Mockup Method: Heuristic Architectural Fragments as Central Models in Architectural Design

  • Kevin PazikEmail author
Conference paper


Standardization and increased specialization have slowly begun to separate the means and methods of making from the process of architecture. The introduction of digital tools towards the latter half of the century have functioned to further this divide, removing any remaining traces of materiality and scale. Accordingly, architectural design exploration primarily resides in the creation and modification of digital objects, which must then be translated into the physical world. This positions built architecture in a curious position of constant catch up, chasing the impossible ideal of its digital counterpart. However, the tools predominant in architectural design and fabrication today (CAD, CAM) may be appropriated, along with sensory feedback, towards the development of a new material workflow. This paper presents a prototypical workflow which combines computational methods and robotic fabrication techniques with the spontaneity of the human and the messiness and contingency of material. The workflow is tested through the design of 1:1 heuristic architectural fragments.


Human-robot collaboration 1:1 Procedural fabrication 



This research owes much to the faculty of Princeton University School of Architecture, specifically, Axel Kilian, Forrest Meggers, Ryan Luke Johns, Paul Lewis, Liz Diller, and Jaffer Kolb, and to the cohort of classmates in my thesis class for their equal support and skepticism.


  1. 1.
    Brooks, H.: The Tilt-UP Construction and Engineering Manual. Tilt-Up Concrete Association, Mount Vernon (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gramazio, F., Kohler, M.: Digital Materiality in Architecture. Lars Müller, Baden (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., Oesterle, S.: Encoding material. In: Oxman, R., Oxman, R. (eds.) New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies, Architectural Design, vol. 80(4), pp. 108–115. Wiley, London (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hensel, M., Menges, A., Weinstock, M.: Emergent technologies and design, pp. 43–68. Routledge, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johns, R.L: Augmented reality: modelling with material indeterminacy. In: Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., Langenberg, S. (eds.) Fabricate: Negotiating Design & Making, pp. 216–223. UCL Press, London (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kilian, A.: Design exploration through bidirectional modelling of constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mark, E., Gross, M., Goldschmidt, G.: A perspective on computer aided design after four decades. In: Muylle, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe): Architecture ‘in computro’: Integrating methods and techniques, pp.169–176. Antwerp (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oxman, N.: Material-based design computation. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willis, K., Xu, C., Wu, K., Levin, G., Gross, M.: Interactive fabrication: new interfaces for digital fabrication. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (TEI 2011), pp. 69–72. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations