i always thought that most of the stuff coming out of nox and the like (blobmeisters & co) was a load of crap, but lately, specially since for "unit" reasons i had to start studying into it, you know, it's not that bad!
i've been reading "Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing", and it poses the interesting question of why digital manufacturing has yet to revolutionize Architecture, like it has revolutionized almost any other industrial manufacturing process.
the question is...am i being brainwashed? or is it just that there is a bit of goodness in almost anything, and you have to just look for it? or is it bcause i've been splitting nurbs for the last 5 hours and my brain is turned into toothpaste?
has anybody had this kind of shift? from liking mies and rem and moura straight to decoi?
com'on, get your blob-hater hats on and lead me back to my path!
You can have your cake and eat it too. I think That Nox stands somewhat outside of the Blobmeisters & Co. gang (wispy meta-meta forms). They take a sort of art approach to the blob, almost removing that blob-is-the-only-way feeling you get from the more serious blob-makers and replacing it with lookee-what-we-made form. It is not overly theorized architectural tenet-making, but more experimental space-making. There is substance (literally) there.
Can't we all enjoy Nox's blobbed-out chunky dutchness while still drooling over H&DeM? Can't we all just get along?
That being said, if you are a student you owe it to your edcation to be open-minded about understanding new things and learning more about the things you like. If blobs are currently intriguing you, study them. (Don't just copy the appearance of them.) There are many many years ahead to learn about other ideas AND reject the ones that previously enthralled you. For now, be a sponge and suck in whatever crosses your path.
The main problem I have with blobs is the paradox of creating something supposedly fluid with something so static as architecture. I'm not talking about form, but rather the Häring/Mies discrepancy where something that tries to perform in an organic manner is even more locked in terms of expandability / programmatic change / structure / interpretation. Blob-architecture, with its extreme dependance on production of parts might be über-modernism after all... Without modernism's attempts to social change, that is! Having said that, my diploma was a blob project.
to a-f: i strongly believe that this type of avantguard is heavily based on modernism, and it does have a social agenda, just not in the classic sense...i think one of the greatest faults of modernism was that it wanted to sprinkle a better life on the masses from the top, imposing a new way of inhabiting the city, which was inherently wrong. this time around it tries to analyze all that it can and base decisions on actual facts and data (it does often go astray), and that i find really interesting...combined with the use of different design/manufacturing technologies.
liberty bell: NURBS=Non Uniform Rational B-Splines
Ah, but purely pragmatically seen, isn't modular building systems doing more, that is being more affordable, for "the masses" than non-uniform rational b-splines? (Some simplification is necessary here, since industrial production/social change is only a part of modernism's history) The transposition from data/analysis to form can go in different directions, and that's ok. Blob-architecture however, often makes a little show by being streamlined solutions to arbitrarily chosen statistics, or invented topological problems.
In response to the first post, despite what NOX's buildings end up looking like, I've never really put them in the GregLynn blob camp.
The work is digital to be sure, but NOX is very influenced by Frei Otto, among others, and is interested in the organization and logic of material systems, as opposed to simulated systems--GAs, CAs, etc. But also, NOX/Spubroek is almost pomo in his awareness and engagement with architectural history, his willingness to say this building is based on the gothic or based on the "picturesque country house." Though, unlike pomo, the work draws on historic types as organizational models rather than aesthetic or formal models.
Also, I love how the project text on the website reads like the J.Peterman Catalog:
"The panels are layed out ina herringbone patter, that, together with the extra ribbing of each panel and the overall double curvature of the structure, will give the Club.House an extremely sensous appearance, making it unique in the Dutch (architectural) landscape."
In response to the other line of thinking in this thread, I'll go ahead and overstate the obvious: buildings derived from NURB geometries will be important and appealing to the "masses" when they are as cheap to build as stick-frames, fold-a-forms, sips, etc.
"buildings derived from NURB geometries will be important and appealing to the "masses" when they are as cheap to build as stick-frames, fold-a-forms, sips, etc."
Well, if you look at modernism's history, there is a gap between the early "spiritual" days of de Stijl, Futurism, Esprit Nouveau etc. and the later "functionalistic" approach, which is an adaptation to the harsher economical and political climate of the 1930s. So, the early promises of a utopian Gesamtkunstwerk had to give in to a more pragmatic watered-down version, because of a failure to adapt to or change industrial production. A lesson should be learned from this fact - to not expect that the building industry is listening to architects - that we can't fully rely on promises of future techniques, or expect them to be more affordable than what there is at hand presently.
i think it will. computer design/manufacturing has had huge economical impacts on, say, the automotive industry, so i don't see why it shouldn't do the same on buildings.
