Steven, I don't know if you saw, but Janosh said (stated) that this was done by Office dA. I was unaware, and wanted too (also) to see some recognition for the architect/designer.
When all is said and done, the shear option to allow this project to be built was a good decision. For many years now I have felt that Los Angeles should be a laboratory for exploratory structures, good, bad or indifferent, the reality is that because of the proximity to Hollywood and the film industry, those "projects" would surely have some use (if not embraced by those who it was intended for).
I don't see anything difficult about it. Just as you would expect, all of the panels arrived on site with an ID for their location. Seems to me the harder part would be installing the furring.
if you're referring to my comment, it wasn't that this is a manufacturing or logistical nightmare, but a detailing one.
while i know that bim systems can deal with all the issues of where things are in space, there is still a good amount of coordination, determination of how it's going to shed and/or keep out water, integration and access to systems, etc. (i've just realized that this IS so cal so maybe keeping out water is less of an issue than in ky, but...)
no, i don't think manufacturing would be that horrible, once these things were figured out. maybe 'nightmare' was a bad choice of words. mainly i meant SOMEONE SPENT A BUNCH OF DAMN TIME FIGURING THAT SUCKER OUT and that someone should get named.
"no, i don't think manufacturing would be that horrible"
Ofcaurse not --- but then translating the simple Vectors into a stringer that will both carry the panels that later must be calculated with offset of halve stringer subtracted and figure out exactly what stringer belong to what unfolded face such things requier, atleast a numbering system that stamp it's Id onto each and every of the 10000 piece, sure it is not impossible that's what computers and innovation are here for.
Still I would emagine other way's even with plain poly meshes but in the end --- where do it lead ; are these structures realy so fantastic and is it a good use of the spaces and volumes it can bring --- personaly I think it bring in more restrictions than expantion, I think that the basic idea is oldfasion and limitedm that the whole attitude looks rather as step by step moving down a dead-end road ,as where do it end ?
Fragile structures asking focused perfection and unbildable, unless you can reach atleast tree application develobers ,four hardware engineers and then all you can project, is a surface wrapped and formed without breaking --- on the inside or the other side of the panels there will be useless volumes, and the strength will be restristrected to the useal surface skin strength , anrdly anything that will carry any heavy load or be able to follow in and melt together with other structural entities.
Do you want such software --- well I have to say this ; I made such applications when I needed to transform some of the same poly meshes into panels for boat hulls, you want the number and length of each and every string, just ask but remember how many years ago I had to write these in Lisp.
Steven, I was reffering to vinpust's comment:
Yes you are right it is probrely quite unfair with the critic and true this is different and just manufactoring the panels will be a logistic nightmare.
And now that you mention this detailing, I wanna know more, how are these things held in place, if the panels are differentiated, then the underlying structure has a parametric logic as well. Someone at OfficeDa better has some 'splaining to do! Enquiring minds want to know the prametrixxx logic under this. Mathematically it makes sense, triangulation and all that. So how does that filter down through to the details, etc... hmmmmmmmm
Sorry I interupt --- but this is easy , there are a number of way's to have the Id printed and attached to the exact string or panel, it is simple application develobment , and yes the Math. are easy , that's why you with these space volumes can draw two very different ones, and interpolate in 3D between two very different shaped volumes --- surfaces or whatever you want to call these, and yes it will be a trivial job to develob the profile and ends attachment --- but please , and this is why I interupt, -- for what porpus ; these polymeshes are already been tested for a decade and their limitations are known.
-------- I could outline a very different but very woakable different way, to manufactor the mesh line by line and with ease of assembling but still, for what , for a useless hightech lookalike with no real visions.
I am not interested in the numbering system, this is not my question, but what drives the detailing that steven mentioned. If this is done with Catia, then the model probably has some main drivers ... I am interested in the logic, the heirarchy for the parametric model... what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Gosh and I started thinking it was me and all those archiflash cards on Lat Forces, that had me seeing odd things written/posted by vindpust.
