This is so redicolous --- it seem eceryone praises yeatoday's hero's and expect oldfasion technikes to be the tools of tomorrow, Nervi must ofcaurse be praised if for nothing else, then to take away the focus on brilliant newthinking idears, if a guy say that the thing he produced are brilliant and newthinking then just that is enough for the class bully to do the old trick and brovt "Do you think you are someone" .
And that even this guy's vision realy are brilliant, even finaly there are a method that answer the calls of ewen Nervi, --- then instead of supporting today's Nervi's today's newthinking , then rather shoot them down even without understanding these new thoughts.
"You System also looks akin to What is known as a space frame. The biggest problem with that system is because there are so many connections you depend upon alot of connectors to hold everything in place."
WRONG -- there are no "connections only overlaps, and these overlaps you think is "connections, are cut so they fit exactly ; this you would know if you read the link.
"So quality control becomes a big issue. The failure of one strut will result in the failure of the whole system. "
No it will not, every frame support all other frames and expand the structure strength , this is obvious even for those who before talked against the system, but you think there are connections , where did yoyu see such ?
"This is also true in working with thin shell concrete structures. "
No it is NOT --- have you even looked at the graphics ? There you will see that there is something inside "the shell" and these "things" inside shell is exactly what a shell is missing, the things inside the shell interconnected to what you see as a shell, even think about it Snooper ; a shell what is that , and this isn't his just the opposite of a shell ?? --- a structure.
"You better know what your doing and the builder better know what he is doing because everything is critical. One just doesn't go chopping a hole in the roof once the job is done or your inviting a structural failure."
Listen to yourself -- where did I talk about chopping a hole after the structure was done m where do you see this scene ?
"So quality control becomes a big issue. The failure of one strut will result in the failure of the whole system. "
There is NO BLOODY STRUTS -- this is NOT a "spaceframe" system you havn't read one single word and critic 3D-H from your perception of what it is not -- get that picture out of your mind and realise it is true when I say, that this is NEW , and it is NEW even you think it look as Nervi, as it is in any respect not what Nervi made ; can't you please soon stop this critic that is both iregulare and out of context, as you critic what you think it is and don't even listen.
If it is a component system it is one thing if it is subtractive monolith system that is something different. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck the system is beyond a thought.
what snooker said...post pictures of actual boats you have designed using 3D-H...or even physical models of 3D-H...i think those will be more convincing than words and your computer 3d modeling...
Snooker --- look at this 3D-model . Every section is strait flat out of the 3D model , please don't say you can't cut a flat section as lots of sections are cut from 3D programs and, a section will be generated nomatter how you place the cutting plane in 3D , it work and it allway's been working, --- these sections are just plain sections but, they are , whit is not seen before, cut from two other planes than any of the tradisional top,front and side planes; that's how little NEW you need to add to show something not seen before, something unique maybe to unique if such thing exist, for you to realise that today there also are Nervi's and Le.Corbs that fight for their more elevant newthinking ;
Before you fly out with some critic ; look again maybe you did not understand, and it would be quite all right if you did not, as this is different, this is new, this is newthinking.
Damnson ,as long we agrea, that these sections do not need to be cut from a very very thick block of stone no --- they could be square tubes and Yes, 3D-H could deliver that to, these frames as hollow square tubes with very very low weight.
Snooker -- You proberly now realised that this have nothing to do with "Spaceframes" But please know that I do agrea when someone point to the real problems that could occour, but the problems you pointed to are not these. Also when someone point to a real issue that could caurse a problem, then I take that as a challance, a way to solve problems a way to take apart the fundamental idea and maybe, come up with just the right solution to these aspects.
But most if not all problems around 3D-H is now solved. I used the feedback from years of discussions to fine-tune the concept and realy, issues like the problems assembling the frames over the overlaps only yieled idears about a universal fitting that would even ease assembly, my explanations about how you acturly model and generate have learned a lot a great deal about CAD and Solid modeling, No my attitude are much more positive and that way I gained or rather --3D-H gained -- from the relevant discussions about what this sort of building framework can bring.
You see , it will bring more than just a tool for skilled designers, it also can bring a mountain of money and a lot of new jobs, beside the newthinking that Architecture need now Nervi is so many years ago, and someone have to answer the challance of the computer when the Hippies did not maneage to.
