Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 441–456 | Cite as

Manufacturing Bespoke Architecture

  • Bob Sheil


At the disposal of today’s architect is an evolving array of interoperable tools and processes that allow the fabrication of design propositions to be increasingly complex, non–standard and adaptive. How are we equipped to deal with such a growing breadth of new potential, and how are the philosophies that underpin this potential being defined? This paper attempts to address what is something of a contemporary dilemma in architecture, as the constraints of industrial standardisation are relaxed. Have the roles of designers and makers changed in a way that we’ve not experienced before, and is a new approach to making architecture emerging?


design manufacturing bespoke architecture digital fabrication sixteen makers design through production 


  1. Ayres, P. (eds) (2012) Persistent Modelling: Extending the Role of Architectural Representation. London & New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Callicott N. (2000) The Pursuit of Novelty: Computer Aided Manufacturing in Architecture. Architectural Press., LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Groak, S. 1996. ‘Board Games’, a profile of sixteen*(makers). In Integrating Architecture, Neil Spiller, ed.Architectural Design (Profile no. 123): 48–51.Google Scholar
  4. Lynn, Greg, ed. 1993. Folding in Architecture. Architectural Design (Profile no. 102). London: Academy Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Sheil, Bob, Nick Callicott, Phil Ayres and Peter Sharpe, eds. 2011. 55/02 A sixteen*(makers) Project Monograph. Toronto: Riverside Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  6. Sheil R. (2012) Manufacturing the Bespoke: Making and Prototyping Architecture. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Sheil R. (2009) A Manufactured Architecture in a Manufactured Landscape. Architectural Research Quarterly 13: 3–4 200220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sheil, B., ed. 2008. Protoarchitecture: Between the Analogue and the Digital. Architectural Design 78, 4 (Profile 194). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Sheil, R. 2005a. Transgression from Drawing to Making. Architectural Research Quarterly 9, 1:20–32, 26.Google Scholar
  10. Sheil, B., ed. 2005b. Design through Making. Guest issue of Architectural Design 75, 3 (Profile 176). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Sheil, B. and C. Leung. 2005. Kielder Probes – Bespoke Tools For An Indeterminate Design Process. Pp. 254–259 in Smart Architecture, O. Ataman, ed. ACADIA (Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture). Savannah, GA: Savannah College of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  12. Spiller, Neil, ed. 1998. Architects in Cyberspace II, Architectural Design (Profile no. 118). London: Academy Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Tovée, M. J., P. Hancock, S. Mahmoodi, B. R. R. Singleton and P. L. Cornelissen. 2002. Human female attractiveness: Waveform analysis of body shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B, 269: 2205–2213.Google Scholar
  14. Swami V., TovéE M. J. (2005) Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross–cultural study. Body Image 2: 115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Treleaven, Philip. 2004. Sizing us Up. IEEE Spectrum 41, 4: 28–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bartlett School of ArchitectureUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations