The current state of architectural design incorporates many contemporary ideas of what defines

unique geometry. With the advent of strong computer software at the early 21st century, an expected level
of experimentation has overtaken our profession and our academic realms to explore purposeful
architecture through various techniques, delivering meaningful buildings that each exhibit a message of
cultural relevancy.
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 advant age 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.

BIGs 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 wasteto-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 simult aneous 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.

Norman Fosters 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 equi pment
would lead you to believe.
Thus, what distinguishes Diagramism from Neo-Brutalism is whether the idea of purpos e
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, differenc e,
and innovative thought. However, the
building more purely shows the top down
theory of forcing constraints. A circle is a
locked geometry.
OMA is a firm that employs a
fluid use of both Diagramism and Neo Brutalism, switching seamlessly between
resultant geometries and unrespons ive
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.

Above, Santiago Calatravas Florida Polytechnic

compared to Oscar Niemeyers Brasilia Congress
Building. Image Alan Karchmer for Santiago
Calatrava and Flick r CC user Christoph Diewald

Above, diagrams outlining the layout of OMAs 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 distinct ion: 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 draftspers on
may spend so much time on designing the elements and sub-elements 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, pick ing 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 andeducation 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 pervas ive 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.

Above, the 2011 ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion, and below Kinetic Haze from the AAs 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 otherwis e
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 el egant. 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.

Above, MAD Architectures 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. Lets say we added 4 more vertices t o 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 Intellige nt
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 flexibil ity 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 estab lished 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 b ased MADA s.p.a.m., apprenticing under Qingyun Ma, Dean of the USC School of
Architecture. Visit IntuArch at their web site, or follow Michael on twitter @intuarch.