Open Source Architecture (OSArc) is an emerging paradigm describing new procedures for the design, construction and operation of buildings, infrastructure and spaces. Drawing from references as diverse as open-source culture, avant-garde architectural theory, science fiction, language theory, and others, it describes an inclusive approach to spatial design, a collaborative use of design software and the transparent operation throughout the course of a building and city's life cycle.
interesting - but would any of these people actually want to live in a truly "open source" dwelling?
Don't we already kind of have open-source architecture?
Aside from the tools of 'better' production (CAD software), you can probably find 90% of widely-used products around the internet in a digital copy-and-paste format. I think the real challenge here would actually be quantifying some sort of cost behind these products even if only bad estimations.
And not just the retail or commission price but the actual cost breakdown from raw material to fabrication to markup to labor. Otherwise, not knowing what the true cost of a sheet of drywall or how much a Kohler faucet really costs doesn't really help open-source.
our business manager of all people sent this article to us. it's really hard for an in-the-trenches firm, though, to get our heads around what this could mean. our clients want our work, they want it directly related to the needs they've shared with us, they often want it confidential, and our liability carrier wouldn't stand for us having third-, fourth-, or fiftieth- parties involved in producing the documentation we use....
cameron's site and his efforts with the open source network make sense to me in a certain context and for the kinds of initiatives that are encouraged within it. it's a great way to generate ideas and throw off the cuffs of ownership of those ideas, if only for a limited amount of output.
how one would translate it into a productive professional environment, however, baffles me.
I think some Trends are in place that will be requisite for whatever eventual design methodology truly supports open source architectural design. The first trend is collaborative design networks such as designthinkers.nl or ocean-designresearch.net/. The second is research by designers into the use of serious games and technologies such as second life as a way to evolve design in the virtual first but with real community members providing feedback and the ability to iterate with community feedback from scholars, designers and lay people before committing to the design. The third trend is the incorporation of participatory design coming from IT, software and product design into the architectural design process. These trends combined with some form of IPD seem to to be essential for achieving open source architectural design.
Very interesting and timely - thanks for the link.
I am dabbling in open source architecture (OSA) ideas through one of my companies analog structures (ASL). I think OSA has massive potential but needs to be tied to an efficient business model and commercial scheme (which I believe can be done).
I am also a strong believer in curation - which to me translates to someone (or many someones) sponsoring or establishing a very specific framework from where OSA is created/accessed/purchased.
I think Open Architecture Network is great, but lacks a clear commercialisation path and is bogged down by quantity - I can see the ethos and the reasoning, but I doubt that much good will come of it. It is reliant on 'free' work from designers, and there needs to be a clear commercial incentive in my opinion.
ASL will eventually create a commercialisation path for designers to create works that the public can buy, the designers can get paid for, and someone can manufacture under a Creative Commons licence. I myself intend to release a design for a structure under a CC licence so that anyone can build it, and people can manufacture under a pretty basic licencing arrangement.
Lets also not forget that there is risk associated with architecture that is not shared with other open source products such as software. An piece of software is not likely to have its roof ripped off in a storm. So OSA in my opinion needs a greater degree of quality and risk management applied to it. A guy with a sketch of a shed is just that - the degree to which there is genuine intellectual property and how that is treated is the key concern for me.
Lets also not forget that there is risk associated with architecture that is not shared with other open source products such as software. An piece of software is not likely to have its roof ripped off in a storm.
That slipped my mind when I posted. But it's a good point.
How does one assess risk in an open-source environment? And not just physical harm but also financial risk?
From my perspective, establishing and minimising risk is largely handled by establishing a reasonably rigid framework and criteria in which OSA is produced. The clue to my framework lies in my twitter profile - open source micro architecture. I dont think you can reasonably manage risk through OSA in the design of a hospital for example - sharing risk would be a nightmare. But it does suit certain types of buildings.
OSA needs two things, a specific kind of designer and an informed, future-oriented client, i.e. a product and a market. Neglect either and you have nothing.
Architects using this term "open source" is as retarded as software developers calling themselves architects.
