Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
"The idea that architects should be designing processes to produce glaciers and even alter the weather is both wonderful and preposterous."
My thoughts exactly. I have been grappling with this since the studio began. While it is an exciting proposition, it is also quite presumptions. The responsibility of altering weather and the possible ramifications can be significant. Climate control and alteration is a science which is extremely underdeveloped and untested. What if, in the end, it does more harm then good?
Because of the speculative nature of these projects, I appreciated what you said about assuming failure and thinking about the fringe benefits of an infrastructure that is left behind. If we can look at these massive structures/landscapes as having some benefit beyond its initial purpose, it allows for more experimental freedom in the process.
Thanks Talya for posting--cool to have one of the students from the studio reading this blog!
I wonder, though, if you mean that you want more "experimental freedom" out of this design-to-fail process, when the premise of the studio already permits so much freedom... Or, what might help more is to think about ways to restrict what you should and should not do: a road map of architectural ethics as it pertains to designing the sky. You have less freedom this way but more direction, if that makes sense.
I agree that the premise of the studio allows a tremendous amount of freedom and I am very excited about the project. I have been grappling with my own feeling of needing to justify my project - being that it is dealing with some untested ideas. So reading your blog and beginning to think about the form as something that can exist outside of its initial intention has allowed me to move forward with less conflict.
glad that I could help!
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?