Model Making for Connection
Cementless Concrete Housing Co-Design
A cross-national research project exploring how geopolymer (cementless) concrete could be used to build low-income housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Residents of six PPR public housing estates were invited to physically design their ideal homes using scale models — surfacing cultural, spatial, and domestic priorities that no questionnaire could capture. The project was a collaboration between Queen’s University Belfast and two Malaysian universities, partnered with concrete companies in Northern Ireland and Kuala Lumpur.
Model Making for Connection
Use physical scale models to evaluate how well a space serves the people who use it — and discover what they actually need from it.
Phase 0: Logic Model & Topic Mapping
Identify the “Evaluation Gap” this method fills. It is best suited for evaluating whether a physical space meets its users’ real needs and surfacing spatial, cultural, or accessibility priorities that people cannot easily express in words.
Primary Objective
To evaluate how well a space works for the people who use it — by making their spatial knowledge visible, physical, and comparable. The gap between what currently exists and what participants build is your evaluation data.
Key Stakeholders
Community members, service users, event attendees, residents, people with accessibility needs, programme facilitators, venue managers, planners — anyone whose experience of a space matters to your project.
Reflective Planning Questions — Ask Yourself Before You Begin:
- “What space am I evaluating, and whose experience of that space matters most?”
- “What do I suspect people cannot tell me in a survey about how this space works or fails them?”
- “Am I evaluating an existing space (how well does it serve people now?) or a proposed space (will this design meet people’s needs before we commit to it?)”
Part 1: The DIY Step-by-Step Method
Find the Gatekeepers and Secure the Room
Before anything else, you need access to the community and a space to work in. Identify a trusted local contact — a community representative, a venue manager, a group leader — and approach them directly. You are asking to spend time with people in their territory, so let the gatekeeper guide you on what is appropriate. Secure a communal room, hall, or meeting space where participants already feel comfortable.
The Details:
- Action: Research the community or user group you want to evaluate with. Find out who coordinates them, who holds informal authority, and what meeting spaces already exist. Contact that person, explain the session simply, and ask for their support in hosting it.
- Tip: Every setting is different — you might get a bright hall with tables, or a floor space with cushions. Do not impose your own layout assumptions. Adapt to whatever the community already uses. This flexibility is itself part of the evaluation: the room tells you something about how this group gathers.
Advertise Light, Arrive Open
Post simple notices in advance — a date, a time, a photograph, and a single line of invitation. Do not describe the activity in detail. You want participants to arrive with fresh thinking, not pre-rehearsed answers. The less they know about what to expect, the more honest their spatial instincts will be when they start building.
The Details:
- Action: Design a minimal poster or notice: date, time, location, and a warm invitation to take part. Display it in communal areas two to four weeks before the session. Avoid language like “design workshop” or “architecture” — keep it open and approachable.
- Tip: Resist the urge to over-explain. If participants arrive knowing they will “evaluate the community hall layout,” they will perform rather than explore. Fresh eyes produce the most revealing evaluation data. Let the models do the talking.
Build the Kit and Set the Stage
This is where the method becomes tangible. You need a scale model that represents the space you are evaluating — either its current layout (if you are assessing an existing space) or a blank outline (if you are testing a proposed one). Pre-cut moveable pieces — walls, furniture, key objects — so participants can physically rearrange the space. Everything must be to scale so that the models produce real, usable evaluation data.
The Details:
- Action: Using stiff card, cut a base outline of the space at a consistent scale. Then cut moveable pieces: walls, partition screens, tables, chairs, beds, doorways, ramps, stages — whatever is relevant to the space you are evaluating. Label or colour-code the pieces so participants can identify them easily. Assemble the base outlines on tables or floor the day before (or morning of) the session.
- Tip: Keep it simple but accurate. Standard furniture dimensions are widely available online — a single bed, a dining table, a wheelchair turning circle. Accuracy at scale is what turns a craft activity into an evaluation tool. If a wheelchair piece does not fit through a doorway piece, that finding is as powerful as any survey result.
Facilitate the Build, Harvest the Findings
On the day, briefly explain the outline and the pieces — then step back. Let participants arrange their version of the space with no pressure, no competition, and no “right answer.” Every model is equally valid. While they build, circulate and ask light questions about their choices. Afterwards, photograph every model from above and conduct a short group discussion or individual questionnaire. Your evaluation data is the collection of models themselves: the patterns, the surprises, and the gaps between what exists and what participants built.
The Details:
- Action: Give a two-minute introduction: “This is the outline of [the space]. These pieces are walls, furniture, and features. Arrange them however you think works best — there is no wrong answer.” Then let people work. Photograph each completed model from directly above. Follow up with a brief questionnaire or conversation: “What was the most important thing you placed first? What would you never move?”
- Tip: Create a democratic atmosphere — no model is better than another. Do not correct, suggest, or guide. The most valuable evaluation findings come from choices you did not expect. After the session, lay out all the photographs and look for overarching themes: which elements appear in the same place across most models? Which vary wildly? The consistencies are your headline findings. The variations are your nuance.
Part 2: The Realist Pathway
Evidence Manifest
Documenting how the Mechanism was verified through specific data collection.
| Evidence Type | What it Proves | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Overhead photographs of completed models |
Proves that participants can produce spatially coherent, internally consistent layouts without any design training. When compared across a group, the photographs reveal recurring patterns (consistent evaluation findings) and meaningful variations (areas of divergent need). The visual record makes the evaluation data immediately legible to funders, planners, and decision-makers. | Photographs taken directly above each completed model at the end of every session, across all participant groups. |
| Thematic Cross-model spatial analysis |
Proves that individual models, when analysed together, produce clear overarching themes — recurring spatial priorities that represent collective evaluation findings. These themes can directly inform policy, design briefs, or service improvement plans because they are grounded in physical, comparable evidence rather than opinion. | Visual thematic analysis of all models from a session: grouping by room placement, circulation patterns, feature prioritisation, and spatial relationships between elements. |
| Participatory Post-build questionnaires and group discussion |
Proves that the model-making process itself changes participants’ relationship to the space being evaluated. People report feeling consulted, respected, and invested. The questionnaire captures their reasoning — why they placed things where they did — adding narrative depth to the visual evidence and confirming that the method reaches people who would not engage with traditional evaluation tools. | Short written questionnaires and facilitated group conversations conducted immediately after the building session, while the models are still on the table. |
Don’t just write a boring report. Use the stuff you actually made during the session.
The Photo Grid
You have an overhead photograph of every model. Lay them out in a grid in your report — the visual repetition of similar layouts is more persuasive than any paragraph. Decision-makers can see the pattern instantly. Circle or highlight the recurring elements across models to make the evaluation finding jump off the page.
The Gap Diagram
Place the current space layout (or proposed plan) side by side with a composite of participants’ models. The visual gap between the two is your evaluation finding — it shows exactly where the existing space fails its users and what they would change. This before-and-after format is powerful in funding bids and service reviews.
The Quote-and-Model Pair
Match a single photograph of a model with a direct quote from its maker, taken from the post-build discussion. The image shows the spatial decision; the quote explains the human reason behind it. Together they create evaluation evidence that is both visual and personal — harder to ignore than either alone.
The “One-Sentence” Report
“Because we used Model Making for Connection, participants in our community felt respected and consulted enough to show us exactly how the space fails them — in ways no survey could capture.”