Can someone explain to me how they see the benefits towards these different approaches towards design. I just toured the open houses and was put off and confused by places like PENN, MIT, (I've heard Columbia), and others. It was just over my head at this point coming from a non-arch background. Harvard and Yale made a lot more sense as what I had been anticipating. Is there great value in this new approach? What is it all about? Which education is more valuable to someone coming from a non-arch background.
this is really an impossible question to answer, MSarch. many of us are still not comfortable with these 'new' tools and will probably answer in snarky ways, others think they're the only/best future of design. the real future will, of course, be much more strange, layered, surprising, and interesting than any of us can anticipate. close your eyes and point. i believe you can get a good education at any of these schools if you make full use of what they offer.
is the most recent of those discussions. It may be helpful for you.
As Steven says, any of those schools are excellent, and don't overlook your feelings of personal comfort in those environments - you need to approach school with a very open mind, which is hard to do perhaps in an environment that feels uncomfortable for you.
if you want 'tradition' go to Notre Dame/Catholic U, or any school dominated by the CNU crowd. If you want to be exposed to a full range of ideas, then PENN's schizophrenic lack of a dominant philosophy will serve you well. If you just want to become a practitioner, go to a state school to avoid having theory confuse you. If you want to become unemployable by knowing cutting edge ideas, go to Columbia.
Every school has it's stregnths and weaknesses. First figure out what you want or what scares you, then you can figure out good schools to go to.
this is the million dollar question right now. i've been teaching with quite a few of the purveyors of the generative/algorithmic approach over at Pratt (in fact quite a few are good friends) and can see the issue from both sides. having experienced both sides there are dangers and pitfalls for both...
with the algorithmic/generative approach you can miss out on the basics. understand that what you will be learning is a process and system for developing your logical approach to an architecture. what this means is that the architectural artifact is approached as an infrastructure that performs based on a variety of functions. in a way this is a hyper-modern rebranding of traditional modernism under walter gropius at harvard in the 1950's...although the faculty doing this are often very hit or miss. most have never practiced and are recent graduates themselves, therefore many of the ideas are not informed by practice or tested by construction...meaning that it will be academic and will tend towards stylized notions of what architecture might be
the more traditional approach will explore the basics of architecture more fully - notions of space, program, tectonics, etc.
the issue with this is that you may not get the energy of the young faculty or ideas of the more progressive approach (not to say that you won't but keep your eyes open for enthusiasm levels of the students). the other issue is that architecture as a practice is becoming more technologically sophisticated and the programs and methodologies of the generative/algorithmic approach will give you an ease with the machinery and programs that will allow you to think through the devices that architecture and design are mediated through currently. it is very hard for many students (and many professionals) to make the leap from the sketch to the digital project, therefore some of the computer based skills can be very valuable for advancement in many offices.
my two cents...really it's a tough call right now. you need to figure out which is right for you and what you want to get out of your education
vado honey, can you expand a little on that - I know you have a serious point to be made behind the quip, because we have discussed it, and I think your insight would be helpful.
ok, you caught me generalizing- Ohio State may be second to Columbia for teaching the new wave, while neighboring UC is a great example of tried and true service to the profession (if in doubt, choose a school with an internship program).
Hasn't Columbia moved away from "blobitecture" in recent years? Not to say they're teaching students how to detail corinthian columns, but from what I've read here on Archinect, it sounds as if they've gotten over their infatuation with cybertecture and have moved on... But moved on to what?
i would say traditional means the tradition of the architecture school since the bauhaus and not on programs such as notre dame which evoke a "classical" content. well, lb if i wanted to learn how to do cnc programming, i would just head over to (in indianapolis' case) ivy tech and learn to do it for a fraction of the price that i would pay at any university. then i would supplement this education with my marijuana induced late night star trek viewing sessions for the formal and aesthetic aspects. its all good.
