Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
hi friends i m not talking about simple maths like golden ratio,finding 1 side of trianlgle by sin ,cos rule,i m talking about topology ,non euclidean geometry,biological morphogenesis,fractals,design optimization ,L -system etc.are these only a part of the research or are really applied by architects to create forms ,which are beyond humans(average) imagination.it is said that architects take inspiration from nature to create forms ,but they have an aesthetic approach ,whi dont they have an engineering approach
,because nature' has the best possible optimization algorithms for that particular design as the design has evolved through ages,
actually i dont want to hurt any one ,but no one answered my question in my college ,i m 2nd year civil engineering undergrad student from india,
Eero Saarinen used catenary curves, at least partially because of the structural properties of that shape. I believe a catenary curve is mathematically produced as a hyperbolic cosine function, and has an actual advantage in real-life structures.
outside of that, are you trying to find a math formula for form generating rather than structure generating? sort of like, a sphere encloses the greatest area with the least surface? Hugh Ferriss drew perspectives of a building's shape based on New York's zoning laws in about 1922. that's sort of mathematical.
generally speaking, and especially in school, form generation is completely arbitrary and often dependent on the will of your professor (or boss or client). i don't see math creating some sort of advantage when creating an arbitrary form. in the end, the deciding factor as to whether your form generation was successful or not comes down to 'does it look cool?' you could create some other determining factor, such as will i reach lower measurable energy use based on some specific criteria, or will a post-occupancy survey of building inhabitants achieve a certain desired result, but otherwise there isn't a mathematical right or wrong involved.
there are way too many factors that influence architecture to only let mathematical form become the primary factor in generating form. Most professors will grill you if you let everything else become secondary to mathematical form because architecture is so much more than just form. Sure you could probably achieve the most efficient and pure looking structure through mathematical means, but it will usually suffer in other areas.
ya accesskb i dont want to rely only on maths-rather than a striking balance between aesthetics,functionality and form .i dont want to start with this but after a certain period our ideas will become repetitive ,so why dont train the computers to do something and set a degree of randomness to create diffrent form,and nature will be our main inspiration because it has the best design it has aesthetics and engineering behind it,
i think i m saying this too early ,i must get in to architecture thenthinks will be pretty clear...
hey curtman thanksfor u r comment,actually i m in a confused state i have fascination for both applied math and architecture ,and want to work at the intersection of both,actually i m not able to express what i want to say...i m thinking of pursuing a masters in applied maths before applying for march 1 prof degree,is this a good idea???
Read about Xenakis. He combined architecture, mathematics, music and structural engineering. He was a renaissance man....and kind of crazy.
he sure was and contributed to applying Coubu's Modular to many of his postwar designs to rectify Corbu's architecture in light of the modular
kind of Crazy? if alive today, he would have joined #Occupy - and would be busy hacking autodesk