product design, graphic design, architecture, etc. This study highlighted that ostensibly the student’s models under investigation, which at first appeared crude or roughly produced, revealed a working process that was complex and dynamic. Furthermore, the study exposed the way landscape architecture students approach model-making as a time-based medium. Student C expands by saying,

“. So the model is not just an object. I wanted to create a presentation that would show and record the making in progress.” An evident discrepancy in the methodology is the limited field of investigation. To open up this study to a wider range of institutions and other design disciplines would have been beyond the scope of this particular study. Another issue with the data collection was the lack of distance from myself to the case studies, as I too am enrolled on the landscape architecture program in the same year at Edinburgh College of Art. My close proximity to my environment of investigation afforded me a closer insight into the workings of the course program and enabled a more thorough analytical investigation of the student’s models. The weakness of this lack in distance may form a bias among the case studies, although every effort has been made to keep the case studies anonymous and a consistent analytical process has been applied to each case study. Due to the visual nature of model making, the text has also relied on the use of diagrams, illustrations and photographs as an auxiliary to visually explain the models under investigation. These diagrams have also helped to explain the structures and systems involved in the students working process. It is clear from this study that landscape architecture students require the use of models not only to understand their design in three-dimensions, but also to understand their working process self reflectively. The use of film to convey

Landscape Architectural Model Making

time-based working processes proved an effective medium among two of the case studies. It is understood that through analyzing the students working models, further distinction can be made in the process of re-making and re-working. The student’s model isn’t just aligning with their working process, but moulding it and shaping it- as a crucial element to designing landscapes. The student’s chosen materials and method of modelling actually have a direct effect on the final design. Suggestions for further research This study has shown the auxiliary function of the model in the landscape architecture education environment. It is understood that the landscape architectural model aids the students to investigate their own design processes and intensions. It was also clear that one model may serve many different functions and therefore should not be limited to a singular use. It would be a consideration to adapt this study’s methodology and apply it to other fields of investigation. Product designers use models to test and evaluate how a person engages with an object at a ‘real life’ scale. A prototype model in product design is used as an evaluative tool to test function, aesthetics and product interplay. Similarly, a fashion designer will construct a calico mock-up to test the shape, form and fit of a garment. A consideration for further research would be to see how other design disciplines use models to represent and understand their design intension and processes. This interdisciplinary approach may help students from different design disciplines to realize alternative modes and methods for three-dimensional representation.

Conclusions

Fig. 6 Precarious Cut: Reverse engineered zero-waste garment, Holly McQuillan, 2009 with overlaid Reworking diagram

Landscape Architectural Model Making

References

Allen, S. (2009) Practice: Architecture Technique + Representation. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Bunschoten, R. (2001) Urban Flotsam. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers Chen, J-D. and Heylighen, A. (2012) One step in the evolusion of a design studio assignment. In: Steino, N. and Ozkar, M. (2012) Shaping design teaching. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Ch.4 Dunn, N. (2007) The Ecology of the Architectural Model. Bern: Peter Lang AG Gomez, A.P and Pelletier, L. (2000) Architectural Representation and Perspective Hinge. Cambridge: MIT Press Keiding, T. (2012) Teaching form as form from a didactical perspective. In: Steino, N. and Ozkar, M. (2012) Shaping design teaching. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Ch.11 Starvric, M. and Sidanin, P. and Tepavcevic, B. (2013) Architectural Scale Models in the Digital Age. Wien: Springer-Verlag Steino,N., Ozkar, M. (2012) Shaping Design Teaching. Denmark: Aalborg University Press Vogt, G., Foxley, A. (2010) Distance & Engagement: Walking, Thinking and Making Landscape. Basel: Lars MĂźller Publishers 65

Websites Long, R. (2012) Walking in Landscapes 1960s-2010s, [online] Available at: <http://cartellogiallo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/richard-long.html> [Accessed 26 November 2013] Webster, M. (2012) Dictionary and Thesaurus â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Definition of maquette. [online] Available at: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maquette> Accessed 5 March, 2014.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Bibliography

