Response to Readings

Architectural Model and the Machine / Pandora and the Modern Scale Machine

The question of invisible things is singular to humans on an existential level and therefore requires certain mediums of understanding. To conceive these abstractions, according to Albert Smith, we have "imposed certain standards"upon them; each method varying with the individual. In other words, people make models to understand conceptual ideas. He begins with Gaudi, one of the most widely appreciated architect of models. What is fascinating to me about Guadi is his ties to Catholicism and its influence on his work. He wished to isolate the verity of ideas, believing that "beauty is the radiance of truth".

The romanticism of this reason is made apparent by Smith's contrast to Tatlin, a communist who sacrificed creativity for utility. He then goes down the line, breaking down rules with each "model-maker" until he arrives at Libeskind. Listening to a Libeskind lecture in Columbus, I was struck with the speed at which he changed topics and the connections he strung through the confusion. Smith also grasped this, calling Libeskind's work a, "narrative without a beginning or an end". Comparing this to Tatlin and Gaudi, Libeskind has a certain anarchic disregard for rules. A truly fascinating result of this is how he has acquired freedom, but also is challenged with the responsibility of this freedom. What rules can he follow?

This can be a question to all 21st century designers; with limitless resources we can create quite literally anything. But where does that leave us? Is there sense in what we are building? Do we need sense?


Manufacturing Systems and Strategies

This text delves into the specifics of digital fabrication, presenting a useful guide to scales of production of machines and specialists, the focus of firms on fabrication versus assembly, and machines specific to certain volumes of output or medium. Due to fluctuations in demand, it is clear that all of these specific systems need to work with some degree of flexibility. Robots themselves vary enormously between their physical construction and how they are programmed or controlled. This allows us to utilize their consistency and precision the most to our advantage.


Models, Prototypes, and Archetypes

Mark Burry addresses digital fabrication inout modern time with regard to its historical roots. Additive construction is a concept he is particularly interested in, with particular regard to Gaudi's Sagrada Familia. Scaled models have become standard since Gaudi's structural studies, and design schools are now considering it a mandatory resource to have 3D printers and laser cutters on hand.

He exaggerates the difference between a model and a prototype, a model being a representation of an idea and the prototype as a sort of manifestation of something existing that can be built upon. This distinction I find particularly interesting as it almost corresponds exactly to the difference between a hypothesis and a thesis. As designers we must use the same tools as scientists, yet we have the means to create our hypothesized realities.


Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process

Architects must choose a certain level of abstraction when handling physical models, thus allowing them to understand something on a level which induces creative thinking. Proportions become clearer and easier to grasp, and direct sensual feedback. This seems like a small sacrifice as most designers rely on their imagination to fill in for sensual details and spatial understanding while staring at their computer screens for hours on end.

As autonomous as robots may seem in the design process, each of the robots movements is controlled by a command that was given to it by the designer. Even simple moves that are programmed into a single button were wired by humans. The interaction between the two are fascinating, as man has fabricated a better version of himself for more fabrication. The concept of the whole thing when you get into it is rather lazy.


Authoring Robotic Processes

Now seems to be the best time to get involved in Robotics in architecture and construction. Because the pioneers of fabrication in the 1990s ran trail and error (expensively and slowly), we today, even on an educational scale, may utilize robots for their precision and sometimes for their speed. Considering the use of robots has been incorporated in manufacturing since the industrial boom of the 1920s, it seems to me that architecture is yet again almost 100 years behind other crafts. Although it must be said that the use of robots on a contraction site (besides a crane) can make the building process very interesting. The use of quadcoptors mentioned by Kohler and Willmann I think is a very interesting tool, as they can operate freely on almost all axes in airspace. This may very well result in something we haven't seen before in design, especially in the topic of building waste. The use of bulky scaffolding and imposing cranes can finally be questioned.


Changing Building Sites

During the Industrial Revolution, many things were growing at a rapid rate; whether it was production of goods, population, or materials, the rest of the economic world had to find a way to keep up. Automation started perhaps with Henry Ford's production line and carried into building construction, eventually leading to prefabricated pieces for the building process. The repercussions of this in the current climate for design and construction is the loss of customization. Having custom designed goods or places has always been a sign of prosperity or value. The cost,time, and materiality which comes as special requirements of making has always been valued as a trade. Could a robot begin to automate customization? Besides the intensive collaboration between robot, management, and building, this would be fairly easy to do. Maybe then there will be value placed not on the construction of a thing but its properties of form.


Retooling for Mass Markets in the 21st Century

Really bizarre: I read Changing Building Sites immediately before this and somehow pulled ideas of customization and the Ford assembly line before even reading Retooling

Its interesting to reflect on our century as an "Asian" one. In the past 80 years or so, China and Japan, among others, have taken a more active role in the collective markets and populations of the world. While Building Sites defines the current time as more of a "Robot" Century, Verebes here digs a bit deeper into the why of prefabricated building and the standard mold of high-rise residential towers that have been popping up throughout China's expanding cities.

The Jetsons example is a strong yet classic one for housing; with the population rising, how can we streamline processes to allow for efficient expansion? Thinking along these lines, maybe the standardization critiqued in Building Sites isn't such a negative thing. With functioning modernist examples in place in Singapore and Beijing, maybe we should be looking into what about the standardization is productive instead of trusting the placement of the program or losing the glamor of custom design.