Damnson you know that such structures would be perfect to replace with a 3D-H framework ; but a square box would to, as 3D-H make both . Both the hippie colony and the squarebox cotteage.
Try follow the frames-sections or what you want to call them. but look close and realise how smart this work ,how it work with just one material and so many different issues are taken care of ;
Now if you followed the links , then you will notis with the next, that the sections are there, in a compleatly different direction, --- but the 3D-H Deliver nomatter what directions.
Hint, before the sections was out of plane as seen from top, here they are seen from the side , and what a difference :
what this is explaining is a section not using 3D-H (you called it tradisional section) looks similar and have the same sectional spaces as 3D-H...the frames of 3D-H doesn't affect or influence the spaces in section...
i'm looking at it again...and the "traditional front view" is the cutout frame rotated, therefore appears narrower on your cad drawings due to foreshortening...than the actual frame cutout below it???
No this is no tradisional section -- like it say when you look at the pictures ; these sections do not follow the tradisional front plane so no it is not tradisional sections.
Beside where did you ever see such frame structure carry everything like this do ? --- if you can not recall then it is becaurse this is 3D-H as 3D-H was before I started to allow the two section planes to flow free, aslong as they maintained the 90 deg. inbetween eachother.
Look how newthinking this work, if you don't think it is newthinking come up with something else than a surface Nervi hanger, a hanger that do not offer floors and foundations for exact strait walls or walls curved -- show me that and not a lookalike made with a different not computer suited technike, Maybe look again at not the AutoCAD drawing but the next and figure out the difference ;
Damnson if you know anything about drafting, than you will know that the top left, is all you have to work with in tradisional non-computer drafting . The bottom left is the "unfolded" section , as how that section will display after the shape is lofted out from the drawing calculating for the difference in view.
Now tell me how to calculate this without a computer......
I know as such "unfolding" are what you must be able to draft as a boatsbuilder, so I know why 3D-H is so newthinking as no one would ever, before computers, deal with all that trouble all the endless calculations, that a 3D-H framework will be with normal drafting methods.
Yop left the front view -- bottom left the resulting section in real.
Remember, you can draw an Escher 2D illusion with Photoshop but id you draw 3D, then you can't cheat, and if things work in 3D then it work in real.
--------I know some then claim they seen Photoshop drawings that is "made on computer" that show things that can't be build, but this only tell how little they know about CAD.
And sorry Snooker sorry damnson , I can draft the 2D drawings, I can pick out a section from a tradisional construction drawing , with top, side and front views only, and I been with AutoCAD since it vas Ver 2.6.
Btw. --- the conclution if I shuld "build" one of my suggestions ;--- take your chouce a 5 mill floatbridge, a one mill house, or a 45 mill Opera ---
Would be just as clever as asking everyone who project anything with a CAD program, to "build" in real before they draw the design.
Wouldn't both be equal silli --- to ask a poor artist build an Opera to "prove" something you think need "prove", aswell as asking anyone who draw 3D projects to build it before they draw it ?????
it would be difficult and time consuming to use 2d orthographic projection on the 3D-H because what you are drawing in front view is rarely perpendicular to the "unfolded" frames. but it is not impossible. why not change the traditional use of front view, side view, etc and just draft the views that are perpendicular to the frame?...you can draw a reference line across the building and reference the drawings as "90 degree view from reference line"...or whatever angle it may be relative to the reference line.
anyway, i get your point that 3d modeling makes describing your 3D-H easier...
"...you can draw a reference line across the building and reference the drawings as "90 degree view from reference line"...or whatever angle it may be relative to the reference line."
Yes you "can" but I think any engineer with a bit sense and without a computer, would quickly turn back to the tradisional 3 planes -- Ok that will not offer the wonders of 3D-H but it will be safe and what most engineers would prefere.