(i've just seen FOA and rem koolhas in the same room i was in. i am lost for words)
yes, i was at riba gig. were you there?
lars frediksen and the bastards on the 13th? no! sorry, bad punk rock joke.
i think either bbc2 or channel five shows baseball matches!
check radiotimes.com
I think many quick assumptions on firms such as NOX are based on purely aesthetic qualities. Before lumping firms like NOX to Blob, it would be wise to investigate what these projects/firms are all about and their design process. I am still unsure about the idea of the informal.
Nothing more tired than architects and buzzwords.....
Nox is a boatload of crap. like most of the blobmeisters
The only thing that seperates him from the others (like greg lynn) is that he is pretty honest about his in endevors i.e. he will say he did some strange double-curved form just because he likes the way it looks instead of getting into a rant of its morphology and topographical similarities.
Dont you think those comments that you think are disengenuous are really just those architects trying to explain why the like the way it looks.. because surely there is a reason why.. and if they cant provide more than "i like it" its not very useful for anyone else to thinka bout.. is it?
no, but its a display of cowardice and unwillingness to discuss motives.
of course he likes it, thats why he fucking did it. everonye likes the things they do... but using "i like it" as a reason shows he has no understanding of his desires, no ability to help others understand them, and is too scared to explain his thoughts because he might get criticized for it and isnt capable of discussion.
In my practice experience, it is rather difficult to manipulate the unusual massing and build it using the clients' money. They difinitely have a strong reason to do it. Even they don't, I think those NOX forms still are very innovative.
What NOX does is one way to do architecture. As a young architect, we should learn from them instead of criticizing them. You might be just can't understand their stuff.
For example, Their waved floor and space inside an old building gave me a feeling that the client may like their idea.
what i meant by him saying 'he did it because he liked it' is that he maintains that his process is based on the object as an art form, which imo is perfectly alright. Unlike people like greg lynn who did it anyways because of its visual value, but try to cover it up by logical premises. It actually people like lynn who are scared to express their real motives.
and i dont think hes in any way too scared of expressing his thoughts, its just that his thoughts are based on formal premises. I dont think thats what architecture should be, neither do i like his work.
I can respect someone for being honest about the 'why'. We've all seen enough of the over intellectualized bs.
jlx - " As a young architect, we should learn from them instead of criticizing them". Well, we do learn by criticizing them, at least somewhat.
One problem I see with this romantic idea of 'mass producing Maya models' is that it's extremely unrealistic to think that it will be something that should be mass produced. When I look at some of the prefab work, and even the work I(we) are working on, the #1 most important thing is 'can it be done and is it within the possibilities of real production'.
Sure, cars are all organic but it's for 'real' reasons. Architecture does not require the aerodynamics and ergonomics of an automobile, so much of the comparison is lost.
If someone admits to experimenting, purely for the process of experimenting, then that's just great. But when it's presented as the 'future', then I get a little uneasy.
Trace You're clueless, architects are not suppose to think about Production and how to get something built, leave that to those idiotic Construction guys. Since when have Architects ever actually been involved in the building process. I mean it's so menial don't you think? It's much better to sit around create new and fantastical designs. A lot of verbage helps that whole process since it clearly defines in the audiences mind what they are looking at and it makes you sound really smart. Then you can show up on the site and when challenged you can Take the Offensive and proclaim with absolute confidence that "MY INTENT HAS BEEN CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING I WIPE MY ARSE WITH YOUR RFI'S" Arse is a good word to use with construction workers, they won't be sure if it's a swear word or not. You then can Sashay back to office knowing that you're at the top of your profession......:D
i actually like greg lynn and nox but more or less think their work is on par with buckminster fuller's; interesting but on a fundamental level just too silly to credit...;-)
the next generation of designer's might be a bit better at the use of the technology but for now Nox and the other socks are really in the pursuit of making things for the sake of the technology and little else. like NASA, nobody gives a fcuk, better or worse...
after reading all this i wonder why some of you think that these blobb-ish things should be mass produced, it's an architecture stream, not mainstream, and as such will be produced as long as it is convincing to certain elite groups interested in spending LOADS of money to "manufacture" these singular examples of architecture-theory of the beggining of the 20th century i.e. the GRAZ blob.
