Scaling Up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design Author(s): Albena Yaneva Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol.

35, No. 6 (Dec., 2005), pp. 867-894 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25046679 . Accessed: 03/10/2011 08:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

sss
ABSTRACT How do architects imagine, see and define a distant object that ismeant to become a building? How does it become knowable, real? To answer these
questions, different new I follow rates of architects speed. becomes as they fabricate models and scale them up and down a logical, of being linear procedure for generating more from the abstract knowable, ascending progressively is a versatile 'jumps' and returns. rhythm, relying on surges, Instead 'jumping how and at a

that object to the concrete, By focusing on

moves such as 'scaling up', frequently repeated Idepict and describing their cognitive scale', implications, 'scaling down', architects involve themselves in a comprehensive with materials dialogue Their material that dialogue states takes into account properties alternative of being with change proportionally are simultaneously of the building abstract and comprehensive; 'less-known', After the the multiple dispositions, In the scale. and resistance,

scaling the most

the

scaling achieved and maintained: a state down

and stability two venture,

shapes. other a state

concrete and detailed. known', small- and models, large-scale real. These trials bring scaling architecture,

up and

'more of being between transitions visible, material and

building building

becomes emerges, into existence.

Keywords scaling

building,

design

process,

ethnography,

models,

reality,

Scaling

Up

and Down: in Architectural Design

Extraction

Trials

Alhena Yaneva

November

In the middle of an architectural office, on a 2001, Rotterdam, of a building, parts and detailed variations huge table, various scale models are installed: a mini-exhibition space lit by neon light; a solemn spectacle in various material waiting to be discovered by invited visitors. Reproduced are maintained in this particular and shapes, models colours samples, the whole process of architectural design (Figure 1). arrangement during tells the visitors to his 'This is the Whitney project', Rem Koolhaas on the table.1 These models office as they view a colourful assemblage issues and of the building; visualizing scenarios, been tested. No single starting point triggering a possibilities or elements can be found, but this is not a chaotic linear series of models process. What we see assembly of scattered leftovers from the conception on the different parts of the table are diverse concentrations of models, and images. Separated by different intensities of detail, variations spatial illustrate different facets that have
Social ? SSS Studies 2005) 867-894 of Science 35/6(December Oaks and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand com

CA, New

Delhi)

ISSN 0306-3127 DOI: 10.1177/0306312705053053

www. sagepublications.

868 FIGURE1
The Albena Table of Models'; Office for Metropolitan Architecture,

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

Rotterdam.

(Photograph:

Yaneva)

intervals, different particular

project.

they all form vantage points geometric

a network of points and passages presenting on the same building. They all expose (in a a stabilized state of the Whitney configuration)

Architecture After my first visit to the Office for Metropolitan (OMA) team and on this early November in 2001,1 afternoon joined theWhitney as they worked on the project. Gaining followed the architects' discussions access to this field required me to 'live' in the architectural ethnographic office for a while, confronting various visual enigmas. One of these enigmas had to do with the rhythm of scaling. I decided to follow the small material de this enigma ethnographically of scaling in order to make operations in what follows, I will try to help the reader also to 'see' these scribable: what the designers in order to understand do when they operations in a building. the particular conceive rhythm of scaling By following a building as we will have the chance to observe the appearance of design, it emerges from the architects' and real as scales are shifted. Scaling can be considered to constant that it is subjected of acting on scale consequences hands: a building that is made knowable

as an experimental in the sense situation of possible observation and well-equipped it is an apparatus for conducting, models; the results of manipulating selected features of recording and interpreting architects scale up and down such experiments, models. When conducting in order to see what might follow; they do so either as an exploratory move test aiming for an in trial-and-error fashion, or as a systematic by probing or disconfirmed. tests aim at to be confirmed These intended outcome to the building's and realities connected particular probing parameters

Yanev

. Scaling

Up

and Down

869

In such experiments with scaling, the tenuous and minute moves mission.2 with various tools and models, the intelligibility of materials and the are all made actions of the architects observable. As I shall show, the for partial seeing: scoping, rescaling, rhythm of scaling relies on procedures and reducing the material features of scale models. Architects extending to resolve problems by using tricks of the trade such as stepping up attempt the scale, disguising and revealing various aspects, and inspecting and those aspects. Scaling requires special equipment, instruments overseeing as well as meticulous and embodied routines for manipulating models, foam and paper for seeing and defining details. Through such a building can be conceived in thought and brought into exist practices, ence. It is generated of projection through numerous techniques (Blau & are scaled and re-scaled, not and translation.3 The models Kaufman, 1989) eye (Akin &Weinel, 1982), but accord according to the architect's mind's to numerous material and relations among archi formations, ing practices cameras and images in a complex visual field. tects, consultants, models, the past 20 years, science and technology studies (STS) have followed and physicians in and out of their scientists, engineers but architects have not been followed as their practices move workplaces; from the model for the client, and even shop to the panel presentation to the construction recent STS research on design site.4 Some tually Over closely and emphasized its social and complex practices has analysed visualization on engineering such research focuses mainly dynamics. However, design 1992; Bucciarelli, 1999; Vinck, 2003). A few 1994; Henderson, (Ferguson, in architectural studies have dealt with design their firms, but explored activities from a more In this paper, traditional sociological perspective.5 the architectural office will be studied in the same way that STS has the laboratory (Latour &Woolgar, 1985; Knorr 1979; Lynch, approached as they run up and Cetina, 1999). By following particular scaling moves of successive operations, and to down, I aim to expose the materialization a story trace the developing of the building. I will compose appearance in numerous about gradations (nuances of size and degrees of presence) architectural objects; gradations through which architectural practices play out on a battlefield full of unknown internal streams, orders and disorders, flows and synchronization moves, among architects, visual puz polemics states of affairs through visual to resolve disputed zles, and attempts instruments and convincing images. sources about scaling are conversations among architects engaged My of for a new exhibition hall at the Whitney Museum in building models of the museum Art in New York the time, the design American (at to Rem Koolhaas), interviews with architects extension was commissioned in model fabrications. The and a rather dilettante personal participation office. Instead, does not invite us to imagine an architectural present paper discussions and actions, and reconstructing participants' concrete manipulations and scaling instru with materials by depicting it attempts to bring us into the office and to follow the work of the ments, team as it conceives and designs a new exhibition hall. Whitney by meticulously work with

870 A possible mathematical

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

scaling in action would be a approach to use for following that steps in a scaling algorithm analysis of all technical translates paper into foam. Instead of taking this approach, I will describe some frequently such as 'scale up', 'jump', 'scale down'. repeated moves, a rhythmic conduit compose repetition and redundancy which the building develops. That is how scaling is treated in this through as a proportional study. A static notion of scale understood relationship successive

Their

the world of models and the external real world (Boudon, 1971, or a metric et al., 1981; 1966; Dupire 1992), (Licklider, relationship to grasp architectural is insufficient Boudon, 1999), scaling, nor is a as a way to of view relevant, if it is conceived phenomenological point of harmony, understand scale as a fleeting subjective feeling proportion and composition (Orr, 1985). The reason for defining the scaling venture as a rhythm is the fact that it designates an ordered variation in a series of moves performed with different intensities and speeds. It is not a schematic repetition, as compared with a process or flow, but develops as amovement that can repeat itself in a regular beat: in, up and down; strong and weak; comes out of long and short sequences. A rhythmic sensation of motion
these successive moves.6

between

we can assume science studies and cognitive anthropology, Following of the internal organization that much and operation of architectural in the activities of scaling as they relate cognition can be directly observed to the social and material environment of the architectural office.7 Swept in free flowing in a rhythm, progressing and down move up irregular up ments, models need way involves interactions among architects, scale cognition instruments. At the start of this process, architects scoping to conceive of the distant and unfamiliar in a object (the building) to define it with precision and to enable its that enables them and architectural

of realization; (small scale models) they begin with fuzzy approximations to few known parameters, and then they this object fabricated according are supposed to obtain new information - even though they do not know - in the course and cannot yet understand exactly what they need to know of their practices. The tiny material operations of'scaling up', 'jumping the scale', 'rescaling' and 'going down in scale' enable architects to think of the about it. Knowing through scaling is building and to gain new knowledge an integral aspect of architectural of the particular practice.8 Regardless states of a two different presentational data obtained through scaling, so that it always exists as a little building are maintained simultaneously, abstract and fuzzy object, and at the same time a well-known, known, concrete and precise object, instead of progressing in a linear fashion from a state of zero information to a completely known and defined object.9 The on the table (Figure 1) corre of models arrangement particular material intermediary presentational sponds to a stabilized, frozen picture of many states. Paradoxically, in what results is that architects do not convert into determinate and information and incoherent determinate, complex a distant building requires knowing itmore coherent objects.10 Designing it less at the same time; taking account of it with small and and knowing