What I mean is -- that there are a very big difference between organic "chaos" structures with vectors in all directions that have ontop, to be translated into something real such as a stringer with very exact measures --- and then the "chaos" that realy are everything but chaos in a 3D-H structure, where the rules are as strict as in tradisional drafting, even more strict in fact but, cirtainly not chaos as in the hippie domes.
vin-da man...don't get so upset....It was a simple question. I was just wanting to see if you had tested your theories. You know like
the guys playing with using fiberglass to add as additive in concrete mixes to give it more strength and keep it from cracking. Then there are the guys who have been messing around with gases laminated between glass for a long time to create higher insulating values.
Then there is this whole engineered lumber market which has been evolving. I love change, new discoveries so don't take me wrong by asking a few questions. I'm not trying to insult you.
Well -- sorry I have to stop for today -- but 3D-H do the hippie Dome but it will look different, even have the same shape. But it also will offer the square rooms in the organic shaped building, something the hippie polymeshes did newer offer, there also the internal spaces had to be organic spaced and impossible rounded, --- now that is not so with 3D-H it will provide whatever round or square, round outside square inside or the other way around, square outside ans organic inside ontop, floors at various levels without extra cost..
you're saying 3D-H has the structural forces that are organized as opposed to a shell structure where vectors are chaotic within the surface...and in order to control the chaotic vectors, the engineer would have to triangulate the dome to strict the forces to the tension or compression lines?
so the benefit of 3D-H is that instead of having, for example, a concrete floor that is X thick...within that thickness and surface, the forces are chaotic (because, it's a block)...but what you are saying is the forces on it doesn't have to be chaotic and can be directed better by using the geometry of 3D-H to replace the solid floor thickness???
dammson....I think what ever 3d-h does, it does it well. Least he will tell us it does well.....I keep thinking of the Titanic....I think it was built by boat builders. Then there was that massive oil spill off the coast of Alaska a few years back....I think it was built by boat builders.
There is so much in architecture that has to do with the creation of opinion as opposed to the creation or making of the thing.
Much of putting buildings together has more to do with what is allowed within building codes. The major problems with comtemporary codes, I think what is needed something I only acquired later in school was to find creative ways of putting things together. That creativity however can from everything but the classes on construction, building or technology.
there is a huge disconnect in academia about the construction side of architecture. when you walk through the halls of any architecture school, there is nowhere to be found mock ups of window walls, ceiling assemblies, framing methods,etc.etc. and i lay the blame squarely on the schools.
the students aren't the problem, it's the educators who rally against the construction industry/contractors at every opportunity and instill a hostility towards the 'dirty' side into the students before they even know why they are supposed to disdain contractors.
schools should be embracing the construction industry, holding weekly required seminars w/ the different trades, contractors, product reps, etc. to expose students to the world they will be dumped into, and realize they know little about what it really takes to be an architect, and even less about what it takes to put a building together.
i am all for keeping students heads in the clouds, but they should at least know what's under them.
I think all the vin/per posts should be put together in one dense volume so that they may be analysed better and at the same time. I swear reading his posts with their confusing logic and broken english gives me a headache. All his future posts should be put under one general vin/per topic to keep his rants out of the casual forums.
in grad school we were required to build a 1:1 mock-up of our design (was a small-scale themed studio), picking a section, or in one fellows case building the entire design and submitting it as project. i learned to do some advance welding for the course, and got all material free from local suppliers...including aluminum sash, screws, steel sections, panels, gaskets and all dat shit...
and this was a heavy theory school. we were not taught to build, just asked to figure it out after or during design...sorta in the spirit of peter salter more than community college techno-guy (which would have been sooo fucking boring).
lots of cool projects came from that process...not sure how much i learned from that experience cuz i grew up in farming country and farmers can all build...and had already worked in office for several years too...but it sure looked cool.
and THAT is what it finally comes down to ennit? real world or academia.
We have just started to experiment with having two degrees (here in Finland): BA & MA - before it was just one long period of study and you graduated a Master. And I can't help but wondering if this split in the educational experience is the answer to this theory-praxis problem.
Just let the teaching tilt towards the practical when studying for a BA and then towards the theoretical when studying for the MA.
