This presentation represents my attempt to rationalize the mesh by allowing it to grow based on specific programmatic and aesthetic inputs. The review took place on February 25th and it was then determined that I should leave the mesh behind and find a stronger way of rationalizing the program by the midterm which will take place on March 5th.
I agree that in the case of this project the mesh has been allowed to grow too liberally, but it has also raised quite a few questions in my mind.
Specifically, can the mesh ever truly become program?
Second, if the mesh becomes completely rationalized is it still a mesh?
Finally, is the mesh a valid pursuit in terms of generating "traditional" architecture?
Here are some slides from the presentation:
4 Comments
great stuff mark. i wish they could be bigger to truly comment.
f**k!!!... this looks nice man, nice to see ur hard at work!
i see toyo ito
I'm curious about your question as to whether the mesh can truly become a program...what were your thoughts on wanting it to become so in the first place? .. and your question about whether the mesh is a valid pursuit for "traditional' architecture? Is the mesh really just about the non-linearity of the programmatic pieces of a building? It's interesting to note the diffence in graphic quality between your inital programming diagram and the latter (8th slide?) and compare the level of rationality that you've imposed on the arrangemnt if pieces, albeit perhaps less visually novel, it leads me to belive you've begun to convince yourself already the mesh(messy) diagram is unsuited for the further devlopment of your project.
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.