Schematic Design
Translating Vision into Form
Date
Mar 18, 2025
Reading Time
10 - Minutes
After establishing a solid foundation in Pre-Concept Design, architects embark on the exciting journey of giving form to function. Schematic Design—the second phase in the American Institute of Architects' design process—is where abstract requirements transform into tangible architectural proposals. It's the bridge between what a project needs to accomplish and how it might physically manifest.
At Solid Void, we view Schematic Design as architectural storytelling at its most fundamental. This phase establishes the narrative that will guide all subsequent design decisions. While pre-concept work establishes "why" and "what," schematic design begins to answer "how"—translating client aspirations into physical realities that can be evaluated, refined, and eventually built.
Schematic Design transforms pre-concept fundamentals into tangible architectural forms.
This critical phase bridges abstract requirements and concrete solutions through spatial organization, massing studies, material exploration, and initial technical coordination. Success hinges on maintaining strategic alignment with client objectives while establishing the project's conceptual foundation. When executed properly, Schematic Design creates the DNA that guides all subsequent design development, setting projects on the path to success through informed decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and creative problem-solving.
The Purpose and Scope of Schematic Design
Schematic Design serves several essential purposes in the architectural process:
Testing programmatic feasibility through spatial organization
Exploring multiple approaches to site response and massing
Establishing the architectural vocabulary and character
Creating initial technical systems coordination
Refining budget alignment with design intent
Engaging stakeholders with tangible proposals
Setting design parameters for subsequent development
This phase typically produces multiple design alternatives ranging from conservative approaches to more ambitious explorations. These alternatives provide clients with meaningful choices while demonstrating the range of possibilities within established constraints.
Schematic Design requires balance—being defined enough to make informed decisions while remaining flexible enough to accommodate refinement. The deliverables establish approximately 15-25% of the total design information needed for construction, focusing on fundamental relationships rather than detailed specifications.
Key Components of Schematic Design
Spatial Organization and Programming Validation
Schematic Design's primary task is translating abstract programming requirements into organized spatial relationships. This process includes:
Blocking major programmatic elements
Establishing circulation hierarchies
Testing adjacency requirements
Validating spatial dimensions against functional needs
Identifying opportunities for spatial efficiency
For the Eastside Community Health Center, our programming indicated a need for clear separation between public and clinical spaces while maintaining operational efficiency. Our schematic explorations tested three distinct organizational approaches: a linear model with public/private zoning, a centralized model with radiating departments, and a pavilion approach with connected specialized buildings.
Each option satisfied basic programmatic requirements but offered different experiential and operational outcomes. Through client workshops evaluating these schemes against their organizational priorities, the pavilion approach emerged as most aligned with their community-focused care model. This early organizational clarity provided the conceptual framework that guided all subsequent design decisions.
Site Response and Massing Studies
Schematic Design establishes how architecture responds to its context through:
Building placement and orientation
Volumetric studies and massing options
Response to environmental factors
Investigation of site opportunities and constraints
Exploration of formal approaches
For the Ridgeline Mixed-Use Development, our schematic studies explored five distinct massing approaches responding to complex site conditions including grade changes, solar exposure, and significant view corridors. Through physical and digital modeling, we tested how different configurations affected shadow patterns, pedestrian experience, and visual impact from key vantage points.
These studies revealed that a stepped massing approach—ascending from three stories at the residential edge to eight stories along the commercial corridor—created the optimal balance between development density and contextual sensitivity. This fundamental massing decision established the project's urban response strategy and created a framework for detailed design development.
Architectural Character and Expression
While detailed aesthetic decisions come later, Schematic Design establishes the architectural language that will define the project through:
Conceptual material strategies
Compositional approaches and proportional systems
Fenestration studies and facade organization
Stylistic reference points and precedent analysis
Character-defining features and elements
The Carson County Courthouse renovation exemplifies this process. The historic building required modernization while respecting its cultural significance. Our schematic studies explored different approaches to the addition's architectural expression, ranging from deferential historicism to deliberate contrast.
Through stakeholder engagement with preservation officials, county leadership, and community representatives, we developed a schematic direction establishing a "respectful dialogue" between historic and contemporary elements. This approach used proportional systems and material rhythms derived from the original structure while employing modern detailing and technology. This foundational design position guided all subsequent facade development.
Initial Technical Systems Integration
Schematic Design begins integrating technical considerations through:
Structural system identification and bay sizing
Primary mechanical system strategies
Vertical circulation and egress planning
Sustainability approach and performance targets
Infrastructure requirements and distribution strategies
For the Westlake Sciences Building, our schematic process included close collaboration with structural and mechanical engineers to establish systems appropriate for the specialized laboratory spaces. We explored three structural approaches—concrete flat plate, steel frame with composite deck, and mass timber hybrid—evaluating each against criteria including vibration control, floor-to-floor height efficiency, and sustainability goals.