There are a huge gab between the theoretic and practic issues, and also when I spended my time at the architect acadamy ,it was as if these two would newer meet . With my more practic atitude I simply couldn't realise how all that theori could effect the things we was talking about --- but now I feel that the problem go much deeper ; if someone back then had know how different computers would work, how very different than just mimic the drafting , and while all that how changes would be possible with all those unwilling lectors , most often not just unwilling but directly offensive towerds the computer and at the same time , class rooms was getting crowded with exactly those mashines and screens yet only a few acturly was able to use them even in the limited context of doing exactly what was done before and by hand --- very very few realy maneaged to challance these new tools, though everyone could emagine the great oppotunities and what splendid new architecture this could bring ,still very very little actural structural tools, very little directing, very little real newthinking was the end result. A few very nice renderings maybe, but that was all as even you projected 3D and knew everything is there in the 3D drawing, then such projects would newer get a chance even in a competition while they was different and the tradisional minded looking for foults, wouldn't understand 3D and would already see the whole thing as a foult.
So what do you then do --- you turn it all upside down inside out, ask what realy are the meaning with an architectural drawing and then you suggest 3D-H to solve all the problems.
Looking at the most recent student work at the universities I've noticed arch students are getting very adept at 3D modeling software. It was around when I was in college, but at a much more elementary level. From observation it appears that students are spending more time learning software and it's abilities, than, dare I say it, learning design. For what the student work lacks in substance is being made up with very good computer skills. Hell, those programs can make a shitty building look good. At least I'm impressed. I apologize for the blanket statement, since I'm sure some Maya masters are also good designers.
But back to the original post, mastering a fancy coloring program (excuse the methaphor) isn't teaching you how to put together a building. As I look around the office we have people that do the 3D modeling programs and are quite good at it. Then again they aren't doing CD's, CA or expanding their skill sets too much. In the long run they aren't progressing in the profession so much as the intern with a graphically weaker portfolio, but an eagerness to take schematic sketches and make them a real buildable set of CD's. I have the patience to teach but sometimes people just don't want to learn.
Personaly I don't think designers or architects shuld worry about structure at all -- just know that when the right design are there complete in it's detail and workable as space, then just knowing what will be generated by the program, just realising it's structural apearance how it will perform, just that picture will count heavier than most architects understanding of today's buildings and what hold them in the air.
I see this vision as progress , as with this you realy profit from the computing powers , and when then the structural issues are in the program, when the computer better than the designer are able to suggest structural entities and a whole new display, then architecture will change from being surface orient to being structure focused.
ya vin....I agree with you and you know we should also just forget about the health safety and welfare of the people were designing for.
Another thing screw the guys in wheelchairs cause technology can make all of the inaccessabilities go away. Then we can be free!
not that i disagree with everyone about the disconnect, exactly, but i think the scope of regular practice is simply too large to be taught in addition to design fundamentals. surely we can learn enough to get started, but the rest is a 20 year process of working on the job and learning...
there may also be a slight misconception by some of you about what is going on by good students...perhaps you are basing your ideas on what the less able students are doing???
this is a project by a fellow i met in genoa a few years back. it is his graduation project.
where is the disconnect?
thing is that simply getting this built is beyond the ability of many licenced architects i know. and to look from the other side of the issue, the fellow who did this beautiful tower probably is not going to be equipped to do a full set of cds for an office building, cuz he was busy learning some other things to get the tower built...but he is clearly bright, and knows the basics (at least!), and will get it in hand soon enough if it comes up...
so, for me this is a non-issue.
the thing is, our goal should be to make great buildings, and the whole status thing (which is what this is ultimately about, i think) is a hindrance. we should be all working together, but instead waste time on pecking order, on who is gonna get credit, who is stupid and who needs to be put in their place...all complex issues that probably have a place in an office, i guess (hopefully not mine) but still there is something very wrong with this whole perspective on interns and knowledge, and when someone deserves respect, that i find disturbing.
an open letter to the directors of architecture programs
This is so redicolous --- it seem eceryone praises yeatoday's hero's and expect oldfasion technikes to be the tools of tomorrow, Nervi must ofcaurse be praised if for nothing else, then to take away the focus on brilliant newthinking idears, if a guy say that the thing he produced are brilliant and newthinking then just that is enough for the class bully to do the old trick and brovt "Do you think you are someone" .
And that even this guy's vision realy are brilliant, even finaly there are a method that answer the calls of ewen Nervi, --- then instead of supporting today's Nervi's today's newthinking , then rather shoot them down even without understanding these new thoughts.