Open source refers to computer code that's available for free distribution as opposed to being guarded. There is nothing in architecture that even comes close to this concept.
If anything should be open-source in our field, it should be free access to legally binding industry documents. PDF of my local building code costs $200. Collection of ASTM standards on a CD will set you back $10k. etc...
Putting together a library of industry publications will easily set you back $50k. Sure, you can design shit without needing to look up UL designations or FM requirements, but these issues do pop up frequently.
open source in software does not necessarily mean free distribution, although that is often the case. It more properly refers to the fact that the programmer or author of a piece of software makes available the source code to others so that they can access it, and in some cases modify it, improve it, or use it to create other pieces of sofware. An example of this is Apple making availabe iOs to developers to create apps.
A simple analogy in architecture is an architect making available their details of a specifically designed wall/floor junction available to anyone. Manufacturers do it all the time for free in the hope that you will specify their products, but designers typically don't - and for very good reasons, risk and financial motivations being only 2.
iOS is not open source. Google's Android is though.
The reason why architects would not want to share all their details (besides the ones you stated) is because they wouldn't want to be embarrassed. Quite often poor detailing is resolved on site by the contractor, installer and/or manufacturer's rep.
Architects copying their own crappy details is bed enough. Details provided by manufacturers should be used for information purposes only (as they often try to trick you into using their proprietary components in order to eliminate competition during the bid process).
Good detailing is hard. It requires thinking and such. It's not one of those things that needs a shortcut.
Also, open source projects (the computer ones) tend to make the most money through support contracts. Give the complex software away for free, and charge for providing technical support. Tends to work mostly in enterprise level network systems.
Again, nothing in architecture is like this. Calling it "open-source" is silly.
Android is more properly open-source I agree. Got my companies mixed up, although Apple's SDK is a variant on that, albeit a paid one.
In terms of your other points, it depends on what you want to create. My take is very specific and product driven - almost a design & build approach, where the design content is made available and there are a number of choices as to how its built. The analogy to cooking in the Domus op-ed is a very apt one in my case.
For me it is a democritisation of the building process, and a rethinking of how buildings and designs are procured.
The reason why architects would not want to share all their details (besides the ones you stated) is because they wouldn't want to be embarrassed.
I agree, which is why I reckon you need that idea of curation - just putting up any old crap, calling it open source and getting away with it makes no sense.
dia, both of your links make sense as interesting new business models. Domus article is kind of a mess though. It's like Das Kapital for design enthusiasts. And the name of the movement 'OSarch' only serves to confuse even more. Maybe there's merit behind the ideas, but terminology used is unfortunate.
A friend of mine used to call all architectural plans (site, floor, roof, etc..) as 'bird's eye'. No amount of correcting seemed to help. Not a big deal since his line of work had nothing to do with construction, but I would not trust an architect that offered to design my bird's eye. I would also be weary of an architect touting benefits of open source. It just seems so misinformed.
On the other hand, our profession also struggles with definition of parametric design. It seems like parametric design stands for whatever the user of the phrase wants it to mean. For young kids it means curved line. For older folk it means "fuck, I have to learn another software program". And so on.
I totally agree - open source may or may not be the correct term, but for now it is convenient as it captures the idea and its potential.
And I agree with the Domus op-ed - its very academic and hyperbolic. Yes, I can see potential for collaboration in the production of OSA, but no where near to the extent that you get in software. And there are other matters there that seem interesting, but need practicality.
But I do believe there is great potential - best to start small and well defined first though and see where we go.
Seems some of the disagreement here hinges on whether people are referring to open source products or the processes by which open source products are designed. I think the latter is more useful and realizable---that is, design of complex architectures by means of adhoc collaborations of professionals as a legitimate, stable, productive model. Keep in mind linux and blender are complex and were successfully designed in this way.
Dealing with risk is part of the model.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar is a good book on the history of software development and the power and relevance of open source development and tools. The author makes the point thwt traditional sw development is like designing and building a cathedral whereas open source sw is like designing and building a bazaar.
Which is mildly funny because building a cathedral is the exact opposite of that— cathedrals are piecemeal sourced to a large pool of workers to finish it all out. A cathedral only provides a "network structure" on which all of the individual pieces are linked together.