Allen, S. and McQuade, M. (2011) Landform Building. Baden: Lars MĂźller Publishers Coutts, M. and Norman, Nils. and Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Shea, M. and Rothschild, E. and Tzaig, U. (2001) VITO ACCONCIA/ Acconci Studio, PARA-CITIES: Models for Public Spaces: TROUBLE SHOOTING. Bristol: Arnolfini Dorrian, M. and Hawker, A. (2002) Metis: Urban Cartographies. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited. Dunn, N. (2010) Architectural Modelmaking. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd Fujimoto, S. (2012) Futurospective Architecture. Bielefeld: Kunsthalle Bielefeld Glynn, R., Shafiei, S., 2009. Digital Architecture-Passages Through The Hinterlands. Somerset: Butler Tannerand Dennis. Mari, A, D. (2013) Operative Design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers Moon, K. (2005) Modeling Messages. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc. Morris, M. (2006) Architecture and the Minaiature. Chichester: Wiley-Academic Schilling, A. (2007) Basics: Modelbuilding. Basel: Birkhauser-Publishers for Architecture. Smith, A.C. (2004) Architectural Model as Machine. Oxford: Architectural Press Vyzoviti, S. (2012) Folding Achitecture. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers 67

Vyzoviti, S. (2006) Supersurfaces. Amsterdam: BIS Publishres

Journals Floris, J. and Holtrop, A. and Teerds, H. (2011) OASE: Models Idea, The Representation and the Visionary, 84th ed. Belgium: NAi Publishers Websites Kvan, T. and Ming, L, W. (2002) Rapid prototyping for architectural models, [e-Journal] 8(2),

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Available through: <http://www/emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.html> [Accessed 7 April 2007] Lende, D. (2012) Brainy Trees, Metaphorical Forests: On Neuroscience, Embodiment, and Architecture, [online] Available at: <file:///Volumes/LaCie/DOCUMENTS/UNI%20WORK/RESEARCH/WEBSITES/Embodiment%20in%20Architecture.html> [Accessed 5 April 2013] Stones, J. (2013) Virtually real, [online] Available at: <file:///Volumes/LaCie/DOCUMENTS/ UNI%20WORK/RESEARCH/THESIS/JOURNALS/3000577.article.html> [Accessed 11 April 2013]

Bibiliography

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Appendices

Appendix A: A section of text taken from the Design and Intervention Course Handbook 2013/14. Project Introduction This year our site is located in the Podgórze area of Crakow. The Podgórze district lies immediately to the south of the Vistula River approximately 3 kilometres from Crakow city centre. Infamously the site includes the Plaszow Concentration Camp site and Liban Quarry site, but it also includes the historic Krakus Mound, assumed to be the burial mound of Prince Krakus, extensive allotments in the west of the site and Cmentarz Podgorski Nowy and a smaller quarry which separates the Krakus Mound area from the site of the concentration camp. The site is contained by road infrastructure. Wielicka to the east, Henryka Kamienskiego to the south and Aleja Powstancow Slaskich to the north. You will initially work in groups before developing individual proposals for the site. Working in groups will allow you to develop a greater understanding of both city scale strategic issues and site specific ‘grain’ directly relevant to the development of your individual project. This site follows several years studying Tegel, Tempelhof and Gatow Airport sites in Berlin, Copenhagen Nordhaven in 2008, Venice Lagoon in 2007, Gleisdreieck Berlin in 2006, Wilhelmsburg Hamburg in 2005 and Zorrozaurre Bilbao in 2004 in our MSc 5 European Cities project series.

Site introduction Plaszow 71

The enormity of the bestiality of the Holocaust and of Plaszow Concentration Camp and what took place here specifically is impossible to describe but it is thought that approximately 10,000 people were killed at Plaszow. The 32 hectare camp was constructed on the site of 2 former Jewish cemeteries in the summer of 1942. Almost nothing remains of the camp itself as it was destroyed by the Nazi regime before the advancing Russians reached Crakow. However, the site of the camp is straightforward to ascertain from maps and aerial photographs and was contained by Wielicka to the east, Henryka Kamienskiego to the south, the quarry to the north and Swoszowika to the west. The modern day streets, Zerozolimska and Wiktoria Heltmana ran through the camp itself, with Camp Commandant Amon Goeth’s villa at No.5 Wiktoria Heltmana. The site has largely been abandoned since WW2, with only 2 memorials built on the site of the camp itself. Due to

Landscape Architectural Model Making

this abandonment, natural vegetation succession is taking place. Two photographs from 1976 and 1995 illustrate this process. In the 1976 image groundwork’s associated with the women’s barracks are visible; in the latter image this is obscured by vegetation. The quarries themselves are enormously significant. The camp inmates worked here, often to death. These historically hugely important features combine with Krakus Mound, the new cemetery and the extensive allotments. Interviews Appendix B: An interview with Student A Name: Student A Date: 20/11/2013 Do you often make models in your design work?

