See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301342950

Architectural Diagram of a City

Conference Paper · April 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 4,265

2 authors:

Olivera Dulić Viktorija Aladžić

University of Novi Sad University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Civil Engineering Subotic…
20 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimizacija arhitektonskog i urbanističkog planiranja i projektovanja u funkciji održivog razvoja Srbije - Optimisation of
architectural and urban planning and design in function of sustainable development in Serbia View project

BESTSDI - Western Balkans Academic Education Evolution and Professional’s Sustainable Training for Spatial Data
Infrastructures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivera Dulić on 12 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2016
 
 

ARCHITECTURAL DIAGRAM OF A CITY

Olivera Dulić1
M.Arch., PhD candidate, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Architecture and Planning,
University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, 21000 Novi Sad, olivera@gf.uns.ac.rs
Viktorija Aladžić
PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering Subotica, University of Novi Sad, Kozaračka
2a, 24000 Subotica, aviktorija@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
Architectural diagram is a selective abstraction of a concept or an idea translated into the form of
drawing. Furthermore, it provides insight into the way of thinking in and about architecture, thus
creating a balance between the visual and the conceptual. The subject of the research presented
in this paper is diagrams as a specific form of architectural representation and their
implementation in the process of exploring and designing a city. Through the shown analysis of
different diagramming practices among architects (Kevin Lynch, Christopher Alexander, Bernard
Tschumi, Rem Koolhaas, CHORA, OMA), one can witness a wide variety of forms of diagrams, their
functions and applications. In the contemporary world of constantly shifting relationships,
designer needs a tool to understand these changes where it seems that nothing is fixed or
permanent. Hitherto, this paper indicates that diagrams can be of great use to urban designers in
clarifying the structure of a city, showing individual paths, complex sections and collective shared
maps. The choice of diagrammatic paradigm shapes and filters the infinitive richness of a city, as
a site for design intention and action. Each diagram of a city is therefore a representational
schema of the designer's own conception of the world, a microcosm of their discipline. From the
aspect of city planning, diagram can serve both as an analytical tool and as a generative
expression of design ideas. Analytical diagrams play an organizational role in the design, through
the explanation the genesis of a city or a place, by the depiction of its contemporary conditions or
relationships, and by projecting the intended future of the site through extrapolation of the design
intervention. Diagrams are also generative tools - agents of investigation and revelation, forming
the base on which the ideas may evolve.
Keywords: diagram, city planning, architectural representation, design process

INTRODUCTION
The contemporary city is a complex manifold where different spaces, images, structures and
networks evolve, emerge and change over time. By encompassing different traces of reality,
architectural diagrams are an important means for the study of the urban environment and
relational forces from which the urban environment emerges. Moreover, they are valuable
conceptual and empirical tools for understanding complexity in design, not only as a network-like

                                                            
1
Corresponding author

85
3rd INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC CONFERENCE
 

images or graphic maps, but as links between urban discourses, procedures and solutions;
common platforms of empirical studies and general concepts.
In the last twenty years, architecture has accepted diagramming practice as a tool to manage
complex phenomena of urban design. By these phenomena we allude on constant changes
occurring in contemporary cities, as consequences of natural processes which follows a course
of development that is fathomable, and consequently predictable and controllable (Kleyn and
Taverne 1998). The diagram has been recognized as an important part of the design process, as
“mediator between object and subject” and as a medium for researching and visualizing flows of
people, traffic, goods, weather and construction processes (Hall 2010). Furthermore, a
diagrammatic technique presents an opportunity to examine the social-discursive aspect of
architectural practice from within (Van Berkel and Bos 1998).
As pointed by McGrath (McGrath 2010), a new array of tools which includes sensing, mapping,
modelling and communication technologies may serve for creating more complex diagrams of
the city, and by which the “smart” city itself can be an interactive diagram. Instead of static
diagrammatic tools such as figure-ground mapping, land-use zoning or proscriptive building
codes, these new tools allow the tracing of previously invisible real-time social and ecological
processes. These new tools for imagining and designing urban systems are emerging now when
they are the most urgently needed, as both rapid urbanisation and rapid climate change demand
new ways of designing and inhabiting cities both as natural ecosystems and as information-rich
signifying landscape.

DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF DIAGRAM IN ARCHITECTURE

The diagrams in architecture represent the visualization of the thought process, as well as
selective abstraction of a concept or an idea translated in the form of a drawing. In addition, they
provide insight into the way of thinking about architecture, hence creating a balance between
visual and conceptual (Dulić and Aladžić 2014). Lately, there has been renewed interest in the
exploration of the potency of the diagram as an analytical tool in architecture, but likewise as an
indicator of new epistemological conditions. A diagram may be defined as a “graphic design that
explains rather than represents” (Lueder 2011); the term comes from the Greek word diagramma,
referring to what is indicated by lines, in terms of drawing, trace and map.
The progressive use of diagrams is synchronous with the development of semiotics and theory of
communication and to the first substantial computational developments in the 1950s and 1960s.
The diagram is shaped as a tool for the creation, operation and representation of formal
transformations and spatial relationship that assimilate the act of processing (Sperling 2004). An
entire theoretical discourse has been developed around the field of architectural diagram,
following the notion of diagram architecture, which was used for the first time by Japanese
architect Toyo Ito in 1996, to define the new sensibility in the work of Kazuyo Sejima. As he noted,
the strength and sensibility of her architectural work came from the resemblance of actual built
form and reduced drawing with which it was presented (Vidler 2000). Although there are many
different definitions of the way diagrams operate, one of the most important features is its ability
to organize a large amount of information in a single graphic display. Given this performative
characteristic, as well as the understanding that diagrams are the provisional articulation of
information, some argue that diagrams offer a logical and abstract means for representing,
thinking about and explaining the complex dynamic and information dense conditions we
confront (Lobsinger 2001).
As stated by Allen (Allen 1998), diagrams have an explanatory function in clarifying form,
structure or program to architect and others, but their most significant utility is as an abstract
means of thinking about organization. In an architectural setting, organization implies both
program and its distribution in place, bypassing conventional dichotomies of function versus form
or form versus substance. The diagram has the ability to represent multiple functions and action

86
 PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2016
 
 

over time, so it becomes a description of potential relationships among elements. Thereby,

diagram is not only an abstract model of the way things behave in the world, but also a map of
possible worlds. In his seminal paper on diagrams, Somol (Somol 1998) agrees that the diagram
is a function of the virtual. In that way, it serves to overcome antinomies between the real and the
represented.
According to Van Berkel and Bos (Van Berkel and Bos 1998), diagrams are best understood as
reductive machines for the compression of data. Same authors further point out that diagrams
can also be used as proliferating machines, which is the way how architecture today interprets
their use, thus transforming the diagram’s conventional significance. This specific use of
diagrams has been influenced by the work of Post-structuralist thinkers, namely Gilles Deleuze
who described the virtual organization of the diagram as an abstract machine; and Michel
Foucault, for whom the diagram represented an expression of cultural, political and
organisational effects.
The diagram evolves from the context of space, program, or history, and it does not necessarily
exist in every project a priori. It is important to emphasize that diagrams do not map or represent
existing objects or systems, but assume new organizations and indicate yet to be realized
relationships. They are simplified and highly graphic, and support multiple interpretations.
Diagrams are not schemas, types or formal paradigms; they are contingent descriptions of
possible formal configurations, and do not resemble what they produce (Allen 1988). The
difference between diagram and image lies in its instrumentalization, i.e. an image becomes a
diagram when you instrumentalize it. The diagram does not simply appear, but it implies a crucial
process of selection (Van Berkel 1998).