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

871

and precision. The final building large scale models, with both abstraction is never present in any single state or model, but in what all of them That is why the building is a multiple together project. object: a composi tion of many elements; a 'multiverse' instead of a 'universe'.11 Some studies on engineering design treat the designed object to be the result of a social process and contradictory involving lengthy negotiations on debates and argue that its final shape depends among participants, various modes of consensus what comes (Bucciarelli, 1994). Accordingly, in the process is a subjective agreement among participants about the of the artefact designed, and its realization is triggered only after a meaning is gained. Like Henderson shared vision and Law I (1999) (2002), as objects over which negotiations consider models and conflicts take place as being concrete and treat architects in a dialogue with implicated first materials, 'reflexive and shapes. That is, a spatial figures, proportions, dispositions of the situation' conversation with the materials 1985), (Sch?n, In this conversation rather than a question of inter-subjective agreement. that have unintended effects, with unex designers make numerous moves

In their design meetings, architects dis and potentials. pected problems cuss concerns the models; about scoping and rescaling they 'lend' their to many visual instruments, which enables them to see and experi bodies space, 'guided' by the inner logic of the foam construc are also 'con choices. They tions, and 'influenced' by many previous site strained'12 by numerous (client demand, requirements city politics, and 'led' to solutions. Materials, scoping specificity, users' expectations) 'talk back' to the architects, and they are instruments and new knowledge to listen, thus triggering of interim results. reinterpretations prepared in architects' These idioms ('talk back', and so forth) are commonplace commu architects' stories about different projects at OMA.13 Following allows us to gain access to forms of nication with such objective materials the internal cognition they deploy in the course of design work. Here, more than in any other context, architects need to make clear to one another what it is they when they engage in design work. do what emerges from their hands ence

How Does
Our attempt scale models

Scaling Begin?
to follow represent the the work of scaling is significant, not because ideas or retrace a of architectural the evolution for It is important up a design. steps making

of material chronology another reason: architects are implicated in the making of composite things - the models. Anyone who has visited an architectural office would see that are important tools in architectural design.14 models have a life of their own in the architectural Models office,15 together such as of the building schematic presentations of more with a number sketches and technical drawings. All these visual representations diagrams, a specimen are not meant to transform into observable, standardized, science studies and reliable data, as numerous mathematically analysable have shown for science (Latour & Woolgar, 1985; Galison, 1979; Lynch,

872

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

devices that cannot be treated as inscription is, models 1995). That is to gather a num visualize invisible substances.16 Instead, their purpose human and non-human ber of things actors, and their concerns, require them into objects that can be ments and to 'accommodate' and disputes invent architects to design By making models subjected experiments. and mutable.17 of being composite have the properties a scrip-tion-like term18 to models, of attributing they will be in as peculiar compositions of things that are manipulated considered here lead to the transformations and whose the scaling process, cumulatively as physical approximations of the building, along with building. Generated of various types of numerical data, they aim to affording the calculation objects, Instead which realize the building Physical models through a joint venture. as a major are used in OMA facilitate tool for visualization serve as 'social

They presentations. the and organize experts, glue'19 among architects, and of outside consultants in the office and in networks design process as compared with many other architectural firms in experts.20 Moreover, are built only at the final stage of a project, OMA fabricates which models at every step of the design process, models along with two-dimensional are important tools for shared cognition: These models representations. project by cutting foam and paper by modelling, It is not a free intuitive creation of a techniques. of the 'out of the blue'. The first small models building shape generated to few 'con are produced important according building Whitney are mainly negative - 'not to exceed the zoning constraints straints'. These 'not to damage the adjacent the brownstones', 'not to demolish envelope', - in the limits on the process of experimentation way they place buildings' architects think of the building scoping and using various that we At can witness in the office of Rem Koolhaas. of the modelling the very beginning process architects tend to enlist have to be 'accommodated' the variety of things that by the Whitney district fragmenta site location, programme, models: volume, city fabric, his artists' expectations, zoning envelope, tion, circulation, mechanicals, con art display and community torical landmarks, museum philosophy, cerns. These architects The constraints take into account themselves. include that the client from requirements as 'givens', but also parameters established by

communication, clients and publics,

the architects these

in response to all of is generated shape of the first Whitney models constraints. For example, a small concept model with barely visible the tiny slot allocated for figures takes into account the adjacent buildings, the eclectic features of New York city fabric, the dense network of the site, the variety of building heights, the local districts, the zoning fragmentation, In the the neighbours' marks of history, the city politics and relationships. are fitted together so that the building parameters model, heterogeneous structure. elevation and mechanical appears with a distinctive footprint, welds together of all these elements, no matter how diverse, into Modelling or anticipations of the are not projections a new gathering. Models

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

873

2 FIGURE
Kunl? graph: and Sho are discussing the shape of some small scale 'study models'. (Photo Albena Yaneva)

building;
constraints.21 Once

rather,

they are new

compositions
the site

shaped

according
are

to multiple
temporarily

accommodated

in a model,

parameters

In what follows, we depict a peculiar versatile up-and-down forgotten. detached from the parameters. As the archi scaling flight as momentarily tects lead the client toward a better visualization of the emerging building, the reader will be guided through the puzzling visual procedures, with the hope of finally 'seeing' a building. and Down

Scaling Scoping

Up

in the Small Model

one can notice in on the table of models, the smallest proto Zooming office will allow us building placed there. A walk through the architectural to discover many Let us follow one of them similar small-scale models. from the table of models, tables, into the architects' through the working hands (Figure 2). Since little is known about the new building, the small study model has no 'real details'. The 'little' knowledge includes the parameters according to which the model has been fabricated. Made to these by hand according few restrictions, is easy to shape quickly; it is a less precise, the small model

874

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

sketchy version of the building. Why do architects spend hours and hours looking at this small piece of foam, turning it in their hands, meticulously its corners and openings, positioning it in relation to different examining objects at hand, passing it to each other, and inspecting it during disagree are they able to see with ments and disputes? What its barely visible features? What is this piece of foam telling them? How are they able to see it? What is it that guides them to the building? To answer such questions, I suggest that we follow the team as they a large-scale model fabricate of an exhibition hall in the extension of Whitney building, Architects of American Art; starting from that small model of the it to numerous visual puzzles. it, and subjecting modifying use two parallel working tables. Various small models and details are scattered on the first one, while a huge model under specific construction is installed on the adjacent table. 'Crowds' of architects, are gathered and instruments foam pieces paper cuts-outs, drawings, around these scale models. use a particular to look called a modelscope,22 Architects instrument, in order to see things that cannot be observed inside the small model Museum directly from outside. To understand scaling and its cognitive implications, it is important to consider how this instrument works, and what forms of is inserted this miniature thinking are associated with it.When periscope into the small model, it can function as design tool by providing visual to selective and realistic eye-level so, it can images. By doing new information about the building and can enable architects to generate it with more detail, clarity and precision. conceptualize In this instance, the design task is to determine the position of a huge in the interior space of the model. Kunl? escalator changes the place of of the the escalator in the large-scale model, then asks the other members answers. He takes the modelscope and 'Do you like it?' Nobody team, to the it!' Kunl? moves the others keep encouraging him, 'scope it, scope adjacent table, and then switches on the light source and adjusts the level as required for a comfortable of illumination, viewing position. Then, he access to inspect the small-scale model, and inserts the modelscope carefully to infinity 5 mm checks the function of the focusing control (from according to a field of view of 60? for the small model 040) and adjusts the orbital scan to achieve the required view. Kunl? now looks inside the small and a deep silence follows (Figure 3). model, the eyes of the As Kunl?'s eye inspects the interior space of the model, of the scattered others are looking in the direction things around the model, without fixing their glances. They are waiting for their turn. While reactions, they encourage him, 'ouyaou, ouyaou', as if anticipating Kunl?'s were able to see inside the model along with him; as if they collectively they shared the result of his inspection. Kunl? adjusts the light guide connector, situated inside the instrument's handle, in order to regulate the light. Then he sets the orbital scan again and starts rotating the viewing direction with regard to the handle, through a total arc of 360?. An orientation mark in of view. He sees something. He says: the image indicates the direction

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

875

FIGURE 3
Kunl? is using a modelscope to inspect a small model. (Photograph: Albena Yaneva)

'Here
stairs?

is the northern
... I see

part

of the hall. Ouyaou,

the two pieces of Hopper

I see

it, where
Mmm,

are you,
here

a staircase,

around?

it is then impressions
express

communicates Kunl? his (a space for the elevator).' While the others also begin to of what he sees with small gestures,
As time goes on, their silent impatience is reinstated.

reactions.

While talk with

scoping

the architects tiny particles

venture. Rather

team gather around Kunl?, from theWhitney they in the in the situation, and with the data obtained
than coming to agreement, often discussed in

the artefact fabrication, the scaling team of design as preceding a dialogue with a dynamic in of objective materials: engages assemblage objects they see inside the model, spatial transitions, material dispositions, and shapes. Scaling of the foam, proportions together means properties into conversation with their barely visible the models, entering scoping figures, and discussing with the team what is seen. It turns out to be as as the drawings to design and scale models themselves important studies (Bucciarelli,
mysterious. The

1994). The
scoping

experience
architect

of scoping
remains with

the small models

a sense of confusion

is very
since

he has to see something

to see. Only after numerous eyes the modelscope's

on his own, being unclear

adjustments able to of see the at connected, that

just what
particular

he is supposed
are Kunl?'s moment and the

instrument

exhibition hall. The shady interior of the small-scale model of the museum others can 'see' only partially by sharing collectively Kunl?'s experience.23 in a state of impatience, just as Kunl? was a few They find themselves

876 moments anxious what

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

earlier, architects

before waiting

taking the instrument. As I join the group of to see the model inside, Kunl? explains to me

happens:
The So, you to move that is like the scale of that model. just gives you a view at that scale. It gives you the opportunity the space get to express around can't get into and to see how spaces you ordinarily they ... We see at very are look. It's a very useful tool small and we scales, are able to see how to have sets. We is space getting tiny looks and private modelscope

inside. (K1102) I know why Kunl? Now how exactly is so slow in using the modelscope, to see partially, and why they are so impatient to see the others manage not only is scoping the spaces, he is moving what he has seen. Kunl? around them, crossing hall after having the threshold of the exhibition walked on the stairs, looking to find a suitable place for the escalator. The as technique allows him to bridge the scale barrier, to reduce modelscope his own human size and to think of the building by transporting his eye to the scale of the tiny model, he is into amodel space. Minimized directly these microscopic spaces like in Gulliver's travels,24 he 'enters' exploring the spaces and experiences them. That is how he is able to gain new about the interior space of the building; knowledge knowledge expressed not in facts, codes and numbers, but in terms of dispositions, arrange ments and spatial transitions. Only after a scoping venture are Kunl? and the members escalator, After of the Whitney team that'. able to 'know where' to put the of'knowing 'walked' through the inside of the small model, Kunl? aside. Thus, his 'travel' is finished; he is again in the puts the modelscope architectural office, next to the small noisy group of impatient colleagues eager to have the same experience. He explains to them that the position of to my surprise, instead of taking the red escalator has to be changed. Then, to the huge architects moves the modelscope, the group of impatient having interior of the exhibition hall, model and start examining the large-scale earlier inside the small the 'same' interior that Kunl? had seen moments on the model. material scale model. Numerous changes are performed to allow Kunl? and constrained25 movement How does a semi-'blind' 'see' inside the tiny model and to make it visible for the others? How is that that the position of the red he knows after inspection with the modelscope are the traces of this inspection kept escalator has to be changed? Where shared by is his knowledge articulated and cognitively and inscribed? How the team? Why do architects move from one table to another one, im is completed? after the endoscope inspection of the small model mediately instead Why do they constantly go back to the tiny eye of the modelscope is it that they take with them of relying only upon their naked eyes? What to the of the tiny model while moving from the monocular inspection travels across the of the huge scale model? What binocular examination tables in the office? What passes among scaling actors? These questions of the scaling venture. the cognitive dimensions guide me in understanding This parallel work in different scales needs to be explained. instead

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

877

there is no visible trace from the act of scoping in the small of the one user of architects rely only upon the visual experience model, the instrument. His experience is not absolutely lonely, but actively shared the team. A scoping ou?6 movement follows: the knowledge about the by in spatial dispositions, escalator gained by Kunl?, is immediately expressed and discussed by the team. That transposed onto the huge physical model is how the use of the modelscope alternations. triggers numerous material Since is placed in the middle The escalator northern part of the building) in a way of the exhibition hall (not in the to enter that enables museum-goers the gallery immediately; is now thus the space usually used for circulation move to for art display. The decision the escalator is triggered designated to have 'more space for the permanent also by the museum requirement as well as by the users' expectation of a larger building, the collection', architect's ambition to maintain historical similar continuity by providing and by principle of circulation with the one of the old Whitney building, art in support spaces. to accommodate the museum decision the new Gathered around the huge scale model, architects discuss escalator position and repeatedly rearrange its interior. Every new disposi tion the modelscope. A member of the team takes

guide, adjusts the working length and the spaces. and looks inside, inspecting the next table and suggests a new physical in the large-scale model of the exhibition hall. After each new adjustment on the large scale, architects go back to see it in the small arrangement scale model; they trust the monocular image of the internal space obtained with the tiny eye of the modelscope. Then, they return to the large-scale to make it binocular model and to perform some adjustments. in and scoping out the tiny model, the exhibition hall of the Scoping to see its 'inside is made bigger and bigger, allowing architects Whitney
qualities'. The start bigger really it gets, looking around the more details and more interior see, and you you a floor, or the way you detail a surface meets at the way more as it gets and it gets much refined the window,

is checked out again with it, sets the integral light direction and the field of view, a team member moves to Then,

something

bigger. (Cl 102) With architects acquire more visibility to every move of the modelscope, the particular details of the exhibition hall, and get more data about it. Although they can see the escalator inside the small model by scoping in with the modelscope, they need to see it again in amore open space; that is fabricate itwith paper, and install it in the huge model why they scope out> of the exhibition hall. By doing so, they transform the ephemeral experi ence of seeing with the modelscope of the into physical arrangements a lonely visual experience into a foam model, thus translating larger accessible material space. That iswhy every instance of model collectively is followed by a series of operations with paper, scissors, scope inspection stair the escalators and the transparent foam, cutters and paints.27 Thus,
case are made out of paper and installed. Moreover, even miniature

878 4 FIGURE
The Albena interior Yaneva) of the exhibition hall as seen in the

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

large-scale

model.

(Photograph:

are placed on the walls of the model collection paintings from the museum - future exhibition visitors - are and white plastic figures in red; painted that is, they are rendered more visible and real. These enable operations
architects to accurately arrange the interior architecture, by numerous

to shape and produce hand movements, its space (Figure 4). The scale shift makes the model accessible for the larger and more to simulate an interior eye viewer's body; that is, it becomes large enough level view. It provides more visibility to concrete interior details. Architects' corporal operations require less effort to see into the building; compared
with the scoping operation, their postures are less stooped, tense and

uncomfortable

when the appropriate assuming viewing position. This an object of with foam and paper becomes manufactured space physical actors at the same time collective which is visible for many experience,

(Figure 5). can the material of the big model re-arrangements Only by following we become aware of what each architect has seen while inspecting the tiny a single architect sees is shared model with the scoping instrument. What with the others and changes the cognitive properties of the team.28 The way he imagines the building, now, is made visible for the other architects by
the tentative movements of his hands that repeatedly change the escalator's

placement. work with,

Only when we the huge model

follow architects' hands as they point to, and to transform its composition taking the same

