As we enter the twenty-ﬁrst century, it has become fashionable to consider architecture through a veil of literature. Such was not always the case; indeed, it could be argued that the practice of architecture has rarely been underpinned by a close correspondence with theory, and that designers have been drawnmore to precedent, to seminal buildings and projects rather than to texts for a creative springboard to their fertile imaginations. This is merely an observation and not an argument against ﬂedgling building designers adopting even the simplest of theoretical positions; nor does it deny the profound inﬂuence of a small number of seminal texts upon the development of twentieth-century architecture, for there has been a close correspondence between some of those texts and icons which emerged as the built outcome. But even the most basic theoretical stance
must be supported in turn by a few fundamental maxims which can point the inexperienced
designer in the right direction towards prosecuting an acceptable architectural solution. This book, then, attempts to offer that support by not only offering some accepted maxims or design orthodoxies, but also by suggesting how they can inform crucial decisions which face the architect engaged in the act of designing. The text is non-theoretical and therefore makes no attempt to add to the ample literature surrounding architectural theory; rather it aims to provide students engaged in building design with a framework of accepted ways of looking at things which will support and inform their experiment and exploration during the socalled ‘design process’. The plethora of literature concerned with the
‘design process’ or ‘design methodology’ is a fairly recent phenomenon which gained momentum during the late 1950s. In these early explorations design was promulgated as a straightforward linear process from analysis via synthesis to evaluation as if conform-
urged designers to delay as long as possible the creative leap into ‘form-making’ until every aspect of the architectural problem was thought to be clearly understood. But every practising architect knew that this restrictive linear model of the design process ﬂew in the face of all shared experience; the reality of designing did not conform to a predetermined sequence at all but demanded that the designer should skip between various aspects of the problem in any order or at any time, should consider several aspects simultaneously or, indeed, should revisit some aspects in a cyclical process as the problem became more clearly deﬁned. Furthermore, the experience of most architects was that a powerful visual image of their embryonic solution had already been formed early on in the design process, suggesting that fundamental aspects of ‘form-making’ such as how the building would look, or how its three-
an early, if tentative, creative response to any architectural problem. The act of designing clearly embraces at its
extremes logical analysis on the one hand and profound creative thought on the other, both of which contribute crucially to that central ground of ‘form-making’. It is axiomatic that all good buildings depend upon sound and imaginative decisions on the part of the designer at these early stages and how such decision-making informs that creative ‘leap’ towards establishing an appropriate threedimensional outcome. These initial forays into ‘form-making’
remain the most problematic for the novice and the experienced architect alike; what follows are a few signposts towards easing a ﬂedgling designer’s passage through these potentially rough pastures.