I wonder what realy make the designs.
With a few modern designs such as Bilbao arts you see how organic forms are sadly translated into a build up of all tradisional materials and profiles to shape the computer rendered form, no thought about interiours just the thin shell done in strait H steel profils limited by the ablity af steel stringers and profile steel, to follow curved surfaces .
Form follow the limitations of the rigid profiles , no real Organic would be possible in the projected structure, engineering are about doing it the best it can be done , -- with a rigid technike.
You build as with old wooden beams ; place 4 corners do a roof outline _exactly_ as you could maneage with timbers ; then when you have drawn a 4 corner house you replace all the timber structure with brilliant "H" profiles ; you have a house you can say are 4 times stronger but is it realy high class design crafts ?
Now I acturly find some of the Postmodern inspired lowrise design.
Wierd ,-- as this mean I fancy some of Liebskinds geometrics, even this also mean that _my critic ,about same designs are heavily colored by my attitude as designer, preparing such tools that will bring the 4 times strong houses , and I say that just replacing the timbers with "H" profiles are not the ansver. Anyone with a hands on aproach will say so. Now just becaurse "H" profils are so strong , this don't mean that just doing things the old way, are still the meaning , develobing those future tools that will make just everything 4 times cheaper. Now if you are just interested in design, you will reconise that there must be many way's to make the right ansver , and everyone who read my promoting about _real new digital tools shuld see, that there are a difference just creating a surface and fiddle model in digital calculated lenght and end fiting design build --- these "H" profile surface grids acturly are good and quality steel crafts. But _is it anything different, the same non digital sketches and more and more real building compoment calculating, left to the engineer , offcaurse, to solve. It also in princip ,could produce the requested new architecture ,with just a smart steel profile application but, I don't ask these silli questions I just wonder , how much more fiddeling, it in real world application acturly spark ; there are examples in the graphics how _that_ for sure are fiddle now is fiddeling what we shuld discuss , talking about modern architecture.
Back to topic --- are the design guidelines nothing but the limitations, in a steel profile 3D application , and you still look for beauty ?
When I been promoting 3D-H I have before said, that ofcaurse ther can be splendid steel profile applications, that will do you the outlines and proberly also rough construction levels ,all 3D and so fit for doing in real ; can't you see the dead end ?
Often I spoke about that at first thought, something you think you can overview can be a bad promise, even it here and now, acturly will make the house, lowrise and with even less thought about paneling, as 3D-H where just extruding the outher cubes would produce a wall maby a bit more expensive in materials but much more clever.
Before turning to 3D-H I had a program ready, that would measure out the various length of steel rods within a polymesh building shell ; a simple one function robot shuld masure distances on steel rods pulled thru two wheels, when a mesh crosspoint reached a poverfull rod deformer shuld suppress room for the rods crossing, sort of make room and very exactly beforehand make the stringers in a polymesh structure, now why did I forget about that if not something are better. Still Bilbao museum was atleast way more restricted in avaible profiles where this work very much more efficient ; http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_5.JPG
It still is Crab
Acturly I shuld be happy that Liebskind stuck to the triangle and box attitude ,proven with a simple steel profile application ,you acturly can build at a fourth quality ,that architecture _can_ suffer ,it is our attitude that decide this. And there I do not belive that it is enough just to replace the timbers with "H" profile do it digital in a rigid Lego mind steel lattrice.
Also I agrea ,something I done for long, that 3D-H could meet a serious competitor, just doing things the same old way, just a bit smarter ,but within the same form language.
Per, not to offend you or anything but how much time would it take to run what you want to post through a spell-check? I mean at first it's cute but it's really bugging me now.
Don't think I am just arogant but if it is worth the price ,then being able to build a house at a third the cost , shuldn't be named a high cost realising how different a new perception must work. I know englishmen who after 40 years in denmark speak an english accent of danish who can't ever learn a perfect danish or a perfect english they simply are to old, language must be learned before a cirtain age ,as our brains simply make it impossible to many people to learn a language, even living in that contry --- Anyway architecture ae not spelling and just maby ,my spelling about the furtur are more visionary , and worth the price.