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

879

FIGURE 5
The Whitney team Albena working Yaneva) on the spatial arrangement of a large-scale model. (Photograph:

paper

figures,

manipulating

the

space

are we

able

to

see

how

architects

think together. two different in and scoping out describe However, scoping settings where other real agencies than humans (with their intentions and isolated individual minds) take part and shape complex metaphysical imbroglios:
stairs, escalators, foam materials, foam cutters and recalcitrant models. In

880 the two of partial visualizing is a complex social

Social

Studies

of Science

35f 6

into the model and through the distributed among phenomenon, scope, team, visual puzzles, and materially shape-able model. The passage from the setting 1 in which a single architect scopes, lend their bodies to puzzling many others react and subsequently scoping to the setting 2 in which many architects stand together at the procedures, settings models, cognition individuals, model side of the model, transform its inspect it with naked eyes and collectively material body, is not a transition from individually to a socially structured to disembodied of cognition experience, from a self-contained technology a collectively and publicly shared one. These differ only by the settings distinctive way of distributing the action of scaling. The task of positioning the escalator is organized in such a way that architects use their visual language more often than their verbal expres resource the main for communicatively the sions; therefore mediating a is also predominantly visual. No single architect occupying performance central architects in the process the Instead, position supplies verbal directives. in a centre-less communicate network that in heterogeneous at hand. When cludes the materials viewed as the externalization of an individual cognitive process, the gestures of the impatient architects be come entangled with those of the person inspecting the model, and provide an additional network for mutual actions among members of the scaling team. That is what makes the inspection of the model always a collectively shared experience. the scoping in and out procedures that architects deploy By following on a daily basis to see a building, we can find two main actors simultane in the architectural work: the small-scale model and the ously present
large-scale model.

We did small models with different cuts to see how it looks. But since the small model is too tiny to think about the possibilities of the internal space, we have to build the big one. People think that it's a lot of effort to
build to resolve the huge models but the circulation I am problem glad it works in the ... And small model. able also, we weren't a small I did a box,

jewel box, and Rem liked it, but it wasn't sufficient circulation problem. So, we shifted the scale. (SI 102) If the small model ofWhitney

to resolve

the

figures and approximate and enriched with more shapes

and abstract, deploying is undefined rough ismeticulous the large-scale model relationships, the former can data and concrete details. While

the latter visualizes 'evoke things and make broader assumptions', sizes, and precise positions. The details come out only after numerous and the standardized paper and repeated procedures with the small model Since small models lack sufficient visibility of concrete foam materials. and stairs), architects details thresholds escalators, (such as transitions, interior. Such scale-up to define and clarify more aspects of the building leads is how working with the small model repetition with scale variations to detailed relations incorporated into the large one. Scale variations do not change in a random way, nor do they follow strict metric rules. The

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

881

'up' as architects develop a larger gathering of things. Conse the large scale model ismore powerful, not because of an inherent it has the ability to capture more para superiority of size, but because meters to sum up more and concerns, to and limitations, requirements scale moves quently, reflect more details, corners and finishing, to enrol more viewers, to enable more bodies to gather around it, to mobilize the public awareness better, to more violent disputes or to trigger more unpredictable actions. provoke That iswhy the small and the large scale do not differ only in size, in some neutral or absolute sense, but in their distinct capacity to capture heteroge
neous actors in a model.

the very beginning architects do not understand what designing this particular escalator position means. That iswhy the artistry of thinking as though burdened of space seems elusive and mysterious, architecturally with epistemological Without the spatial features knowing paradoxes.29 are looking for in the new (or, rather, not-yet-existent) exhibition hall, they From exactly they need to know in order to be able to conceive of those features, architects take a plunge into the scaling circuit and rely only on a few stable parameters. Thus, the fundamental features of the building are in the process of doing - by scoping in and scoping out, grasped only architects gain knowledge about the building. The modelscope provides state them with a direct30 access to an unknown (and sometimes disputed) of affairs at small scale, supplying resolutions of the particular design issues that are then brought of foam 'up' to a larger-scale. Two arrangements are kept on two adjacent tables in the office. They account for two models states of the building. One table contains tiny fuzzy and abstract a state at which which present little is known of the building. models, actors are being mobilized in the model, Fewer and the modelscope allows to gain more architects about it. A second table, situated information of the same build nearby, contains larger and more precise scale models distinct ing: paper and foam figures, cutting instruments, glue and drawings. This a distinct presentational state of the building - a state at table provides which more is known about it and more actors have been gathered by it. two tables are part of a rich network of mutual These representational Each borders the other and is part of a continuum through dependencies. states of 'knowing less' and which the scaling venture takes place. The are simultaneously within the maintained 'knowing more' of the building team. cognitive unit of theWhitney at the beginning of this paper is not just The table of models described a peripheral detail of the office interior, randomly chosen for the purposes of an introduction. Tables form an important environment that organizes Architecture. the team's cognitive activities in the Office for Metropolitan to imagine the building without all the for architects It is impossible models and try-outs on the tables. All changes are made with the materials out of the multitude of emerges kept on the tables, as the building states. Just as they make theWhitney team's cognitive moves presentational visible, possible the models scenarios, also render the building failures and decisions. accountable: exposing options, As architects move from one or what

882

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

to the large one, from the table to another, they pass from the small model of the exhibition hall, from the tiny detail to a larger spatial arrangement of the escalator to the overall circulation principle, mechanical disposition and the philosophy of artistic display. That is, they move from engineering a small, stabilized composition of things towards a composition of a larger scope, with greater cognitive and representational power.

Speeds of Scaling Up Architects of passing things.

We to started shift to from the If we the small ones, If we and start I jumped It's dangerous up the scale. from the big one, we will lose our it's dangerous because we will

use

the expression the move 'jumping up the scale' to describe a much a larger gathering to of suddenly larger scale and

concept.

scale. big start from

the huge

model,

be lost in details. The

(SI 102)

- an almost impulsive and radical shift in scale, not a 'jump' is rapid slow and gradual one, and so it can become risky. The 'jump' can be to Shiro, because as architects go into amore refined dangerous, according

version of the building, they risk 'losing' the coherence of the small model the main features of the building (the so-called 'jump' 'concept'31). The can mean that suddenly knowing more about the building can make it also a 'knowing-less' to maintain state. Its logic can be dispersed in impossible numerous that when the particular practical details; 'disperse' meaning on the large-scale model, are more visible and articulated elements the main idea those less well-defined, but key, features of the building that make it function - can become lost. What has to be retained when passing of the whole the small to the large scale, is the consistency a state of the building when only 'few things are assemblage, representing to return to a smaller known'. In addition, what is retained is the possibility suddenly from scope of gathering. 'Jumping' the gradual
Of we big the

scale

can be

a risky move,

because

it interrupts

the

process
course did

of slow-scale
there

doubling.

are some In the Whitney times when you project 'jump'. a thing. and then, we go to a really big, So, we do something some details for For example, scale to show that are really important. it was the windows' scheme 'A' of the Whitney and we project, shape, such

wanted

big model (he shows

to show how and we did a really it looks with the colour graphs, a person, are really big models. Like like that... 1:25. These a human the And size model with his hand). you can see how to it's important back. of the glass Sometimes detail is, and then we went we are going do these But usually up slowly. (El 102) jumps.

