Model making has long been important to the design process, shaping how architects test ideas and communicate intent. More than representations of buildings, models function as active instruments for thinking through design challenges. With the rise of digital fabrication, the architectural model has gained renewed relevance and has become an extension of the screen-based design processes used today. This makes designs more accessible and tangible through the fabrication process. Rather than replacing analogue fabrication methods, we have bolstered our in-house model shop with digital tools to strengthen our model making process, enabling our team to move fluidly between hand and machine, intuition and precision. 

When integrated into the design process, digitally fabricated models can be produced quickly, enabling faster and more detailed design iteration and deeper exploration, allowing architects to identify potential constraints early in the design process. This combination of digital design and tactile, physical creation accelerates iteration, sharpens decision-making, and makes for effective communication amongst project partners. The process also brings more creative freedom to the design process. Every model becomes a tool for discovery, revealing new creative possibilities, and offering opportunities to improve designs.     

Beyond their role in design development, models are equally important as tools for communication. Physical models offer a level of conceptual, spatial, and material understanding that screens and digital renderings cannot replicate. Used alongside digital representation tools, they create an opportunity for dialogue, supporting meaningful feedback and strengthening collaboration among architects, clients, community members, and consultants, making the design process more inclusive, transparent, and informed.

In this Explorations, we present four case studies that demonstrate how architectural models have been used to resolve key design challenges and support informed decision-making, focusing on the design development of the New Brunswick Museum, the Southeast Corner project at the University of King’s College, National Research Council of Canada’s Factory of the Future, and the McGill Sustainability Park.

New Brunswick Museum model: From massing to detailed representation

Throughout the design development of the New Brunswick Museum, models were used to communicate different phases of the project, from massing to detailed representation. With each phase progressively increasing in their level of detail as design decisions were made and details refined. The first model was intentionally abstract. Conceived as a glowing object, it focused on communicating overall massing, scale, and presence within the museum’s urban and cultural context to establish spatial and volumetric understanding. Illustrating the relationship of the proposed museum to the existing heritage building and surrounding neighbourhood, the model served as a tool for broad conceptual discussion not only with the project team, but the broader community. 

This early model served as a central tool in the Indigenous and public engagement sessions held across the province. By providing a tangible representation of the proposed design, it allowed host nations and communities throughout New Brunswick to engage directly with the project, exploring its form, scale, and surrounding relationships in a way drawings alone could not convey. These physical models fostered meaningful dialogue, created space for informed questions and supported the sharing of ideas, with feedback gathered through these sessions informing subsequent design iterations, reflecting the evolving design through community input and strengthening its cultural and civic resonance.

As the project progressed into the Schematic Design phase, a second model was produced to reflect the design’s increasing resolution. At this stage, the architecture was more clearly articulated, distinguishing the primary façades of the building, the city-facing façade and the Marble Cove-facing façade. This clarified how each respond to its context. The west elevation introduced a larger-scale textural expression suited to its urban presence, while the east elevation introduced a finer grain that engages the landscape more intimately. This model supported a series of cladding studies, offering up several ideas for discussion, while also testing an emerging design for a rooftop terrace, allowing material strategies to be evaluated in relation to form, light, and setting.  

The third and final model, produced by JS Models, was a highly refined and presentation-ready spatial, volumetric, and textural representation of the proposed design. It details the cladding systems on both the building’s primary façades, clearly articulates the project’s glazing strategies, and shows the interconnecting spaces within the lobby. Site context was a key component of the model, which includes surrounding residential buildings and the densely treed landscape, offering a sense of the museum’s scale within its broader location and surroundings. Additionally, interior illumination convey atmosphere and transparency. This iteration was displayed at a City Council presentation in support of the project’s rezoning application to communicate the project vision and intent and was subsequently approved. 

University of King’s College Southeast Corner project: From internal tool to client resource

For the University of King’s College Southeast Corner project, physical model-making played a central role in both design development and client engagement, evolving from an internal investigative tool into a shared resource for discussion and decision-making. A series of models were produced at multiple scales, each calibrated to address a specific design question and stage of the project. 

An initial 1:1000 scale site model, generated through photogrammetry, was developed to accurately capture the existing campus topography. Fabricated as a monochromatic terrain, the model represented landform, tree cover, and spatial relationships rather than architectural detail, allowing the team to focus on the project’s placement within the broader campus context. Used during the Project Proposal phase, the model supported early conversations about site access, scale, and connectivity. In parallel, a series of 1:75 scale interior room ‘module-models’ enabled close exploration of various spatial configurations.

