You are on page 1of 12

These new movements are not distinct stylistic trends, but modes of approaching concept

design. They often combine with each other, or with stylistic movements, to create complete
designs. Outlined within this essay are five movements, each with varying degrees of success
creating purposeful buildings: Diagramism, Neo-Brutalism, Revitism, Scriptism, and
Subdivisionism.
It is understood that there are many other concurrent architectural movements not mentioned
here, most of those attributable as stylistic in nature. Such movements contain either a
decorative, minimalist, or sculptural approach to design, where design is applied manually
through aesthetic decisions. Such styles do not have as their identifying focus to create an
architecture that is more responsive or adaptive to the users, site, context, environment, etc.
PART ONE: GEOMETRIC SHAPE
Diagramism
In the last decade, architects have acquired the ability to create virtually any form via
software advancements, yet they still yearn to create meaning with their designs. These two
forces have combined to create Diagramism. Architects seeking purposeful designs through
this movement take: (1) big ideas derived from the particular strengths, constraints, and
attributes of a particular project, such as vehicular circulation or view corridors; (2) create
diagrams to show how a potential design can take advantage of this condition; and then (3)
literally use the diagram to form a 3-dimensional shape. BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) is the
leading firm in this movement, as well as MVRDV and Qingyun Mas MADA s.p.a.m.
The ideas are so strong that projects can be iconized. Diagrams are usually black and white or
of one color, representing the guiding principles for the form of the resulting building. BIGs
homepage plays homage to this idea of simplified purposeful form, as each projects strongest
idea manifests as a project icon.
Save this picture!

BIG's homepage. Image via


www.big.dk
There is a considered process of editing, or paring, which results in the pure ideas. The ideas
that are focused are not usually abstract or poetic in nature, they are pragmatic. A ski slope on
top of a waste-to-energy plant is exactly that. A courtyard apartment building that maximizes
outdoor terraces is literally angled towards the view, almost pyramidal. The facility of the

design idea is so evident in the resulting form, that the building as a whole expresses meaning
and purpose. Ideas can filter down (or up) to multiple scales, further giving meaning to the
components of a structure. It can simplify design decision making by having consistent rules
and purpose within the design.
Behind the scenes, these Architects are conducting many simultaneous or sequential
diagrams, relating to ideas of context, environment, economics, zoning, etc. Circulation
diagrams are often used to establish building forms. It is up to the designer to create the
hierarchy of the contributing forces to result in the purposeful building design. The resulting
form itself becomes operative to the architects goals.
The notion to express a buildings purpose is not necessarily new. But, as mentioned, our
ability to easily represent these ideas figuratively is recent. It is possible Frank Lloyd
Wrights Guggenheim Museum in New York is an early example of Diagramism: the
buildings spiraling form is expressing the function of the continuous ramp, which rests on a
orthogonal podium base helping to define the resulting form within its context. As for
previous design movements, Diagramism often differs considerably from Functionalism,
where the static idea of program defines a form rather than Diagramisms focus on
experiential and dynamic forces that a buildings form may solve.
Neo-Brutalism
An ideological cousin of Diagramism, Neo-Brutalism also has strong diagrammatic
geometries represented in form. The champions of this movement were educated and matured
when Brutalism was king in academia during the 70s, such as Norman Foster, Santiago
Calatrava, and Renzo Piano. Defining Brutalism is not within the scope of this essay, but a
summary is as follows. Architects and Planners felt omnipotent to solve peoples behavior.
Instead of examining existing modes of behavior and movement, and allowing a design to
result after such human analysis, Architects attempted to forecast culture. Modularity was
employed with pure geometric forms, and buildings were conceived as behavioral devices.
Save this picture!

Norman
Foster's Yale School of Management, and below a geometric analysis of the building. Image
Chuck Choi
What Neo-Brutalism does singularly different from original Brutalism, is to employ the use
of glass and steel instead of concrete. By gradually changing the palette of materials, this
technique professes a more open architecture. But, architecture is understood to be about
movement and use of space, not just transparency of material. Prescribed layouts that do not
allow for adaptability or resultant geometries, owe much more to their cousins of 40 years
ago than their savvy use of modern technology and equipment would lead you to believe.
Thus, what distinguishes Diagramism from Neo-Brutalism is whether the idea of purpose
transcends from research into the project, ie whether the design is resultant. If a geometry
is forced upon the project or is too heavy handed, it is considered brutal. Incidentally,

Brutalist forms are generally simpler, more pure shapes, re-emphasizing the notion that the
geometry is imposed upon the users. Besides Norman Fosters recent Yale School of
Management building, pictured, another example might be Apples new campus unforgiving
ring. An open analysis of Apples program might develop an understanding of ingenuity,
difference, and innovative thought. However, the building more purely shows the top down
theory of forcing constraints. A circle is a locked geometry.
Save this picture!

