App For Making 3d Models
Lilly Solo
I realized the big advantage of these little tools when designing and building my Heron Chair. One day when frustrated with a design dead-end, I snapped off a piece of the model and rotated it 90 to a horizontal position. From this aha! came the double member detail on the arms. Angles and splay of the legs were pulled directly from the model with a small bevel gauge. No trig, no problem! The photos of the model (left) and final chair (right) side by side highlight how strongly the model can inform the outcome.
Orthographic, or 2D drawings, are the foundation to build your models. Usually a front and side view will suffice. These can be drafted on the computer or by hand. Learning how to read an architectural ruler unlocks this skill to draw by hand and printable rulers are easily found online.
When I was just ten years old, my mother and I were admiring the beautiful dioramas at the National Museum of Natural History when she told me that I could make dioramas one day. I forgot about that until I was well out of art school and looking for work that I could enjoy doing for the rest of my life. I was very, very lucky to get a job at the Smithsonian in 1981 doing exactly what I wanted: making models and dioramas!
My first portrait figure was of Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. Since she was not going to come to DC for a face mask, I volunteered to sculpt her face using photos. That worked well, except that all the photos were of her in outer space, so the mannequin shows what she looked like without gravity. Oh well! Guy Bluford, the first African American in space, did come to DC for me to take a face mold from him directly. What a thrill!
More recently, I worked with the Zoo team to make two sea lions, a mamma and her pup. No glass eyes were used here; instead, I carved into the clay to create shadows to give the effect of dimensionality in the eyes. An intern worked with me to sculpt the pup, and coworker Carolyn Thome painted the sea lions.
This is the project I am most proud of: making two of the four full-sized running horses pulling the stagecoach. Coworker Danny Fielding and I used a different approach on every horse, learning as we went along! They were installed for the inaugural opening of the museum, along with several mannequins and other models from our shop, including the full-sized railcar.
A decision-making model describes the method a team will use to make decisions. The most important factor in successful decision-making is that every team member is clear about how a particular decision will be made. Who will be making the decision? How will team members be involved? By when? Knowing these things allows team members to be fully informed participants in discussions - "Will we be giving input to the team leader so he can make the decision?" or "Will we need to discuss this topic and come to agreement during this meeting?"
Knowing how a particular decision will be made can also help a team plan their meeting agendas more effectively and lead to more collaborative team process. Most importantly, understanding how decisions will be made helps to build support for the final decision and active commitment to that decision's implementation. Because effective teams work towards the fullest participation of each member, teams often use some version of a consensus decision-making model. When used appropriately, this model of decision-making can maximize the quality of a team's decisions. (See more on consensus decisions below.)
There are a number of possible models for decision-making; each of these models may be appropriate for particular types of decisions. From least participatory to most, some examples of decision-making models include:
Some teams might also use a "majority rules" voting method for some decisions. While this method is familiar to most of us, on important decisions it can leave some team members feeling like they have "lost." Majority vote can be an effective decision-making model for low-impact decisions, but it will be less effective in values-laden decisions or decisions where active buy-in is crucial. At a minimum, it would be important to have thoughtful and inclusive discussion prior to any major "majority rules" decision-making.
Now that we know that consensus decision-making is not necessarily unanimous support for a particular decision, it is important to define just what consensus decision-making is. Consensus is achieved when everyone on the team has had ample opportunity to have his or her ideas considered and can fully support the team's decision. Consensus decisions mean that the entire team has come to agreement on a course of action, even if individuals might have a different preference. Consensus decisions often lead to completely new solutions that the team arrives at in the course of its discussion.
In the course of the discussion leading to consensus, individual team members may change their ideas (based on new information or perspectives from their team) or they may decide to defer their individual feelings or needs to those of the team. The key point is that this process is deliberate and fully voluntary on the part of the team member. Positive reasons why individuals modify their positions to support a team's decision include:
Reaching consensus can take time, although consensus-based decision-making gets easier with practice. Teams using a consensus-based decision-making model will need to develop good meeting practices to make sure that every individual has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The ability to define the decision topic clearly, and the ability to build agreements and sensitivity to the team's process will all help successful decision-making by consensus.
It is important that the team pay attention to group process so that no team member changes his or her mind because they fear repercussions for disagreement, or they are somehow "bullied" by the team (through hostile remarks or "friendly teasing") into changing their views.
There are many materials that make up the typical architectural model but when you use one over the other seems to do with either the cost or the time in the process when the model is made. As a student, I made the vast majority of my models out of chipboard because it was readily available and I could buy a sheet of chipboard for less than one dollar. Cardboard was also readily available but was typically reserved for when I needed mass or some structural consideration for my model.
The obvious shortcoming that I see with this process is that it only seems useful at the end of the process when you might be building a finished model. When we discuss that as architecture students we were constantly making models, the vast majority of those models were study models that were crafted as exploratory exercises and typically only took a day (or two at the most) to prepare. What you sacrificed in accuracy you made up for in expediency.
If I put a stack of 3D renderings on the table and pointed at the images while telling my story, there would be a period of mental gymnastics that our clients would need to jump through as they orient and reorient themselves to the project as we switch through all the different images. Not every client can manage this gymnastic routine with the ease of our architectural understanding of space. So a major difference when using a physical model for this type of process is that it is typically easier to follow. With a physical model, the understanding is instantaneous and constant.
Special thanks to our sponsor NCARB, which is conducting a profession-wide study called the Analysis of Practice. If you are an architect, or in the process of becoming one, your participation is valued and important in shaping the future of the licensing process. Please visit ncarb.org/AOP and be a part of the change you want to see.
Luckily, there is an amazing alternative. These past couple of years, my organization Rainier Valley Corps has been experimenting with a decision-making model called the Advice Process, introduced to us by our Managing Director, Ananda, who has introduced many pivotal new philosophies and practices at RVC. Ananda wrote about the Advice Process here (and provided feedback for this post) but I want to elaborate on it a little as an ED who was used to being the ultimate decision-maker who is now not making many decisions at all at his organization and who is actually very happy about it.
In the FINAL decision-making process, whoever is closest to the issue area is the person who makes the decision, provided they do two things: Check in with people who will be affected by their decision, and check in with people who may have information and advice that might help them make the best decision.
It leads to better decisions: When people who have the most experience and expertise in their areas get to make decisions in those areas, they generally make better decisions than when people who have less experience and expertise. This is something we all intrinsically understand.
It is incredibly empowering. One of the most frustrating things we experience at work is our decisions being overridden by higher ups who have less experience and knowledge in an area than we do. It can be demoralizing and lead to burn out. Having decision-making authority and having colleagues respect our decisions creates a sense of ownership in each team member.
It strengthens critical thinking: Not all decisions will lead to desired results, and it is the responsibility of the decider to take responsibility for the consequences of bad decisions. If you are the decider, the buck stops with you, not your supervisor or anyone else. Because of this, people become more thoughtful, analytical, and critical when making decisions.
It builds relationships: The process of gathering advice and input from those affected by decisions and those who may have helpful information can strengthen relationships both internally among team members, as well as externally due to the need to sometimes seek advice from colleagues outside the organization.
c80f0f1006