I'm rather more interested as someone said up here, in the in(NON)formal, and that i see as something going the mainstream way, since it speaks a languaje of nonconventional architecture with all the "buildable" possibilities i.e. H&dM, Kazuo Seijima, Van Berkel, Zaha.
Blob theory, no tanx
hotsies - nope, I design a lot of things and do a lot of things, but designing bread/butter/whatever crap is something I'll never do (nor ever did).
dht- you are missing my point. I specifically stated taht I am very interested in mass production, and am working on two architecture projects and several product designs for mass production. My problem lies with some of the 'organic' forms. Some of it's beautiful, no doubt, and some of it makes for great product designs, but I have a hard time buying into most of the blobbitecture's formal moves with a bunch of theory (no, most of the theory does not necessarily 'explain' why, just what interested the makers) and hopes of mass production.
My questions would be 'why'? Why would I want to mass produce a blob? Are curved walls going to work well (no, they won't) on a mass produced scale?
Simple, general questions. One-offs and custom fabricated forms are just wonderful - God knows I love formal architecture. But trying to sell it as being good for mass production because it's made with a cnc machine, at least from what I've seen, has been proven not to be all that effecient (it ain't cheap stuff to do).
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
So don't get all defensive because I don't like blobbitecture. I love the idea's, even love a random blob (as a beautiful object). I am also very interested in mass production, economies involved with this, etc. I just have a hard time buying into blobs as mass produced objects.
hotsies - nope, I design a lot of things and do a lot of things, but designing bread/butter/whatever crap is something I'll never do (nor ever did).
dht- you are missing my point. I specifically stated taht I am very interested in mass production, and am working on two architecture projects and several product designs for mass production. My problem lies with some of the 'organic' forms. Some of it's beautiful, no doubt, and some of it makes for great product designs, but I have a hard time buying into most of the blobbitecture's formal moves with a bunch of theory (no, most of the theory does not necessarily 'explain' why, just what interested the makers) and hopes of mass production.
My questions would be 'why'? Why would I want to mass produce a blob? Are curved walls going to work well (no, they won't) on a mass produced scale?
Simple, general questions. One-offs and custom fabricated forms are just wonderful - God knows I love formal architecture. But trying to sell it as being good for mass production because it's made with a cnc machine, at least from what I've seen, has been proven not to be all that effecient (it ain't cheap stuff to do).
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
So don't get all defensive because I don't like blobbitecture. I love the idea's, even love a random blob (as a beautiful object). I am also very interested in mass production, economies involved with this, etc. I just have a hard time buying into blobs as mass produced objects.
Nox is a boatload of crap. like most of the blobmeisters
The only thing that seperates him from the others (like greg lynn) is that he is pretty honest about his in endevors i.e. he will say he did some strange double-curved form just because he likes the way it looks instead of getting into a rant of its morphology and topographical similarities.
As opposed to some bullshit proposed by any modernist as to why his roof is flat and his structure exposed. See, I can blithely dismiss theory too. Heaven forbid there be more thinking in architecture than pure subjectivity, surely the very fabric of the universe will be torn!
-----------------
trace-
Of course architecture/blobs shouldn't be mass produced, just that architects can use the elements of mass production in their favour. Let me explain, it used to be that you submitted a shop drawing a fabricator made a jig or mold etc. and from that mold/jig large quanities of the item could be made. This meant that for a higher initial cost, larger quantities could be made for a lower unit cost (mass production). Now, when you submit a drawing (see. toolpath, digital file) no extra time is required to setup a jig with digital fabrication the piece is just "printed" (alright I know it's a little more complicated but for the sake of argument bear with me). That means singular units have a lower cost of fabrication. I'll grant you CNC on a 6 axis would be insanely expensive but cutting simple shapes with a shape reader/cnc plasma does actually save a lot of time and money (and I know from experience [worked for a fabricator]) The inital setup fees we charged were to pay for the machine cost not the actual time to "setup" which was negligible. So perhaps the issue is the belief that shapes can be just printed rather than investigating ways to have that form made but in a cheaper way rather than cnc or rapid prototype.
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
Wellll.... I don't know if I'd say that, Gehry's buildings tend to be extremely expensive, granted they are getting built, but I don't think he's a prime example or even a good motivator to get architects to use the same techniques and think they'll save money. I think I'd use Bill Massie as an example rather, of using fabrication to achieve more complicated form without swelling the budget of the project greatly. He's achieving similiar forms but in a manner, that while it required a little more thinking on the design end, greatly reduces cost. I don't feel the best or even the right way for most of us to achieve complex (this doesn't necessarily mean blob just complex) forms is by custom forging every piece of structural steel and then building the same way we've always done. Which is what I feel Gehry is doing, while the steel shapes may be different the building still is being built like all the rest. (steel frame, structure, skin etc.)