Not to bash on the fella, if english isn't his first language, but my biggest pet peeve is spelling (good lord!! use the spell check, please).
one funny thought was, how did this conversation go into specifics of numbering, etc.? I thought it would get more mileage as an aesthetic and/or discussion about the movement of such things propagating our built environment (since they already propagate our virtual environs)
because this is a nonstandard paneling system ... is it not our nature to want to understand the inner workings of how this was constructed ... my opinion on the aesthetic, well, I like faceted things, I like them a lot, some cj lim's work, lebbeus woods, exhibits this faceting that I very much enjoy, though usually at a different scale. I think though your question should not separate what is being discussed. How it is built, what it is deal with these aesthetic issues as well as discussing the movement of these things becoming physical. For example, someone mentioned the use of Catia ... architects have not used Catia for long. This software was not in our realm (and some may argue is it is now), but by adopting it (Ghery and others) our crazy non-standard shit becomes manegable, thus, we now begin to see more and more of it. I think it is an exciting time. Zaha now has a few people on Catia. Parametrica and Information Modeling is being used more and more. Things like GC, ParaCloud, etc, are making this way of working/thinking more and more possible. Of course, there is no easy answer, with this approach comes a very new set of issues and difficulties to deal with.
My inquiry about the heirarchy of the paramateric model questions precisely these issues. Currently messing with TopSolid, something I am new to. But it is interesting the new constrains which are placed on a designer by implementing this way of working. One must know exactly what it is they want to do, as the model is dependant from the very beginning... so, I wonder what are the drivers to this model...
"someone mentioned the use of Catia ... architects have not used Catia for long. This software was not in our realm (and some may argue is it is now), but by adopting it (Ghery and others) our crazy non-standard shit becomes manegable, thus, we now begin to see more and more of it. I think it is an exciting time. Zaha now has a few people on Catia. Parametrica and Information Modeling is being used more and more."
Please -- call it Catia, AutoCAD Rhino whatever , a numbering system shuld be there by nature , numbering or any logistic shal not be a trouble for the designer, and the new methods the issue.
CAD is a number of calculations, the exact same as used by hand in fact, but then Architects also shuld be grown up enough, to master these tools and make the creative process the issue.
But true --- there are a bit confusion about what is most important , good social skills or actural knowleage and mastering of the very tools to build them houses, but still this only leave me with my best arguments, that 3D-H build for a third, that it is newthinking and innovative , mean a revolution in how we percive a building structure and it work with computers --- then in my mind there are no doubt, that to use these tools, it is as important as ever to master them. Know how to filter out a point in 3D, do that in the program you use ,things like that as that is how you design something with a computer.
Then that also mean that the computer shuld make it easier not more difficult to project a house beside, the computer also shuld be able to inspire as tools alway's did.
ok....shit, is it me...or are his/her posts unbelievably confusing?
Vindpust: mate, I can't understand 1 fucking thing you are saying? I would suggest you try using "normal" language, rather than trying to create some complex form of thought provoking diatribe. Frankly, if you wrote your ideas in basic simple sentences, it would be a little easier to understand your point.
I have read that twice and still can't make a coherent composition as to what the hell you are talking about (you're all over the place with that post).
Luis, i do agree with you, and for the record nice to see that there are others that appreciate CJ Lims work. I think he's quite brilliant, although eccentric in his own way. Those you have mentioned are some of my favorite designers/architects throughout my short lived career.
I must add that I am not all too familiar with some of the software you've mentioned, I am sure there are some that are lightyears ahead of me on that aspect.
Realy , these software shuld be there for beauty and joy, to fulfill the promise more visionary --- being able to reconise the options is also visionary -- more visionary would expect with new tools and endless possibilities instead, everything just turned up as a re-write of already known methods and trivial logistic. If you emagine the times ,already hippie domes was fully possible without any use of any computer , all needed was a bit wish to play, then the computer are there and said thing happen while some of us is left to wonder where the increadible new things then is to happen, if computers realy are only allowed to be used to perform fragile and useless polymesh hippie forms --- is it realy so difficult to understand , when you acturly know and have build and realised that the trouble is not the surface but the structure, that if you can perform the structure then surface is just unfilding the 3D model into single curved surfaces.