I see nothing wrong that the new leads are there to support architecture teached and learned the tradisioal way, ---- but please don't ask architecture to be the saviour for all future jobs ; just _some houses must be build houses that honor architecture as what it must ,there are nothing wrong doing the projecting from a spreadsheet application ;houses cah't become more ugly than cutting edge post modern houses and building structures , --- it can only be made better don't vorry, it can also become much cheaper and innovation can again enter architecture, providing new sheet materials and special fittings a mountain of money. The tradisinal education will enforce you well enough about the science of architecture, beauty alway's was the best measure so traveling and writing collecting experience and ,eh writing, is very well I guess even the result what you realy be doing, will be logistics . I see nothing wrong with forming structural masses and hollowed forms without any knowleage about the math. involved I think beauty are the only measure -- words will not and shal not provide that ,no words are there to praise the real thing, the thing that will provide new building methods new insight 3D-H put into ProEngineer or whatever parametic CAD program. What's wrong repeating it one more time ; reinvent an architectural style , but this time offer great houses at a third the cost ?
I tried my best to be, fact I been many times not for trying patent architecture but , if you read just a few treads you easily will reconise what alway's hindered new perception and newthinking , there are plenty treads to prove what words yield ,but frankly I think that I maneaged to get one messeage thru ; generating building structure -- nomatter 3D-H or whatever --- what make some of the treads into book worthy lyrics prove a great many things to . Bside you are entitled the exactly the pool of creativity you put into what often can be preparing a mirrored image .
A few people have been so offended by just new way's to put things together, Conservatism work better than ever with a rigid web browser ,what the early pest modernists was up against are sugar compared the language in web discussions in today's design world are acid.
Remember when a group of web designers are to decide tomorrow's methods and progress, it to often become a coverd act, rewarding itself by an instant measure. I find Designcommunity do a great job there, they clensed the best treads -- the 3D-H treads acturly are a treasure of visions and digital wisdom ,but sadly they also here, are tempered ; mails are been removed ,substance of treads been dismissed and jettisoned as if architecture, as if architectural icons realy need so much civil "protection, against new way's to put things together, with a computer, without knowing even the basic math.
Yes I been , but why do you again make it deal with social issues, when what I deal with, is innovation and new methods ?
Listen I can't even get my password renewed , my tread Silver Screen Galleri that at designcommunity are uo round 25000 visitors run down at what unanswered spam mails are measured. If you check also been t the old "Hi all you fancy graphics lovers" tread (unless that also been tempered with) and put it up against the same tread at Designcommunity , you will see two compleatly opposite responses --- there there are a positive spirit an open mind towerds new architectural means, Designers are allowed to the extents that 3D-H been given it's own fora, A fora that is more than snik-snak ,--- well I agrea that new posts are rare, but that's proberly thank's to you guy's for you architecture are about if the architect is a fine person and in this context I find it abuse to mis use modorator access .
I seen how tempering with treads , left discussions where say my posts been replaced with some nonsense somone not me, replaced my text ; the following answers refer Per Corell me, named with the web name this service refuse me to regain, after I stepped the toe of fact web rules and honors , did things any true web master could punish , Gee I was just talking bright new future and new methods, and in numourous treads you can see how Design and Architecture have a hard time ,being respected among Architects, web architects.
vado just a quick response on your statement, it seems be based on the popular misconception that running the machine and thinking through the machine are the same thing, whereas, like drafting before it, they are totally separate levels of understanding.
knowing how to run a program does not make you better or more facile, knowing how to think through it does.
masturbation or not...eisenman has an important fundamental overarching idea (especially necessary for those wanting to get into architecture): explore the language of architecture outside of other disciplines...the same way a typographer studies fonts and the curves and straights in fonts, outside of the content of the phrases and paragraphs of what will evntually be composed of fonts...
The first two are about pleasing yourself and/or other architects, the third is about working for the client who is paying you.
This is why the first two seem to die after school (you now will list to me the few instances that disprove this), unless they can be somehow folded into the third method.
nope, not offended at all. just commenting on the fact that all the discussions about schools on here always turn into one-liner pissing contests, which i think are a disservice to the people who are seriously inquiring about these schools. that's all.
sure have fun with it, but there are some impressionalble 18-year-old applicants out there who might take your words seriously.
my point is that there are not plenty of other threads with detailed info, but plenty of other threads with overgeneralized commentary like this thread.