SOME APPLICATIONS OF DIAGRAMS THROUGH THE HISTORY OF URBAN PLANNING

One of the origins of diagrammatic representation of urban space could be followed back till 17th
and 18th century, to the awareness of urban space and the form of governance that this entity
demands. Appearance of cartography and the discovery of the phenomenon of magnetism can be
recognized as examples of materialization of space through the representation and creation of
spatial transactions: networks and flows. Urban space goes beyond the opacity of the object and
beyond the formal nature of the design, so it can merely be interpreted via the diagram, a graphic
tool that goes past the conventions of scale, plan and object. Namely, Le Corbusier, the
proponent of the plan, clearly stated in his project for the Ville Radieuse that the truth comes from
the diagram (Aureli 2005). He claimed that diagrams are indispensable for placing theory back in
its true frame.
In his book The City Shaped (1999), Spiro Kostof discussed ideal cities, as single-minded visions
about how the world should function ideally, under the supreme direction of an individual or
institution, or in accordance with some all-encompassing principle. He called those cities as
diagrammatic, since they are the most often transposed into design in perfect geometric shapes,
circles and focused squares and polygons, and they obey rigid modes of centrality – radial
convergence or axial alignment (Kostof 1999). Through his analysis, Kostof highlights several
cities, including Palmanova, ideal city of the Renaissance; Chaux – ideal city of Neoclassicism;
and Howard’s Garden City, self-contained community in the late 19th century (Figure 1).
 

Figure 1: Cities as diagrams through history (left – Palmanova, center – Chaux, right – Garden City)

87
3rd INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC CONFERENCE
 

Palmanova, the ideal city of the Renaissance, is a concentric city in a form of a star with imposed
geometrical harmony. On the other hand, Chaux was designed as a full oval defined by a tree-
lined ring road, which was connected to the centre by radiating avenues. Finally, the Garden City
illustrated the correct principle of a city’s growth, with small circular cities surrounding a Central
City and connected to it by spokes of railroad and to each other by the main road.
Furthermore, Shane distinguishes between three key urban diagram types that correspond to a
specific character of a city (Shane 2010). At first, early urban diagrams concern system of
emplacement, with the essential central place as a reference point. The fundamental diagram
here is a circle, representing the cosmos and life cycles, with four cardinal points with lines drawn
to cross in the centre, marking a new central place. These cities are called “cities of faith”, where
magic ruled and oracle is required to establish a town. The following are diagrams of extension,
with Rationalist systems and location theory cities. These diagrams represent the spacing and
the interval between objects, a matter of great importance in the modern city with its accelerated
personal mobility. At last, the diagrams of relations define cities of networks and relationships,
precisely cities today. Each site in a city is defined by links or relationships to other sites, building
a network. Contemporary GIS applications alter the genetic code of urban diagrams, shifting from
mapping flows in space of extension to the space of relationship, mapping the space and time in
between things, events, people or places (Shane 2010).
In the course of the 20th century, the evolution of the diagrams is no longer restricted to the
transition from built to urban space, to the totality of the environment (Aureli 2005). The diagrams
also feed back into the architecture itself thus becoming one of the most fetishized iconographic
forms within the field of architecture and planning. For example, Kevin Lynch posited diagrams as
a way of looking at the mental maps that citizens carried in their heads (Lynch 1960). Lynch
constructed mental maps for different urban systems that described power relationships in the
city, and begin to map their urban, spatial and architectural implications. By using the diagrams,
architecture begins to be frozen expression of the forces: the concept of megastructure itself is
nothing less than a frozen vector of the diagram. If the diagram is a vector of forces, then it is no
longer possible to identify these forces in one finite urban artefact. Therefore, the urban artefact
itself should resemble the form of the diagram. In this way, as the vector of forces becomes
infrastructure, the city is imagined as a “plug-in system”, and it becomes diagrammatic (Aureli
2005).
Throughout the history of urban planning, the idea expressed later by Daniel Burnham, that only
noble diagram can capture men’s minds, plays upon the diagrammatic as seminal (Dunster
2006). In the 20th century, Christopher Alexander questioned the nature of the diagrammatic
approach in his paper “A city is not a tree”, with an augmentation of the scientific project of
diagramming (Alexander 1965). In this paper, author draws on mathematical set theory to
diagram selected cities, identifying tree-like networks with “artificial” cities planned in the 20th
century, as opposed to semi-lattice structures observed in the social structures of existing cities
(Lueder 2012). Throughout the history of architecture, one can observe a wide variety of
interpretations of the architectural diagram. Application of diagrams in research and design
discover the essential characteristics of multiple environments, allowing to architects, historians
and theorists of architecture to visually identify and explain the specific properties of an artefact
while preserving the concept of the whole.