The

It allows one to gain the visualization process. 'jump' accelerates to inspect better visibility of internal displays and spatial arrangements, and dispositions them with precision and foresight. In the 'jump', materials can 'talk back' to architects. When they step back, they reinterpret what

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

883

to be solved. By doing so, architects the problem down to refine the small model instead of simply progressing constantly go towards a bigger and bigger version of the building, slowly increasing and attaining more and more knowledge about it. precision, This of the movement 'jump' is reminiscent of'partial seeing' with the inside the shady space of the small foam model. The modelscope 'jump' sudden visibility of the higher scale, just as the modelscope permits provided Kunl? with the possibility of directly seeing the interior space at a level. Both of these moves microscopic supply zooming views of particular they if the modelscope allows virtual travelling through spatial arrangements: the spaces, then the 'jump' to the higher scale allows an architect to peer a 'doll house'. into a human-sized If the modelscope model, goes down into the tiny unreachable its experience visually possible, space, and makes to the sudden scale 'jump' goes up, to the building, and makes it possible it physically. experience In the move to the parameters of scaling up there is no reference to which the first models of Whitney have been fabricated according such as existing site conditions, parameters adjacent buildings, city fabrics, urban density and district fragmentation. the upward move produces Thus, - from a double detachment these parameters, and at the same time from small-scale model. The is brought into existence large model by are to the small one, but not all of the initial parameters into its fabrication; the small model points to the large one. incorporated In this way, there is a particular moment in which models refer only to trace a circular trajectory (instead of adopting an external each other and reference This circularity is important, as it provides of meaning). for re-examining possibilities again and again the different presentational states of the building before further development and definition. factor Scaling Down finer details through scaling up does not naturally guide archi Reaching tects, slowly and linearly, to an ever-larger version of the building, where more and more becomes known about it. Scaling up is immediately and reversibly followed by scaling down. are When of the new exhibition hall of Whitney all the escalators in paper and painted red, they are definitively upon, constructed inside the large-scale model of the exhibition hall. Then, the placed return to the adjacent table to translate the changes that have architects in the large model onto the small one: tiny red paper escalators been made decided are carefully manufactured and Shiro and placed in the small by Torsten a jewel-like so that it is revised with new details and becomes scale model the small scale of the model doesn't of the huge model. However, replica of all the details from the large model. Nor is a needed. Some figures are simply sketched onto the complete reproduction small one: the escalators are indicated as red endings, and the elevator is of the hall. In this indicated by a transparent Plexiglas box in the middle allow complete translation as a centre the

see or reframe

884

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

are mutually revised and enriched with way, the small and large models new details from latest developments in the project. The small-scale model is then closed and placed back on the table, shaped proportionally and to other visual representations. It is made and easily compact adjusted movable from one place to another in the office, and from the architect's office to the client. are aimed at scaling down All these briefly drawn operations the model. Scaling up scatters the original unity of the small-scale model, a patchwork of the complex while scattered scaling down incorporates as a skilful arrange details back into that unity. Scaling down is performed a specific tiny ment of these disparate pieces. To achieve this patch-up, movement of 'taking down the change' is realized. We can see this move ment in another design task, which consists of determining the shape and in the new Whitney the position of the windows extension. We had this idea of the windows'
wanted big one. weren't to see whether it works well,

shape and particular position,

whether it's really that So, it will we good; look wanted

and we
in

because

the small model we liked it, but we weren't

It wasn't sure that sure that we weren't only it would look convincing.

sure if itwill look good in the

but we good, to convince

other people that it was looking good. So, we built the big model, and then we took this detail and we brought it back to the small model, and we
said: 'Okay, that's how we are going to determine it.' (El 102)

the large model, architects can see whether the windows of the new 'work well'. Every part of the building has to be inte Whitney building numerous other interior features, such as lighting, air grated with and infrastructure, mechanical circulation structure, mate conditioning, as well as with architects' worries, rial properties, clients' concerns and With anticipations. As the windows' position is being defined on the large a new a new adjustment, the various scale model, 'good fit'32 among to the small model. is obtained, elements and then translated Once it is then pushed again towards the large back to the small model, brought users'
one.

model does not differ in a quasi larger and more differentiated fashion from the small one; rather, it is a tool for seeing evolutionary actors and refining the better, gaining new knowledge, enrolling more in the scaling process, not its it is a mediator small-scale model. Although final goal, it is not an ephemeral visual device. It is kept on the 'table of models' small-scale models, drawings and collages, along with numerous stabilized in a given shape, none of and foam and paper try-outs. Although The is completely and any of them can be materially defined, changed, a chain of modifications. thus triggering As the design process develops, the scales are shifted and new data for the building are gained: them
We work on will the a model at the same and a drawing time, tell you more than the model and you go to the model two. And then, you go back sometimes back that and the forth

drawing between

tells you

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

885

something different and you have to change the drawing. And I think it's
same for the large scale and the small scale. on in the If we get further we know we know where in design the shape, the process, development, floor levels are, we know where the windows are, but then you start to look at more do a much is interior and you might which spaces larger model to the space. one. And But that may you proportional affect the smaller the

might
means

say this window has to be like this to get this kind of light and that
changes, and we have to take it back down and to see how it looks.

So, it's back and forth between As

the scales. (Cl 102)

architects shift scales they enter into dialogue with objective materials, far from any mental models (Gorman, 1997), that compel them and 'tell them more' about the building, offer resistance, and set up opposition more knowledge tensions within. By doing so, they acquire about shapes, of facts, but rather locations; dispositions, again, this is not knowledge not 'knowing about spatial transitions, that', but 'knowing knowledge where'. In the translation from the small to the big, a special connection is the two models maintained between that makes it possible for changes in to 'affect the smaller one'. Architects the large model 'take the changes back down' to the small model and update it.That is, more data are being so it can account to the small model, but always schematically, transmitted for presenting for an abstract and broad-spectrum method the state of the up and down in scale lets us discover two hologram-like building. Moving one small, vague and data-poor, faces of the building: the other large, as such, they make it possible for detailed and data-rich; being maintained to emerge in the architectural the building office. are considered as small and large, respectively Models abstract and as they treat compositions of things in a rather different way. concrete, While the large model recalcitrant material closely deals with the things - the small one stands and adjustments apart from them. No properties an to understand is needed the position of a window, effort of translation or a plug in the large model of the exhibition hall. However, the can be grasped only by calling to mind a few of the small model meaning evocative features of the building, and tracing out connections between as a first approximation of the building, has them. While the small model, escalator the large the purpose of facilitating knowledge, inquiry and speculation, concerns. Therefore, is associated with practical since the small model to encourage more it is model is employed thinking, simply as a means as the big model to define figures of is used as ameans considered abstract; of the building. the building beyond itself, it is a concrete presentation the development of the practical cognitive power of the large However, for the abstract properties of the small one. Made model does not weaken is pushed the abstract model the sake of knowing more of the building, towards the large one, in order to facilitate concrete achievements; regard turn out to be, the small model remains less of what these achievements the building. abstract, as a tool for defining and perfecting the small- and the large-scale from the site parameters, Detached modified. inform each other and are simultaneously models mutually and referring to each other in their redundancy, together Jointly replicating

886

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

a circuit: when the small model is no longer needed they constitute because its job has been completed, it is scaled up and transformed into a it is necessary its function, large one; when the large model accomplishes to return to the small one. In this circuit, one can observe an important the building is degree of abstraction from the building 'programme';33 rendered diffuse, nearly atmospheric, it is lost in transit. and mundane; some problematic in the scaling.34 issues are dissolved Likewise, of technical details of materials, By defining a multitude proportions and sizes, and by supplying numerous 'convincing images'35 of the build about the future building. It helps ing, every scale shift reduces uncertainty architects avoid possible failures that can occur when a sudden scale up is at the end.36 As the scale goes up and down, architects witness performed that they are dealing with a 'defined' building; a building that is simultane
ously 'less-known' and 'well-known', abstract and concrete. The continuity

of scaling

activity and builds structuring, and concrete are no longer distinguishable.

across

settings relies on the flexible variability a continuum in which overall and detailed,

in their abstract

Conclusion What Scaling Attains

We have seen that models 'jump' from scale to scale, without referring to as a defining reality or a transcendental centre of the the site parameters the small and large models exist together, guiding scaling enterprise. Thus, in a circuit. In this the architects from one to the other, and crystallizing there is no stable distinction between small and large, real and circuit,
virtual.

in time. There is is visible in the circuit is a double movement What not a chronological of past and present images of the building. succession can be defined only according to an actual present, from This movement which it derives in an absolute and simultaneous way through the process are correlated, but not in of scaling. The small- and the large-scale models instead, they are simultane simple relation of past and present versions; the other. The past co-exists with the ously connected, with each following the present state of the building follows present in a perpetual recurrence: an immediate from spatially adjacent past; the past state is the particular state of the building that existed a few minutes ago, at a different present state of the building the past state is scale. As the present proceeds, on the adjacent table; a small model emerges into a large one, a preserved is not chrono retires in the small. The sequence temporal large model is recreated and reinvented through a circuit logical, in a linear sense. Time of which refers back to its, simultaneously of scaling, each moment contrasts with the chronologically successive present, past states. This moves of an evolutionary design process.37 Each move is tentative, and the circuit does not run in a senseless as a game having no end other than itself. The scaling does not fluctuation,

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

887

move

definite

and chaotic way, nor is it amatter of pure routine; it has new emerges out of the circuit: a effects. Something the new building. This reality becomes visible in the reality projected between and 'knowing-more': abstraction and redundancy 'knowing-less' idea and multiple details. It emerges as scales are concretization, pragmatic one pushes to the other in a long shifted between small and large models; cumulative lasting game, and all of them make the building happen. Thus, scaling up and scaling down are not successive moves, but parallel states, each the other and referring to it. Instead of emerging in a propor containing to site parameters with a definite referent or 'content', tional relationship the building is defined in scaling trials; as it passes through these trials, it

in a random

becomes

more

and

more

visible,

more

present,

more

material,

real.