I think MSarch asked a very good question and deserves good answers.
ahhh, so what what else do you want to say about sci-arc other then: it's in a very long building in a cool city? what more do prospective students need to know?
i still think you're missing my point. i didn't join this discussion to say anything about sci-arc (or rebuke anything said about sci-arc). you asked me, remember? my point was that MSArch asked a very specific question about specific schools on the east coast, and automoatcially it becomes a school bashing contest. how is that informative?
yes, i go to sci-arc, but i don't consider myself to be the expert on what everyone at this school is about, let alone be the expert on the pedagogies of 10 other schools i never attended.
It's no secret that I'm in the generative architecture camp. (Although I'm surprised that I completely missed the Scripts thread - probably because I thought it was about computer programming, not architecture.)
My view of generative architecture is slightly different from the definitions that have been given or referred to in these threads. I was exposed to the theory while working on my M.Arch at Virginia Tech when I took a course from a visiting professor from Texas A&M. (again - goooo state schools!) Quite fortuitously, I was able to apply the ideas of generative architecture from the course directly to my thesis.
There are a few essential ground rules:
1. Start with something architectonic
2. Make something beautiful
3. Use the computer to assist in creating multiple "generations" quickly, but always pay attention and make decisions about where the design should head next. (Don't "just let the script run over night and come back in the morning.")
4. Be serendipitous. Don't over-think the situation or design.
I feel that generative architecture is a way to advance beyond a single, sterile design. It can be surprising and yield results that are unexpected yet rich.
Here is an example of a building section I created early-on. Yes, it's abstract, but it could be translated into real building components.
I could go on for days about this stuff, but I may run the risk of fading to oblivion like per :)
I'll add to this discussion seriously as well: Jeremy, when an architect actually uses a computer as a tool for creating building, as opposed to cool graphics that look like Dale Chilhyly's glass, then we might get some "algorithmic" architecture that gets built. But Most Architectects wouldn't know from code before it was all your base (before it stole your credit card number).
The guy who actually uses cool code to make awesome architecture will never stop building dorky for millionaire computer geeks.
as for "generative" the process doesn't need software to do -- just draw copiously, and think a bit as you do it. Or go study glass blowing to make your models.
Obviously theres huge potential for this approach, and theres no reason it needs to be mutually exclusive to more 'traditional' approaches. Like any revolution in industrial production, its an inevitability we'll be forced to cope with. If anything, I think the reason weve been having such difficulty with it is that its too powerful, and seduces us to surrender to it in the extreme. I dont agree that 'making something beautiful' and being reflexive are the only goals here. Its such a quantum leap in design logic that we are going to need to be better than that. I think the real genius of Mies and Corbu was that they understood that implications of the technology werent just material and formal, but that they had real social implications and completely altered the way we use space. Maybe Nox is on the border of this; I think projects like softoffice show theres real potential for a new way of life here. Theres the potential for radically altering the political segregation of space. Theres the potential for developing building systems that make these archigram ideas about mobility and adaptability in architecture economically plausible. I understand those who point out how much can be lost here. I agree that alot of the experiments Ive seen with it lack a kind of psychological discipline. But this certainly isnt necessarily the case. It just requires of the author a greater rigur in that reflexive realm, in the end the computer only does what you tell it to.
But I think as we saw in the 'scripts' thread, its still very much in its infancy. The sortof archaic non-intuitiveness of of the software at this stage lends itself to users getting so absorbed in the nuts and bolts it can be easy to lose perspective. Just like sustainability or linguistics or any other technique, its just a tool, and needs the understanding fundamental properties of psychology and space to be of any use.
But who knows. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe this is just another sad chapter in the long human surrender.
I've been following this thread (and just read the "scripts" thread) with a great deal of interest, as I find myself facing a similar dilemma as MSarch.
I guess I'd lump myself rather firmly into the "traditional" Bauhaus pedagogical camp: I have a very strong interest in the craft of building, and in issues related to scale, context, space, program, tectonics, sustainability, etc. In my professional career so far, I seem to already have a pretty intuitive sense about such things, and I'm eager to explore those issues further. I feel much more at home stomping around on a construction site than I do sitting in front of a computer. While I have nothing against computers per se, I see them as a means to an end, but not an end in themselves.
