Sunday, January 21, 2007
Thoughts on Initial Reading
A couple of thoughts I had while reading…
With new materials and technologies, tighter fabrication tolerances, multiple components being integrated into singular units, and buildings consisting of many more systems (essentially becoming machines for living)… it is obvious that during the life cycle of these buildings there will be repercussions. Just a few possible ones follow…
-Increased cost of maintenance (more highly skilled workers needed to maintain the myriad systems for larger structures)
-What happens when one part of integrated components fails? Does the whole component need to be junked? Most current electronics are this way… if something burns out in a t.v. the whole thing becomes trash (of if someone opts for repair, it would cost more than buying a new one).
-How easy are these new systems to change and alter over the lifespan of a building? Currently, many of the building trades are not highly skilled and many components of buildings can be easily altered or changed… moving walls or installing new cabinets can often be done by homeowners. As the car industry has moved to higher tech components, the quality of the finished product has definitely improved, but now the average person does not have the skill sets and tools required to do routine maintenance or alterations to vehicles.
These are all problems that need to be addressed (or are already being addressed). I guess it just adds to the level of thought that needs to be invested in design, and solving these issues will be facilitated by improved communication and data sharing between disciplines.
With new materials and technologies, tighter fabrication tolerances, multiple components being integrated into singular units, and buildings consisting of many more systems (essentially becoming machines for living)… it is obvious that during the life cycle of these buildings there will be repercussions. Just a few possible ones follow…
-Increased cost of maintenance (more highly skilled workers needed to maintain the myriad systems for larger structures)
-What happens when one part of integrated components fails? Does the whole component need to be junked? Most current electronics are this way… if something burns out in a t.v. the whole thing becomes trash (of if someone opts for repair, it would cost more than buying a new one).
-How easy are these new systems to change and alter over the lifespan of a building? Currently, many of the building trades are not highly skilled and many components of buildings can be easily altered or changed… moving walls or installing new cabinets can often be done by homeowners. As the car industry has moved to higher tech components, the quality of the finished product has definitely improved, but now the average person does not have the skill sets and tools required to do routine maintenance or alterations to vehicles.
These are all problems that need to be addressed (or are already being addressed). I guess it just adds to the level of thought that needs to be invested in design, and solving these issues will be facilitated by improved communication and data sharing between disciplines.
# posted by Nathan : 12:43 PM
Comments:
<< Home
In the purest sense, the text would demand a customization of parts so that only the original "master architect" would be able to repair any damage or provide proper maintenance. But then, one might argue that the average person should not be directly involved in the alteration/maintenance/repair of a building - after all, as Nathan pointed out, it does work for the car industry. (Disclaimer: This next part is going to sound elitist, I'm playing devil's advocate) After all, aren't we claiming a privileged position by calling ourselves "architect"? One might argue that many of the problems that surround architecture now has to do with the fact that the general public, simply put, doesn't regard the architect as being terribly important. Besides developing "better design" (or "quality" which would hopefully suggest longevity and superior function) one might point out that this all suggests developing a better marketing strategy.
Okay, but then, the text does discuss the idea of mass-customization as a hybrid between customization and standardization (which might follow the model of numerous shoe companies, bags, etc. that provide standard parts and configurations but you choose how it goes together and what color). The manufacturer worries about the assembly and the particular issues of fabrication. And then, you assemble components at the site. Now, if there is a need for repairs, the owner can work through the manufacturer - the parts are all standard (the component is custom) and so are easily repaired. This might be the compromise to the problem that Nathan pointed out. And the text argues that this allows for better design because there isn't an obsession with cataloguing parts so the architect (or "product engineer") can focus on designing the connection between components.
But, I'd argue, that this does not really get at the problem. This still limits innovation even in connections since it does still depend on standard parts - all this has done is shift assembly from the project site to the manufacturer.
But, maybe I'm missing something...
Post a Comment
Okay, but then, the text does discuss the idea of mass-customization as a hybrid between customization and standardization (which might follow the model of numerous shoe companies, bags, etc. that provide standard parts and configurations but you choose how it goes together and what color). The manufacturer worries about the assembly and the particular issues of fabrication. And then, you assemble components at the site. Now, if there is a need for repairs, the owner can work through the manufacturer - the parts are all standard (the component is custom) and so are easily repaired. This might be the compromise to the problem that Nathan pointed out. And the text argues that this allows for better design because there isn't an obsession with cataloguing parts so the architect (or "product engineer") can focus on designing the connection between components.
But, I'd argue, that this does not really get at the problem. This still limits innovation even in connections since it does still depend on standard parts - all this has done is shift assembly from the project site to the manufacturer.
But, maybe I'm missing something...
<< Home
