what if I take a screen shot everyday and revisit it all in a year, when I'm done with all of this? I keep on making these huge claims, that are in fact simple to do, but always find myself ignoring them. 
One of the other studios here have a design for disassembly component that they need to tackle. It strikes me that to tackle that within the context of architecture - and in their case some sort of factory - requires a high degree of future projection. Sure, the same question asks itself, what is our future space conception. It would'nt make sense to develop a design for disassembly strategy that works today, because it is likely to be irrelevant -perhaps inefficient?- come disassembly time. On another note, perhaps disassembly is not disassembling and putting parts in the back of a hundred trucks to ship them to a new home. Or perhaps we do not build for things to last as they used to. Maybe it stops making sense somewhere down the lane.
What is interesting is the parallel when attempting to investigate design for disassembly. While some want to create a view of how the future materializes, others can spend the same -positive or negative- energy in imagining how the future dematerializes. Or ideally, one questions and attempts to answer both simultaneously.
p.s. All studio work is done with Tyson Hosmer, Michael Dosier, and Ryan Szanyi.
5 Comments
Loving that screen shot.
I would think that the thought alone, about whether in the future one will be disassembling your building will not only make your project more efficient to tear down, but also more flexible for future iterations of the program. Getting the prediction correct as to what people are going to be doing in the future is not the point. Making it easy to disassemble with minimal instruction and guidance will not only give future users the flexibility to change how their spaces feel, but also may encourage people to change the way a building is oriented to meet future design needs.
In regard to a factory setting, it will make it that much easier to change out/remove/replace the existing infrastructure when the building is eventually upgraded, or turned into lofts for urbanites.
sure, I agree with what you are saying. I know for a fact that that's how some of the teams are tackling the problem. I was just building on a previous post, and trying to say that some conjecture would be fun -yet beneficial- to pursue at times.
A historical survey of how buildinigs have been put down and taken apart doesn't seem to have many fluctuations to me, granted I've never looked into it, but like everything, maybe that too can change rapidly.
I see that the AA hasn't changed a bit, in all these years.
Still doing anything but architecture.
that's your opinion...
is it safe to assume you went to school there?
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.