I'll admit to finding most "generative architecture" challenging at best, and completely off-putting at worst. I still have raw memories of practically being tarred and feathered at UIC for having the audacity to produce designs that incorporated the use of straight lines and right angles.
At this moment in my life, if I had to describe an M.Arch. program best suited to my own interests, it would probably be equal parts Bauhaus (think vintage IIT), sustainability (think U of Oregon), and community-based design (think Rural Studio). I have doubts that any such program exists in the US, though.
That said, I wouldn't be getting my money's worth in grad school if I weren't being introduced to new ideas and being challenged to think beyond my normal comfort zone. I want to be open-minded about new ideas in architecture, and places like Penn and Columbia are on my short list of schools to apply to for that reason, among others. I have ten years experience in the profession, so I already have a pretty good idea of how to build. But my worst fear is that I will have spent 3+ years and $100,000 in grad school to learn Maya, but be no more employable than I am now.
I want to study in the NYC area and be able to take advantage of the opportunities, faculty connections, and locations those schools have to offer, but not if it means feeling frustrated by having to spend three years performing "digital masturbation" at the expense of exploring ideas that really interest me. I guess my million-dollar question is this: Is there a place for a luddite like me at someplace like Penn or Columbia, despite their reputations? If so, are there particular faculty members at those schools who I should make a point to get to know? If not, what other schools in that region should I consider looking at?
the GSD does a great job at finding real projects for students to work on- ie 'community-based' in the planning and landscape program. The arch program at the gsd may follow the harvard precedent (if you don't mind traveling around the world to find a community).
as to the sustainability or bauhausian (can that be correct) attitude, not sure what else the gsd is teaching these days.
Penn tries to be sustainable (larp does it better), and occasionally will pull in a community-based project. But detlef through the bauhaus out with the bath water (and he's a Meis scholar- what gives????) and has attempted to foist the algorythm into every studio.
What's Columbia up to these days? Any truth to the rumor that they've moved on from their blobitecture phase?
Also, where does Cornell fit on the spectrum between Bauhaus and blobs? They don't seem to be on the radar screen, maybe because their M.Arch. is still a new program. They seem to have a good spectrum of projects on their website, at least.
(Of course, I'll be visiting both schools in a couple weeks, so I'll be able to see for myself.)
what befuddles me is how one can design a building without mixing these two approaches. sure, the project is a discrete problem to be solved with a discrete solution (i.e., a real building)...but the "algorithm", or the collection of materials, methods, and methodologies of architecture...truly defines the end form...really the architect merely instigates and monitors the generative process.
i dunno, i have to admit, i had to remember all the lectures from my systems-analyst dad on this one.
Generative and Algorithmic vs. Traditional?
Can someone explain to me how they see the benefits towards these different approaches towards design. I just toured the open houses and was put off and confused by places like PENN, MIT, (I've heard Columbia), and others. It was just over my head at this point coming from a non-arch background. Harvard and Yale made a lot more sense as what I had been anticipating. Is there great value in this new approach? What is it all about? Which education is more valuable to someone coming from a non-arch background.
Thank you.
search the forums, its only been discussed on here 14,374 times.
this is really an impossible question to answer, MSarch. many of us are still not comfortable with these 'new' tools and will probably answer in snarky ways, others think they're the only/best future of design. the real future will, of course, be much more strange, layered, surprising, and interesting than any of us can anticipate. close your eyes and point. i believe you can get a good education at any of these schools if you make full use of what they offer.
is the most recent of those discussions. It may be helpful for you.
As Steven says, any of those schools are excellent, and don't overlook your feelings of personal comfort in those environments - you need to approach school with a very open mind, which is hard to do perhaps in an environment that feels uncomfortable for you.
if you want 'tradition' go to Notre Dame/Catholic U, or any school dominated by the CNU crowd. If you want to be exposed to a full range of ideas, then PENN's schizophrenic lack of a dominant philosophy will serve you well. If you just want to become a practitioner, go to a state school to avoid having theory confuse you. If you want to become unemployable by knowing cutting edge ideas, go to Columbia.