Above,
Santiago Calatrava's Florida Polytechnic compared to Oscar Niemeyer's Brasilia Congress

Building. Image Alan Karchmer for Santiago Calatrava and Flickr CC user Christoph
Diewald
OMA is a firm that employs a fluid use of both Diagramism and Neo-Brutalism, switching
seamlessly between resultant geometries and unresponsive forms. At the moments when
OMAs work tends towards Diagramism, an adaptive result might be the Seattle Library,
where distinct programmatic pieces are stacked in a sequential array. Also more diagrammist
would be the IIT Student Center, where the form literally results from an investigation into
the acoustic control of the elevated trains noise. Of the instances where OMA tends toward
Neo-Brutalism, a recent example might be the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, but much of their
earlier work also contains what could be considered to be oppressive geometric forms.
Save this picture!

Above, diagrams
outlining the layout of OMA's Seattle Central Library, and below the Shenzhen Stock
Exchange. Image Courtesy of OMA and Philippe Ruault
PART TWO: COMPUTATION
The final three movements are typically encapsulated by the term Parametricism. But,
Parametricism is not so much an architectural movement as it is a computational concept. The

computer is now able to link components of our designs so that the geometries created are
technologically intelligent. That does not necessarily mean the resulting form is intelligent.
Many buildings which are drawn via parametric software do not inherently have purpose, and
are really accidents of their fatherly software. However there are many ways in which
architects are adding intelligence into the built world utilizing these tools, and those are listed
here.
Revitism
First, the least benevolent parametric architecture. I dont believe anyone has yet to define the
design movement which characterizes the majority of current commercial construction. It is
the result of the software designing the building, in which most of the design decisions are
made haphazardly in the second half of drawing production. More important than the art of
creating the building, the new process of creating the Revit Model, has become the main
operation. Project managers, or BIM Managers, are now managers of software
implementation rather than creators of the built world. This is an important distinction: never
before has the production of construction documents been about the documents themselves.
The largest Architecture firms, such as Perkins and Will, HOK, and Cannon Design, are
typically guilty of this design technique.
After typically quick stages of concept design, projects are rushed into Revit during Design
Development. Managers spend the majority of their time determining the hierarchical tree of
component groups and families. Drafting has become transfixed on how to code these
elements. A draftsperson may spend so much time on designing the elements and subelements of a component, that they can miss entire relationships to the whole building. A
surface which would be elegant and purposeful in concept design, gets repurposed as a
curtain wall or as cement fiber board. Too often, picking the width or detail of a window
system mullion becomes a multiple choice of existing manufacturer details, not a discussion
of that details impact on overall concepts. Much meaning is lost in this translation, often
bypassing design intent as a ruling principle. What results are buildings where you can clearly
see the components and their intellectual separation from each other.
Examples of Revitism are pervasive in our environment, including most hospital and
education buildings constructed in the last decade. Often contemporary buildings are purely
Revitist, having no purpose other than the materiality of the component. Though program
will certainly reside within the resulting edifice, the general form of the building is ignorant,
and does not respond to natural human occupation, movement, or comfort. This elemental
design movement is so pervasive it has become its own aesthetic style, where the collage of
material application is the contributing design principle - whether or not it is produced
parametrically.
Scriptism
Also known as "computational design," there are vast amounts of research and publication in
this realm. Scriptism incorporates what is typically considered algorithmic modelling,
specifically through software such as Grasshopper or its kin. Variated surfaces, component
design with influencers, etc, are types of Scriptist operations. These various uses are
frequently purposeful, and can create architecture that is responsive to such stimuli as
sunlight, wind, views, program, context, etc.

We must be careful about when to assume whether a Scriptist model is purposeful. Some
good examples of resultant analyses include studying biological forces or using statistics to
generate a geometry. With time and further research, designers can maximize the potential of
these discoveries. While these explorations remain mostly academic, relegated to the smaller
scales of construction such as installations or building facades, the ability to translate this
research into an effective building is promising.
Save this picture!