.
"You System also looks akin to What is known as a space frame. The biggest problem with that system is because there are so many connections you depend upon alot of connectors to hold everything in place."
WRONG -- there are no "connections only overlaps, and these overlaps you think is "connections, are cut so they fit exactly ; this you would know if you read the link.
"So quality control becomes a big issue. The failure of one strut will result in the failure of the whole system. "
No it will not, every frame support all other frames and expand the structure strength , this is obvious even for those who before talked against the system, but you think there are connections , where did yoyu see such ?
"This is also true in working with thin shell concrete structures. "
No it is NOT --- have you even looked at the graphics ? There you will see that there is something inside "the shell" and these "things" inside shell is exactly what a shell is missing, the things inside the shell interconnected to what you see as a shell, even think about it Snooper ; a shell what is that , and this isn't his just the opposite of a shell ?? --- a structure.
"You better know what your doing and the builder better know what he is doing because everything is critical. One just doesn't go chopping a hole in the roof once the job is done or your inviting a structural failure."
Listen to yourself -- where did I talk about chopping a hole after the structure was done m where do you see this scene ?
"So quality control becomes a big issue. The failure of one strut will result in the failure of the whole system. "
There is NO BLOODY STRUTS -- this is NOT a "spaceframe" system you havn't read one single word and critic 3D-H from your perception of what it is not -- get that picture out of your mind and realise it is true when I say, that this is NEW , and it is NEW even you think it look as Nervi, as it is in any respect not what Nervi made ; can't you please soon stop this critic that is both iregulare and out of context, as you critic what you think it is and don't even listen.
vin-man....I'm just telling you what it looks like.....Have you built anything using this method? Something beyond the computer models.
If it is a component system it is one thing if it is subtractive monolith system that is something different. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck the system is beyond a thought.
vindpust,
what snooker said...post pictures of actual boats you have designed using 3D-H...or even physical models of 3D-H...i think those will be more convincing than words and your computer 3d modeling...
Snooker --- look at this 3D-model . Every section is strait flat out of the 3D model , please don't say you can't cut a flat section as lots of sections are cut from 3D programs and, a section will be generated nomatter how you place the cutting plane in 3D , it work and it allway's been working, --- these sections are just plain sections but, they are , whit is not seen before, cut from two other planes than any of the tradisional top,front and side planes; that's how little NEW you need to add to show something not seen before, something unique maybe to unique if such thing exist, for you to realise that today there also are Nervi's and Le.Corbs that fight for their more elevant newthinking ;
Before you fly out with some critic ; look again maybe you did not understand, and it would be quite all right if you did not, as this is different, this is new, this is newthinking.
Damnson ,as long we agrea, that these sections do not need to be cut from a very very thick block of stone no --- they could be square tubes and Yes, 3D-H could deliver that to, these frames as hollow square tubes with very very low weight.
you mean like these tubular plant structure
Snooker -- You proberly now realised that this have nothing to do with "Spaceframes" But please know that I do agrea when someone point to the real problems that could occour, but the problems you pointed to are not these. Also when someone point to a real issue that could caurse a problem, then I take that as a challance, a way to solve problems a way to take apart the fundamental idea and maybe, come up with just the right solution to these aspects.
But most if not all problems around 3D-H is now solved. I used the feedback from years of discussions to fine-tune the concept and realy, issues like the problems assembling the frames over the overlaps only yieled idears about a universal fitting that would even ease assembly, my explanations about how you acturly model and generate have learned a lot a great deal about CAD and Solid modeling, No my attitude are much more positive and that way I gained or rather --3D-H gained -- from the relevant discussions about what this sort of building framework can bring.
You see , it will bring more than just a tool for skilled designers, it also can bring a mountain of money and a lot of new jobs, beside the newthinking that Architecture need now Nervi is so many years ago, and someone have to answer the challance of the computer when the Hippies did not maneage to.
"you mean like these tubular plant structure"
Damnson you know that such structures would be perfect to replace with a 3D-H framework ; but a square box would to, as 3D-H make both . Both the hippie colony and the squarebox cotteage.