Yes I do, mainly because I don’t really like using a computer and I think its quite a good way of showing your ideas in a tactile way. It gives you something to touch and to hold. It is an effective tool in the sense it displays a lot of information effectively. It also add substance to the project work to bulk out the project. Why did you choose to make a model for this project?

Because it shows my concept. This particular site model is designed to represent a concept rather than detail. Its not specific, its not to scale in the vertical scale. I just think it is easier than drawing a picture. I feel like I can represent more in the three-dimensional for this particular point in the project work What were your modeling intensions?

I wanted to be a menswear model…Um No! I wanted to achieve a sense of balance between what I’m doing on the site. I’m using different materials to explain the different character areas on the site. I want people to see a contrast between the different areas on the site at the same time I’m using the pathway sections to link the park together. What is your reasoning for your choice of materials? I really like wood, I think it kind of forgiving, it smells nice, looks nice I think it gives a more

Appendices

professional look as well. Plus there is a lot of wood lying around the art school for free. And I believe you can make any piece of wood look nice with a bit of sanding so you can achieve a good quality of finish. I also wanted to find the grain of the site, so wood makes the perfect material. What is your reasoning for your choice of scale?

Well firstly I have exaggerated the vertical scale by 200%. The size of the master plan is 1:2000 and the vertical scale is at 1:1000 in height. The only aspect of the model that is to scale is the horizontal plane. How has constructing a model helped in understanding your design?

I think it helped me to realize the two characters and parts of the site. But I also feel the site has informed the way I make the model. The model has informed the design to some extent, but the experience on site and looking back at photographs has also informed the model. So the drama of the place, its history and topography encouraged my model making. What are the strengths of your model?

I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really know, it works quite well as a visual aid. I think actually exaggerating the heights of the model made my concept of the design very clear. Witch I guess could also be misleading. 73

What are the weaknesses of your model?

Its not accurate. A lot of the details on the model have been exaggerated. And I supposed some of the finishing could have been done better. Technically, not everything fits together so well. I guess in that respect it could be misleading. Maybe someone outside of landscape architecture would have a hard time understanding the abstract nature of the model. Did your final model match up with your modeling intensions? Explain why or why not.

My intensions were to give a sense of balance to contrast and use different materials and display the sectional spines that link the site together. So I guess in that respect I met my

Landscape Architectural Model Making

initial intentions. I realized in the model that blasting a channel between the two quarries on the site was a little unreasonable. It would require to much heavy engineering works and disturbance. I helped my to realize the scale of the operation. Have you used CAD/CAM to construct a model? Explain why or why not.

No, never. Actually I had to use CAD to make precise measurement of a sea dock in Holland. I then constructed a model form the CAD plan. To what extent do you feel model making is an effective medium in your design process?

Very much so! I am continuously making models for the next stage of my detailed design. I think its quite good how I have gone from 1:2000 down to 1:100 using the same wooden materials. So I think it helps a lot and show also help a lot for the next presentation.

To what extent do you feel a model can replace the masterplan? Explain why or why not.

Yes I think it absolutely can, and I would use a model instead of a master plan for this project if I had more time. I suppose looking at my masterplan now, it some how lacks what my concept site model has in terms of balance. I guess I will link the models that I produce in the detail stage to the masterplan using a key for graphic communication. 74

Appendix C: An interview with Student B. Name: Student B Date: 20/11/2013 Do you often make models in your design work?

I often make working models but not presentation models because Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m bad at that. I make models in order to understand things such as topography and to observe detailed landscape features. Why did you choose to make a model for this project?

Appendices

Because the scale of the site is so large. There are so many different elements that make it up. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think you can really understand the connections without modeling it and seeing how they work together in the landform. Such as history and landform. To understand the relationships between the varying typologies that exist on the site. What were your modeling intensions?

I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really want to show anything in particular. I wanted to decide where to put the trees and the overall structure. So I used it as a decision making tool. Detail in this model was irrelevant. What is your reasoning for your choice of materials?

I chose cardboard as a base as it is fast and cheap. I chose the Daz clay because you can keep working into it and you can squish it around. It also dries hard so you can fix your final decision in a solid form. But the clay is more of a process of understanding through manipulation and observation and squishing it around. Its more about time, if you make a mistake you can you easily change it and smooth it over. And I chose the match sticks because they were cheap and they represent trees well. They are wooden, so it seemed like a logical choice. So you understand through touch. What is your reasoning for your choice of scale?

