(article previously published in September 2017)
The architectural model is a tool for understanding.
It serves to reflect on volume, space, project, construction,…
It is neither good nor bad in itself.
There are those who use it and those who do not. For some it is fundamental and for others it is absolutely dispensable. Which is your case?
In this article and the next, I write about its history and use.
Introduction
Although what I am about to tell you is more related to the use of the architectural model in the last 50 years, we can find examples of its use much earlier.
During the Renaissance and Baroque periods in Europe, architectural models were, as they are still today, an important tool in the collaboration between architects and clients.
An architect’s scale rendering was a means to elaborate ideas, and show his clients different project options, provide a platform for negotiations, or even sometimes to function as guides for builders.
Most archaeological models, on the other hand, do not seem to have fulfilled this function, or only rarely.
Tower-shaped cult vessel with cylinder seal impressions near the top, circa 19th century BC. Middle Bronze Age. Syria. Ceramic; H. 31.4 cm, W. 8.3 cm, D. 11.4 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1968 (68.155)
This small platform topped by a temple with a peaked roof may have once served as a lid for an incense burner. Temple model, 200 B.C.-A.D. 300. Colima, Mexico. Ceramics; H. 7 1/8 in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, From the Nina and Gordon Bunshaft Collection, Bequest of Nina Bunshaft, 1994 (1995.63.5)
Some Ancient Eastern and pre-Columbian models served primarily as ritual vessels, one of the essential features of funerary practice.
Unfortunately this exhibition ended last September, however, this catalog was edited and I recommend you to buy it here:
“Design for Eternity: Architectural Models from the Ancient Americas.”
The earliest documented use of a scale model of architecture is found in the writing of Herodotus which refers to a model of the Temple of Delphi. However, the idea that early builders used scale models is dismissed by most modern archaeologists and historians.
This is because ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians and Greeks built their temples and burial chambers according to their sacred principles. Consequently, ancient monuments were built in relation to their location and their size and geometry determined by cosmic relationships and measurements.
In addition, the lack of accurate measurement within the technology of these periods would result in large inaccuracies if scale models had been used.
If you are interested in learning more about the history of models, I recommend reading this book by Nick Dumm entitled :
“The Ecology of the Architectural Model.”
As a curiosity, if you are passionate about classic scale models as a collector, you should not miss 1stdibs.
You will find wonderful replicas, but be prepared with your pocket.
But let’s return to the use of architectural models today.
Who are the users of these options?
The architectural model has always been part of the architectural process.
It occupies that temporary space between the project and reality.
Depending on the point in the process at which it is used, its user and purpose vary.
The architect and the real estate developer take advantage of their possibilities in very different ways.
The builder can also benefit from them.
Architects
Before we entered the era of computers with graphic capabilities, the working model was a fundamental part of the architect‘s work. In this case, it was a tool for verification and not so much for representation,
It had (and has) the following characteristics :
- The recipient of its construction was the architect himself, who used it to verify and advance in the design process.
- It must be do it yourself. The architect himself or someone very close to his team was the executor. It was like the sketches, one more graphic extension of the creator.
- To be modifiable. It was a priority that it could be easily modified even if it was not perfectly executed.
- One material was enough. In general, although they were also created for other purposes, the fundamental one was the spatial geometric verification of the solution. The material it was made of was the least important thing: cardboard, paper or balsa wood.
- The detail did not matter. What mattered was the volume, the gaps, the proportion,…
- The scale of the architectural model itself had a fundamental task among others: it had to be manageable and fit in less than one square meter.
- He rarely left the architect’s studio.
- There could be different versions of the model as the design process progressed.
Promoters
In fact, more than the developers, the customers of the developers.
Also, speaking of this pre-computer graphics era, the architectural model had this target that gave it meaning. Although the first example that comes to mind is that of the real estate developer, let’s also think of the politician as a developer who “sells” his project to his voters.
In this case, the architectural model has other characteristics:
- The order for its construction was placed with a specialized company.
- The target audience of the model was the end client. Given their foreseeable difficulty in understanding the technical documentation (floor and section plans), the model was made to facilitate the understanding of the project.
- Since it is a representation of a developed project, it should not be modifiable, but it should be “as faithful as possible to reality”.
- There are examples of all kinds but, nevertheless, what abounded most was the multi-material model. The most recurrent image was that of the model train.
- The scale was linked to the available space in which it was to be exhibited. The larger the better, as the details could be better appreciated.
- It was displayed in the developer’s offices and at real estate fairs.
- There was only one mock-up version, the one representing the final project.
It is possible to reach the conclusion that the classical architectural model is dead (I do not think so) but let us understand the arguments of this reasoning. Only in this way will we be able to establish whether what we are affirming has foundation or is based solely on a vision influenced by technological novelties.
Advantages and disadvantages of traditional architectural models
I have always thought that, talking about architectural visualization, the different techniques should coexist and become complementary.
If we understand the advantages and not only see the disadvantages of each one of them, we will evolve properly. If, on the other hand, we allow ourselves to be impressed by every novelty that arises and we throw away, without any reflection, the mechanisms used for centuries, I think we will be on the wrong track.
I like to eat a variety of food and I appreciate the goodness of gastronomy.
I respect the philosophy of vegetarians but, deep down, I can’t help thinking one thing: “poor, it’s their loss” What do you think?
I will try to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the traditional model.
Advantages
- Even if we think that the relationship with this object is fundamentally visual, we must not forget that it exists, that it is there. That gives it a value that, from my point of view, is difficult to overcome. Human beings understand better what they see and touch.
- If we are talking about end customers who do not understand the technical documentation, they feel comfortable. They are faced with an object that they can interpret without difficulty. They know what the buildings already constructed look like, they are used to seeing them when they walk around the city and they recognize in the model a representation of them.
- This comfort creates a positive predisposition:
I understand > I don’t find it hard to > I may like it.
- It is the stage prior to construction. It anticipates a reality and makes it closer. Perhaps in my case it is due to professional deformation, but the initial reason for my interest in buying the house where I live was the moment I saw the architectural model.
Inconveniences
- The cost of its production is very high considering its versatility. We pay for an object that, apart from taking pictures of it, offers little else. They are not interactive at all.
- Like cars, from the first day they get dusty and deteriorate.
- They take up a lot of space and, consequently, are not easily manageable.
- They have the detail they have, corresponding to their scale, period.
- The materials do not strictly correspond to the real ones.
Thus, it does not seem to me to be completely unreasonable to forget the traditional architectural model.
It has advantages that I don’t want to give up. Another thing is that we use the advantages of today’s technology to improve its manufacturing process.
In the next post, I will write about the models of the 21st century.