CONTEMPORARY DIAGRAMMATIC PRACTICES

Along its embodiment, diagrammatic practice incorporates materiality of the construction with
the immateriality of information to create a technique for actualizing the virtual. Architecture is
already implicated in a number of media, and the architect constantly moves from one medium to
another, transcoding from virtual to actual and vice versa. One of the key tasks of diagram
architecture are constant transactions and actualizations of social, technical and urbanistic
variables. A diagrammatic practice extends the horizontal, affiliative character of the diagram

88
 PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2016
 
 

directly into the field of construction itself, engendering an architecture of minimal means and
maximal effects (Allen 1998). It is, however, important to distinguish a diagrammatic practice –
which locates itself in the operations of transposition – from a conventional process-based work,
which also foregrounds questions of representation and geometric transformation. In a
diagrammatic practice, the results of the process of transposition are immediate and literal. A
process-based architecture, on the other hand, usually involves an extended use of technique that
is recorded in the formal complexity of the building (Allen 1998).
The ascendance of the architectural diagram occurred on one of the most important architectural
and urban events of the late 20th century – the international design competition for the Parc de la
Villete, Paris, 1983. This competition resulted in one of the most significant build works of the
1980s designed through, and is arguably the best and the largest building exemplar of
deconstruction (Tschumi, 2010). Furthermore, the diagrammatic sensibility might be identified in
contemporary architecture by the work of OMA, CHORA, MVRDV, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman
and many others (Allen 1998). This architecture openly displays its constraints and is comfortable
with the limitations required by the shifting field of the contemporary city. For instance, the urban
projects of Rem Koolhaas and OMA move toward a new model of architecture as a form of data
(Vidler 2000). The concept of the design includes verbal (Figure 1) and visual diagrams that are
informative for further design stages. OMA’s analytical sensibility and the agenda of the new find
in diagrams an instrument that addresses simultaneously to intellect and imagination (Deen and
Garritzmann 1998). On the other hand, CHORA sees cities as dense and proliferating places, so
any activity requires abstraction of conditions of change until these conditions can be
manipulated, altered (Bunschoten 1998). The new urban practice which CHORA develops uses
the assumption that urban form is based on dynamic behaviour and that to design urban form, to
plan, to create policy, one has to understand the mechanics of this dynamic behaviour. CHORA
has devised a set of methods which aim at the isolation of basic processes of change, processes
which make up the “behaviour of a city”. An essential aspect of this isolation of basic processes is
the use of diagrams ( Figure 2) in order to reach a degree of abstraction in which unexpected
connections can be made and in which specific configurations can be shifted across from one
situation to another. Diagrams become tools of modelling or simulation of situations in motion
(Bunschoten 1998).
 

Figure 1: OMA’s verbal diagram for Yokohama Figure 2: CHORA’s diagram for Carlsberg urban
Masterplan, 1991. incubator, 2007.

Diagrammatic practice provides a theoretical account for dealing with large-scale projects and
complex decision-making processes. Nevertheless, the implementation of diagrams needs to be
vigilant, because they create the illusion of simplicity and clarity or urban tissue, which is not the
case in reality.

89
3rd INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC CONFERENCE
 

CONCLUSIONS
Architectural diagrams are tools developed by designers to help them understand the
contemporary city of constantly shifting relationships, where nothing appears permanent or fixed.
Diagrams of the city may be both magical and scientific, or a strange hybrid combination of these
two, like urban design guidelines that manipulate the city image to create a desirable, marketable
scenography. This paper has shown that diagrams can be of great use to urban designers in
clarifying the structure of the city, its genetic code in small patches and its dynamics between
patches. They can show individual paths, complex sections and collective shared maps. At the
same time, they have their limitations like any analytical device. Diagrams are inevitably reductive
and simplistic. The life of the city and local conditions easily escape their net. Diagrams help us
see the city, but at the same time can blind us to its real complexity and fluidity.
We can conclude that the power of the diagram is its ability to evoke the reshaping of an entire
situation with one simple gesture. Thus, the most problematic aspect of the diagram is its
capacity to subsume something that is irreducible to any representation. This is even more
evident in the recent use of diagrams, where the iconographic persuasion, or better, its graphic
décor, becomes the main essence of its content. Therefore, there is a paradox in our discipline:
On the one hand, architectural form is less and less important; on the other, architectural thinking
– the kind of autonomous, creative, and nihilistic architectural thinking that reduces things to
always changing icons and signs, to nothing – is able to reconstruct a representation of the
world, updating it beyond its immanent possibilities. This pervasive iconographic power of
diagrams as the representation and updating of everything beyond the being of things is
ultimately summarized by Rem Koolhaas, who claims that architecture liberated from the
obligation to construct can become, in fact, the diagram of everything (Aureli 2005; Koolhaas
2004).