It was because of material costs and the maximum printable area of the plotters to produce a base plan. How has constructing a model helped in understanding your design?

It helped me to come up with this idea of open and closed aspects of the design like using the topography to hide things from view in the Landscape. I would never have seen that without making a model. And also understanding the valley of the camp and how low that is in relation to the rest of the site. It just really helped me figure things out, finalize everything, take photographs and then take it into the computer to draw a CAD plan. The whole thing was about getting a spatial structure so I could easily visualize the spac e. What are the strengths of your model?

Landscape Architectural Model Making

I was useful because I used it as a reference for my CAD plan. I think it really shows my design process. And I made a stop motion video out of it to explain site analysis and my making processes in response to the analysis. So I made a video of me making it and a stop motion of everything growing on it. Its taking me ages. So right now I have 382 frames. I edited them all in Photoshop and then took them into aftereffects. And now I’m just starting to layer them What are the weaknesses of your model?

I think aesthetically I probably have done it a bit differently, but I guess because it’s a working model aesthetics aren’t really relevant. I guess if I were to do it again I would have been a bit more careful and turned it into a presentation model. And it warped because of the wet clay on the cardboard. I didn’t really take the time to understand the materials. Did your final model match up with your modeling intensions? Explain why or why not.

No, because in the beginning I was going to use plasticine and I was going to use wire for the trees. So I kind of made it up as I went along. And I was going to include the building so you could see the contxt better but I didn’t have enough money really as the clay was quite expensive. And I wasn’t expecting the clay to crack either. So my expectations were much higher in the beginning and I didn’t expect it to take so long. Have you used CAD/CAM to construct a model? Explain why or why not. 76

No, never. I wish I did know how to use it though so I might use it for the detail work. Ive only used cad to create a contour base to print out trace it onto card and then make the model. I use sketch up to make walk through models to get an idea of space. I like making models by hand as you can understand the design better. Where as on the computer you just type it in and it arrives. It’s also too fast designing on a computer. You don’t have time to understand the design. To what extent do you feel model making is an effective medium in your design process?

I think it is useful for making structural decisions but that’s about as far as it goes. I don’t really make presentation models. I tried to do it a few times in first year but I’m not neat

Appendices

enough To what extent do you feel a model can replace the masterplan? Explain why or why not.

Yes I think they could and probably should replace the masterplan. Models can show just as much information as a masterplan. Masterplans are just encouraged to look nice. If you spent the amount of time you would on a masterplan making a model I think the results would be a lot better. Plus it would be easier to understand than a masterplan. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a more effective communication took than a masterplan because its 3D. The model is accessible to everyone.

Appendix D: An interview with Student C. Name: Student C Date: 20/11/2013 Do you often make models in your design work?

Yes, it depends on the project. For two reasons to realize how to make your design with a working model, or sometimes I make a presentation model but not so often. Why did you choose to make a model for this project? NA What were your modeling intensions?

I must admit in the beginning I wanted to make a working model that I could film to record my design process. So the model is not just an object. I wanted to create a presentation that would show and record the making in progress. I find the step-by-step design progress is more interesting to me than a final model. I like the flexibility of a working model and the ease at which you can change the design.

What is your reasoning for your choice of materials?

I always try to keep material costs low for model making. I like to use malleable medias

Landscape Architectural Model Making

that are easy to cut, fold and bend. Also because there is a wider range of resources at Edinburgh compared to Versailles, I have more freedom to try different medias like laser cutting and colour printing. So yeah, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more fun. What is your reasoning for your choice of scale?

I chose 1:2000 in order to fit it onto an A0 sheet of paper. I felt it was the appropriate scale, not too large and not too small. This generally makes it easier to work with. How has constructing a model helped in understanding your design?

I think as I had only a masterplan they show the topography. I think the model is always helpful to show the scale or even the strategic analysis. I feel these models explain the large-scale aspects of the park. They are representative of the several points on the site. What are the strengths of your model?

Well not really the model itself but more the way I documented it. I feel like there is a strong dialogue with regards to my recording of process. What are the weaknesses of your model?