Above, the
2011 ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion, and below "Kinetic Haze" from the AA's 2014 Athens
Visiting School. Image Alice Mangoyan and ICD / ITKE University of Stuttgart
Another potential for Scriptism is to add multiple levels of details that architects have
otherwise been too timid to employ. Many theorists devise that we both live within and
interpret a fractal world, and an ideal built environment should mimic the patterns of the
natural world. Software has a unique ability to both measure and deploy fractal geometries to
make buildings that are more legible, responsive, relatable, and comfortable. This would be a
return to a historic conception of architectural texture. Scriptism is unique in its ability link
these multiple scales of design in a coherent and harmonious manner, creating an orchestrated
hierarchy.

Subdivisionism
Subdivisionism is a category of design frequently described as either "rounded," curvaceous,
or aerodynamic. Most examples of this type of architecture are well-intentioned, and utilize
an analytical knowledge of circulation, environment, or program, to produce responsive
geometries - frequently combining with Diagramist principles.
Often these geometries reference movement, and create futuristic shapes that are fluid and
elegant. Zaha Hadid is one of the most renowned designers in this realm. A similar approach
to design can be seen in the work of architects like Jurgen Mayer H and firms such as
UNStudio and MAD Architects.
Save this picture!

Above,
MAD Architecture's Absolute Towers and below Zaha Hadid Architects' Galaxy Soho. Image
Iwan Baan
The name Subdivision comes from the modelling technique. A brief summary for those who
have not used Maya or similar software: (1) All 3-dimensional forms are defined by vertices.
For example, a simple cube is defined by 8 points (vertices), in the X, Y, and Z directions. (2)
Each of these surfaces can be further divided, or subdivided. Let's say we added 4 more
vertices to create a new plane in between two surfaces of the existing cube. Now there are
two seamless connected cubes. (3) Each vertex can be manipulated in any of the 3 axes,
creating complex geometries and complex surfaces that are both concave and convex. (4) The

software will calculate the new complex form and visually represent it as either curved or
triangulated. (This is an oversimplified explanation, but thats the gist).
The software itself is borrowed from the fields of animation and industrial design. A variation
of this type of modelling with a similar outcome can be conducted with NURBS in the
program Rhinoceros where control points "affect" the curve of a line, and multiple curved
lines are joined together to define an undulating surface. The construction industry now has
digitized factories that can create full size versions of these triangulated or double-curved
surfaces and components, using 3 or 5 axis mills, along with other techniques. The advent of
3D printing will certainly contribute to the possibilities for Subdivisionism.
The resulting forms are sinuous, and allow shapes to blend into one another. Sometimes the
curvaceous forms are simpler, employing the simpler techniques of either extrusion or
fillet. But, as long as these shapes contain purposeful geometries, the resulting building will
be visibly useful and navigable.
Parametric Posers - Designs Masquerading as Intelligent
Copycat architects see the amazing forms enabled by the movements listed in this essay, but
are not focused on deploying their use through analysis. These are designs that utilize some
of the discussed visual languages with no overarching purpose. As architects, we need to be
aware that all appearances are not equal. Simply because architects can angle a roof or curve
a wall, does not inherently mean we should. It often leads to uncomfortable, discordant
geometries.
CONCLUSION
The most important goals for a project should always be the starting point for a design
investigation. The architectural design movements discussed - hybridized or separate - all
relate to creating a more intelligent built world. A purposeful architecture should integrate a
flexibility of program, an accommodation of the environment, and a contextualization within
the urban fabric. Buildings should be relatable to the average inhabitant, be cohesive with
ideas, and be inherently performative.
Let us not judge a building on its uniqueness, or departure from the past, though these may be
good qualities. Let us evaluate a building on its efficacy of form and material usage in
reference to context and human occupation; a more purposeful architecture.
Michael Wacht is Principal of IntuArch, a Los Angeles architecture firm established to create
effective designs that result from cultivating the most important goals of a project. Prior to
founding his own firm, he was Director of the Los Angeles studio for Shanghai based MADA
s.p.a.m., apprenticing under Qingyun Ma, Dean of the USC School of Architecture. Visit
IntuArch at their website, or follow Michael on twitter @intuarch.

You might also like