Every school has it's stregnths and weaknesses. First figure out what you want or what scares you, then you can figure out good schools to go to.
this is the million dollar question right now. i've been teaching with quite a few of the purveyors of the generative/algorithmic approach over at Pratt (in fact quite a few are good friends) and can see the issue from both sides. having experienced both sides there are dangers and pitfalls for both...
with the algorithmic/generative approach you can miss out on the basics. understand that what you will be learning is a process and system for developing your logical approach to an architecture. what this means is that the architectural artifact is approached as an infrastructure that performs based on a variety of functions. in a way this is a hyper-modern rebranding of traditional modernism under walter gropius at harvard in the 1950's...although the faculty doing this are often very hit or miss. most have never practiced and are recent graduates themselves, therefore many of the ideas are not informed by practice or tested by construction...meaning that it will be academic and will tend towards stylized notions of what architecture might be
the more traditional approach will explore the basics of architecture more fully - notions of space, program, tectonics, etc.
the issue with this is that you may not get the energy of the young faculty or ideas of the more progressive approach (not to say that you won't but keep your eyes open for enthusiasm levels of the students). the other issue is that architecture as a practice is becoming more technologically sophisticated and the programs and methodologies of the generative/algorithmic approach will give you an ease with the machinery and programs that will allow you to think through the devices that architecture and design are mediated through currently. it is very hard for many students (and many professionals) to make the leap from the sketch to the digital project, therefore some of the computer based skills can be very valuable for advancement in many offices.
my two cents...really it's a tough call right now. you need to figure out which is right for you and what you want to get out of your education
a little bit of an exaggeration. state schools aren't allergic to theory or baroque computer tools.
go to the local tech school and become a cnc programmer.
vado honey, can you expand a little on that - I know you have a serious point to be made behind the quip, because we have discussed it, and I think your insight would be helpful.
ok, you caught me generalizing- Ohio State may be second to Columbia for teaching the new wave, while neighboring UC is a great example of tried and true service to the profession (if in doubt, choose a school with an internship program).
Hasn't Columbia moved away from "blobitecture" in recent years? Not to say they're teaching students how to detail corinthian columns, but from what I've read here on Archinect, it sounds as if they've gotten over their infatuation with cybertecture and have moved on... But moved on to what?
i would say traditional means the tradition of the architecture school since the bauhaus and not on programs such as notre dame which evoke a "classical" content. well, lb if i wanted to learn how to do cnc programming, i would just head over to (in indianapolis' case) ivy tech and learn to do it for a fraction of the price that i would pay at any university. then i would supplement this education with my marijuana induced late night star trek viewing sessions for the formal and aesthetic aspects. its all good.
I see nothing wrong that the new leads are there to support architecture teached and learned the tradisioal way, ---- but please don't ask architecture to be the saviour for all future jobs ; just _some houses must be build houses that honor architecture as what it must ,there are nothing wrong doing the projecting from a spreadsheet application ;houses cah't become more ugly than cutting edge post modern houses and building structures , --- it can only be made better don't vorry, it can also become much cheaper and innovation can again enter architecture, providing new sheet materials and special fittings a mountain of money. The tradisinal education will enforce you well enough about the science of architecture, beauty alway's was the best measure so traveling and writing collecting experience and ,eh writing, is very well I guess even the result what you realy be doing, will be logistics . I see nothing wrong with forming structural masses and hollowed forms without any knowleage about the math. involved I think beauty are the only measure -- words will not and shal not provide that ,no words are there to praise the real thing, the thing that will provide new building methods new insight 3D-H put into ProEngineer or whatever parametic CAD program. What's wrong repeating it one more time ; reinvent an architectural style , but this time offer great houses at a third the cost ?
Haven't you been banned already?
Beaux Arts vs Bau Haus pedagogy
BA = ND/CU/ and most other 'christian' schools
BH = everybody else to some degree or another
other pedagogies of architectural education:
charismatic (dead) shamans = (Hedjuk)@cooper, (Samo)@Auburn, (FLlW)@taliesen, Solari@Arcosanti..
Digital masterbation: Lynn@Columbia/Sci-arc...