Maby my ability to communicate in written english, will never be any better caused by fact shape and ability of an aged neural network, maby as my corner pakistani shopkeeper, I will never learn a perfect spelled english, proberly becaurse the part of my brain that deal with these things, are not in the right nor the left side of a standard brain.
If you want to read about what digital options there are, they come as examples when I promote my own method, at a price , if you want to read about 3D programs and my promotion it come with a price, that you accept that if I did what they asked, I would not ask these questions and I would not display my critics. Buildings ,systems new way's to put things together are not something you can put thru a word speller, a building are not words even words shaped much of toady's critics oppinion about cirtain architectural Icons --- it is not wrong spelled, when I call out for more new houses, a new architecture and acturly new technologies and technikes, less paper will go into the build works less spell checking, I omit it from the beginning as this is not a matter about only social skills, the words acturly have to carry a messeage, mine do even with bad spelling. Im not arogant just realistic, if I shuld spell check I wouldn't have the time to write ,what I write are ,most often not even looked thru even here my things seem different, but that's only becaurse I do not want to get lost in correctness and forget the real vision.
Hi
Magu G I just want to show that with a computer, you can acturly build houses 4 times stronger at a third the cost -- the problems then start as ontop this mean a new technike ,new jobs a new architecture.
The example where Liebskinds engineers from the foto's acturly make a reasonable response ,just prove Digital work. But if this mean that tradisional "H" beams are what will make the structure I say it is a dead end.
In two occations I seen projects where Liebskinds form language look nice, ---- the trouble here are that I am a designer and can only say that trying to compromise will never be better, than the revolution architecture need, nothing will be able to compare with a 3D-H when the first few problems in production of the actural building compoment are solved. Also sheet materials are different than profile "H" steel ; no one will doubt that you can make a fantastic program, to build mathstick houses out of a skeleton of "H" profile steel, but 3D-H is a complete other world.
I am glad when more and more young architects and designers realise, both the difference and the endless oppotunities with various new tools, ------ this is the direction to go, not to further refine what we allready can but make the computer acturly work.
i think spell check is not important as long as you have better views to convey through your thoughts and work.....chill, we are architects not
primary school teachers....please grow up and respect the man!!
...
hope i have not offended you...
cheers..
reverseplan, I dont think i was addressing you so I am not sure why you feel the need to stick up for Per. He can choose to respond or ignore what was said and from the looks of it he chose to ignore it.
I dont know if you are familiar with what Per is pushing but there is a huge thread somewhere here with his name on it. I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if it wasnt always the same honeycomb stuff applied to everything. Not caring about how you express yourself is like slapping a detail together or saying let the contractor figure it out.
As an architect you should know better than to say somehting like that.
carry on with the attitude dude,,...
"As an architect you should know better than to say somehting like that."
are you sure you know what are you saying????
Hi
blAyer the tread start with my description according the pictures, to the building technike . When I describe this method I describe it as quite a competitor towerds 3D-H but it is the perfect example of re develobing what you allready can emagine , --- maby will emagine.
I say these engineers seem to have a better hands on aproach than the Bilbao , --- both seen as Digital models brought into real. Still I try explain a very important issue ; even Liebskinds designs profited it is still the same old "H" profile thinking and way's to put up a building structure, this time in "H" profiles not lumber.
What to consider is maby how often such things either failed or won ; you will reconise every visionary masterpiece but will you reconise the one that didn't maneage to break the conservatism ? In fact I say Liebskinds engineers seem to help the man but will architecture profit from something that lok alike and becaurse today's technikes had centuries to develob then new things have a harder time than ever.