Try follow the frames-sections or what you want to call them. but look close and realise how smart this work ,how it work with just one material and so many different issues are taken care of ;
Want to see an AutoCAD drawing that explain more of these issues click this link ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2819.jpg
Now if you followed the links , then you will notis with the next, that the sections are there, in a compleatly different direction, --- but the 3D-H Deliver nomatter what directions.
Hint, before the sections was out of plane as seen from top, here they are seen from the side , and what a difference :
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2821.jpg
what this is explaining is a section not using 3D-H (you called it tradisional section) looks similar and have the same sectional spaces as 3D-H...the frames of 3D-H doesn't affect or influence the spaces in section...
i'm looking at it again...and the "traditional front view" is the cutout frame rotated, therefore appears narrower on your cad drawings due to foreshortening...than the actual frame cutout below it???
i am passing the 'really bad spelling' torch to Vindpust
No this is no tradisional section -- like it say when you look at the pictures ; these sections do not follow the tradisional front plane so no it is not tradisional sections.
Beside where did you ever see such frame structure carry everything like this do ? --- if you can not recall then it is becaurse this is 3D-H as 3D-H was before I started to allow the two section planes to flow free, aslong as they maintained the 90 deg. inbetween eachother.
Look how newthinking this work, if you don't think it is newthinking come up with something else than a surface Nervi hanger, a hanger that do not offer floors and foundations for exact strait walls or walls curved -- show me that and not a lookalike made with a different not computer suited technike, Maybe look again at not the AutoCAD drawing but the next and figure out the difference ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2821.jpg
Before you start a nip pick critic, please let me remind how boring stararchitects think the same thing ;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2805.jpg
Have you physically taken a material and built one of your computer models at full size. I'm not talking about a model.....but an actual building?
Damnson if you know anything about drafting, than you will know that the top left, is all you have to work with in tradisional non-computer drafting . The bottom left is the "unfolded" section , as how that section will display after the shape is lofted out from the drawing calculating for the difference in view.
Now tell me how to calculate this without a computer......
I know as such "unfolding" are what you must be able to draft as a boatsbuilder, so I know why 3D-H is so newthinking as no one would ever, before computers, deal with all that trouble all the endless calculations, that a 3D-H framework will be with normal drafting methods.
Yop left the front view -- bottom left the resulting section in real.
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2819.jpg
Snooker why shuld I ?
Remember, you can draw an Escher 2D illusion with Photoshop but id you draw 3D, then you can't cheat, and if things work in 3D then it work in real.
--------I know some then claim they seen Photoshop drawings that is "made on computer" that show things that can't be build, but this only tell how little they know about CAD.
And sorry Snooker sorry damnson , I can draft the 2D drawings, I can pick out a section from a tradisional construction drawing , with top, side and front views only, and I been with AutoCAD since it vas Ver 2.6.
Btw. --- the conclution if I shuld "build" one of my suggestions ;--- take your chouce a 5 mill floatbridge, a one mill house, or a 45 mill Opera ---
Would be just as clever as asking everyone who project anything with a CAD program, to "build" in real before they draw the design.
Wouldn't both be equal silli --- to ask a poor artist build an Opera to "prove" something you think need "prove", aswell as asking anyone who draw 3D projects to build it before they draw it ?????
it would be difficult and time consuming to use 2d orthographic projection on the 3D-H because what you are drawing in front view is rarely perpendicular to the "unfolded" frames. but it is not impossible. why not change the traditional use of front view, side view, etc and just draft the views that are perpendicular to the frame?...you can draw a reference line across the building and reference the drawings as "90 degree view from reference line"...or whatever angle it may be relative to the reference line.
anyway, i get your point that 3d modeling makes describing your 3D-H easier...
"...you can draw a reference line across the building and reference the drawings as "90 degree view from reference line"...or whatever angle it may be relative to the reference line."
Yes you "can" but I think any engineer with a bit sense and without a computer, would quickly turn back to the tradisional 3 planes -- Ok that will not offer the wonders of 3D-H but it will be safe and what most engineers would prefere.