This early technical integration revealed that while mass timber aligned with sustainability objectives, vibration requirements for sensitive equipment made this approach problematic for laboratory floors. The resulting schematic direction used mass timber for office and circulation zones while employing concrete construction for laboratory spaces—a hybrid approach that optimized technical performance while maintaining sustainability commitments.
Budget Alignment and Value Engineering
Schematic Design refines the project's financial framework through:
Preliminary cost models for design alternatives
Area calculations and efficiency metrics
System cost comparisons
Value engineering opportunities identification
Budget reconciliation and prioritization
The Parkview Elementary School replacement demonstrates effective budget alignment during Schematic Design. Initial schematic explorations revealed that construction cost escalation had created a 15% shortfall in available funding. Rather than simply reducing square footage, our team conducted a systematic value analysis of three schematic approaches.
This process identified that a compact two-story configuration with centralized core functions significantly reduced exterior envelope and structural costs compared to single-story alternatives, allowing program preservation within budget constraints. Additionally, we identified strategic opportunities to expose structural and mechanical systems as teaching tools, simultaneously reducing finish costs and enhancing educational value.
The Schematic Design Process
Divergence: Exploring Multiple Approaches
Effective Schematic Design begins with divergent thinking—exploring multiple approaches to the design challenge. At Solid Void, we typically develop 2-3 distinct schematic alternatives for client consideration. These alternatives are not merely cosmetic variations but represent fundamentally different responses to the project requirements.
For the Hamilton Research Campus, our schematic alternatives explored three organizational paradigms:
A centralized model with shared resources hub and radiating research wings
A distributed campus model with specialized buildings connected by exterior circulation
A hybrid approach organizing functions vertically rather than horizontally
Each alternative satisfied programming requirements but offered different operational experiences, expansion capabilities, and implementation challenges. By presenting these alternatives with clear analytical comparison, clients make informed decisions about fundamental project direction rather than superficial aesthetic preferences.
Evaluation: Testing Against Project Criteria
Schematic alternatives must be evaluated against established criteria including:
Alignment with project mission and goals
Functional performance and efficiency
User experience and operational workflows
Technical feasibility and constructability
Cost implications and value delivery
Sustainability performance
Regulatory compliance
For the Metropolitan Transit Operations Center, we developed a comprehensive evaluation matrix rating each schematic alternative against 27 specific criteria established during Pre-Concept Design. This structured analysis revealed that while one scheme offered the most efficient staff circulation patterns, another provided significantly better future expansion capability—a critical project requirement.
This evaluation process must balance quantitative metrics with qualitative factors. The most mathematically efficient solution isn't always the best when human experience, organizational culture, and aesthetic considerations are factored in.
Convergence: Developing the Preferred Direction
After selecting a preferred direction, Schematic Design focuses on refining and developing this approach through:
Integration of successful elements from other alternatives
Resolution of identified weaknesses
Further development of key architectural moments
Refinement of proportions and relationships
Enhanced technical coordination
For the Clearwater Public Library, the preferred schematic direction combined the central atrium concept from one alternative with the site relationship strategy from another. This hybrid approach preserved the experiential quality clients valued while resolving site circulation challenges identified during evaluation. The convergence process transformed promising but incomplete ideas into a coherent architectural proposition.
Documentation: Communicating Design Intent
Schematic Design concludes with documentation that clearly communicates the project direction:
Site plans showing building placement and context
Floor plans illustrating spatial organization
Elevations establishing exterior expression
Key sections revealing spatial relationships
Perspective views conveying experiential qualities
Diagrams explaining organizing concepts
Preliminary technical documentation
Updated project narrative and design intent statement
Effective schematic documentation balances specificity with flexibility. It must provide sufficient clarity for stakeholder approval and initial regulatory review while allowing appropriate development in subsequent phases. The goal is establishing design intent rather than detailed execution.
Common Schematic Design Challenges
Managing Stakeholder Expectations
Schematic Design introduces tangible architectural forms that stakeholders can react to directly. This transition from abstract programming to specific proposals often surfaces preferences and objections not previously expressed.
For the Westfield Performing Arts Center, initial stakeholder workshops indicated broad consensus around project goals. However, when presented with schematic alternatives, deep divisions emerged between traditionalist and contemporary aesthetic preferences among board members. This tension threatened project progress until we implemented a structured design charrette connecting aesthetic choices to functional performance and patron experience.
By refocusing evaluation on how design alternatives supported shared programmatic priorities rather than subjective stylistic preferences, we developed a synthetic approach that satisfied diverse constituencies while maintaining design integrity.
Balancing Innovation and Feasibility
Schematic Design must explore innovative possibilities while establishing realistic frameworks. This balance requires distinguishing between productive creative challenges and impractical directions.
The Lakeside Research Laboratory demonstrates this challenge. Initial schematic explorations included an ambitious floating laboratory concept that captured client imagination but presented significant technical and regulatory hurdles. Rather than immediately abandoning this direction or pursuing it uncritically, we conducted targeted feasibility studies addressing structural requirements, utilities distribution, and permitting implications.