Theoretical masterbation: Eisenman (anywhere), Kipnis@OSU
We have a cool building : UC ('nough said)
We hate our building : Yale, Penn, Sci-Arc
We are in a cool city: Columbia/Pratt/Parsons/CU, Sci-Arc/UCLA, Berkeley, Tulane
We are in the middle of nowhere: Penn State, U of I, Arizona, Iowa
We are beautiful/narcisistic: GSD, Columbia, AA, sci-arc
ok, what have I missed?
I tried my best to be, fact I been many times not for trying patent architecture but , if you read just a few treads you easily will reconise what alway's hindered new perception and newthinking , there are plenty treads to prove what words yield ,but frankly I think that I maneaged to get one messeage thru ; generating building structure -- nomatter 3D-H or whatever --- what make some of the treads into book worthy lyrics prove a great many things to . Bside you are entitled the exactly the pool of creativity you put into what often can be preparing a mirrored image .
A few people have been so offended by just new way's to put things together, Conservatism work better than ever with a rigid web browser ,what the early pest modernists was up against are sugar compared the language in web discussions in today's design world are acid.
Remember when a group of web designers are to decide tomorrow's methods and progress, it to often become a coverd act, rewarding itself by an instant measure. I find Designcommunity do a great job there, they clensed the best treads -- the 3D-H treads acturly are a treasure of visions and digital wisdom ,but sadly they also here, are tempered ; mails are been removed ,substance of treads been dismissed and jettisoned as if architecture, as if architectural icons realy need so much civil "protection, against new way's to put things together, with a computer, without knowing even the basic math.
Yes I been , but why do you again make it deal with social issues, when what I deal with, is innovation and new methods ?
tk: ok, what have I missed?
We flat-out rock: Cranbrook.
Listen I can't even get my password renewed , my tread Silver Screen Galleri that at designcommunity are uo round 25000 visitors run down at what unanswered spam mails are measured. If you check also been t the old "Hi all you fancy graphics lovers" tread (unless that also been tempered with) and put it up against the same tread at Designcommunity , you will see two compleatly opposite responses --- there there are a positive spirit an open mind towerds new architectural means, Designers are allowed to the extents that 3D-H been given it's own fora, A fora that is more than snik-snak ,--- well I agrea that new posts are rare, but that's proberly thank's to you guy's for you architecture are about if the architect is a fine person and in this context I find it abuse to mis use modorator access .
I seen how tempering with treads , left discussions where say my posts been replaced with some nonsense somone not me, replaced my text ; the following answers refer Per Corell me, named with the web name this service refuse me to regain, after I stepped the toe of fact web rules and honors , did things any true web master could punish , Gee I was just talking bright new future and new methods, and in numourous treads you can see how Design and Architecture have a hard time ,being respected among Architects, web architects.
Per, just shut the fuck up. As usual, you're derailing a perfectly good discussion with your verbal diarrhea.
vado just a quick response on your statement, it seems be based on the popular misconception that running the machine and thinking through the machine are the same thing, whereas, like drafting before it, they are totally separate levels of understanding.
knowing how to run a program does not make you better or more facile, knowing how to think through it does.
thats where the star trek comes in...
ahhhh.......
and of course the marijuana!
beam me up vado
lb- love cranbrook, don't have any sense of what their current pedagogy drift is. the gordon matta-clark unbuilding movement was very 80's.
masturbation or not...eisenman has an important fundamental overarching idea (especially necessary for those wanting to get into architecture): explore the language of architecture outside of other disciplines...the same way a typographer studies fonts and the curves and straights in fonts, outside of the content of the phrases and paragraphs of what will evntually be composed of fonts...
that is what is important with eisenman...
now back to the topic...
dammson, here's a towel to clean yourself up. hope it was as good for you, as it was for us...
it's fundamental...what he's teaching...explore the language of architecture...then you can use that language...
as lb says, when discussing schools, its important to have an open mind, but discussions like these always lack that for some reason.
Dot- my mind is open. what am I missing? what?!
umm....pardon me dot, but uhhhh, your mind is open.
treekiller, did you go to every school that you generlaized about?
Generative and Algorithmic vs. Traditional?
The first two are about pleasing yourself and/or other architects, the third is about working for the client who is paying you.