The adornment and decoration of a cathedral isn't a single-person top-down operation.
Not to mention, some cathedrals were constantly under construction for hundreds of years utilizing possibly thousands if not tens of thousands of different workers.
jjr, the guy who wrote the book is a computer/sw guy, not an architect, so take 'cathedral' from a lay person's perspective --- a cathedral looks planned and as having a singular vision and purpose whereas a bazaar looks like an adhoc assemblage resulting in emergent orders and patterns of activity
I think the latter is more useful and realizable---that is, design of complex architectures by means of adhoc collaborations of professionals as a legitimate, stable, productive model. Keep in mind linux and blender are complex and were successfully designed in this way. Dealing with risk is part of the model.
Just a note on this - this is really how architecture is delivered now - particularly in large projects. The 'ad hoc-ness' is more appropriate in the front-end of projects in architecture, where you don't have to create specific documentation using specific knowledge, whereas in software, where languages are consistent, you can carry this further through.
For example, hiring a British designer for a project in NZ would be useless in respect to the strict codes on seismic movements here, but expertise in a project typology is a more appropriate and practical use of his/her skills. With software, if you know the code, it works irrespective of locale - software developers don't have to deal with weather and topography.
The most appropriate ways to deal with risk in architecture/construction is to apportion it best to those that can mitigate it and you don't necessarily need an open source collaboration to create an open source product.
To me the more interesting aspects of OSA are in the different business models available to architects, different procurement methods, and in closing the gap between design and production.
I particularly like the idea of mass-customization rather than standardisation, as it turns perceptions right around. In that sense, and to your point, it is about standardising processes rather than products.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OPEN JAPAN 72HR WORKSPRINT
TOKYO, CHENNAI, MOSCOW, BERLIN, TURIN, PARIS, LISBON, NEW YORK, KANSAS A GLOBAL COLLABORATIVE WORKSPRINT 10. - 12.6.2011
Open-Source design collaborative generates post-disaster relief/reconstruction ideas for Japan.
June 20, 2011. Only three days after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami destroyed Tohoku, Japan, a global design initiative was born. Designers from all over the world were searching for a platform in which one could offer something more than just money to those affected in Japan: collective knowledge, ideas and expertise on the future recovery and reconstruction efforts.
“what I like is this openness and flat format of the idea storage. Itʼs one of the key issues to keeping the discussion field alive. Never be depressed or irritated about the situation, moving forward. The idea [of OpenJapan] is not only seriousness, but with humor, and sensibilities, you could feel the nationality, too. This is [a] good discussing tool with laughter and imagination, many of the participants were so delighted that the problem we picked up was really visualized via [the] world node and handed back for real. [...]” Hiromi Fujii_architect_TOKYO
Open Japan, which took place from June 10th – 12th, served as a collaborative relay race through nine cities worldwide, whose objective was to create and develop 99 design ideas with Japanʼs future in mind. Participating cities were divided into four time zones and were assigned six-hour working blocks each day. Beginning in Tokyo, handovers circled the earth, three times, from time-zone to time-zone over the span of 72-hours.
Volunteers and humanitarians from various disciplines (architects, programmers, photographers, graphic designers, interior designers, sustainable engineers, moderators and entrepreneurs) from around the world were in constant communication with each other through digital technology, and shared their knowledge and ideas at the urban, building, and product scales.
Cities that contributed to this design relief effort were, Tokyo (PRISMIC GALLERY), Chennai, Moscow (STRELKA INSTITUTE), Berlin (STATION), Turin, Lisbon, Paris, New York City (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY), and Kansas City . Up to 40 creatives worked offline in each city and continued to develop solutions to the problems defined by the Tokyo node. In the end, 107 ideas were formulated and developed by an international community of designers. Most belonging to this new family had never met and had to overcome distance and language barriers, and collectively let go of any doubts to adopt a path of open-source design.