So which buildings aren't being built like this? (Honestly asking here, as I surely have fallen out of the 'loop' of the latest blobbers). From what I remember is that they were basically all very similar - ribs cut from this or that with this or that material, skin applied over it, etc., etc.
Gehry's buildings may be expensive, but that's what he does. SOM's buildings that compete with his are the same price, same with HOK's etc., etc. I'd suggest Gehry goes ten steps further than any blob I've seen by actually making it a 'space' and not some oversized mockup. He actually addresses the experience of the space, not just an idea about fabrication. Maybe that doesn't benefit all of us, because he doesn't teach studios how to use a cnc mill like it can be used, but he does get things done. I've yet to see a single blobber do anything that is more than ribs and skin, even at small scales.
The whole mass produced thing makes sense, but last time I sent a drawing to a laser cutter or fabricator, it took extra work to get it right, cost a substantial 'setup fee' (yes, it may be paying for the machine, but it is still a fee you have to pay). These are all overlooked in academia.
It's similar to real time 3D presentations in my mind - great idea, it'll happen, but it's many, many years off. The technologies used today will be so outdated, it's not even worth trying to use them (just not effecient enough to use out side of the classroom - that subsidizes the entire experiment). This is all needed to further the experiment, but it's not a true solution.
Maybe I am wrong, but Gerhy, and even some folks like Foster are 'really' doing things effeciently at large production scales with high tolerances. They are doing it as a means to an end, much like the car industry. That, to me, makes more sense than letting the process or technique try to make the architecture. That will lend itself to being useful to many, in the long run, versus the few that have access to school funded machines.
Lastly, I believe that there is mass production happening right now and it's being overlooked by most schools because it's not Maya-made. Really, there are things that are using fundamentally the same ideas (mass customization, flexible spaces, etc., etc.), but the forms are simple, not experimental (beyond the 'experiment' being the actual mass production and distribution).
Again, please post any links to projects that achieved more complex forms (while still maintaining a high level of interior finish, etc. - the the 'shell' blobs that sacrificed reality to save some bucks). I'd love to be proven wrong, it's just I've never seen it and after 10+ years of hearing the same bs, I remain skeptical and am quite happy I avoided taking a Lynn studio.
In response to the first post: regarding your book, I take issue most with the meisters' wishful theory masturbation regarding production. This is an affliction of students primarily. People who build real buildings for a living and not junky installations in architecture schools and museums can't delude themselves with the dreams of priviledged, subsidized, rich kid, architecture students. Let me spell this out; what a student thinks production 'should be' is meaningless.
I can't think of any more disingenuous self-delusion than to these hyterics about construction methods that are and will continue to be more expensive (hence rare) at some stage of their process than materials or products that are mass produced. Production methods and materials in the construction industry and the world of real buildings are driven by market forces not bratty rich kids. For instance, in Spain, a shortage of good trees means a lot of SF houses are made in concrete instead of the stick framing done here in the US.
In the coming years, blobber buildings, like Frank Ghery buildings, will be relegated to cultural buildings and museums occasionally being co-opted by developers for home or offices for the rich. Like Ghery, in the eyes of the architectural community, blobbers will increasingly look like rip offs of themselves as Ghery seems to be constantly aping himself. The problem with blob-meisters is that their crusade is so obviously a shallow pursuit of style.
In 15 years, hysterical students will have moved on to other complaints...
so i guess economy i still in charge of architecture and blobb like buildings are to expnsive.
but 'till when?
is not that mch of a difference between H de M and Xox or Osterhius, etc.
Is still a post-post modern, but for me is not that pragmatic.
I belive in low costs and programm, not style.
NOX is not that bad...
i always thought that most of the stuff coming out of nox and the like (blobmeisters & co) was a load of crap, but lately, specially since for "unit" reasons i had to start studying into it, you know, it's not that bad!
i've been reading "Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing", and it poses the interesting question of why digital manufacturing has yet to revolutionize Architecture, like it has revolutionized almost any other industrial manufacturing process.
the question is...am i being brainwashed? or is it just that there is a bit of goodness in almost anything, and you have to just look for it? or is it bcause i've been splitting nurbs for the last 5 hours and my brain is turned into toothpaste?
has anybody had this kind of shift? from liking mies and rem and moura straight to decoi?
com'on, get your blob-hater hats on and lead me back to my path!
back to selecting cutting objects (Isocurve)...