This is why the first two seem to die after school (you now will list to me the few instances that disprove this), unless they can be somehow folded into the third method.
generative:
traditional:
dot. if I went to every school, then I'd still be in school. so, no.
If you know more generlaize information then what I've posted, please add it to our discussion. have I offended you somehow?
trekiller, you're right about sciarc being a beautiful city, though...
trekiller, you're right about sciarc being in a beautiful city, though...
nope, not offended at all. just commenting on the fact that all the discussions about schools on here always turn into one-liner pissing contests, which i think are a disservice to the people who are seriously inquiring about these schools. that's all.
sure have fun with it, but there are some impressionalble 18-year-old applicants out there who might take your words seriously.
impressionable teenagers are best served by one-liners. hope they are listening to me and not britney spears when it comes to applying to arch-school.
If we were asked serious questions, then we would respond with serious answers - there are plenty of other threads with detailed info...
So where are you in school?
I asked a serious question before Per Corell began spewing.
you were serious when you told PC/VP to shut up.
no more cookies...
my point is that there are not plenty of other threads with detailed info, but plenty of other threads with overgeneralized commentary like this thread.
I think MSarch asked a very good question and deserves good answers.
I go to SCI-Arc.
ahhh, so what what else do you want to say about sci-arc other then: it's in a very long building in a cool city? what more do prospective students need to know?
i still think you're missing my point. i didn't join this discussion to say anything about sci-arc (or rebuke anything said about sci-arc). you asked me, remember? my point was that MSArch asked a very specific question about specific schools on the east coast, and automoatcially it becomes a school bashing contest. how is that informative?
yes, i go to sci-arc, but i don't consider myself to be the expert on what everyone at this school is about, let alone be the expert on the pedagogies of 10 other schools i never attended.
It's no secret that I'm in the generative architecture camp. (Although I'm surprised that I completely missed the Scripts thread - probably because I thought it was about computer programming, not architecture.)
My view of generative architecture is slightly different from the definitions that have been given or referred to in these threads. I was exposed to the theory while working on my M.Arch at Virginia Tech when I took a course from a visiting professor from Texas A&M. (again - goooo state schools!) Quite fortuitously, I was able to apply the ideas of generative architecture from the course directly to my thesis.
There are a few essential ground rules:
1. Start with something architectonic
2. Make something beautiful
3. Use the computer to assist in creating multiple "generations" quickly, but always pay attention and make decisions about where the design should head next. (Don't "just let the script run over night and come back in the morning.")
4. Be serendipitous. Don't over-think the situation or design.
I feel that generative architecture is a way to advance beyond a single, sterile design. It can be surprising and yield results that are unexpected yet rich.
Here is an example of a building section I created early-on. Yes, it's abstract, but it could be translated into real building components.
I could go on for days about this stuff, but I may run the risk of fading to oblivion like per :)
For dammason...
[img]http://a1.vox.com/6a00c2251d2c57604a00c2252c2891604a-pi[img]
(I hope this works)
ha. make a coding error on a thread about code...
I'll add to this discussion seriously as well: Jeremy, when an architect actually uses a computer as a tool for creating building, as opposed to cool graphics that look like Dale Chilhyly's glass, then we might get some "algorithmic" architecture that gets built. But Most Architectects wouldn't know from code before it was all your base (before it stole your credit card number).
The guy who actually uses cool code to make awesome architecture will never stop building dorky for millionaire computer geeks.
as for "generative" the process doesn't need software to do -- just draw copiously, and think a bit as you do it. Or go study glass blowing to make your models.
Obviously theres huge potential for this approach, and theres no reason it needs to be mutually exclusive to more 'traditional' approaches. Like any revolution in industrial production, its an inevitability we'll be forced to cope with. If anything, I think the reason weve been having such difficulty with it is that its too powerful, and seduces us to surrender to it in the extreme. I dont agree that 'making something beautiful' and being reflexive are the only goals here. Its such a quantum leap in design logic that we are going to need to be better than that. I think the real genius of Mies and Corbu was that they understood that implications of the technology werent just material and formal, but that they had real social implications and completely altered the way we use space. Maybe Nox is on the border of this; I think projects like softoffice show theres real potential for a new way of life here. Theres the potential for radically altering the political segregation of space. Theres the potential for developing building systems that make these archigram ideas about mobility and adaptability in architecture economically plausible. I understand those who point out how much can be lost here. I agree that alot of the experiments Ive seen with it lack a kind of psychological discipline. But this certainly isnt necessarily the case. It just requires of the author a greater rigur in that reflexive realm, in the end the computer only does what you tell it to.