I think that the rendering on the model is not up to standards of a presentation model and so the weaknesses is that I have lost time for producing a masterplan. It has been good for understanding my own personal development. I feel like I should have rendered the model in more detail so that I could use it for my masterplan as well. Did your final model match up with your modeling intensions? Explain why or why not.

Yes, I think that objectively the model has met my expectations. I thought that the model would maybe be more precise. Actually I changed my design a lot using the model so I guess that aspect surprised me. For example this I went into more detail with the model because of the larger working scale. Often I altered the masterplan drawing because of the model. There is an aspect of improvisation in the model making. I also found that the spatial structure of the design changed on the model.

Appendices

Have you used CAD/CAM to construct a model? Explain why or why not.

No, because Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve had no past experience. I understand how it can be beneficial but I need to spend time to learn how to use it. I am much quicker by hand. I like analogue models because they remain a constant scale. CAD models can become confusing with infinite zoom. I see that CAD models are very effective for producing a final render but not so good for document the design process. When you make a mistake with a computer it looks ugly. I feel we are less critical of hand drawing.

To what extent do you feel model making is an effective medium in your design process?

As a whole this is quite hard to define because not every model serves the same purpose. I think personally models that help you to develop design solutions such as working models are far more helpful than clean detailed presentation models. I think the process model is more helpful even though I think a final model is very nice to see in a public museum but think the working model is more efficient at helping you to develop new ideas. To what extent do you feel a model can replace the masterplan? Explain why or why not.

It can totally replace the masterplan if the level of detail is high. It can be better than a masterplan in a way. I like the sense of possession a model gives the designer. I also feel it is a more accessible media. For instance a town mayor sitting in a boardroom could understand a model and would feel more comfortable interacting with a model than a drawing. I think it improves communication to people who are not used to speaking the language of a masterplan. Appendix E: An interview with Student D. Name: Student D Date: 20/11/2013 Do you often make models in your design work?

Yes, but rather as a finished product over a working model. I do create digital 3D working models using CAD. So I use CAD and CAM technology to create my models.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Why did you choose to make a model for this project?

It just works better to show spatial attributes. I went to a lecture this summer at FAB LAB in my hometown, the first CAD/CAM manufacturing studio in France. You get a lot of engineers talking about it. They said that even if you show a 3D model on screen you don’t get the same feel as when you get it into your own hands and get to play with it, you know there is something else happening when other circuits in the brain get involved with a physical object rather than just a visual. So there is something about the physical side of building something. What were your modeling intensions?

At first I could either make a map or construct a model. I think if you have the time it is always best go with making a model because you get the third dimension. You get the z axis its not just x and y. So basically the intentions of the model were to select the attributes we wanted to put forward and then render them physically. I guess the model will then inform site-specific details. We wanted to show enough of the context. we packed vegetation, paths building and structures and infrastructure and hydology that was basically it. I’m actually about to make a new one. Its basically a paper model that will be rendered. I will print it out and cut it out. I found a software that could do it. It takes apart a 3D model like a mesh and generates a cut out model you can assemble. I might be a total failure but I have a good feel about it. 80

What is your reasoning for your choice of materials?

There is something about crafting the model beautifully. The rest of the group wanted something cheap and easy to construct. When I’m thinking about a materials I want to generate a sense of wonder. Something you can appreciate for its aesthetic quality. Something that is accesable to anyone not just landscape architects. So I went with wood, you know wood has a nice tactile quality. I will always choose higher quality of materials over easiness of use. What is your reasoning for your choice of scale?

Appendices

Well how big can I go? you have to make the right balance between what you can afford and what will look good. Basically there are three things to take into account: cost, time and site sensitivity. How has constructing a model helped in understanding your design?

Since I mainly use CAD and CAM most of the understanding comes before designing it. Putting it back together afterwards is just an exercise and fine workmanship skills but youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve done most of the understanding in drawing the model before making. What are the strengths of your model?

Its accessible. And hopefully its attractive to non-landscape architecture people. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s what I look for in my graphics. It has got to serve as an information tool. I would rather design something that is less sharp that would serve a larger demographic of people .

What are the weaknesses of your model?

Its time consuming and expensive. I guess you could say that about modeling in general. Actually if you had to do it by hand it would be much more time consuming and some detailed aspects of the model would not be achievable by hand. I guess my model doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really appeal to an audience of people who are into arty hand made models. Some people cannot connect with this type of model. Of course analogue model making has its merits but some people are afraid of progress and disagree with new progress I technology. Did your final model match up with your modeling intensions? Explain why or why not.

