Harty, C and Tryggestad, K (2012) The roles of representations in building design: Materiality and visualization. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Mock-ups, scale models and drawings are ubiquitous in building design processes, circulating between various stakeholders. They contribute to the gradual evolution of design, but what else can specific material representations do for the building design and project? The full scale model of a hospital single bed room can be different in terms of detail and medium, but in what sense might it perform different and similar functions? The mobilization of multiple forms of representations and visualizations suggest that design materialization might have several important roles to play in negotiating the building design and project, including in the exposition and resolution of controversy in the design process. The paper compares the use of two different forms of representation of the same imagined space
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | simulation; hospital design; materiality |
| Index terms: | building design, materiality, evolution, negotiating, drawing, visualization, resolution, design process |
| Subjects: | sociology, design practice, architectural design, design methods, environmental science, technical documentation, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here