You can have your cake and eat it too. I think That Nox stands somewhat outside of the Blobmeisters & Co. gang (wispy meta-meta forms). They take a sort of art approach to the blob, almost removing that blob-is-the-only-way feeling you get from the more serious blob-makers and replacing it with lookee-what-we-made form. It is not overly theorized architectural tenet-making, but more experimental space-making. There is substance (literally) there.
Can't we all enjoy Nox's blobbed-out chunky dutchness while still drooling over H&DeM? Can't we all just get along?
Confession: I don't know what a nurb is.
That being said, if you are a student you owe it to your edcation to be open-minded about understanding new things and learning more about the things you like. If blobs are currently intriguing you, study them. (Don't just copy the appearance of them.) There are many many years ahead to learn about other ideas AND reject the ones that previously enthralled you. For now, be a sponge and suck in whatever crosses your path.
The main problem I have with blobs is the paradox of creating something supposedly fluid with something so static as architecture. I'm not talking about form, but rather the Häring/Mies discrepancy where something that tries to perform in an organic manner is even more locked in terms of expandability / programmatic change / structure / interpretation. Blob-architecture, with its extreme dependance on production of parts might be über-modernism after all... Without modernism's attempts to social change, that is! Having said that, my diploma was a blob project.
just for fun, since i have nothing productive to add-
NOX-ious: adj.
1. Harmful to living things; injurious to health
2. Harmful to the mind or morals; corrupting
to a-f: i strongly believe that this type of avantguard is heavily based on modernism, and it does have a social agenda, just not in the classic sense...i think one of the greatest faults of modernism was that it wanted to sprinkle a better life on the masses from the top, imposing a new way of inhabiting the city, which was inherently wrong. this time around it tries to analyze all that it can and base decisions on actual facts and data (it does often go astray), and that i find really interesting...combined with the use of different design/manufacturing technologies.
liberty bell: NURBS=Non Uniform Rational B-Splines
Ah, but purely pragmatically seen, isn't modular building systems doing more, that is being more affordable, for "the masses" than non-uniform rational b-splines? (Some simplification is necessary here, since industrial production/social change is only a part of modernism's history) The transposition from data/analysis to form can go in different directions, and that's ok. Blob-architecture however, often makes a little show by being streamlined solutions to arbitrarily chosen statistics, or invented topological problems.
...and renovating or adding on that extra bedroom to a blob is going to be tricky. no allowance for changing needs in most blobs that i've seen.
anyone that blatantly steals from Per Corell IS that bad!
In response to the first post, despite what NOX's buildings end up looking like, I've never really put them in the GregLynn blob camp.
The work is digital to be sure, but NOX is very influenced by Frei Otto, among others, and is interested in the organization and logic of material systems, as opposed to simulated systems--GAs, CAs, etc. But also, NOX/Spubroek is almost pomo in his awareness and engagement with architectural history, his willingness to say this building is based on the gothic or based on the "picturesque country house." Though, unlike pomo, the work draws on historic types as organizational models rather than aesthetic or formal models.
Also, I love how the project text on the website reads like the J.Peterman Catalog:
"The panels are layed out ina herringbone patter, that, together with the extra ribbing of each panel and the overall double curvature of the structure, will give the Club.House an extremely sensous appearance, making it unique in the Dutch (architectural) landscape."
In response to the other line of thinking in this thread, I'll go ahead and overstate the obvious: buildings derived from NURB geometries will be important and appealing to the "masses" when they are as cheap to build as stick-frames, fold-a-forms, sips, etc.
"buildings derived from NURB geometries will be important and appealing to the "masses" when they are as cheap to build as stick-frames, fold-a-forms, sips, etc."
Will this ever happen?
Well, if you look at modernism's history, there is a gap between the early "spiritual" days of de Stijl, Futurism, Esprit Nouveau etc. and the later "functionalistic" approach, which is an adaptation to the harsher economical and political climate of the 1930s. So, the early promises of a utopian Gesamtkunstwerk had to give in to a more pragmatic watered-down version, because of a failure to adapt to or change industrial production. A lesson should be learned from this fact - to not expect that the building industry is listening to architects - that we can't fully rely on promises of future techniques, or expect them to be more affordable than what there is at hand presently.
i think it will. computer design/manufacturing has had huge economical impacts on, say, the automotive industry, so i don't see why it shouldn't do the same on buildings.