The thoughts of each volunteer, as well as all design ideas have been recorded and can be viewed at http://openjapan.opensimsim.net/ Members of OpenSimSim and OpenJapan will soon be moving into the second phase, acquiring funding, assessing vital design opportunities and implementing those that hold the highest priority and promise.
Open Japan is supported by an international advisory board consisting of: Thomas Auer, Transsolar Climate Engineering, Joanna Breidenbach, BetterplaceLabs, Alfredo Brillenbourg, ETH Zurich, and Sergio Palleroni, BaSIC Initiative.
"Congratulation! This is a very exciting achievement! I'm really touched by the comments, especially the ones from Japan. You know that I had been concerned to what extend OpenJapan can really provide help. What OpenJapan has accomplished is much more: "a happy face ... in a situation of darkness & shortage ... the world is shrinking". This is invaluable! " Thomas Auer_director TRANSSOLAR_STUTTGART
__
OPENJAPAN OpenJapan.OpenSimSim.net
OPENSIMSIM
OpenSimSim.net OpenSimSim.tumblr.com
OpenSimSim is a community-driven platform that enhances the architectural design and building process. The design process is given a contemporary spin: an interested community offers their input and feedback on the design. It provides user-generated content for projects, where users help with needs and requests, as well as take part in the implementation and revision, providing valuable knowledge along the way. The goal is to define new objectives, develop strategies to initiate activities, meet people in the architecture field, make the design process more transparent, and create new visions. It is available to anyone in the world who cares about design. OpenSimSim was founded in 2010 by Daniel Dendra (anOtherArchitect), Fredrike Behau (be-ID) and Rosbeh Ghobarkar (LOOM webworks). In 2010 OpenSimSim was exhibited at the 12th Architecture Biennale in Venice curated by Kazujo Sejima and featured at TEDxBerlin.
__
For more information please contact
Japan
Hiromi Fujii, +81 801 9327170, [email protected]
open source architecture
Open Source Architecture (OSArc)
from the "manifesto:"
Open Source Architecture (OSArc) is an emerging paradigm describing new procedures for the design, construction and operation of buildings, infrastructure and spaces. Drawing from references as diverse as open-source culture, avant-garde architectural theory, science fiction, language theory, and others, it describes an inclusive approach to spatial design, a collaborative use of design software and the transparent operation throughout the course of a building and city's life cycle.
interesting - but would any of these people actually want to live in a truly "open source" dwelling?
Don't we already kind of have open-source architecture?
Aside from the tools of 'better' production (CAD software), you can probably find 90% of widely-used products around the internet in a digital copy-and-paste format. I think the real challenge here would actually be quantifying some sort of cost behind these products even if only bad estimations.
And not just the retail or commission price but the actual cost breakdown from raw material to fabrication to markup to labor. Otherwise, not knowing what the true cost of a sheet of drywall or how much a Kohler faucet really costs doesn't really help open-source.
our business manager of all people sent this article to us. it's really hard for an in-the-trenches firm, though, to get our heads around what this could mean. our clients want our work, they want it directly related to the needs they've shared with us, they often want it confidential, and our liability carrier wouldn't stand for us having third-, fourth-, or fiftieth- parties involved in producing the documentation we use....
cameron's site and his efforts with the open source network make sense to me in a certain context and for the kinds of initiatives that are encouraged within it. it's a great way to generate ideas and throw off the cuffs of ownership of those ideas, if only for a limited amount of output.
how one would translate it into a productive professional environment, however, baffles me.
I think some Trends are in place that will be requisite for whatever eventual design methodology truly supports open source architectural design. The first trend is collaborative design networks such as designthinkers.nl or ocean-designresearch.net/. The second is research by designers into the use of serious games and technologies such as second life as a way to evolve design in the virtual first but with real community members providing feedback and the ability to iterate with community feedback from scholars, designers and lay people before committing to the design. The third trend is the incorporation of participatory design coming from IT, software and product design into the architectural design process. These trends combined with some form of IPD seem to to be essential for achieving open source architectural design.
Double post
Very interesting and timely - thanks for the link.
I am dabbling in open source architecture (OSA) ideas through one of my companies analog structures (ASL). I think OSA has massive potential but needs to be tied to an efficient business model and commercial scheme (which I believe can be done).