At the Schematic Design stage, a 1:500 site and massing model was developed for internal team use and subsequently adapted for client presentations. Constructed with a laser-cut millboard site base, the model incorporated interchangeable building volumes, allowing the team to test and compare massing strategies swiftly. Primarily 3D-printed in Polylactic Acid (PLA) and resin, the building forms could easily be exchanged, allowing for rapid exploration while communicating the implications of each option. This flexible approach transformed the model into a collaborative tool, aligning the client and design team through a shared, tangible understanding of shared vision through scale, form, and spatial impact.

National Research Council’s Factory of the Future model: Testing feasibility through prototyping detail

For the National Research Council of Canada’s Factory of the Future in Winnipeg, physical modelling was a critical design tool to test a very specific architectural element: a kinetic façade animated by wind. Responding to the site’s open geography and wind conditions, the team developed a large-scale prototype to explore how the building envelope itself could register and express environmental forces, transforming climate into a visible, ever-changing presence. An initial study model focused on fine-tuning the size, proportion, and patterning of the square metal panels intended to move with the wind.

Through iterative design and testing, the model revealed key performance criteria, including informing the effect of etched openings on the airflow and movement, the required tolerance of the fasteners, and the optimal spacing of the panels themselves. Through this exercise it was established that the panels would move most effectively with no perforations, without aesthetic detriment. Presented to the client team, the model demonstrated not only technical viability, but also illustrated its functionality and dynamic nature, enabling the design to proceed confidently from concept into detailed development. 

Given the National Research Council’s research-driven mandate, the in-house model was translated into a full-scale mock-up produced by an external fabricator and tested at one of the NRC’s wind tunnels to evaluate and validate the behaviour of the panel system under controlled conditions. This step informed the refinement and execution of the panel components. The resulting 12,000-panel kinetic façade now defines the building’s exterior, an expressive, iconic performance-based envelope that is experienced by staff, visitors, and the broader public, and a built demonstration of research, design, and environmental forces working together.  
  

McGill Sustainability Park model: Technical exploration and public engagement

Model making on the McGill Sustainability Park served two distinct roles: as an investigative design instrument and as a catalyst for public engagement. In a project defined by steep, irregular topography and a building set 20 metres below the existing grade, the physical model became an essential tool for understanding how the architecture could effectively inhabit the landscape, while reinforcing continuity within the existing campus fabric.

An initial internal study model was developed to test the building’s relationship to grade, circulation routes, and adjacent buildings. Interchangeable 3D-printed PLA components were used to test multiple massing configurations, orientations, and connection strategies. Similar to the University of King’s College SEC model, this modular approach enabled rapid iteration and comparative evaluation, supporting informed decision-making during early design and coordination phases. 

The atrium, central to the project’s design ambitions to support environmental and social connectivity, was modelled in detail to assess its spatial feasibility and the ability of daylight penetration deep into the building’s below-grade spaces. By being able to simulate the atrium’s access to daylight and assessing the volumetric relationships between levels, the team was able to refine the atrium’s proportions and skylight strategy, ensuring that the building’s primary gathering space would be both energy-conscious and provide generous daylighting for user experience.

As the design evolved, a refined presentation model was commissioned to support public outreach and fundraising efforts. Produced in collaboration with JS Models, the model translated the technical studies into a warm, legible, and highly crafted object. A wood-clad base established the campus context, while the building façades were rendered in wood veneer. The use of wood for both the existing context and the proposed design illustrated the intent to build into an existing, well-defined historical campus. Plexiglass glazing articulated transparency and key public spaces and selectively illuminated 3D-printed skylights highlighted interior gathering areas and circulation zones—creating an informative representation of the future campus.

Digital fabrication has expanded the possibilities of architectural model making, introducing greater speed, precision, and creative flexibility to the design process. Its fundamental role, however, remains unchanged: models are tools for inquiry and design interrogation. It’s how architects think through design. They give tangible form to emerging ideas, allow for testing of spatial and material assumptions, and invite dialogue into the process through physical objects. Whether advancing internal design inquiry, clarifying complex decisions for clients, or supporting meaningful public engagement, models remain integral to the architectural process. In an increasingly digital profession, the physical model endures as a vital medium where craft and innovation converge, translating ideas into built form with clarity and intent. 

Part 2 will offer a behind-the-scenes look at the making of our architectural models, exploring how digital fabrication methods, material investigation, and studio craft intersect with the design process. From early studies to refined assemblies, it will reveal how precision technologies and hands-on experimentation inform one another to advance design clarity, performance, and expression. More than a look at technique, this piece will position model making as an extension of Diamond Schmitt’s design methodology.