What I mean is -- that there are a very big difference between organic "chaos" structures with vectors in all directions that have ontop, to be translated into something real such as a stringer with very exact measures --- and then the "chaos" that realy are everything but chaos in a 3D-H structure, where the rules are as strict as in tradisional drafting, even more strict in fact but, cirtainly not chaos as in the hippie domes.
vin-da man...don't get so upset....It was a simple question. I was just wanting to see if you had tested your theories. You know like
the guys playing with using fiberglass to add as additive in concrete mixes to give it more strength and keep it from cracking. Then there are the guys who have been messing around with gases laminated between glass for a long time to create higher insulating values.
Then there is this whole engineered lumber market which has been evolving. I love change, new discoveries so don't take me wrong by asking a few questions. I'm not trying to insult you.
Well -- sorry I have to stop for today -- but 3D-H do the hippie Dome but it will look different, even have the same shape. But it also will offer the square rooms in the organic shaped building, something the hippie polymeshes did newer offer, there also the internal spaces had to be organic spaced and impossible rounded, --- now that is not so with 3D-H it will provide whatever round or square, round outside square inside or the other way around, square outside ans organic inside ontop, floors at various levels without extra cost..
Snooker I know , and even you were it wouldn't make me angry --- I take any argument and say thank's .
But I will respond tomorrow, even in copenhagen time get late.
Vindpust....night good buddie....hope you have 3d-h dreams...
you're saying 3D-H has the structural forces that are organized as opposed to a shell structure where vectors are chaotic within the surface...and in order to control the chaotic vectors, the engineer would have to triangulate the dome to strict the forces to the tension or compression lines?
so the benefit of 3D-H is that instead of having, for example, a concrete floor that is X thick...within that thickness and surface, the forces are chaotic (because, it's a block)...but what you are saying is the forces on it doesn't have to be chaotic and can be directed better by using the geometry of 3D-H to replace the solid floor thickness???
shit...he's gone...
dammson....I think what ever 3d-h does, it does it well. Least he will tell us it does well.....I keep thinking of the Titanic....I think it was built by boat builders. Then there was that massive oil spill off the coast of Alaska a few years back....I think it was built by boat builders.
hitler.
there i said it. godwin's law. thread closed
There is so much in architecture that has to do with the creation of opinion as opposed to the creation or making of the thing.
Much of putting buildings together has more to do with what is allowed within building codes. The major problems with comtemporary codes, I think what is needed something I only acquired later in school was to find creative ways of putting things together. That creativity however can from everything but the classes on construction, building or technology.
i feel mdler's frustration,
there is a huge disconnect in academia about the construction side of architecture. when you walk through the halls of any architecture school, there is nowhere to be found mock ups of window walls, ceiling assemblies, framing methods,etc.etc. and i lay the blame squarely on the schools.
the students aren't the problem, it's the educators who rally against the construction industry/contractors at every opportunity and instill a hostility towards the 'dirty' side into the students before they even know why they are supposed to disdain contractors.
schools should be embracing the construction industry, holding weekly required seminars w/ the different trades, contractors, product reps, etc. to expose students to the world they will be dumped into, and realize they know little about what it really takes to be an architect, and even less about what it takes to put a building together.
i am all for keeping students heads in the clouds, but they should at least know what's under them.
I think all the vin/per posts should be put together in one dense volume so that they may be analysed better and at the same time. I swear reading his posts with their confusing logic and broken english gives me a headache. All his future posts should be put under one general vin/per topic to keep his rants out of the casual forums.
not entirely true punky.
in grad school we were required to build a 1:1 mock-up of our design (was a small-scale themed studio), picking a section, or in one fellows case building the entire design and submitting it as project. i learned to do some advance welding for the course, and got all material free from local suppliers...including aluminum sash, screws, steel sections, panels, gaskets and all dat shit...
and this was a heavy theory school. we were not taught to build, just asked to figure it out after or during design...sorta in the spirit of peter salter more than community college techno-guy (which would have been sooo fucking boring).
lots of cool projects came from that process...not sure how much i learned from that experience cuz i grew up in farming country and farmers can all build...and had already worked in office for several years too...but it sure looked cool.
and THAT is what it finally comes down to ennit? real world or academia.
We have just started to experiment with having two degrees (here in Finland): BA & MA - before it was just one long period of study and you graduated a Master. And I can't help but wondering if this split in the educational experience is the answer to this theory-praxis problem.