Guess nomatter what I write , it will only be fractions and small pieces --- thinking about how many years it took to deliver what everyone called for at that time, to deliver not the fragile surface as that is easy, no to make it all start rolling in a complete different direction, where computers are there to make it simpler not more diffucult.
squirrelly I am not an evil man, belive me I am just a designer who spended many years to offer this 3D-H method. That's all I an not an architect even I did spend the years at the architect acadamy and acturly had some quite advanced projects develobing software as design tools, tools that all worked but then suddenly, was just the foundations the basics for 3D-H to grow from.
Sorry but this is how it is --- with bricks you for millinia had rules and "how things are done" and no one was supposed to use his brains, not at all . With Bricks any craftsman know the rules as god given and our perception are as solid into that brick wall, as our mistrust against any smart guy, who dare say he spended halve a life to offer what he thought was missing.
But please open your mind instead of closing your eyes, maybe go search for 3D-H first and then use your emagination and my words about building at a third and for once start using the computer to it's full potential. Then go create something nice.
Hey I was looking at your drawing at the other site....damn if it didn't look like the hull of a boat just turned upside down. Then I remembered when I actually spent a summer working in a camp where all of the cabins were just that. Someone had salvaged all of this old whaler type boats and flipped them upside down and built exterior walls to align with the boat gunnels. Then they built these glacier stone fireplaces in each cabin. They were just a gas, I loved
the feel. There is something about how an old wooden boat is put together with all the spruce ribbs and brass rivits. Simple and wierd structures which were sheathed on the outside with rough slab sawn
pine. Actually these cabins were built around the turn of the century when the Colt and Remington gun companies were in there hay-day.
They would send hunters out to their shooting camp and they would get to live in a rustic yet wonderful cabin and drink all the whiskey they wanted.
BP - a new Gas Station prototype?
i wasn't saying it's a revolution, vin, just that it looks different from standard fare gas canopies. nothing you need to worry about. bye.
Steven, I don't know if you saw, but Janosh said (stated) that this was done by Office dA. I was unaware, and wanted too (also) to see some recognition for the architect/designer.
When all is said and done, the shear option to allow this project to be built was a good decision. For many years now I have felt that Los Angeles should be a laboratory for exploratory structures, good, bad or indifferent, the reality is that because of the proximity to Hollywood and the film industry, those "projects" would surely have some use (if not embraced by those who it was intended for).
Just one additional thought I had....
Why would manufacturing this be a logistical nightmare?
I don't see anything difficult about it. Just as you would expect, all of the panels arrived on site with an ID for their location. Seems to me the harder part would be installing the furring.
if you're referring to my comment, it wasn't that this is a manufacturing or logistical nightmare, but a detailing one.
while i know that bim systems can deal with all the issues of where things are in space, there is still a good amount of coordination, determination of how it's going to shed and/or keep out water, integration and access to systems, etc. (i've just realized that this IS so cal so maybe keeping out water is less of an issue than in ky, but...)
no, i don't think manufacturing would be that horrible, once these things were figured out. maybe 'nightmare' was a bad choice of words. mainly i meant SOMEONE SPENT A BUNCH OF DAMN TIME FIGURING THAT SUCKER OUT and that someone should get named.
Arthur Chang....mainly...From OficeDa with help from Catia.
There..credit given :)
"no, i don't think manufacturing would be that horrible"
Ofcaurse not --- but then translating the simple Vectors into a stringer that will both carry the panels that later must be calculated with offset of halve stringer subtracted and figure out exactly what stringer belong to what unfolded face such things requier, atleast a numbering system that stamp it's Id onto each and every of the 10000 piece, sure it is not impossible that's what computers and innovation are here for.
Still I would emagine other way's even with plain poly meshes but in the end --- where do it lead ; are these structures realy so fantastic and is it a good use of the spaces and volumes it can bring --- personaly I think it bring in more restrictions than expantion, I think that the basic idea is oldfasion and limitedm that the whole attitude looks rather as step by step moving down a dead-end road ,as where do it end ?