'Scal

to fit into reality; rather, it is a conduit for its extraction. Scaling implies seeing in different scales, through a variety of presenta tional states. The building is simultaneously present in all of these states: it as less-defined at the same time. Architectural and well-defined appears at a given moment and for a certain span of time, through design develops, a circular generative regime instead of a linear process of varying possible generates the building designs and selecting solutions, which subsequently - a in which successive evolution'38 or a process process of 'punctuated artefacts follow one another 'along trajectories'.39 How The are Scaling Ends scaling venture is long lasting, but not infinite. Scales vary until of the building. Then 'stabilized' at a certain level of definition stop scaling and 'fix' the building.
is a constant up it's and 1:50. down variation all the of time scales. until Not you constantly stabilize it in

ing' is not a way

they the

architects

I wouldn't say that there .. .You are basically going one scale. In this project in that to check details thing. designing for But scale. And the sometimes some

some details, In furniture. you So, are

And the project then, you can develop are going scale up, you jump to a bigger even the it's always details. You have corners, you

then, again.

see the chairs and every the big model you are to the small model back and you going is one level when stabilize there you stop and you

things. (El 102) a few models are detached from the a given moment in the process, circulation network. They are stabilized in a certain profile and start scaling linear and straightforward working on their own, taking new, independent, At 'stabiliza the scaling process ends up with Thus, paths of development. to all expectations, the scaling venture fails to have as its tion'.40 Contrary of the whole'. The final product of 'realistic model upshot a huge detailed is neither the building nor a mock-up architectural sample of the design of a few 'one in scale 1:1. It is instead that particular assembly building and its circular from the scaling continuum detached shape models' I found on the 'table of models' in the early network. This is what 2001 (Figure 1). It was not a bunch of successors afternoon of November

888

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

states generated, of presentational col and predecessors, but a myriad in the office through time. This is the Whitney lected and stabilized in the scaling operations, the building is ubiquitous and is not building: from a rhythm with fine located in any of them. Resulting specifically of variation and distance, undertones acceleration and slowing down, it as something quasi-unreachable and at the same time ever-present appears and states: amultiple, cumulative them and in the movements them. connecting in all models object visible through all of

Notes
I am indebted from the Office for Metropolitan in Rotterdam, Architecture Erez Ella, Carol Patterson, Torsten Sarah Scheeren, Schr?der, Shiro Agata, Shohei Shigematsu, and Rem Adeyemi, Olga Aleksakova me for welcoming in the office and letting me follow them at work; they devoted to Ole on earlier versions to me and my questions. and patience For their comments I acknowledge Bruno Latour, Peter Galison, Lorraine Daston and Joel is a grantee of the Graham Foundation in the Yaneva for Advanced Studies to the people

and especially Kunl? Gibson, Koolhaas a lot of time

of this project, Snyder. Albena Fine Arts, 1. This

grant # 03069 research is based on a two-year the Office for

Metropolitan 2. In a recent

in observation ethnographical in Rotterdam. (OMA) of Rem Koolhaas in engage study, John Law shows how aircraft designers of prototyping and testing to learn what is acceptable for establishing in terms of relatively stable and determinate design, shape. Through the extent to which the wing passes through vertical gusts of wind, Architecture

a sequential process the best wing different the way tests of it bounces

and the way it experiences turbulence, up and down, they find a strategy for modelling the factors that might affect gust response. These factors refer to a variety of external the weight the size of the wing, realities: leads into the realm of bureaucratic politics, the Russians 2002). term 3. The and material (the need of 'translation' for short take-off from camouflaged airstrips), and so on (Law,

to

is used

in science

studies

indispensable content and context, meticulous interests of science

of maintaining the rigid opposition of to the the 'chain of translations' and world, points actors modify, work though which and translate their various displace in practice, multiplying the mediators instead of demystifying the pretensions words does (Latour, 1990, 2001: 33-82). Translations, sociology transfer transformation, any of these terms refer also to the multiple a building into existence. They sit happily over is brought through which and diagrams architectural and their object spot between drawings, models as critical

the displacements connotations, for any action to occur. Instead

realized

to designate, with all its linguistic is by actors whose mediation

transfiguration, procedures the blind

to it remains unclear 'how things travel and what will happen the building. However, and ... 'the transmutation that occurs between them on the way to the final building', to a large extent an enigma' 1997: 160; Allen, remains and building (Evans, drawing 2000). 4. Michel Call?n of an STS study of architecture argued for the importance of visualization, of design as a world of graphs and strategies focusing on

criticisms authors addressed (Call?n, 1996). Other alternatives. 2001), but did not suggest empirical (Raynaud, on the social underpinning and production of design focused 5. They of architectural the products 1984), or analysed design as socially and an array of contributors among architects negotiations see Itten (1975) of rhythm in architecture 6. On the notion

the materiality in negotiations

grounded

to this programme activities constructed

(Blau, in

(Cuff, 1991). and Greene (1976).

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

889

7. Compare

in a that consider design as a work of the brain when, an image of the building of inspiration, delirium and concealment, mysterious in a flash (Boyd, 1965; Akin & Weinel, appears 1982). dimension of engineering, 8. A fascinating conducted study on the cognitive by Vincenti is acquired in a day-to-day that engineering (1990), noted enterprise design knowledge this with moment studies according to a systematic That is how engineers experimental methodology. acquire to carry out design, cannot data needed since the theoretical methods supply empirical the requisite data. is not a gradual transfer from one scale to another, design step-by-step towards a ratio of 1:1 (Boudon, and versatility 1972); rather, discontinuity sudden (Schatz & Fiszer, 1999). It relies on surges, breaks, 'jumps' figures

9. Architectural developing are its main different

and meticulous

and returns; it sets into play simultaneously repetitions inspections, actors and several scales, many of which persist throughout all the stages to some extent of their precision. This of the project, story of discontinuity regardless that treat it as a messy non-linear follows recent studies on engineering process, design - a or actions full of unforeseen maze, 1999) pitfalls and unpredicted (Henderson, web of interconnections, toward a final well complex multidimensional moving sized 1994). (Bucciarelli, from that in studies

designed product 10. This view differs

of technology, which describe in the philosophy as concretization, that is, as ascending the genesis of technical from the abstract objects to the concrete; from an unpredictable abstract object, open to its environment, and concrete differentiated towards a closed, predictable, 1989). (Simondon, object as a 'multiverse', not socially constructed of 11. On the building but a stabilized gathering see Yaneva and composed in a whole, few models, (2005). adjusted tentatively together a process as a 'primary generator' of 12. Design studies considered constraints triggering that led to a conjectural solution architectural (Darke, 1979). Although exploration explicitly design, are so critical for engineering and boundaries, which constraints articulated, are not considered inflexible; rather, they are subject to change and negotiation studies also have argued that scientific experimentation 1994). Science (Bucciarelli, as material runs according to 'multiple constraints', that shape obstacles considered action & Mau in experimentation 1995, (Galison, 1998). Architecture of Metropolitan (1995) and the Office & Koolhaas how as how they are they

and delimit 13. See Koolhaas (2004).

at OMA, investigating analyses different scale-projects to different-sized cities and urban spaces, as well applied proportionally contents. generate multiple Koolhaas 14. However, enormous there are few accounts of writing of scale models in architecture, (Porter, amount on architectural drawing

as compared with the 1979; Blau & Kaufman,

1985, 1994; Evans, 1989; Robbins, 1997). the architectural often travel outside 15. Models clients,

allies among office to gain powerful commissions. and future users, community groups and city planning sponsors are are supposed which to express concerns, and expectations, expertise, opinions They not only a variety in design. Thus models taken into account furthermore incorporate of technical the dual but also a range of other viewpoints. as quasi-inscriptions and anti in chemistry of molecular models at the same time, see Francoeur like models of molecules, (1997, 2000). are submitted to various manipulations, and models assembled, probed concerns, existence

16. On

inscriptions architectural

about spatial arrangements. and are used to gain knowledge However, they measured, to ascribe them to hidden phenomena of structures do not reveal properties (such as in a common visual space to in chemistry molecules stand); they all work together 'obtain' a building. 17. They as the result of a change in the initial to develop different characteristics are physically variants of the same species, distinct models like mutants, composition; to another; each of them is a distinct of them is identical the building. None the building. of things. All together they shape and contain composition tend 'Scription' (Henderson, terms 1999) include in-scription and pre-scription. (Latour & Woolgar, 1979), and con-scription

18.