But I think as we saw in the 'scripts' thread, its still very much in its infancy. The sortof archaic non-intuitiveness of of the software at this stage lends itself to users getting so absorbed in the nuts and bolts it can be easy to lose perspective. Just like sustainability or linguistics or any other technique, its just a tool, and needs the understanding fundamental properties of psychology and space to be of any use.
But who knows. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe this is just another sad chapter in the long human surrender.
I've been following this thread (and just read the "scripts" thread) with a great deal of interest, as I find myself facing a similar dilemma as MSarch.
I guess I'd lump myself rather firmly into the "traditional" Bauhaus pedagogical camp: I have a very strong interest in the craft of building, and in issues related to scale, context, space, program, tectonics, sustainability, etc. In my professional career so far, I seem to already have a pretty intuitive sense about such things, and I'm eager to explore those issues further. I feel much more at home stomping around on a construction site than I do sitting in front of a computer. While I have nothing against computers per se, I see them as a means to an end, but not an end in themselves.
I'll admit to finding most "generative architecture" challenging at best, and completely off-putting at worst. I still have raw memories of practically being tarred and feathered at UIC for having the audacity to produce designs that incorporated the use of straight lines and right angles.
At this moment in my life, if I had to describe an M.Arch. program best suited to my own interests, it would probably be equal parts Bauhaus (think vintage IIT), sustainability (think U of Oregon), and community-based design (think Rural Studio). I have doubts that any such program exists in the US, though.
That said, I wouldn't be getting my money's worth in grad school if I weren't being introduced to new ideas and being challenged to think beyond my normal comfort zone. I want to be open-minded about new ideas in architecture, and places like Penn and Columbia are on my short list of schools to apply to for that reason, among others. I have ten years experience in the profession, so I already have a pretty good idea of how to build. But my worst fear is that I will have spent 3+ years and $100,000 in grad school to learn Maya, but be no more employable than I am now.
I want to study in the NYC area and be able to take advantage of the opportunities, faculty connections, and locations those schools have to offer, but not if it means feeling frustrated by having to spend three years performing "digital masturbation" at the expense of exploring ideas that really interest me. I guess my million-dollar question is this: Is there a place for a luddite like me at someplace like Penn or Columbia, despite their reputations? If so, are there particular faculty members at those schools who I should make a point to get to know? If not, what other schools in that region should I consider looking at?
the GSD does a great job at finding real projects for students to work on- ie 'community-based' in the planning and landscape program. The arch program at the gsd may follow the harvard precedent (if you don't mind traveling around the world to find a community).
as to the sustainability or bauhausian (can that be correct) attitude, not sure what else the gsd is teaching these days.
Penn tries to be sustainable (larp does it better), and occasionally will pull in a community-based project. But detlef through the bauhaus out with the bath water (and he's a Meis scholar- what gives????) and has attempted to foist the algorythm into every studio.
Dot- does this answer your point?
What's Columbia up to these days? Any truth to the rumor that they've moved on from their blobitecture phase?
Also, where does Cornell fit on the spectrum between Bauhaus and blobs? They don't seem to be on the radar screen, maybe because their M.Arch. is still a new program. They seem to have a good spectrum of projects on their website, at least.
(Of course, I'll be visiting both schools in a couple weeks, so I'll be able to see for myself.)
what befuddles me is how one can design a building without mixing these two approaches. sure, the project is a discrete problem to be solved with a discrete solution (i.e., a real building)...but the "algorithm", or the collection of materials, methods, and methodologies of architecture...truly defines the end form...really the architect merely instigates and monitors the generative process.
i dunno, i have to admit, i had to remember all the lectures from my systems-analyst dad on this one.
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.