(i've just seen FOA and rem koolhas in the same room i was in. i am lost for words)
hey bigness - did you do the riba gig?
did you not see lars at the AA on the 13th?
hey where can you see the sox in london?
yes, i was at riba gig. were you there?
lars frediksen and the bastards on the 13th? no! sorry, bad punk rock joke.
i think either bbc2 or channel five shows baseball matches!
check radiotimes.com
I think many quick assumptions on firms such as NOX are based on purely aesthetic qualities. Before lumping firms like NOX to Blob, it would be wise to investigate what these projects/firms are all about and their design process. I am still unsure about the idea of the informal.
Nothing more tired than architects and buzzwords.....
I recently think NOX have some similarity with SHop from N.Y. I will post more personal discoveries later on.
Stay tuned.
I'd dissagree on many levels with that remark:
Ethics:
-Nox has "f'ed" over many of their employees in the past
-Shop pays EVERYONE and pretty good pay for NY too..
Fabrication:
-NOX cuts all of their pieces from plate steel
-Shop recombines existing hardware and materials into an assemblege.
Nox is a boatload of crap. like most of the blobmeisters
The only thing that seperates him from the others (like greg lynn) is that he is pretty honest about his in endevors i.e. he will say he did some strange double-curved form just because he likes the way it looks instead of getting into a rant of its morphology and topographical similarities.
Dont you think those comments that you think are disengenuous are really just those architects trying to explain why the like the way it looks.. because surely there is a reason why.. and if they cant provide more than "i like it" its not very useful for anyone else to thinka bout.. is it?
at least its not pretentious bullshit
no, but its a display of cowardice and unwillingness to discuss motives.
of course he likes it, thats why he fucking did it. everonye likes the things they do... but using "i like it" as a reason shows he has no understanding of his desires, no ability to help others understand them, and is too scared to explain his thoughts because he might get criticized for it and isnt capable of discussion.
why is that admirable?
In my practice experience, it is rather difficult to manipulate the unusual massing and build it using the clients' money. They difinitely have a strong reason to do it. Even they don't, I think those NOX forms still are very innovative.
What NOX does is one way to do architecture. As a young architect, we should learn from them instead of criticizing them. You might be just can't understand their stuff.
For example, Their waved floor and space inside an old building gave me a feeling that the client may like their idea.
it is admirable since its not a cover-up
what i meant by him saying 'he did it because he liked it' is that he maintains that his process is based on the object as an art form, which imo is perfectly alright. Unlike people like greg lynn who did it anyways because of its visual value, but try to cover it up by logical premises. It actually people like lynn who are scared to express their real motives.
and i dont think hes in any way too scared of expressing his thoughts, its just that his thoughts are based on formal premises. I dont think thats what architecture should be, neither do i like his work.
I can respect someone for being honest about the 'why'. We've all seen enough of the over intellectualized bs.
jlx - " As a young architect, we should learn from them instead of criticizing them". Well, we do learn by criticizing them, at least somewhat.
One problem I see with this romantic idea of 'mass producing Maya models' is that it's extremely unrealistic to think that it will be something that should be mass produced. When I look at some of the prefab work, and even the work I(we) are working on, the #1 most important thing is 'can it be done and is it within the possibilities of real production'.
Sure, cars are all organic but it's for 'real' reasons. Architecture does not require the aerodynamics and ergonomics of an automobile, so much of the comparison is lost.
If someone admits to experimenting, purely for the process of experimenting, then that's just great. But when it's presented as the 'future', then I get a little uneasy.
Trace, you sound like someone who builds Motel 6's for a living..
keep chugging with the real possibilities of production!
Trace You're clueless, architects are not suppose to think about Production and how to get something built, leave that to those idiotic Construction guys. Since when have Architects ever actually been involved in the building process. I mean it's so menial don't you think? It's much better to sit around create new and fantastical designs. A lot of verbage helps that whole process since it clearly defines in the audiences mind what they are looking at and it makes you sound really smart. Then you can show up on the site and when challenged you can Take the Offensive and proclaim with absolute confidence that "MY INTENT HAS BEEN CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING I WIPE MY ARSE WITH YOUR RFI'S" Arse is a good word to use with construction workers, they won't be sure if it's a swear word or not. You then can Sashay back to office knowing that you're at the top of your profession......:D
i actually like greg lynn and nox but more or less think their work is on par with buckminster fuller's; interesting but on a fundamental level just too silly to credit...;-)
the next generation of designer's might be a bit better at the use of the technology but for now Nox and the other socks are really in the pursuit of making things for the sake of the technology and little else. like NASA, nobody gives a fcuk, better or worse...
after reading all this i wonder why some of you think that these blobb-ish things should be mass produced, it's an architecture stream, not mainstream, and as such will be produced as long as it is convincing to certain elite groups interested in spending LOADS of money to "manufacture" these singular examples of architecture-theory of the beggining of the 20th century i.e. the GRAZ blob.