890
19. According

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

to Henderson the visual communication in sketches and (expressed is the 'glue' that holds engineering groups prototypes) together (Henderson, 1999). at different actors are enlisted 20. Various structural and stages of architectural design: mechanical client representatives, future users, and stage designers, experts, engineers, so on. Although are not directly mobilized these consultants in the scaling venture, some of their concerns, are taken into account while and requirements expectations architects scale up and down. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to depict of participation. specific modes versus the term of'composition' for showing the composite convincing a variety real name of concerns of this instrument their 'construction' character see Latour ismore (2003). Nothing in than a scale model together.

21. On

which 22. The

observation

for the designed of the inside of machines, and structures. Since inspection equipment in the architectural office it is used to inspect the interior of the scale models, it is called 'modelscope'. and attachment architects video camera or a special viewing allow adaptor would the endoscopie examination with the operator simultaneously and can enable a filmed real-time movement the model. through and around to attend movements which can also be simulated of panning and by the simple operation can be photographed. of our own physical size and bulk in relation to that of a scale model also theory as 'Gulliver Gap' (Porter & Neale, because seeing in the small model 2000). of a miniature

and requirements is a borescope.

of the building have to be fitted It is primarily

23. The

Kunl?, Perceived

tracking, 24. The awareness known 25.

is

in architectural

experience, requires efforts with the eyes. By bending his own body to the model's folds, passing straining to the reduces himself trials, it is as though the scoping architect through numerous scale of the small model. inside the building, and so, he scales down, plunges Doing stands at the same level. This differs from presenting the building from a dominant states that phenomena in a laboratory which have been investigated position, normally the body and and are under control (Latour, 1984; Sibum, 1992; Schaffer, 2004). building requires a series of material operations work of his brain. size, instead of a mysterious to adjust the architect Thus, seeing the to the model

It is a constrained

26. The

terms

of'zooming 27. The material cutting,

in9 and 'scoping ouf are borrowed from the computer language out and 'fit into image'. 'zooming accurate procedures realization of the huge model of requires more all require exact measurements for and modelling. These pasting procedures of'scoping in\

In the model-making and proportions. process, shapes, sizes, openings reproducing cut the paper plans and sections, architects 'follow the drawings with precision', apply on the foam blocks; them meticulously the sequence of operations has to be performed with rigorous rather than through a random exercise with materials and accuracy of these operations is beyond the scope of this paper. shapes. A detailed description 28. As shown by Hutchins, the cognitive of the group differ significantly from properties the cognitive of an individual member 1991, 1995). On cognition (Hutchins, properties see also Lave as embedded within in social practices and distributed group activities,

(1988).
29. By as they learn to design, an Sch?n architecture students (1985) defines following of the architectural students need to studio: on the one hand, epistemological paradox what learn a new competence, and they do not initially understand they need to learn; on the other hand, to do design work. themselves they can only educate by beginning lenses, which model model is mediated the viewing experience by a camera, with tiny manoeuvrable the static interior of the is able to enter the model and to document

30.

Sometimes

enter the small in the form of a moving image. If the first reason why architects for the physical is to experience the space and to use this immediate knowledge that transformation of the model, the second reason is to obtain images of the building it. will be closer to the ways people will experience

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

891

31. Architects the client cultural 32.

demand, context.

call a 'concept' the main idea of the building, taken in its relationships with the city, the urban fabric, and the broader and social, political

Alexander's definition of successful 1964), Following design as a 'good fit' (Alexander, we can consider a myriad to make of small elements and scaling up as an attempt fit together and 'work well'. While the 'good fit' at large scale provides micro-equipment on the incentive for scaling down when successful it is taken down and 'determined' - a an incentive to the small small scale 'misfit' provides for making radical changes model. Thus, 'misfit'. The the incongruities that cause scaling up and down aims at neutralizing to experience of scaling operations follow-up gives us the possibility the sensations about what architects call a 'good test'. call a 'programme' the content of the building the internal distribution a

cognitively 33. Architects

of

to functional in reality. spaces according needs, scope and insertion general terms: 'isolating' 34. To solve a 'problem' means in architectural the problematic it between and reducing, and defining, scales, zooming transporting pushing it through travel. By solving' twofold meaning of 'solution' mixed and uniformly together in the same way knowable. solved 35. one I mean 'dis-solved' - as the resolution 'solved' of a difficulty scales are shifted in another

feature, thus 'dis

in a particular way. I use the and as two substances and the problematic the building feature becomes is

As dispersed. substance is dissolved

at every scale-up the images serve and scale-down move; Images are regularly produced as protocols for carefully maintaining the traces of the scaling experiences, the investing new data about the building. trials with materials and shapes; documenting On the flat one can find imprinted surface of multiple and drawings the 'faces' collages, montages of the three-dimensional Thus, the traces of their movements and transformations. models, cannot occur without of models the expressive the pure and formal redundancy can be and transmit information. The building capture their meaning images, which it presentable for the material body of these images that make interpreted through client and publics.

36. The

errors in size and relationship in the is considered 'ability to anticipate' important from the history of technology (Licklider, 1966). Examples highlight scaling venture was one of the challenging intellectual that building successful full-sized machines in confronted mechanics with which pre-classical early modern engineering problems the 17th century. correct to scale-up models All attempts of machines and used to fail because scaling was only approached proportion of the materials; the properties namely, taking into account of materials, to enlarge them in and mathematically, the robustness

without resistance

a device when is enlarged that diminish proportionally qualities in naval the difficulty of scaling-up models of vessels Likewise, 2003). (Popplow, as the incapacity to of rational mechanics in the 18th century was defined architecture was able to foresee or predict describe Only the skilful model-maker ship behaviour. the displacement, instead of using 37. According pure and other stability, weathering qualities calculation 2004). (Schaffer, essentials of a large ship,

to evolutionary theories 1992, 1994, 1996; Basalla, (Forty, 1986; Petrovski, follows from earlier products 1988; Pye, through 1988) a new design product of technical tools and the the multiplicity successive functional changes. To elucidate drive for their improvement, these theories argue that novelty appears among artefacts. evolving continuously in relation to an external They factor explain into how the new design object comes or cultural atmosphere, economic (social context, of series of the starting point of a new process succession of finished and limited temporal

being

factors, political transformations events. 38. According ancestors

society), always being that is, a linear and

to which and

successors

39.

(Bijker, continuity has called See what Latour (1989: 322-52) with the 'translations model'. compared

in relation to its the development understood of an artefact of change evolution of sequences follows a staircase-like 1995: 88). 'diffusion model of technology' as

and

892
40.

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

I am following here the actors' definition of stabilization, the term was used although as a studies define stabilization (Latour & Woolgar, 1979). Architects laboratory a clarification in the scaling up and down process; of the building pause momentary profile slowing down the versatile scaling course.

in

References
Akin, ?. & E.F. Weinel (eds) (1982) Representation on the Synthesis and Architecture (Silver Spring, MA: MD: Information Alexander,

Dynamics). (1964) Notes of Form (Cambridge, Harvard

Christopher

Press). University Steve (2000) Practice: Allen, Publishers Association). Basalla, George (1988) Press). Bijker, Wiebe

Architecture,

Technique

and Representation

(Amsterdam:

Overseas

The Evolution

of Technology

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

and Bulbs. Toward a Theory (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, MA & London: MIT Press). Change (Cambridge, and its Image Blau, Eva & Edward Kaufman (eds) (1989) Architecture Centre for Architecture). Judith Press). Boudon, Philippe (1971) Sur l'Espace Architectural. Essai d'?pist?mologie (1984) A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practice

of Sociotechnical (Montreal: Canadian

Blau,

(Cambridge,

MA:

MIT

et d'Architecture

(Paris: Dunod).

