Architecture and the Creative Process As Penned on a Napkin

Architects have gained much notoriety for doodling on the back of napkins in cafés and pubs. But what is it that they are doing? How does a project go from idea to fruition? What role do these "napkin sketches" or snap shots have in the development of a work of architecture? Are these ideas really ever worked out or do architects merely play lip service to them? Or is the problem that little exploration is done outside of the napkin sketch? Should it be returned to after other formal or intellectual exploration? What is consonance and why is it important in Architecture? I'll try to address some of these issues and invite other architects and creative professionals to add their two cents.

The sketch above is from the hand of the celebrated English architect Chris Wilkinson. Chris is a very creative architect who is best known for his bridges- commissions he obtained by besting a field of competitors that included Santiago Calatrava not once, but twice. He has designed some very engaging and clever science buildings and exhibits. Wilkinson, Bass Ale in hand, laid out what went into making a building. Specifically, the topic was an addition to a science museum in Chicago, but much of what he writes is of a general nature. He lists:

Three major categories:
1. Site and Context
2. Brief (program)
3. Concept

He then takes the last and breaks it down into:
–Layout/Space, Circulation
–Form
–Structure
–Materials
–Lighting
–Hidden Agenda

His "hidden Agenda" is further divided into:

–Responsibility
–Environment
–Landmark
–Special
–Transfer Technology
-Theater

Wilkinson had a disdain for "one-liner" buildings. Helmut Jahn was one of his favorite examples of which we were to eschew. Instead, he believed that "juggling" or getting as many things going on at once all the while keeping it coherent and true to the task at hand was the sine qua non of an advanced artist.

If we agree that it has a role in creating a work of architecture, then how successful is Wilkinson? Can we follow the thread through a work? Can we start at the beginning and make our way to the end? I realize that this discussion spills outside the bounds of what is presented here, but it's a good beginning.

Second, are diagrams sufficient enough for architectural exploration? For instance, if someone draws a lot of bubble diagrams for programmming does one merely extrude these and make a building? Or is the diagram a point of departure? One criticism of Wilkinson is that the issues he raises are always solved in a similiar manner. Again, what role does formal or material exploration play? Then are more diagrams necessary to hone and focus? Is it more of a back and forth process?

What do you think?