I am also a strong believer in curation - which to me translates to someone (or many someones) sponsoring or establishing a very specific framework from where OSA is created/accessed/purchased.
I think Open Architecture Network is great, but lacks a clear commercialisation path and is bogged down by quantity - I can see the ethos and the reasoning, but I doubt that much good will come of it. It is reliant on 'free' work from designers, and there needs to be a clear commercial incentive in my opinion.
ASL will eventually create a commercialisation path for designers to create works that the public can buy, the designers can get paid for, and someone can manufacture under a Creative Commons licence. I myself intend to release a design for a structure under a CC licence so that anyone can build it, and people can manufacture under a pretty basic licencing arrangement.
Lets also not forget that there is risk associated with architecture that is not shared with other open source products such as software. An piece of software is not likely to have its roof ripped off in a storm. So OSA in my opinion needs a greater degree of quality and risk management applied to it. A guy with a sketch of a shed is just that - the degree to which there is genuine intellectual property and how that is treated is the key concern for me.
Lets also not forget that there is risk associated with architecture that is not shared with other open source products such as software. An piece of software is not likely to have its roof ripped off in a storm.
That slipped my mind when I posted. But it's a good point.
How does one assess risk in an open-source environment? And not just physical harm but also financial risk?
JJR,
From my perspective, establishing and minimising risk is largely handled by establishing a reasonably rigid framework and criteria in which OSA is produced. The clue to my framework lies in my twitter profile - open source micro architecture. I dont think you can reasonably manage risk through OSA in the design of a hospital for example - sharing risk would be a nightmare. But it does suit certain types of buildings.
OSA needs two things, a specific kind of designer and an informed, future-oriented client, i.e. a product and a market. Neglect either and you have nothing.
Architects using this term "open source" is as retarded as software developers calling themselves architects.
Open source refers to computer code that's available for free distribution as opposed to being guarded. There is nothing in architecture that even comes close to this concept.
If anything should be open-source in our field, it should be free access to legally binding industry documents. PDF of my local building code costs $200. Collection of ASTM standards on a CD will set you back $10k. etc...
Putting together a library of industry publications will easily set you back $50k. Sure, you can design shit without needing to look up UL designations or FM requirements, but these issues do pop up frequently.
rusty!,
open source in software does not necessarily mean free distribution, although that is often the case. It more properly refers to the fact that the programmer or author of a piece of software makes available the source code to others so that they can access it, and in some cases modify it, improve it, or use it to create other pieces of sofware. An example of this is Apple making availabe iOs to developers to create apps.
A simple analogy in architecture is an architect making available their details of a specifically designed wall/floor junction available to anyone. Manufacturers do it all the time for free in the hope that you will specify their products, but designers typically don't - and for very good reasons, risk and financial motivations being only 2.
The trick is to work out how to resolve that.
to reinforce the point, open source doesn't need to be free, as in no cost.
iOS is not open source. Google's Android is though.
The reason why architects would not want to share all their details (besides the ones you stated) is because they wouldn't want to be embarrassed. Quite often poor detailing is resolved on site by the contractor, installer and/or manufacturer's rep.
Architects copying their own crappy details is bed enough. Details provided by manufacturers should be used for information purposes only (as they often try to trick you into using their proprietary components in order to eliminate competition during the bid process).
Good detailing is hard. It requires thinking and such. It's not one of those things that needs a shortcut.
Also, open source projects (the computer ones) tend to make the most money through support contracts. Give the complex software away for free, and charge for providing technical support. Tends to work mostly in enterprise level network systems.
Again, nothing in architecture is like this. Calling it "open-source" is silly.
Sure,
Android is more properly open-source I agree. Got my companies mixed up, although Apple's SDK is a variant on that, albeit a paid one.
In terms of your other points, it depends on what you want to create. My take is very specific and product driven - almost a design & build approach, where the design content is made available and there are a number of choices as to how its built. The analogy to cooking in the Domus op-ed is a very apt one in my case.
For me it is a democritisation of the building process, and a rethinking of how buildings and designs are procured.