Yes, I think so. I was pretty pleased with the output. There was an extra parameter in that since it was group work the decisions were made cooperatively. So I guess my initial intentions were different to the outcome but in some ways the compromises improved the model. Have you used CAD/CAM to construct a model? Explain why or why not.

Landscape Architectural Model Making

The thing with high tech modeling techniques is that you go beyond was is achievable by hand. You can cut and fabricate details that are within tenths of millimeters. digital models are more easily changeable and moveable. There is the factor that you can share files with people very easily so that other people can build upon it and improve it. It’s a really robust technique as you can do a lot of things with the same file. You can build another model you can build three models at three different scales. So it is not a single use model that you work on and then put it to one side. The digital model is always developing. The digital model becomes more like a picture of your design at a certain stage rather than a static finished model. It keeps manifesting itself. To what extent do you feel model making is an effective medium in your design process?

It is effective as long as you can understand it and relate to it. You are never going to be able to get the real feel of it because that would be scale 1:1 and that’s not what we do otherwise we would be on site building the design and that’s when you get the real feel for it so in a way physical models are limited by scale and by time and affordability and this is where digital models will overcome analogue models in the sense that they will be able to project you into your digital model. In five years all the architecture schools will be equipped with virtual reality design studios. This thing is coming fast and its coming strong you know. Simplification and scale are the limiting factors of model making. It’s a double-edged sword because the model lets you see specific things in more detail but at the same time the fact that you are seeing them in detail means that’s you are not seeing a homogeneous over view 82

To what extent do you feel a model can replace the masterplan? Explain why or why not.

It can completely replace the masterplan no problem. In order that the model has the equal output of information as a masterplan you would need a higher and more diverse level of skill. Most of the people using CAD do not own there own laser cutter so there is more scheduling to be done and time management must always be a primary concern.

Appendix F: An interview with Student E. Name: Student E Date: 20/11/2013

Appendices

Do you often make models in your design work?

Yes, I often make models at the beginning of the design process to help me make decisions. Its easier than drawing because sometimes you canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t draw what you have in mind. With a plan you only have two-Dimensions but with the model you have the complete space. I like to make quick sketch models at the beginning. If you draw a section it takes a long time. And with a model it is easier and quicker to make changes. Why did you choose to make a model for this project?

I was working on a pathway and I wanted to place it on the topography. And also in the density of the planting. I used pins to represent the tree as it is very fast. The three models are at 1:500 but actually the trees are at 1:1000 so its not really precise. What were your modeling intensions? NA What is your reasoning for your choice of materials?

I use cardboard because it is cheap and fast to assemble. And it allows you allot of plasticity. If you use wood you cant really ply it or give it shape easily. Wood is too rigid for a quick sketch model. It is a working model and not presentation so I need to be able to make changes. The cardboard is also meant to represent the texture of the quarry cliffs. 83

What is your reasoning for your choice of scale?

Because we were working on a large scale masterplan (1:2000) I needed to test a more detailed scale side by side. So they are just small zoom in selections of specific designed areas. How has constructing a model helped in understanding your design?

I think it is two fold, for visualization and to understand the scale of the site. For example when I started modeling the middle of the site a realized there was too much open empty space so I decided to create meadows to break up the space. With a plan often you think

Landscape Architectural Model Making

the site is smaller or larger than it actually is. With a model as soon as you have a human figure you understand the scale a lot better. I had never done a section model before but I discovered it was quite effective. What are the strengths of your model?

I think as I had only a masterplan they show the topography. I think the model is always helpful to show the scale. Even the strategic analysis. I feel these models explain the large-scale aspects of the park. They are representative of the several points on the site. What are the weaknesses of your model?

Well there is a problem with scale. The model topography is 1:500 and the trees are 1:1000 so I guess maybe the scale could be misleading. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not really clear. Often I added detail to the models intuitively independently of the masterplan so now I must change the master plan. Often I will create a path on the plan and realize that is does not fit on the model with the topography. I think another weakness is that you might not be able to make the connection between the models and masterplan so I need to graphically show that maybe with a colour coded key. Did your final model match up with your modeling intensions? Explain why or why not.

Yes they were quite the same. Although I used the model to design the meadows like I was explaining earlier. I also blacked out the sides of the section models so that they were clearer to read in section view and distinguishable between the top and side planes. But now I am thinking of building a 1:1000 model like a puzzle so that sections can be lifted out and analyzed so you can view it in context and out of context. Have you used CAD/CAM to construct a model? Explain why or why not.