Just let the teaching tilt towards the practical when studying for a BA and then towards the theoretical when studying for the MA.
Would this bee too simple an approach?
There are a huge gab between the theoretic and practic issues, and also when I spended my time at the architect acadamy ,it was as if these two would newer meet . With my more practic atitude I simply couldn't realise how all that theori could effect the things we was talking about --- but now I feel that the problem go much deeper ; if someone back then had know how different computers would work, how very different than just mimic the drafting , and while all that how changes would be possible with all those unwilling lectors , most often not just unwilling but directly offensive towerds the computer and at the same time , class rooms was getting crowded with exactly those mashines and screens yet only a few acturly was able to use them even in the limited context of doing exactly what was done before and by hand --- very very few realy maneaged to challance these new tools, though everyone could emagine the great oppotunities and what splendid new architecture this could bring ,still very very little actural structural tools, very little directing, very little real newthinking was the end result. A few very nice renderings maybe, but that was all as even you projected 3D and knew everything is there in the 3D drawing, then such projects would newer get a chance even in a competition while they was different and the tradisional minded looking for foults, wouldn't understand 3D and would already see the whole thing as a foult.
So what do you then do --- you turn it all upside down inside out, ask what realy are the meaning with an architectural drawing and then you suggest 3D-H to solve all the problems.
Looking at the most recent student work at the universities I've noticed arch students are getting very adept at 3D modeling software. It was around when I was in college, but at a much more elementary level. From observation it appears that students are spending more time learning software and it's abilities, than, dare I say it, learning design. For what the student work lacks in substance is being made up with very good computer skills. Hell, those programs can make a shitty building look good. At least I'm impressed. I apologize for the blanket statement, since I'm sure some Maya masters are also good designers.
But back to the original post, mastering a fancy coloring program (excuse the methaphor) isn't teaching you how to put together a building. As I look around the office we have people that do the 3D modeling programs and are quite good at it. Then again they aren't doing CD's, CA or expanding their skill sets too much. In the long run they aren't progressing in the profession so much as the intern with a graphically weaker portfolio, but an eagerness to take schematic sketches and make them a real buildable set of CD's. I have the patience to teach but sometimes people just don't want to learn.
Personaly I don't think designers or architects shuld worry about structure at all -- just know that when the right design are there complete in it's detail and workable as space, then just knowing what will be generated by the program, just realising it's structural apearance how it will perform, just that picture will count heavier than most architects understanding of today's buildings and what hold them in the air.
I see this vision as progress , as with this you realy profit from the computing powers , and when then the structural issues are in the program, when the computer better than the designer are able to suggest structural entities and a whole new display, then architecture will change from being surface orient to being structure focused.
And everything will fit together.
ya vin....I agree with you and you know we should also just forget about the health safety and welfare of the people were designing for.
Another thing screw the guys in wheelchairs cause technology can make all of the inaccessabilities go away. Then we can be free!
vinpust is like a fart that hits you right before you are about to take a bite of some really tasty food.
not that i disagree with everyone about the disconnect, exactly, but i think the scope of regular practice is simply too large to be taught in addition to design fundamentals. surely we can learn enough to get started, but the rest is a 20 year process of working on the job and learning...
there may also be a slight misconception by some of you about what is going on by good students...perhaps you are basing your ideas on what the less able students are doing???
this is a project by a fellow i met in genoa a few years back. it is his graduation project.
where is the disconnect?
thing is that simply getting this built is beyond the ability of many licenced architects i know. and to look from the other side of the issue, the fellow who did this beautiful tower probably is not going to be equipped to do a full set of cds for an office building, cuz he was busy learning some other things to get the tower built...but he is clearly bright, and knows the basics (at least!), and will get it in hand soon enough if it comes up...
so, for me this is a non-issue.
the thing is, our goal should be to make great buildings, and the whole status thing (which is what this is ultimately about, i think) is a hindrance. we should be all working together, but instead waste time on pecking order, on who is gonna get credit, who is stupid and who needs to be put in their place...all complex issues that probably have a place in an office, i guess (hopefully not mine) but still there is something very wrong with this whole perspective on interns and knowledge, and when someone deserves respect, that i find disturbing.
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.