Another example I can think of is Hometta.
And of course Ponoko
The reason why architects would not want to share all their details (besides the ones you stated) is because they wouldn't want to be embarrassed.
I agree, which is why I reckon you need that idea of curation - just putting up any old crap, calling it open source and getting away with it makes no sense.
dia, both of your links make sense as interesting new business models. Domus article is kind of a mess though. It's like Das Kapital for design enthusiasts. And the name of the movement 'OSarch' only serves to confuse even more. Maybe there's merit behind the ideas, but terminology used is unfortunate.
A friend of mine used to call all architectural plans (site, floor, roof, etc..) as 'bird's eye'. No amount of correcting seemed to help. Not a big deal since his line of work had nothing to do with construction, but I would not trust an architect that offered to design my bird's eye. I would also be weary of an architect touting benefits of open source. It just seems so misinformed.
On the other hand, our profession also struggles with definition of parametric design. It seems like parametric design stands for whatever the user of the phrase wants it to mean. For young kids it means curved line. For older folk it means "fuck, I have to learn another software program". And so on.
oh yeah,
I totally agree - open source may or may not be the correct term, but for now it is convenient as it captures the idea and its potential.
And I agree with the Domus op-ed - its very academic and hyperbolic. Yes, I can see potential for collaboration in the production of OSA, but no where near to the extent that you get in software. And there are other matters there that seem interesting, but need practicality.
But I do believe there is great potential - best to start small and well defined first though and see where we go.
Seems some of the disagreement here hinges on whether people are referring to open source products or the processes by which open source products are designed. I think the latter is more useful and realizable---that is, design of complex architectures by means of adhoc collaborations of professionals as a legitimate, stable, productive model. Keep in mind linux and blender are complex and were successfully designed in this way. Dealing with risk is part of the model.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar is a good book on the history of software development and the power and relevance of open source development and tools. The author makes the point thwt traditional sw development is like designing and building a cathedral whereas open source sw is like designing and building a bazaar.
Which is mildly funny because building a cathedral is the exact opposite of that— cathedrals are piecemeal sourced to a large pool of workers to finish it all out. A cathedral only provides a "network structure" on which all of the individual pieces are linked together.
The adornment and decoration of a cathedral isn't a single-person top-down operation.
Not to mention, some cathedrals were constantly under construction for hundreds of years utilizing possibly thousands if not tens of thousands of different workers.
jjr, the guy who wrote the book is a computer/sw guy, not an architect, so take 'cathedral' from a lay person's perspective --- a cathedral looks planned and as having a singular vision and purpose whereas a bazaar looks like an adhoc assemblage resulting in emergent orders and patterns of activity
I think the latter is more useful and realizable---that is, design of complex architectures by means of adhoc collaborations of professionals as a legitimate, stable, productive model. Keep in mind linux and blender are complex and were successfully designed in this way. Dealing with risk is part of the model.
Just a note on this - this is really how architecture is delivered now - particularly in large projects. The 'ad hoc-ness' is more appropriate in the front-end of projects in architecture, where you don't have to create specific documentation using specific knowledge, whereas in software, where languages are consistent, you can carry this further through.
For example, hiring a British designer for a project in NZ would be useless in respect to the strict codes on seismic movements here, but expertise in a project typology is a more appropriate and practical use of his/her skills. With software, if you know the code, it works irrespective of locale - software developers don't have to deal with weather and topography.
The most appropriate ways to deal with risk in architecture/construction is to apportion it best to those that can mitigate it and you don't necessarily need an open source collaboration to create an open source product.
To me the more interesting aspects of OSA are in the different business models available to architects, different procurement methods, and in closing the gap between design and production.
I particularly like the idea of mass-customization rather than standardisation, as it turns perceptions right around. In that sense, and to your point, it is about standardising processes rather than products.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OPEN JAPAN 72HR WORKSPRINT
TOKYO, CHENNAI, MOSCOW, BERLIN, TURIN, PARIS, LISBON, NEW YORK, KANSAS A GLOBAL COLLABORATIVE WORKSPRINT 10. - 12.6.2011
Open-Source design collaborative generates post-disaster relief/reconstruction ideas for Japan.
