I have stumbled upon Alastair Parvin's (Architecture 00) work on the Wikihouse platform and find the concept endlessly interesting. I think as we see more people contribute time, expertise and resources towards building the compendium of this open source knowledge, we will see greater adoption (hopefully). I think this is an excellent model for design build programs in schools and entities like habitat for humanity to connect with and develop. As well as firms and individuals. Is anyone here involved in development? I am very interested in contributing but have yet to do so. It seems like it has not really caught on in the US and I am wondering why?
Also, if Wikihouse hasn't been discussed on the archinect podcast, it really should be. I think this is more than prefab housing and more about democratizing the process of design. Decentralization and mass collaboration is the way forward in developing more equitable environments and I don't think its discussed enough in school or in the profession at large. Thoughts?
Building codes, established construction norms, zoning? All good reasons.
I'm not splooshing at this idea... seems too "let's solve homelessness with shipping containers" again. Houses are not difficult to construct and I don't understand the economic rational for this. Maybe come back to this once they can use it for 100 apartment buildings and other higher-density uses.
Wikihouse were all the rage a few years ago when I was studying, had a talk by the founding members. It's an interesting proposal but not cheap either.
Non Sequitur, indeed building regulation is definitely barrier to entry and for good reason. Although many times we find that regulation is slow to adapt. However, I don't believe the efforts to create a global open source library of construction documents is on the same playing field as NGOs and arch firms proposing resolving global poverty with shipping containers. Source shipping containers, moving them, modifying them all require substantial equipment and means. Wikihouse seems to address this by trying to reduce the structural elements down to plywood. Replicating the construction paradigm with a multi level residential building can be achieved with CLT, although I tend to agree it may difficult to find economic advantages to this. Indeed it has its flaws and is by no means the answer to poverty, however the fact that its an open source project open to contributions by the A/E and tech industries makes it much more interesting than a singular entity with a trendy shipping container/modular prefab idea.
Gruen, I agree the website is in need of more information (looks like it just went live this year) but I wouldn't call it worthless. Its only worthless if everyone holds this attitude. Its a platform for us to contribute and build information much like wikipedia: it gets more useful the more its used and contributed to. Wikipedia is only worthless if no one contributes. Today its one of the most important resources on the internet, its only been around 16 years. The value of wikihouse should be seen in the long term, not what it can do for you now. Maybe you can help by contributing your skills?
Thanks for the article Nam, I'll give it a read. I've been hoping for more threads that can discuss open source collaboration and how this profession can benefit from a shared global resource: working together instead of against each other.
Seems I also missed an Archinect article a few months ago about wikihouse, check it out.
Jan 20, 17 3:20 pm ·
·
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.
Wikihouse Thread
I have stumbled upon Alastair Parvin's (Architecture 00) work on the Wikihouse platform and find the concept endlessly interesting. I think as we see more people contribute time, expertise and resources towards building the compendium of this open source knowledge, we will see greater adoption (hopefully). I think this is an excellent model for design build programs in schools and entities like habitat for humanity to connect with and develop. As well as firms and individuals. Is anyone here involved in development? I am very interested in contributing but have yet to do so. It seems like it has not really caught on in the US and I am wondering why?
Also, if Wikihouse hasn't been discussed on the archinect podcast, it really should be. I think this is more than prefab housing and more about democratizing the process of design. Decentralization and mass collaboration is the way forward in developing more equitable environments and I don't think its discussed enough in school or in the profession at large. Thoughts?
Why?
Building codes, established construction norms, zoning? All good reasons.
I'm not splooshing at this idea... seems too "let's solve homelessness with shipping containers" again. Houses are not difficult to construct and I don't understand the economic rational for this. Maybe come back to this once they can use it for 100 apartment buildings and other higher-density uses.
I hadn't heard of this, techtonic. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Wikihouse were all the rage a few years ago when I was studying, had a talk by the founding members. It's an interesting proposal but not cheap either.
Non Sequitur, indeed building regulation is definitely barrier to entry and for good reason. Although many times we find that regulation is slow to adapt. However, I don't believe the efforts to create a global open source library of construction documents is on the same playing field as NGOs and arch firms proposing resolving global poverty with shipping containers. Source shipping containers, moving them, modifying them all require substantial equipment and means. Wikihouse seems to address this by trying to reduce the structural elements down to plywood. Replicating the construction paradigm with a multi level residential building can be achieved with CLT, although I tend to agree it may difficult to find economic advantages to this. Indeed it has its flaws and is by no means the answer to poverty, however the fact that its an open source project open to contributions by the A/E and tech industries makes it much more interesting than a singular entity with a trendy shipping container/modular prefab idea.
You might be interested in Student Works: FOUNDhouse by Patrick Beseda and Lacy Williams, which was at least partially based on/inspired by Wikihouse framework.
Also some related threads here and here
Gruen, I agree the website is in need of more information (looks like it just went live this year) but I wouldn't call it worthless. Its only worthless if everyone holds this attitude. Its a platform for us to contribute and build information much like wikipedia: it gets more useful the more its used and contributed to. Wikipedia is only worthless if no one contributes. Today its one of the most important resources on the internet, its only been around 16 years. The value of wikihouse should be seen in the long term, not what it can do for you now. Maybe you can help by contributing your skills?
Thanks for the article Nam, I'll give it a read. I've been hoping for more threads that can discuss open source collaboration and how this profession can benefit from a shared global resource: working together instead of against each other.
Seems I also missed an Archinect article a few months ago about wikihouse, check it out.
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.