I'm rather more interested as someone said up here, in the in(NON)formal, and that i see as something going the mainstream way, since it speaks a languaje of nonconventional architecture with all the "buildable" possibilities i.e. H&dM, Kazuo Seijima, Van Berkel, Zaha.
Blob theory, no tanx
hotsies - nope, I design a lot of things and do a lot of things, but designing bread/butter/whatever crap is something I'll never do (nor ever did).
dht- you are missing my point. I specifically stated taht I am very interested in mass production, and am working on two architecture projects and several product designs for mass production. My problem lies with some of the 'organic' forms. Some of it's beautiful, no doubt, and some of it makes for great product designs, but I have a hard time buying into most of the blobbitecture's formal moves with a bunch of theory (no, most of the theory does not necessarily 'explain' why, just what interested the makers) and hopes of mass production.
My questions would be 'why'? Why would I want to mass produce a blob? Are curved walls going to work well (no, they won't) on a mass produced scale?
Simple, general questions. One-offs and custom fabricated forms are just wonderful - God knows I love formal architecture. But trying to sell it as being good for mass production because it's made with a cnc machine, at least from what I've seen, has been proven not to be all that effecient (it ain't cheap stuff to do).
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
So don't get all defensive because I don't like blobbitecture. I love the idea's, even love a random blob (as a beautiful object). I am also very interested in mass production, economies involved with this, etc. I just have a hard time buying into blobs as mass produced objects.
hotsies - nope, I design a lot of things and do a lot of things, but designing bread/butter/whatever crap is something I'll never do (nor ever did).
dht- you are missing my point. I specifically stated taht I am very interested in mass production, and am working on two architecture projects and several product designs for mass production. My problem lies with some of the 'organic' forms. Some of it's beautiful, no doubt, and some of it makes for great product designs, but I have a hard time buying into most of the blobbitecture's formal moves with a bunch of theory (no, most of the theory does not necessarily 'explain' why, just what interested the makers) and hopes of mass production.
My questions would be 'why'? Why would I want to mass produce a blob? Are curved walls going to work well (no, they won't) on a mass produced scale?
Simple, general questions. One-offs and custom fabricated forms are just wonderful - God knows I love formal architecture. But trying to sell it as being good for mass production because it's made with a cnc machine, at least from what I've seen, has been proven not to be all that effecient (it ain't cheap stuff to do).
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
So don't get all defensive because I don't like blobbitecture. I love the idea's, even love a random blob (as a beautiful object). I am also very interested in mass production, economies involved with this, etc. I just have a hard time buying into blobs as mass produced objects.
The only thing that seperates him from the others (like greg lynn) is that he is pretty honest about his in endevors i.e. he will say he did some strange double-curved form just because he likes the way it looks instead of getting into a rant of its morphology and topographical similarities.
As opposed to some bullshit proposed by any modernist as to why his roof is flat and his structure exposed. See, I can blithely dismiss theory too. Heaven forbid there be more thinking in architecture than pure subjectivity, surely the very fabric of the universe will be torn!
-----------------
trace-
Of course architecture/blobs shouldn't be mass produced, just that architects can use the elements of mass production in their favour. Let me explain, it used to be that you submitted a shop drawing a fabricator made a jig or mold etc. and from that mold/jig large quanities of the item could be made. This meant that for a higher initial cost, larger quantities could be made for a lower unit cost (mass production). Now, when you submit a drawing (see. toolpath, digital file) no extra time is required to setup a jig with digital fabrication the piece is just "printed" (alright I know it's a little more complicated but for the sake of argument bear with me). That means singular units have a lower cost of fabrication. I'll grant you CNC on a 6 axis would be insanely expensive but cutting simple shapes with a shape reader/cnc plasma does actually save a lot of time and money (and I know from experience [worked for a fabricator]) The inital setup fees we charged were to pay for the machine cost not the actual time to "setup" which was negligible. So perhaps the issue is the belief that shapes can be just printed rather than investigating ways to have that form made but in a cheaper way rather than cnc or rapid prototype.