I think it is a dead end to continue using "H" steel profiles as they was lumber in a wooden structure, what I promote mean a compleat different aproach than just emagining a structure and calculating what you can emagine -- computers can do much better than that.
blAyer a computer program I made many many years ago, unfold all surfaces in strips ,from a polygon mesh computer model ----- as a side effect I made it do all the small pieces inbetween each cross point in the mesh ,that way I could easy subtract 20 Cm. from each end of each string ,make sure an universal fitting would connect all 4 strings in each cross point anywhere in the polymesh structure. Now if I made Polygon meshes that was only a few faces high it would make any of these lowrise buildings -- just like that, measures and everything attaching N.C. would be no problem you could drill the holes by hand and use all the old methods to trasnfere measures onto materials.
Now why do you think I forgot that and started 3D-H ?
Per I dont quite understand what you are saying about the unfolding and saving material and all that and how that relates to 3D-H. I think a lot of people gave you advice on 3D-H, its feasibility and applications so I dont want to get into that.
No my comment also are just about the architecture you see more and more of --- structures made from a lattrice of profile steel, their limitations aso. You see it is acturly quite easy to make an application that will make you cut and produce every bit and piece, of a "H" beam structure ; still your creativity will be stuck in what is possible with pieces of strait "HE or "U" profiles you chose. You at first would think it is a great new way and a smart way to build cheap structure and it is but. It is a dead end road , what will you do when you want to refine that further do the profiles in Titanium ; will :that acturly be different in perception. Is't perception just the issue here, perception about what direction construction shuld or shuld not chose ?
Will they send bricklayers to the moon isn't sheet materials a more flexible aproach than rigid metal profiles, made that shape not to be chisseled and planed and bended as lumber but to be used strait , whu start using it for outline lines for a postmodern structure alowing it to limit the formlanguage by it's build in rigidity ?
Shuld I add that I acturly like many of these postmodern Liebskind inspired lowrise ,angles structures. No my critic is about that when the man finaly get things set in scale, then he choses an outdated technike, that's a shame. --- This is not a critic about Liebskind not at all.
Nov 20, 05 4:10 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.
Design guidelines, what acturly make the thing
Hi
http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_5.JPG
I wonder what realy make the designs.
With a few modern designs such as Bilbao arts you see how organic forms are sadly translated into a build up of all tradisional materials and profiles to shape the computer rendered form, no thought about interiours just the thin shell done in strait H steel profils limited by the ablity af steel stringers and profile steel, to follow curved surfaces .
Form follow the limitations of the rigid profiles , no real Organic would be possible in the projected structure, engineering are about doing it the best it can be done , -- with a rigid technike.
You build as with old wooden beams ; place 4 corners do a roof outline _exactly_ as you could maneage with timbers ; then when you have drawn a 4 corner house you replace all the timber structure with brilliant "H" profiles ; you have a house you can say are 4 times stronger but is it realy high class design crafts ?
Now I acturly find some of the Postmodern inspired lowrise design.
Wierd ,-- as this mean I fancy some of Liebskinds geometrics, even this also mean that _my critic ,about same designs are heavily colored by my attitude as designer, preparing such tools that will bring the 4 times strong houses , and I say that just replacing the timbers with "H" profiles are not the ansver. Anyone with a hands on aproach will say so. Now just becaurse "H" profils are so strong , this don't mean that just doing things the old way, are still the meaning , develobing those future tools that will make just everything 4 times cheaper. Now if you are just interested in design, you will reconise that there must be many way's to make the right ansver , and everyone who read my promoting about _real new digital tools shuld see, that there are a difference just creating a surface and fiddle model in digital calculated lenght and end fiting design build --- these "H" profile surface grids acturly are good and quality steel crafts. But _is it anything different, the same non digital sketches and more and more real building compoment calculating, left to the engineer , offcaurse, to solve. It also in princip ,could produce the requested new architecture ,with just a smart steel profile application but, I don't ask these silli questions I just wonder , how much more fiddeling, it in real world application acturly spark ; there are examples in the graphics how _that_ for sure are fiddle now is fiddeling what we shuld discuss , talking about modern architecture.