REFERENCES
Alexander, Christopher. 1965. “A City is not a Tree.” Architectural Forum, vol. 122, no. 1: 58-62.
Allen, Stan. 1998. “Diagrams matter.” ANY: Architecture New York, no. 23: 16-19.
Aureli, Pier Vittorio. 2005. “After Diagrams.” Log, no. 6 (Fall 2005): 5-9.
Bernard Tschumi, interviewed by Mark Garcia. 2010. “The Diagrams of Bernard Tschumi.” In The Diagrams of
Architecture: AD Reader, edited by Mark Garcia, 195-203. London: Wiley
Bunschoten, Raoul. 1998. “Stirring the City: CHORA’s diagrammatics.” OASE, no. 48: 72-82
Deen, Wouter, and Udo Garritzmann. 1998. “Diagramming the contemporary; OMA’s Little Helper in the Quest
for the New.” OASE, no. 48: 83-92
Dulić, Olivera, and Viktorija Aladžić. 2014. “Primena dijagrama u procesu arhitektonskog projektovanja.”
Zbornik radova Građevinskog fakulteta Subotica no. 26: 159-164.
Dunster, David. 2006. “Design Essence.” Architectural Review, vol. 219, issue 1307: 28-31.
Hall, Peter A. 2010. “Diagrams and their Future in Urban Design.” In The Diagrams of Architecture: AD Reader,
edited by Mark Garcia, 163-169. London: Wiley
Kleyn, Erik, and Ed Taverne. 1998. “Painters and satellites; Urban diagrams: problems of interpretation in
urban observation.” OASE, no. 48: 44-62
Koolhaas, Rem. 2004. “Foreword.” In Content, edited by Rem Koolhaas and Brendan McGetrick, 20. Cologne:
Taschen.
Kostof, Spiro. 1999. The City Shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Lobsinger, Mary Louise. 2001. “Cybernetic theory and the architecture of performance: Cedric Price’s Fun
Palace.” In Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture, edited by by Sarah Williams
Goldhagen and Rejean Legault, 119-139. Massachusetts: MIT Press

90
 PLACES AND TECHNOLOGIES 2016
 
 

Lueder, Christoph. 2011. “Thinking between diagram and image: the ergonomics of abstraction and
imitation.” Architectural Research Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1: 57-67.
Lueder, Christoph. 2012. "Diagram ecologies-diagrams as science and game board." In Diagrammatic
Representation and Inference, edited by Phillip T. Cox, Beryl Plimmer and Peter Rogers, 214-232. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McGrath, Brian. 2010. “Inhabiting the Forest of Symbols: From Diagramming the City to the City as Diagram.”
In The Diagrams of Architecture: AD Reader, edited by Mark Garcia, 153-161. London: Wiley
Shane, David Grahame. 2010. “Urban Diagrams and Urban Modelling.” In The Diagrams of Architecture: AD
Reader, edited by Mark Garcia, 80-87. London: Wiley
Somol, Robert E. 1998. “The diagrams of matter.” ANY: Architecture New York, no. 23: 23-26.
Sperling, David. 2004. “Architecture as a digital diagram.” International Journal of Architectural Computing,
vol. 2, issue 3: 371-387.
Van Berkel, Ben and Caroline Bos. 2010. “Diagrams.” In The Diagrams of Architecture: AD Reader, edited by
Mark Garcia, 222-227. London: Wiley
Van Berkel, Ben, and Caroline Bos. 1998. “Diagrams: Interactive instruments in operation.” ANY: Architecture
New York, no. 23: 19-23.
Van Berkel, Ben. 1998. “Between ideogram and image-diagram (interview with Like Bijlsma, Wouter Deen and
Udo Garritzmann).” OASE: Diagrams, no. 48: 63-71.
Vidler, Anthony. 2000. “Diagrams of diagrams: architectural abstraction and modern
representation.” Representations, no. 72: 1-20.

91

View publication stats