Monday, January 22, 2007
I have several responses to the reading. As the readings present interesting ideas and rethinking of processes, some nagging thoughts stayed in the back of my mind throughout, of which I have no conclusive answers. The potentials of the argument that the writers craft is huge but seems incomplete, especially when framed in a new paradigm for the process of architecture.
First, I have issue with the implicit interpretation of the q+s=c x t. (or q+s>=c x t, there is really no difference) The selection and time of installation of materials seems to be described in the production of the product. However, there are more aspects to the c x t variable that need to be analyzed explicitly, (and as Nathan has alluded to): (c x t) maintenance; (c x t) operation; (c x t) failure and (c x t)disposal. Today’s economic situation where cash flow seems to be valued slightly higher than long term viability may be transitioning to the hypothetical necessity where sustainability becomes a necessity of economics and social good.
This returns as a theme in the discussion of materials and availability where the availability and variety of materials is inversely related to the transportation costs; the present day is an asymptotic relation where materials are infinite in variety and type and transportation cost is minimum. (p. 320) This graph does not reflect the current condition, or the most optimistic of projected futures. Transportation costs are increasing, and will increase in the foreseeable future. Availability of the materials and its inverse relationship to transportation costs does not argue against the modular assembly, but primacy of location. This will provoke the analysis, optimization and adoption of local materials and building methods. At a certain point, if conditions and trends do not change, the profession will have to design towards materials and methods that put a emphasis on (ct)m and (ct)o.
I am also interested in what is thought of the new paradigm of architecture and construction that a digital interface affords us as architects, the position of enabler and translator. (p. 22) As a work flow diagram, I am not sure where the role of client and product fits in to this process. (p.52) What are the implications of this to a non linear and gravity free assemblage?
The prime examples of the potential of architecture as it evolves are referenced in the aerospace, shipbuilding and auto supply chain and assembly processes. There is a complication to this argument, something that is clear to me in difference but not in implication. The final products of these production lines are made to leave the plant, whereas final assembly of structures happens offsite. Where singular mass customized transportation products are easily transported from the site, in singularity they can return to a similar site to be repurposed fixed or maintained. Structures cannot. And again, the offsite factory becomes less attractive as cost of transportation rises.
Do we need centimeter tolerances in all phases of architecture? What is the q+s=c x t value of that? Does q rise to the point where it makes a difference? In architecture what often matters in tolerances is the final layer, not the undercoats.
I disagree with most if not all of 5-5. Simply linking conditions of construction with the perceived problems of the industry, and the solution nbeing building within a building is too basic. The problem is localized, connected to outside forces of economics and in general more complicated than that. The additional connection to organized labor and unionization seems tenuous and short sighted. The evolution of the UAW and other unions is convoluted and complicated. One could look to the unions of the film industry to see a stark counterexample in outcome. Additionally the confidence in the product of localized union labor is not one I share.
I found it interesting that the writers of the book lauded the accomplishment of a 40 year curtain wall. How old are the buildings around us? What are the targets that we should be setting for the life of our buildings?
Finally to talk about the future of architecture based on economics and efficiency without introducing the ideas and concepts of sustainability seems to look towards a future that is five to ten years ahead, not fifty to sixty years.
First, I have issue with the implicit interpretation of the q+s=c x t. (or q+s>=c x t, there is really no difference) The selection and time of installation of materials seems to be described in the production of the product. However, there are more aspects to the c x t variable that need to be analyzed explicitly, (and as Nathan has alluded to): (c x t) maintenance; (c x t) operation; (c x t) failure and (c x t)disposal. Today’s economic situation where cash flow seems to be valued slightly higher than long term viability may be transitioning to the hypothetical necessity where sustainability becomes a necessity of economics and social good.
This returns as a theme in the discussion of materials and availability where the availability and variety of materials is inversely related to the transportation costs; the present day is an asymptotic relation where materials are infinite in variety and type and transportation cost is minimum. (p. 320) This graph does not reflect the current condition, or the most optimistic of projected futures. Transportation costs are increasing, and will increase in the foreseeable future. Availability of the materials and its inverse relationship to transportation costs does not argue against the modular assembly, but primacy of location. This will provoke the analysis, optimization and adoption of local materials and building methods. At a certain point, if conditions and trends do not change, the profession will have to design towards materials and methods that put a emphasis on (ct)m and (ct)o.
I am also interested in what is thought of the new paradigm of architecture and construction that a digital interface affords us as architects, the position of enabler and translator. (p. 22) As a work flow diagram, I am not sure where the role of client and product fits in to this process. (p.52) What are the implications of this to a non linear and gravity free assemblage?
The prime examples of the potential of architecture as it evolves are referenced in the aerospace, shipbuilding and auto supply chain and assembly processes. There is a complication to this argument, something that is clear to me in difference but not in implication. The final products of these production lines are made to leave the plant, whereas final assembly of structures happens offsite. Where singular mass customized transportation products are easily transported from the site, in singularity they can return to a similar site to be repurposed fixed or maintained. Structures cannot. And again, the offsite factory becomes less attractive as cost of transportation rises.
Do we need centimeter tolerances in all phases of architecture? What is the q+s=c x t value of that? Does q rise to the point where it makes a difference? In architecture what often matters in tolerances is the final layer, not the undercoats.
I disagree with most if not all of 5-5. Simply linking conditions of construction with the perceived problems of the industry, and the solution nbeing building within a building is too basic. The problem is localized, connected to outside forces of economics and in general more complicated than that. The additional connection to organized labor and unionization seems tenuous and short sighted. The evolution of the UAW and other unions is convoluted and complicated. One could look to the unions of the film industry to see a stark counterexample in outcome. Additionally the confidence in the product of localized union labor is not one I share.
I found it interesting that the writers of the book lauded the accomplishment of a 40 year curtain wall. How old are the buildings around us? What are the targets that we should be setting for the life of our buildings?
Finally to talk about the future of architecture based on economics and efficiency without introducing the ideas and concepts of sustainability seems to look towards a future that is five to ten years ahead, not fifty to sixty years.
# posted by rushmore : 11:06 AM
