About a year ago I tried Linux for the first time (Ubuntu distro) and was absolutely amazed at the quality of the operating system and applications available. After swapping out Windows ME for Linux/Samba on my fileserver at work (and the subsequent 8 months and counting of server uptime) I was completely hooked.
I've been thinking about whether a widely-distributed, internet-connected collaborative design process could be applied not only to software, but to architectural design and other areas of endeavor. (Looking at Wikipedia inspired this - definately closer to a "real-world" app than a piece of sortware).
I'm interested especially in the possible advances in sustainable-design technologies and techniques that could be advanced through an open/free design process. It's an area, like open-source software, where people are passionate enough about the topic (i hope) to be willing to give their time for no monetary compensation. I also think the production of construction drawings is roughly analagous to the production of an operating system.
some articles that (almost) start to talk about this:
The Political Economy of Open Source Software / Steven Weber 2000
--really interesting read basically outlining the linux development model from an economic, social, philosophical perspective. Breifly talks about possible extensions to other fields of design (last few pages).
Episodes of Collective Invention / Peter B. Meyer 2003
--haven't started to read this one, but it's about several examples of periods of industrial innovation that relied on collaborative/open systems rather than closed/proprietary. I'll be reading this next.
Open Design - Wikipedia
--just a stub, but has a few links to sites that are considering this topic.
I think there's a lot of potential in it, and I'm really just thinking aloud here. I'd be interested in any ideas people have, or if anyone knows of any good resources for this type of theory.
Architecture is already open source in that everyone of our creations is inhabited in the network of society. Our cutting edge or popular designs are published a variety of trade journals and even the real estate section of the Paper. To try and conceal your design would be to take yourself out of the market as a designer. The design process however, is still personal, and a reletively singular act by a small group or single individual. In fact, this parralles open source design coders where according to Richard Florida, just 2% of coders make 95% of the code.
What you're referring to (first) is the basic aesthetic design of a building, which (although certain other embedded systems (structure) may be obvious), does not reveal the "source" to the extent that open source code does for software. Besides the architects, engineers, and contractors of a given project, who has access to the construction documents?
My opinion is that the majority of architecture is a custom coded app (client-side), not an operating system. In that sense, the overlap for open-source tools becomes rather narrow. Just thinking out loud too.
as for the "collective" nature of it, I'm sure you're right it's no socialist utopia, but it seems to me that there may be a benefit to transparency of the development process and an invitation for public comments.
whoo. and i thought dealing with a building committee was hard. public comment for all projects? are you crazy? what a nightmare!
as for me, nothing i do is secret. but i also don't understand what the benefit would be of having the design process and details subject to public access. is anything we do so extraordinarily 'secret formula' that it can't be reproduced fairly easily by someone else, if that's their desire?
imo, there is already to much information out in the world, unless you're talking about information under the watchful eye of our current executive branch. architects are more often finding themselves serving as filters for this information than they are creating anything new. make it stop!
all i need is another way for a client, because of some freedom-of-access "open source" architecture website, to bring me documentation of a building to "draw up" for him with "just a few minor changes".
you dont need the blueprints to build it - building systems have their own rules and could actually be more akin to self generating form based on their respective internal rule sets.
The blueprint is actually the legal document stating what is to be built.
it is hard to imagine the applicability for about 99% of architects out there that crank out buildings and probably would never see the need or want to expose their construction documents to professional/public scrutiny.
however, going back to evan's original suggestion that open-source architecture be used to advance specific problems in design, such as sustainable systems... it only seems logical to me that green designers who invest considerable effort to work these new technologies into their buildings could only benefit from a database of details, climate information, etc. Plus manufacturers of say, compost toilets, would probably be eager to support the design "code" as the easier it becomes to implement their products, the more they will sell.
Also it seems a lot of those building sustainable architecture are individuals putting up their own house or local school in a rural area, who would benefit most by such a collective community.
So who's willing to start it?
this makes me think of FOA's species in Phylogenesis, only on a more universally applicable level.
all i need is another way for a client, because of some freedom-of-access "open source" architecture website, to bring me documentation of a building to "draw up" for him with "just a few minor changes".
isn't that the complaint about the (existing) 'coffee table' magazines?
applicability of open source development principles to architectural practice
About a year ago I tried Linux for the first time (Ubuntu distro) and was absolutely amazed at the quality of the operating system and applications available. After swapping out Windows ME for Linux/Samba on my fileserver at work (and the subsequent 8 months and counting of server uptime) I was completely hooked.