This analysis revealed that while a fully floating structure was impractical, a hybrid approach with terrestrial support spaces and limited overwater research modules achieved the desired connection to the aquatic environment while remaining constructible and permittable. This evidence-based refinement preserved the innovative concept's essence while establishing a feasible implementation pathway.
Premature Detail Focus
A common Schematic Design pitfall involves focusing on details before resolving fundamental relationships. Discussions about specific materials, fixtures, or finishes are premature when basic organizational and formal questions remain unanswered.
At Solid Void, we address this challenge through deliberate presentation strategies that emphasize appropriate development level. Schematic presentations use diagrams, simplified renderings, and conceptual material studies rather than photorealistic visualization. When clients focus prematurely on details, we redirect conversation to fundamental issues while documenting detail preferences for later development phases.
Case Study: Schematic Design Transformation
Memorial Regional Hospital Surgical Pavilion
Memorial Hospital approached Solid Void for a new surgical pavilion addressing capacity constraints and technological advancement needs. Pre-Concept programming identified requirements for 12 operating suites with associated preparation and recovery spaces, requiring approximately 65,000 square feet.
Initial schematic explorations developed three alternatives:
A conventional horizontal organization with operating rooms along double-loaded corridors
A vertical configuration stacking preparation, surgery, and recovery on separate floors
A pod-based model organizing rooms in clusters around central support spaces
Traditional hospital planning would have favored the first approach for its proven efficiency. However, engagement with surgical staff during schematic evaluation revealed significant workflow challenges in the linear model. Staff frequently moved between operating rooms during complex procedures—something not captured in programming interviews but essential to operational success.
The pod-based alternative, while initially appearing less efficient in pure circulation metrics, substantially reduced staff travel distance during multi-room procedures. Further development refined this concept by establishing graduated privacy zones within each pod and optimizing sight lines from team stations.
This schematic direction represented a fundamental rethinking of surgical suite organization that directly responded to the specific operational patterns of this institution. Construction was completed in 2023, and post-occupancy evaluation shows a 23% reduction in procedure turnover time and significantly improved staff satisfaction compared to the hospital's existing facilities.
This outcome would have been impossible without the exploratory nature of Schematic Design and deep engagement with users during alternative evaluation. The project demonstrates how this phase can challenge conventional typologies and generate innovative solutions tailored to specific institutional needs.
Implementing Successful Schematic Design
Appropriate Time Allocation
Schematic Design typically requires 15-20% of total design duration. While pressure to accelerate this phase is common, adequate time for exploration and evaluation is essential for project success.
For complex projects, we recommend:
Initial exploration period (generating alternatives): 40% of schematic duration
Evaluation and selection period: 20% of schematic duration
Preferred scheme development: 40% of schematic duration
This allocation ensures sufficient exploration breadth while allowing appropriate development of the selected direction.
Effective Client Engagement
Schematic Design requires structured client involvement through:
Design workshops exploring alternatives
Clearly defined decision milestones
Visual communication tailored to audience expertise
Regular progress reviews
Documented decision rationale
For the Eastridge Corporate Campus, we implemented a three-tiered engagement strategy with executive leadership focusing on strategic alignment, facilities team addressing operational considerations, and end-user representatives evaluating experiential qualities. This structured approach ensured appropriate stakeholder input without creating decision paralysis.
Design Review Practices
Internal design review strengthens schematic outcomes. At Solid Void, we employ:
Cross-team schematic reviews with uninvolved designers
Technical feasibility reviews with engineering partners
Sustainability and resilience assessments
Design intent articulation exercises
Challenge sessions identifying potential weaknesses
These practices test schematic directions before client presentation, strengthening proposals and anticipating concerns.
Transitioning to Design Development
Successful Schematic Design establishes clear direction for subsequent phases through:
Documented design narrative explaining conceptual framework
Identified areas requiring further study or resolution
Preliminary technical system selections
Updated project requirements reflecting schematic decisions
Established aesthetic direction and material strategy
For the Glendale Mixed-Use Development, our schematic-to-development transition document clearly identified resolved elements (building massing, program organization, structural system) and areas requiring further investigation (facade articulation, retail configuration flexibility, public space materiality). This clarity allowed the larger design development team to work efficiently with appropriate focus on remaining decisions.
Conclusion
Schematic Design transforms abstract requirements into architectural propositions. This phase establishes the conceptual foundation that supports all subsequent design development. While later phases may refine and elaborate, the fundamental architectural ideas established during Schematic Design typically persist through to the completed building.
At Solid Void, we view Schematic Design as perhaps the most critical phase of the architectural process. It's where analytical understanding from Pre-Concept Design transforms into creative synthesis—where the "what" becomes "how." When executed with appropriate rigor, exploration, and stakeholder engagement, this phase establishes the DNA that guides the project to successful completion.
As clients and architects collaborate during Schematic Design, they establish not just a building's configuration but its essential character and potential impact. The time invested in thorough schematic exploration yields returns throughout the project lifecycle, ensuring the final building embodies the aspirations established at the outset of the design journey.