June 20, 2011. Only three days after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami destroyed Tohoku, Japan, a global design initiative was born. Designers from all over the world were searching for a platform in which one could offer something more than just money to those affected in Japan: collective knowledge, ideas and expertise on the future recovery and reconstruction efforts.
“what I like is this openness and flat format of the idea storage. Itʼs one of the key issues to keeping the discussion field alive. Never be depressed or irritated about the situation, moving forward. The idea [of OpenJapan] is not only seriousness, but with humor, and sensibilities, you could feel the nationality, too. This is [a] good discussing tool with laughter and imagination, many of the participants were so delighted that the problem we picked up was really visualized via [the] world node and handed back for real. [...]”
Hiromi Fujii_architect_TOKYO
Open Japan, which took place from June 10th – 12th, served as a collaborative relay race through nine cities worldwide, whose objective was to create and develop 99 design ideas with Japanʼs future in mind. Participating cities were divided into four time zones and were assigned six-hour working blocks each day. Beginning in Tokyo, handovers circled the earth, three times, from time-zone to time-zone over the span of 72-hours.
Volunteers and humanitarians from various disciplines (architects, programmers, photographers, graphic designers, interior designers, sustainable engineers, moderators and entrepreneurs) from around the world were in constant communication with each other through digital technology, and shared their knowledge and ideas at the urban, building, and product scales.
Cities that contributed to this design relief effort were, Tokyo (PRISMIC GALLERY), Chennai, Moscow (STRELKA INSTITUTE), Berlin (STATION), Turin, Lisbon, Paris, New York City (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY), and Kansas City . Up to 40 creatives worked offline in each city and continued to develop solutions to the problems defined by the Tokyo node. In the end, 107 ideas were formulated and developed by an international community of designers. Most belonging to this new family had never met and had to overcome distance and language barriers, and collectively let go of any doubts to adopt a path of open-source design.
The thoughts of each volunteer, as well as all design ideas have been recorded and can be viewed at http://openjapan.opensimsim.net/ Members of OpenSimSim and OpenJapan will soon be moving into the second phase, acquiring funding, assessing vital design opportunities and implementing those that hold the highest priority and promise.
Open Japan is supported by an international advisory board consisting of: Thomas Auer, Transsolar Climate Engineering, Joanna Breidenbach, BetterplaceLabs, Alfredo Brillenbourg, ETH Zurich, and Sergio Palleroni, BaSIC Initiative.
"Congratulation! This is a very exciting achievement! I'm really touched by the comments, especially the ones from Japan. You know that I had been concerned to what extend OpenJapan can really provide help. What OpenJapan has accomplished is much more: "a happy face ... in a situation of darkness & shortage ... the world is shrinking". This is invaluable! " Thomas Auer_director TRANSSOLAR_STUTTGART
__
OPENJAPAN
OpenJapan.OpenSimSim.net
OPENSIMSIM
OpenSimSim.net OpenSimSim.tumblr.com
OpenSimSim is a community-driven platform that enhances the architectural design and building process. The design process is given a contemporary spin: an interested community offers their input and feedback on the design. It provides user-generated content for projects, where users help with needs and requests, as well as take part in the implementation and revision, providing valuable knowledge along the way. The goal is to define new objectives, develop strategies to initiate activities, meet people in the architecture field, make the design process more transparent, and create new visions. It is available to anyone in the world who cares about design. OpenSimSim was founded in 2010 by Daniel Dendra (anOtherArchitect), Fredrike Behau (be-ID) and Rosbeh Ghobarkar (LOOM webworks). In 2010 OpenSimSim was exhibited at the 12th Architecture Biennale in Venice curated by Kazujo Sejima and featured at TEDxBerlin.
__
For more information please contact
Japan
Hiromi Fujii, +81 801 9327170, [email protected]
Germany and all other countries
Fredrike Beha, +49 151 234 24527, [email protected] Daniel Dendra, +49 171 283 92 86, [email protected]
New York City
Joshua Perez, +1 618 713 1697 [email protected]
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.