I've been thinking about whether a widely-distributed, internet-connected collaborative design process could be applied not only to software, but to architectural design and other areas of endeavor. (Looking at Wikipedia inspired this - definately closer to a "real-world" app than a piece of sortware).
I'm interested especially in the possible advances in sustainable-design technologies and techniques that could be advanced through an open/free design process. It's an area, like open-source software, where people are passionate enough about the topic (i hope) to be willing to give their time for no monetary compensation. I also think the production of construction drawings is roughly analagous to the production of an operating system.
some articles that (almost) start to talk about this:
The Political Economy of Open Source Software / Steven Weber 2000
--really interesting read basically outlining the linux development model from an economic, social, philosophical perspective. Breifly talks about possible extensions to other fields of design (last few pages).
Episodes of Collective Invention / Peter B. Meyer 2003
--haven't started to read this one, but it's about several examples of periods of industrial innovation that relied on collaborative/open systems rather than closed/proprietary. I'll be reading this next.
Open Design - Wikipedia
--just a stub, but has a few links to sites that are considering this topic.
I think there's a lot of potential in it, and I'm really just thinking aloud here. I'd be interested in any ideas people have, or if anyone knows of any good resources for this type of theory.
thoughts?
http://e-conomy.berkeley.edu/publications/wp/wp140.pdf
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/meyer.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design
Architecture is already open source in that everyone of our creations is inhabited in the network of society. Our cutting edge or popular designs are published a variety of trade journals and even the real estate section of the Paper. To try and conceal your design would be to take yourself out of the market as a designer. The design process however, is still personal, and a reletively singular act by a small group or single individual. In fact, this parralles open source design coders where according to Richard Florida, just 2% of coders make 95% of the code.
It may not be as "collective" as some would want you to believe.
What you're referring to (first) is the basic aesthetic design of a building, which (although certain other embedded systems (structure) may be obvious), does not reveal the "source" to the extent that open source code does for software. Besides the architects, engineers, and contractors of a given project, who has access to the construction documents?
My opinion is that the majority of architecture is a custom coded app (client-side), not an operating system. In that sense, the overlap for open-source tools becomes rather narrow. Just thinking out loud too.
as for the "collective" nature of it, I'm sure you're right it's no socialist utopia, but it seems to me that there may be a benefit to transparency of the development process and an invitation for public comments.
whoo. and i thought dealing with a building committee was hard. public comment for all projects? are you crazy? what a nightmare!
as for me, nothing i do is secret. but i also don't understand what the benefit would be of having the design process and details subject to public access. is anything we do so extraordinarily 'secret formula' that it can't be reproduced fairly easily by someone else, if that's their desire?
imo, there is already to much information out in the world, unless you're talking about information under the watchful eye of our current executive branch. architects are more often finding themselves serving as filters for this information than they are creating anything new. make it stop!
all i need is another way for a client, because of some freedom-of-access "open source" architecture website, to bring me documentation of a building to "draw up" for him with "just a few minor changes".
you dont need the blueprints to build it - building systems have their own rules and could actually be more akin to self generating form based on their respective internal rule sets.
The blueprint is actually the legal document stating what is to be built.
this is an interesting idea.
it is hard to imagine the applicability for about 99% of architects out there that crank out buildings and probably would never see the need or want to expose their construction documents to professional/public scrutiny.
however, going back to evan's original suggestion that open-source architecture be used to advance specific problems in design, such as sustainable systems... it only seems logical to me that green designers who invest considerable effort to work these new technologies into their buildings could only benefit from a database of details, climate information, etc. Plus manufacturers of say, compost toilets, would probably be eager to support the design "code" as the easier it becomes to implement their products, the more they will sell.
Also it seems a lot of those building sustainable architecture are individuals putting up their own house or local school in a rural area, who would benefit most by such a collective community.
So who's willing to start it?
this makes me think of FOA's species in Phylogenesis, only on a more universally applicable level.
isn't that the complaint about the (existing) 'coffee table' magazines?
AFH's Open Architecture Network
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.