Our assignment this week in Arch670 was to read the following articles and to discuss our thoughts:
- Probable Geometries: The Architecture of Writing in Bodies - Lynn
- Blob Tectonics, Or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy - Lynn
- Animate Form - Lynn
- Contemporary Techniques in Architecture - Rahim
- Versioning: Evolutionary Techniques in Architecture - SHoP
After reading these several articles, it seems to me architecture as a profession is contemplating the direction in which to evolve, in other words, how to correctly shape its future. In my opinion, these articles are about more than just if "Blob Tectonics" is the new, better way to view the design of structures. Instead, it is about how the profession should grow as a whole, whether or not to adopt the advances in technology, and whether to revisit the current design process. I believe it wouldn't make a difference whether this new advanced ideology of design was in fact the design of surfaces, or if it involved some other technological advance such as the use of magnetic force in structures to repel gravity. To me, the underlining question discussed in these articles is as follows: Should architecture stay true to the proven ways of the past, or should it adapt and conform to the new advances of the future?
This same challenge is present in all professions. In Animate Form, Lynn talks about how architecture needs to evolve from using simple geometry in the design process to the inclusion of motion in the design of surfaces. While I agree with the concept of incorporating surfaces into the design process, I am weary of shifting from the idea of using simple geometry in design to the use of a more complex type of geometry unless certain conditions warrant it. Simple geometry can be imagined, drawn, checked, double checked, built, and known to stand and stay standing. Complex geometry, while it may have some benefits, is typically harder to verify without the use of a computer and definitely harder to construct. After all, what is the use of designing something if it can't be constructed. And even if you are of the belief that anything can be constructed (I don't necessarily disagree with that), would it be economically feasible, justifiable, or even necessary to build something that much more complex, when an alternative can usually be conceived using simple geometry? The example of the two types of curves he gives can put an image to this thought, see Image 1. In my opinion, in most applications the complexity of a spline curve outweighs its other benefits. The simpler curve described by the radii of circles is most likely sufficient enough. Why make anything more complex than it needs to be. A past boss once explained to me, there is a reason roadway curves are designed using a circle instead of a spiral and it goes far beyond the ease of construct-ability. It is because it is easier for a human driver to turn the steering wheel once a certain number of degrees and then make small adjustments, than it is to constantly change the degree that the steering wheel is turned.
 |
| Image 1: Animate Form - Gregory Lynn |
In Blob Tectonics, or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy Lynn discusses his feelings of how gravity is viewed as the ultimate force and how buildings are, first and foremost, thought to "stand" vertically. He explains that other lateral forces often can outweigh gravity but yet architects design buildings as vertical, to withstand the force of gravity. While I agree with the overall point that a profession needs to evolve with the future and how the design of surfaces should be incorporated in the design process, I am hesitant to change my view about buildings being designed as anything but vertical. Maybe it is because I am an engineer by training, or maybe just because I am currently not creative enough, but buildings need to be designed to primarily stand up. Gravity is a certainty in the world we live in. From our relative perspective, it always exists and it always acts toward the center of the earth. We are not in space, designing as if our structure will have its own gravitational pull on other objects; we are on earth, where the earth's gravitational pull is the commanding gravitational force. While it is very important (just as important) to design a structure with other forces in mind, no force is as constant or unchanging as gravity currently is in our society and until that changes, buildings must be designed first to withstand gravity.
