So, probably the least anticipated entry I have made, commencing with the models from last time:
And, the notes I took during the review:
There was a lot of mention thrown around of what a project is “about.” So I made note of all mention that day.
For the next class, we had visits from different engineers. The current focus is on structure (of which, as you probably noticed above, I have little of in the model). We had representatives from Arup, Guy Nordenson, and Front, and here are the notes from their presentations, in order (they covered a multitude of buildings).
So now the question remains: how does this change my approach? Some of the problems were very sustainable (Bed Zed) and some not sustainable at all (Toledo Glass Museum). But what struck me was the influence the engineers had on the design. It seems like architects create problems and engineers fix them. I suppose I could be wrong, but something about that rings particularly true with me: when I was a software and network engineer, I fixed problems that people couldn’t even necessarily articulate, and that, in their particular (and sometimes arcane) workflow, they had created for themselved. For instance, yes, Arup fixed the problem of thermal loss in Richard Meier's atrium for Phoenix, but why did the atrium need to be so grand and tall? Front and Nordenson accomodated the curvilinear forms of the glass walls in Toledo, but every time a piece of glass breaks, it needs to be bought in Germany, fabricated in China, and then shipped to Ohio. Also, while the presentations showed how form changes through structure, there seemed to be an overwhelming notion that the architects either approve or disapprove of how a structure is implemented (how something stands up), but they give little thought to actually designing said structure.
More models for tomorrow.