Boudon, Philippe (1972) LaVille de Richelieu (Paris: AREA).

Boudon, Philippe (1992) Introduction 'The Point of Scale Boudon, (1999) Philippe From the Question Research Boyd, Robin Press). Louis L. (1994) Designing MA: MIT Bucciarelli, Press). Engineers (Cambridge, en Architecture', 'Le Travail Les Cahiers de la Conception Call?n, Michel Situations, (1996) de la Recherche Architecturale 37(1): 25-35. The Story of Practice MA: MIT Cuff, Dana Press). (1991) Architecture: (Cambridge, Darke, Jane 36-44. (1979) 'The Primary Generator and the Design Process', Design Studies 1: 12(1): (1965) 7-18. The Puzzle of Architecture (Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University ? l'Architecturologie (Paris: Dunod). of View of Measurement in Architectural as Question', Nordic Journal Conception:

to Scale

of Architectural

Alain, Dupire, Thiebaut Evans,

Bernard (1981)

Hamburger, Deux Essais

Paul, Jean-Michel Jean-Claude Savignat sur la Construction (Bruxelles: Mardaga). from Drawing and to Building and Other Essays MA

& Alain

Robin (1997) Translations Architectural Association). Eugene (1992)

(London: & London: MIT

Ferguson,

Engineering

theMind's

Eye

(Cambridge,

Press). Forty, Adrian (1986) Objects of Desire Eric (1997) 'The Forgotten Francoeur, Studies of Science 27(1): 7-40. Eric (2000) Francoeur, Molecular Models 'Beyond Really Matter?', 63-84.

(New York: Pantheon). and Use Tool: Design

of Molecular

Models',

Social

Dematerialization Hyle -

Does the Materiality and Inscription: International Journal for Philosophy of (ed.), Scientific Practice. of Chicago

of

6(1): Chemistry in J.Z. Buchwald Peter and Constraints', 'Context Galison, (1995) IL & London: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics (Chicago, 13-41. Press):

University

IL & Culture ofMicrophysics Peter Galison, (Chicago, (1998) Image and Logic. A Material of Chicago London: Press). University of in the Invention and Practice Michael 'Mind in theWorld: Gorman, (1997) Cognition the Telephone', Social Studies of Science 27: 583-624.

Yaneva:

Scaling

Up

and Down

893

KY: and Image: An Essay on Art & Architecture (Lexington, (1976) Mind Press of Kentucky). Visual Culture, Henderson, (1999) On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Kathryn MA: MIT in Design Engineering Press). (Cambridge, Computer Graphics Greene, Herb University Edwin Hutchins, & J. Levine Press). Hutchins, Itten, in theWild Edwin (1995) Cognition (Cambridge, und Formenlehre: Mein Johannes (1975) Gestaltung^Reinhold). (New York: Van Nostrand MA: MIT Press). Vorkurs am Bauhaus und Sp?ter (1991) 'The Social (eds), Perspectives of Distributed Cognition', Organization on Socially Shared Cognition (Washington, DC: APA

and

in L. Resnick

Knorr-Cetina,

Cultures: How Karin (1999) Ep?temic MA: Harvard University Press). (Cambridge, Rem & Bruce Mau Koolhaas, (1995) Small, Medium, for Metropolitan Architecture). Latour, Bruno (1984) (1989) Pasteur: Guerre et Paix D?couverte). Bruno Latour,

the Sciences Make

Knowledge (Rotterdam: Office

Large,

Extra-Large

des Microbes, Introduction

Suivi

de Irr?ductions

(Paris: La (Paris: La

La Science

en Action,

? la Sociologie

des Sciences

D?couverte). inM. Lynch & S. Woolgar Bruno Latour, (1990) 'Drawing Things Together', 19-68. MA: MIT in Scientific Practice Press): (Cambridge, Representation de Pandore: Pour une Version R?aliste de VActivit? Bruno Latour, (2001) UEspoir (Paris: La D?couverte). in D. of Constructivism', 'The Promises Bruno Latour, (2003) (Bloomington, for Materiality Chasing Technoscience. Matrix Latour,

(eds), Scientifique

Hide & E. Selinger (eds), IN: Indiana University

27^7. Press): SAGE Publications). Bruno & Steve Woolgar Life (London: (1979) Laboratory and Culture in Everyday in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, Life Lave, Jean (1988) Cognition (Cambridge: Law, John (2002) University Heath Licklider, Lynch, Michael Aircraft Press). University Cambridge the Object Stories: Decentering in Technoscience (Durham, NC: Duke

Press). (1966) Architectural (1985)

Scale (New York: Brazillier). of Form of Image: An Analysis and The Material 'Discipline 15: 37-66. Social Studies of Science Scientific Visibility', Architecture & Rem Koolhaas Office for Metropolitan (K?ln: Taschen). (2004) Content Reinhold Company). (New York: Van Nostrand Orr, Frank (1985) Scale in Architecture Books). Petrovski, (1992) The Evolution of Useful Things (New York: Vintage Henry Petrovski, Henry (1994) Design Paradigms. Cambridge Case Histories of Error and Judgment in to Things? (Cambridge: Press). University by Design, How Engineers

Engineering Petrovski, Henry (Cambridge, Popplow, Markus

(1996) Inventing MA: Harvard University (2003) 'Models

Get from Thought

and Mechanics?', Engineering in Berlin. of Science History Porter, Tom Porter, Tom

Press). A "Missing link" Between of Machines: Early Modern no. 225 of the Max-Planck Institute of the Preprint

Studio Vista). (London: (1979) How Architects Visualize & John Neale Physical Design Simulation Supermodels. (2000) Architectural Press). (Oxford & Boston, MA: Architectural and Aesthetics Press). (London: The Herbert of Design (1988) The Nature Pye, David et Expertise de l'Architecte Professionnelle 'Comp?tences (2001) Dominique Raynaud, dans Robbins, leTravail Edward de Conception', (1985) Sociologie du Travail 43: 451-69. of Architecture', and the Social Production 'Drawing and the Built Environment (London & Sydney: Professions in PL. Croom Knox

(ed.), The Design York: Nichols Helm/New Robbins, Edward Simon Schaffer, Chadarevian CA: Stanford

42-61. Publishing Company): MA & London: MIT Press). (Cambridge, (1994) Why Architects Draw? in S. de in the Age of Reason', 'Fish and Ships: Models (2004) The Third Dimension & N. Hopwood (Stanford, of Science (eds), Models: University Press).

894
Schatz, Fran?oise Architectural Sch?n, Donald & Stanislas

Social

Studies

of Science

35/6

(London: Sibum, Otto (1992) Shifting Max-Planck manuscript,

Fiszer (1999) 'Dealing with Space: Tales 1: 43-59. InnehM Design', (1985) The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions RIBA Publications). Scales: Microstudies Institute

and Scales

in

and Potentials

Gilbert Simondon, (1989) Du Mode et pr?face) (Paris: Aubier). Vincenti, Walter G. (1990) What History from Aeronautical Press). Vinck, Dominque Innovation Albena

in Early Victorian Britain. Unpublished for the History of Science. avec postface des Objets Techniques d'Existence (r??dition Know MD and How & London: It: Analytical Studies They Know The Johns Hopkins University of Design and

Engineers (Baltimore,

Yaneva,

(ed.) (2003) Everyday Engineering: MA: MIT Press). (Cambridge, 'A Building is aMultiverse', (2005) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

An Ethnography in B. Latour

& P.Weibel

(eds), Making

Things Public

of art Albena Yaneva completed her doctoral thesis on ethnography installation in the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, ?cole des Mines de Paris. She has worked at the Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and the Department of the History of Science at Harvard University. She is currently the director of The Gallery of Research (Galerie der Forschung), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. Address: The Gallery of Research (Galerie der Forschung), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wollzeile 17, 1010 Vienna, Austria; email:
Albena.Yaneva@oeaw.ac.at