Back to topic --- are the design guidelines nothing but the limitations, in a steel profile 3D application , and you still look for beauty ?
When I been promoting 3D-H I have before said, that ofcaurse ther can be splendid steel profile applications, that will do you the outlines and proberly also rough construction levels ,all 3D and so fit for doing in real ; can't you see the dead end ?
Often I spoke about that at first thought, something you think you can overview can be a bad promise, even it here and now, acturly will make the house, lowrise and with even less thought about paneling, as 3D-H where just extruding the outher cubes would produce a wall maby a bit more expensive in materials but much more clever.
Before turning to 3D-H I had a program ready, that would measure out the various length of steel rods within a polymesh building shell ; a simple one function robot shuld masure distances on steel rods pulled thru two wheels, when a mesh crosspoint reached a poverfull rod deformer shuld suppress room for the rods crossing, sort of make room and very exactly beforehand make the stringers in a polymesh structure, now why did I forget about that if not something are better. Still Bilbao museum was atleast way more restricted in avaible profiles where this work very much more efficient ;
http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_5.JPG
It still is Crab
Acturly I shuld be happy that Liebskind stuck to the triangle and box attitude ,proven with a simple steel profile application ,you acturly can build at a fourth quality ,that architecture _can_ suffer ,it is our attitude that decide this. And there I do not belive that it is enough just to replace the timbers with "H" profile do it digital in a rigid Lego mind steel lattrice.
Also I agrea ,something I done for long, that 3D-H could meet a serious competitor, just doing things the same old way, just a bit smarter ,but within the same form language.
you again. you would probably like to know that you have a small fan following in Bangalore, India.
Per, not to offend you or anything but how much time would it take to run what you want to post through a spell-check? I mean at first it's cute but it's really bugging me now.
Don't think I am just arogant but if it is worth the price ,then being able to build a house at a third the cost , shuldn't be named a high cost realising how different a new perception must work. I know englishmen who after 40 years in denmark speak an english accent of danish who can't ever learn a perfect danish or a perfect english they simply are to old, language must be learned before a cirtain age ,as our brains simply make it impossible to many people to learn a language, even living in that contry --- Anyway architecture ae not spelling and just maby ,my spelling about the furtur are more visionary , and worth the price.
Maby my ability to communicate in written english, will never be any better caused by fact shape and ability of an aged neural network, maby as my corner pakistani shopkeeper, I will never learn a perfect spelled english, proberly becaurse the part of my brain that deal with these things, are not in the right nor the left side of a standard brain.
If you want to read about what digital options there are, they come as examples when I promote my own method, at a price , if you want to read about 3D programs and my promotion it come with a price, that you accept that if I did what they asked, I would not ask these questions and I would not display my critics. Buildings ,systems new way's to put things together are not something you can put thru a word speller, a building are not words even words shaped much of toady's critics oppinion about cirtain architectural Icons --- it is not wrong spelled, when I call out for more new houses, a new architecture and acturly new technologies and technikes, less paper will go into the build works less spell checking, I omit it from the beginning as this is not a matter about only social skills, the words acturly have to carry a messeage, mine do even with bad spelling. Im not arogant just realistic, if I shuld spell check I wouldn't have the time to write ,what I write are ,most often not even looked thru even here my things seem different, but that's only becaurse I do not want to get lost in correctness and forget the real vision.
Hi
Magu G I just want to show that with a computer, you can acturly build houses 4 times stronger at a third the cost -- the problems then start as ontop this mean a new technike ,new jobs a new architecture.
The example where Liebskinds engineers from the foto's acturly make a reasonable response ,just prove Digital work. But if this mean that tradisional "H" beams are what will make the structure I say it is a dead end.
In two occations I seen projects where Liebskinds form language look nice, ---- the trouble here are that I am a designer and can only say that trying to compromise will never be better, than the revolution architecture need, nothing will be able to compare with a 3D-H when the first few problems in production of the actural building compoment are solved. Also sheet materials are different than profile "H" steel ; no one will doubt that you can make a fantastic program, to build mathstick houses out of a skeleton of "H" profile steel, but 3D-H is a complete other world.