While at this point it seems as if I have a harsh difference of opinion with Lynn, I don't disagree with everything he says. In fact, I agree with the majority of it, along the lines of having to evolve and incorporate new technology. I also don't necessarily believe complex geometry is bad, and I agree with his point about how a lot of the natural world is based off complex geometry. Two of his examples include the organs of a human body and the image of "rolling hills". Neither of these things can be described by simple geometry, forcing the bio-medical profession to adopt complex geometry and artists to try and portray it in a painting. I also liked his example of how a sail boat's hull is made to include motion, designed for the different sailing patterns it will undertake. However, it is designed in an advanced way to do what its purpose is, to sail in the most efficient way possible. For me, this revisits the most basic idea of what an objects purpose is. A building should not be designed to have more curves just to have more curves, is there a purpose to it? Does adding the curves effectively cut into a wind vortex problem in the surrounding environment? Does it emulate the rolling hills that it is a part of? Does it increase the efficiency of the interior space with its shell? If yes, if there is a reason for the incorporation of the complex geometry into the structure, then by all means it should be incorporated to make a more advanced design. To me, this thought parallels the discussion we had in class about how Mercedes used the upcoming technology of virtual reality (a couple of decades back) in order to make the car more streamlined with the wind. The use of this technology allowed them to basically "scoop out" sections of the virtual car and immediately see the impacts of the wind flow, leading to a more advanced design.
The addition of complex geometry into the design process doesn't necessarily have to stop at the physical properties that might be of benefit. If a building or bridge is designed to portray emotion, to spark feelings in people, or to inspire the people in its society, it can also be thought to be an advanced design. As an emotional species, humans attribute feelings to everything in their lives. Take vehicles as an example. Many people see a face when looking at a car and will describe the car as angry looking or happy looking depending on its curves. We attribute the headlights or windows to animal eyes and see smiles along the bumpers. We would see a large Mack truck as intimating or a small VW beatle as friendly. This is in large part do to the design, do to the curves added to the vehicle body. Of course a vehicle could be made with a square body, but in my opinion adding these curves and encouraging people to have feelings about the vehicles does constitute an advanced design, see Images 2 and 3.
 |
| Image 2: http://static.commercialmotor. |
 |
| Image 3: http://yeinjee.com/wp-content/ |
As an example of a structure as opposed to a vehicle, the Hell Gate bridge in New York portrays a sense of power, rigidity, and strength to its viewers. Many articles explain that this is because of how the arch fans outward (becomes larger) at the base where the towers are in the structure, see Image 4. Yet engineers know that an arch doesn't have to get larger at the base, in fact, it isn't even structurally efficient to make the base of the arch larger. However, Gustav Lindenthal knew that by designing the arch this way, it would portray strength, leading people to trust the structure and use it without the second thought of it failing.
 |
| Image 4: http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/500-posts-and-still-blogging-bridges-and-tangents/ |
The Amgen Bridge in Seattle, Washington is another one of my favorites. From the side it portrays a type of strength found in rope, the twisting of its main members about its longitudinal axis. In my opinion it is a beautiful structure that intrigues the imagination when viewed from the side. Yet when approaching the structure from the front it might make one uneasy about crossing it. Looking down the center, the bridge looks like it has its main components shifted away from its center of gravity. While I am sure it is structurally sound, it could definitely make one wonder if it will start to sway when walking over it, see Images 5 and 6.
 |
| Image 5: http://www.empind.com/portfolio/amgen-helix-pedestrian-bridge--seattle-wa/past-projects |
 |
| Image 6: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalhead/7340474674/ |
Another idea that Lynn brings up is how a structure should be designed for its future purpose as well. I agree with this idea that a design can incorporate the dis-assembly and reuse of the structure once its original life has been completed or its purpose has changed. It doesn't have to be the metamorphic properties of a blob but maybe that is not really want Lynn was talking about. Maybe he was just using the blob as an example to portray what structures could be. Maybe he was showing that by changing our outlook on the design process we can now develop more useful, advanced, and thought provoking structures. Maybe its not the unique, non-replicate-able properties of the blob but the idea that we can now, with the advances of technology, design a structure to fully incorporate itself with its environment and work in part with the external forces acting on it. I end this blog with this final thought: can we ensure technology will only advance our design of structures, or will it add complexity, movement, and uncertainty where it doesn't have to be. How do you feel about a shape shifting bridge? http://wordlesstech.com/2011/07/19/dynamic-shapeshifting-helix-bridge/
No comments:
Post a Comment