No, not really only to make a lazar cut model for the previous stage of the project. We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the tools to make laser cut models in Versailles, but also I preferred that the model is a tool you have from the beginning to help your project evolve so often I prefer doing it quick. To grasp the basis of the design quickly. I like working on the model, then after transferring to CAD for the masterplan

Appendices

To what extent do you feel model making is an effective medium in your design process?

I think it is a tool more than anything else. I think it helps you to make decisions and be confident in evolving the design. Once you have stuck something you are committing to the design. Also I think it is a really good communication tool in group work. I have worked with people in the past who are not so strong at drawing so the model is good for communicating ideas effectively. It makes a good talking point among groups and encourages people to join in. Also when you have a good model you can generate your visual perspective at the same time. To what extent do you feel a model can replace the masterplan? Explain why or why not.

I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know. If you want the model to replace the masterplan you have to think about it at the very beginning. You also have to do it precise because I often make my working models that change so much they can become messy and unreadable to other people. I think for the next detailed stage of the project I will only make a model rather than a masterplan. I think for this site with the changing topography a model is far more

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Appendices

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Appendices

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Model Making

Landscape Architectural Model Making

Model Making

Image Credits

Fig. 1 Richard Long, Dusty Boots Line, The Sahara, 1988 <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iOh52c7DkzM/Ugz81v47NWI/AAAAAAAALMQ/xq8UU7qsvOU/s1600/dusty.jpg> Fig. 1.1 A student’s blue foam working site model, ECA, 2014, Auther ’s own Fig. 1.2 A light study model at 1:50 of The Atrium space, Melbourne, 2010, <http://jamesphelan.com.au/?p=502> Fig. 1.3 Universal Testing Machine and Test Bridge, <https://www.cooper.edu/engineering/facilities/materials-andstructures> Fig. 1.4 Detailed design model, Atelier Loidl, Park Am Lokdipot, Berlin, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 2 Folding game, Cartografias Urbanas, Chora / Raoul Bunschoten, 2010, <http://cartografiasurbanas09.files. wordpress.com/2010/10/cubo2.jpg> Fig. 2.1 1:50 detail construction model, Vogt Landscape Architects, Novartis Campus Green, <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pictures/800x400fitpad[238]/0/5/5/1684055_Vogt_64_ready.jpg> Fig. 2.2 Woodland management strategy model diagram, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 2.3 Conceptual visualisation strategy model, Atelier Loidl, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 2.4 Re-making process diagram, Auther ’s own Fig. 2.5 Re-working process diagram, Auther ’s own Fig. 2.6 1:1 Construction models, Vogt Landscape Architects, Novartis Campus, 2010, Vogt, G., Foxley, A. (2010) Distance & Engagement: Walking, Thinking and Making Landscape. Basel: Lars Müller Publishers Fig. 3 Diagram to explain how the model changes with a different: Type, Frame and Application, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4 Student A’s Group Conceptual topography model, ECA, 2014, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.1 Student A’s Group Conceptual topography model, Analysis film Projection, ECA, 2014, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.2 Student A’s Individual detailed design model 1:50, Plaszow memorial intervention ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.3 Student A’s Individual Detailed design model 1:50, PlaszowQuarry night club, ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.4 Student A’s Individual Conceptual topography site model, ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.5 A still taken from Student B’s analysis film, Diagram explaining connection points ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student B Fig. 4.6 A still taken from Student B’s analysis film, Diagram explaining site context ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student B Fig. 4.7 Student B’s detailed design model 1:500, ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.8 Student C’s group model displaying site information, ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.9 A series of stills taken from Student C’s design process film, ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student C Fig. 4.10 Student D’s group site model, ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.11 A screen shot taken from Student D’s CAD (Rhino/ Grasshopper) model, ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student D Fig. 4.12 Left, Student E’s sectional sketch models 1:500 ECA, 2013, Auther ’s own Fig. 4.13 Right, Student E’s supporting sectional model vegitation key, ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student E Fig. 4.14 A series of photographs of Student E’s detailed sectional model, ECA, 2013, Courtesy of Student E Fig. 6 Precarious Cut: Reverse engineered zero-waste garment, Holly McQuillan, 2009 with overlaid Re-working diagram, <http://precariousdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/zero-waste-reverse-engineered.jpg>