Fragile structures asking focused perfection and unbildable, unless you can reach atleast tree application develobers ,four hardware engineers and then all you can project, is a surface wrapped and formed without breaking --- on the inside or the other side of the panels there will be useless volumes, and the strength will be restristrected to the useal surface skin strength , anrdly anything that will carry any heavy load or be able to follow in and melt together with other structural entities.
Do you want such software --- well I have to say this ; I made such applications when I needed to transform some of the same poly meshes into panels for boat hulls, you want the number and length of each and every string, just ask but remember how many years ago I had to write these in Lisp.
Steven, I was reffering to vinpust's comment:
Yes you are right it is probrely quite unfair with the critic and true this is different and just manufactoring the panels will be a logistic nightmare.
And now that you mention this detailing, I wanna know more, how are these things held in place, if the panels are differentiated, then the underlying structure has a parametric logic as well. Someone at OfficeDa better has some 'splaining to do! Enquiring minds want to know the prametrixxx logic under this. Mathematically it makes sense, triangulation and all that. So how does that filter down through to the details, etc... hmmmmmmmm
Sorry I interupt --- but this is easy , there are a number of way's to have the Id printed and attached to the exact string or panel, it is simple application develobment , and yes the Math. are easy , that's why you with these space volumes can draw two very different ones, and interpolate in 3D between two very different shaped volumes --- surfaces or whatever you want to call these, and yes it will be a trivial job to develob the profile and ends attachment --- but please , and this is why I interupt, -- for what porpus ; these polymeshes are already been tested for a decade and their limitations are known.
-------- I could outline a very different but very woakable different way, to manufactor the mesh line by line and with ease of assembling but still, for what , for a useless hightech lookalike with no real visions.
I am not interested in the numbering system, this is not my question, but what drives the detailing that steven mentioned. If this is done with Catia, then the model probably has some main drivers ... I am interested in the logic, the heirarchy for the parametric model... what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Luis: just a hint, trying to have a normal conversation with vindpust is pretty much useless. He's like a broken record, only plays one or two songs.
I dig, I dig, not necessarily trying to engage him solely, but the thread as a whole ... but you are right, you are so damn right...
Gosh and I started thinking it was me and all those archiflash cards on Lat Forces, that had me seeing odd things written/posted by vindpust.
Not to bash on the fella, if english isn't his first language, but my biggest pet peeve is spelling (good lord!! use the spell check, please).
one funny thought was, how did this conversation go into specifics of numbering, etc.? I thought it would get more mileage as an aesthetic and/or discussion about the movement of such things propagating our built environment (since they already propagate our virtual environs)
because this is a nonstandard paneling system ... is it not our nature to want to understand the inner workings of how this was constructed ... my opinion on the aesthetic, well, I like faceted things, I like them a lot, some cj lim's work, lebbeus woods, exhibits this faceting that I very much enjoy, though usually at a different scale. I think though your question should not separate what is being discussed. How it is built, what it is deal with these aesthetic issues as well as discussing the movement of these things becoming physical. For example, someone mentioned the use of Catia ... architects have not used Catia for long. This software was not in our realm (and some may argue is it is now), but by adopting it (Ghery and others) our crazy non-standard shit becomes manegable, thus, we now begin to see more and more of it. I think it is an exciting time. Zaha now has a few people on Catia. Parametrica and Information Modeling is being used more and more. Things like GC, ParaCloud, etc, are making this way of working/thinking more and more possible. Of course, there is no easy answer, with this approach comes a very new set of issues and difficulties to deal with.
My inquiry about the heirarchy of the paramateric model questions precisely these issues. Currently messing with TopSolid, something I am new to. But it is interesting the new constrains which are placed on a designer by implementing this way of working. One must know exactly what it is they want to do, as the model is dependant from the very beginning... so, I wonder what are the drivers to this model...
I copyright the name parametrica for my next baby girl ... so sick, so very sick
"someone mentioned the use of Catia ... architects have not used Catia for long. This software was not in our realm (and some may argue is it is now), but by adopting it (Ghery and others) our crazy non-standard shit becomes manegable, thus, we now begin to see more and more of it. I think it is an exciting time. Zaha now has a few people on Catia. Parametrica and Information Modeling is being used more and more."