I am glad when more and more young architects and designers realise, both the difference and the endless oppotunities with various new tools, ------ this is the direction to go, not to further refine what we allready can but make the computer acturly work.
i think spell check is not important as long as you have better views to convey through your thoughts and work.....chill, we are architects not
primary school teachers....please grow up and respect the man!!
...
hope i have not offended you...
cheers..
reverseplan, I dont think i was addressing you so I am not sure why you feel the need to stick up for Per. He can choose to respond or ignore what was said and from the looks of it he chose to ignore it.
I dont know if you are familiar with what Per is pushing but there is a huge thread somewhere here with his name on it. I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if it wasnt always the same honeycomb stuff applied to everything. Not caring about how you express yourself is like slapping a detail together or saying let the contractor figure it out.
As an architect you should know better than to say somehting like that.
duh!!huh....good for you!!
carry on with the attitude dude,,...
"As an architect you should know better than to say somehting like that."
are you sure you know what are you saying????
best of luck,
cheers
Hi
blAyer the tread start with my description according the pictures, to the building technike . When I describe this method I describe it as quite a competitor towerds 3D-H but it is the perfect example of re develobing what you allready can emagine , --- maby will emagine.
I say these engineers seem to have a better hands on aproach than the Bilbao , --- both seen as Digital models brought into real. Still I try explain a very important issue ; even Liebskinds designs profited it is still the same old "H" profile thinking and way's to put up a building structure, this time in "H" profiles not lumber.
What to consider is maby how often such things either failed or won ; you will reconise every visionary masterpiece but will you reconise the one that didn't maneage to break the conservatism ? In fact I say Liebskinds engineers seem to help the man but will architecture profit from something that lok alike and becaurse today's technikes had centuries to develob then new things have a harder time than ever.
I think it is a dead end to continue using "H" steel profiles as they was lumber in a wooden structure, what I promote mean a compleat different aproach than just emagining a structure and calculating what you can emagine -- computers can do much better than that.
blAyer a computer program I made many many years ago, unfold all surfaces in strips ,from a polygon mesh computer model ----- as a side effect I made it do all the small pieces inbetween each cross point in the mesh ,that way I could easy subtract 20 Cm. from each end of each string ,make sure an universal fitting would connect all 4 strings in each cross point anywhere in the polymesh structure. Now if I made Polygon meshes that was only a few faces high it would make any of these lowrise buildings -- just like that, measures and everything attaching N.C. would be no problem you could drill the holes by hand and use all the old methods to trasnfere measures onto materials.
Now why do you think I forgot that and started 3D-H ?
Per I dont quite understand what you are saying about the unfolding and saving material and all that and how that relates to 3D-H. I think a lot of people gave you advice on 3D-H, its feasibility and applications so I dont want to get into that.
Hi
No my comment also are just about the architecture you see more and more of --- structures made from a lattrice of profile steel, their limitations aso. You see it is acturly quite easy to make an application that will make you cut and produce every bit and piece, of a "H" beam structure ; still your creativity will be stuck in what is possible with pieces of strait "HE or "U" profiles you chose. You at first would think it is a great new way and a smart way to build cheap structure and it is but. It is a dead end road , what will you do when you want to refine that further do the profiles in Titanium ; will :that acturly be different in perception. Is't perception just the issue here, perception about what direction construction shuld or shuld not chose ?
Will they send bricklayers to the moon isn't sheet materials a more flexible aproach than rigid metal profiles, made that shape not to be chisseled and planed and bended as lumber but to be used strait , whu start using it for outline lines for a postmodern structure alowing it to limit the formlanguage by it's build in rigidity ?
Shuld I add that I acturly like many of these postmodern Liebskind inspired lowrise ,angles structures. No my critic is about that when the man finaly get things set in scale, then he choses an outdated technike, that's a shame. --- This is not a critic about Liebskind not at all.
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.