Gehry is a good example of all this. He's using the techniques that Lynn and others pushed, but he's doing it as part of the process - a means to an end, and that's it. It works, he(and partners) knows how to make it work on large scales.
Wellll.... I don't know if I'd say that, Gehry's buildings tend to be extremely expensive, granted they are getting built, but I don't think he's a prime example or even a good motivator to get architects to use the same techniques and think they'll save money. I think I'd use Bill Massie as an example rather, of using fabrication to achieve more complicated form without swelling the budget of the project greatly. He's achieving similiar forms but in a manner, that while it required a little more thinking on the design end, greatly reduces cost. I don't feel the best or even the right way for most of us to achieve complex (this doesn't necessarily mean blob just complex) forms is by custom forging every piece of structural steel and then building the same way we've always done. Which is what I feel Gehry is doing, while the steel shapes may be different the building still is being built like all the rest. (steel frame, structure, skin etc.)
So which buildings aren't being built like this? (Honestly asking here, as I surely have fallen out of the 'loop' of the latest blobbers). From what I remember is that they were basically all very similar - ribs cut from this or that with this or that material, skin applied over it, etc., etc.
Gehry's buildings may be expensive, but that's what he does. SOM's buildings that compete with his are the same price, same with HOK's etc., etc. I'd suggest Gehry goes ten steps further than any blob I've seen by actually making it a 'space' and not some oversized mockup. He actually addresses the experience of the space, not just an idea about fabrication. Maybe that doesn't benefit all of us, because he doesn't teach studios how to use a cnc mill like it can be used, but he does get things done. I've yet to see a single blobber do anything that is more than ribs and skin, even at small scales.
The whole mass produced thing makes sense, but last time I sent a drawing to a laser cutter or fabricator, it took extra work to get it right, cost a substantial 'setup fee' (yes, it may be paying for the machine, but it is still a fee you have to pay). These are all overlooked in academia.
It's similar to real time 3D presentations in my mind - great idea, it'll happen, but it's many, many years off. The technologies used today will be so outdated, it's not even worth trying to use them (just not effecient enough to use out side of the classroom - that subsidizes the entire experiment). This is all needed to further the experiment, but it's not a true solution.
Maybe I am wrong, but Gerhy, and even some folks like Foster are 'really' doing things effeciently at large production scales with high tolerances. They are doing it as a means to an end, much like the car industry. That, to me, makes more sense than letting the process or technique try to make the architecture. That will lend itself to being useful to many, in the long run, versus the few that have access to school funded machines.
Lastly, I believe that there is mass production happening right now and it's being overlooked by most schools because it's not Maya-made. Really, there are things that are using fundamentally the same ideas (mass customization, flexible spaces, etc., etc.), but the forms are simple, not experimental (beyond the 'experiment' being the actual mass production and distribution).
Again, please post any links to projects that achieved more complex forms (while still maintaining a high level of interior finish, etc. - the the 'shell' blobs that sacrificed reality to save some bucks). I'd love to be proven wrong, it's just I've never seen it and after 10+ years of hearing the same bs, I remain skeptical and am quite happy I avoided taking a Lynn studio.
In response to the first post: regarding your book, I take issue most with the meisters' wishful theory masturbation regarding production. This is an affliction of students primarily. People who build real buildings for a living and not junky installations in architecture schools and museums can't delude themselves with the dreams of priviledged, subsidized, rich kid, architecture students. Let me spell this out; what a student thinks production 'should be' is meaningless.
I can't think of any more disingenuous self-delusion than to these hyterics about construction methods that are and will continue to be more expensive (hence rare) at some stage of their process than materials or products that are mass produced. Production methods and materials in the construction industry and the world of real buildings are driven by market forces not bratty rich kids. For instance, in Spain, a shortage of good trees means a lot of SF houses are made in concrete instead of the stick framing done here in the US.
In the coming years, blobber buildings, like Frank Ghery buildings, will be relegated to cultural buildings and museums occasionally being co-opted by developers for home or offices for the rich. Like Ghery, in the eyes of the architectural community, blobbers will increasingly look like rip offs of themselves as Ghery seems to be constantly aping himself. The problem with blob-meisters is that their crusade is so obviously a shallow pursuit of style.
In 15 years, hysterical students will have moved on to other complaints...
so i guess economy i still in charge of architecture and blobb like buildings are to expnsive.
but 'till when?
is not that mch of a difference between H de M and Xox or Osterhius, etc.
Is still a post-post modern, but for me is not that pragmatic.
I belive in low costs and programm, not style.
Contiune...
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.