Please -- call it Catia, AutoCAD Rhino whatever , a numbering system shuld be there by nature , numbering or any logistic shal not be a trouble for the designer, and the new methods the issue.
CAD is a number of calculations, the exact same as used by hand in fact, but then Architects also shuld be grown up enough, to master these tools and make the creative process the issue.
But true --- there are a bit confusion about what is most important , good social skills or actural knowleage and mastering of the very tools to build them houses, but still this only leave me with my best arguments, that 3D-H build for a third, that it is newthinking and innovative , mean a revolution in how we percive a building structure and it work with computers --- then in my mind there are no doubt, that to use these tools, it is as important as ever to master them. Know how to filter out a point in 3D, do that in the program you use ,things like that as that is how you design something with a computer.
Then that also mean that the computer shuld make it easier not more difficult to project a house beside, the computer also shuld be able to inspire as tools alway's did.
ok....shit, is it me...or are his/her posts unbelievably confusing?
Vindpust: mate, I can't understand 1 fucking thing you are saying? I would suggest you try using "normal" language, rather than trying to create some complex form of thought provoking diatribe. Frankly, if you wrote your ideas in basic simple sentences, it would be a little easier to understand your point.
I have read that twice and still can't make a coherent composition as to what the hell you are talking about (you're all over the place with that post).
Luis, i do agree with you, and for the record nice to see that there are others that appreciate CJ Lims work. I think he's quite brilliant, although eccentric in his own way. Those you have mentioned are some of my favorite designers/architects throughout my short lived career.
I must add that I am not all too familiar with some of the software you've mentioned, I am sure there are some that are lightyears ahead of me on that aspect.
Realy , these software shuld be there for beauty and joy, to fulfill the promise more visionary --- being able to reconise the options is also visionary -- more visionary would expect with new tools and endless possibilities instead, everything just turned up as a re-write of already known methods and trivial logistic. If you emagine the times ,already hippie domes was fully possible without any use of any computer , all needed was a bit wish to play, then the computer are there and said thing happen while some of us is left to wonder where the increadible new things then is to happen, if computers realy are only allowed to be used to perform fragile and useless polymesh hippie forms --- is it realy so difficult to understand , when you acturly know and have build and realised that the trouble is not the surface but the structure, that if you can perform the structure then surface is just unfilding the 3D model into single curved surfaces.
Guess nomatter what I write , it will only be fractions and small pieces --- thinking about how many years it took to deliver what everyone called for at that time, to deliver not the fragile surface as that is easy, no to make it all start rolling in a complete different direction, where computers are there to make it simpler not more diffucult.
squirrelly I am not an evil man, belive me I am just a designer who spended many years to offer this 3D-H method. That's all I an not an architect even I did spend the years at the architect acadamy and acturly had some quite advanced projects develobing software as design tools, tools that all worked but then suddenly, was just the foundations the basics for 3D-H to grow from.
Sorry but this is how it is --- with bricks you for millinia had rules and "how things are done" and no one was supposed to use his brains, not at all . With Bricks any craftsman know the rules as god given and our perception are as solid into that brick wall, as our mistrust against any smart guy, who dare say he spended halve a life to offer what he thought was missing.
But please open your mind instead of closing your eyes, maybe go search for 3D-H first and then use your emagination and my words about building at a third and for once start using the computer to it's full potential. Then go create something nice.
why do you keep avoiding me vin-man?
Hey I was looking at your drawing at the other site....damn if it didn't look like the hull of a boat just turned upside down. Then I remembered when I actually spent a summer working in a camp where all of the cabins were just that. Someone had salvaged all of this old whaler type boats and flipped them upside down and built exterior walls to align with the boat gunnels. Then they built these glacier stone fireplaces in each cabin. They were just a gas, I loved
the feel. There is something about how an old wooden boat is put together with all the spruce ribbs and brass rivits. Simple and wierd structures which were sheathed on the outside with rough slab sawn
pine. Actually these cabins were built around the turn of the century when the Colt and Remington gun companies were in there hay-day.
They would send hunters out to their shooting camp and they would get to live in a rustic yet wonderful cabin and drink all the whiskey they wanted.
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.