Hey folks, I am in the process of reading this book and it's been quite interesting so far. The explanations of processes related to auto, ship and plane manufacturing have been relevant and smart.
But what I'm wondering is whether there is other ways of constructing architecture that does not come from an outside source of manufacturing? Or, can architecture produce it's own way of manufacturing/construction that is not only efficient, unique and capable of more beautiful structures?
I guess my main criticism is, why are looking so far outside our own profession to find new ways of doing things?
I am going into thesis and am probably going to focus on new methods of manufacturing and construction. Any good feeds or reads for me to check out? Any other cutting edge manufacturing tech for me to look at?
this is a fascinating subject...I am curious to see what you find by not "... looking so far outside our own profession to find new ways of doing things..."
I always saw the profession as playing teh role of a complier...i.e. Reiser + Umemoto talk about not having to know how an egg chemically coagulates in order to make an omelet...
"...other ways of constructing architecture that does not come from an outside source of manufacturing? Or, can architecture produce it's own way of manufacturing/construction that is not only efficient, unique and capable of more beautiful structures?..."
i think one of the main points of the book is that they say Architects now have (or will have, the book is not that recent anymore) more control over the whole architecture process, from conception to fabrication, many offices now can prototype the elements 1:1 inside the office/studio, and i guess at some point office will go back to the "workshop" model where as carpenters we would draw and fabricate inside the own office and just transport and install....
I dont think its bad for architects to look to other fields...its been like that always, as any other art, if only looks or researches inside its realm wont have any progress at all..... still... most of the things which were developed for boat and car manufacturing and design, come from technical drawing that was always used first by architects.... soi dont see like looking that far, i think we r just trying to get advantage of what others had developed based on the technical drawing base...
i liked that book when i read it... is a good intro to what digital fabrication is, i think one of my favorite things is when they point out that we are moving from a MASS PRODUCTION period into a MASS CUSTOMIZATION one.... and not only in architecture, just think about NIKE I.D.
Yes that i think is the key. Master customization almost to mean seems similar to the paradigm of "master craftsmen".
Everything individually created.
That is the promise of prefabrication etc.
And of course not because you make one of everything, rather make everything from maybe not one but two or three (etc).
i would also recommend what i just posted into this thread, which includes examples of MASS CUSTOMIZATION in architecture this days:
a thread about latest rhino plug-in GRASSHOPPER and how people dont understand why autocad is not the only software to be used in architecture practice:
That is about the potential in the computer, the potential that the computer can one to one calculate the lattrice, the structure. And all that is then needed , is a different manufactoring, one where N.C. cutters cut the pieces in sheet material.
After detailing the 3D model into a "real" model, to press the button , and the computer calculate the 3D puzzle .
Architects claim that "then you ruin it all" and destroy the creativity -- where I say you move the creativity to 3D detailing knowing the computer will deliver. Even the Architect do more accounting than projecting, then 3dh destroy all we care for, and that way the paragime shift everyone knew would come, is not welcome. As we can allready build that, so why make it different.
And true "we can allready build that" , but with a lot of trouble, and then the new architecture become a painting of how you emagine it will look, instead of the genuine impac of the structure within.
It is nice to see things progressing the right direction, -- that today's production are questioned.
I do see the point with the mass customization appeal. But then, I think you get less efficiency, which is the point of this type of manufacturing to begin with. HOw much time is saved if a home is built (custom) just because it is built inside? I know there is the fact that if coordinated correctly, the foundation can be built while the house is, but I think it's been tried and tried and never mastered. This is why I question prefab and it's comparisons to auto manufacturing.
I agree with corell that we as architects should be progressing more towards a digital prefabrication (which we are) and use the type of prototyping that the auto indistry does. Not the factory warehouse production.
Note: doesn't marxism come into play with all this talk of the factory?
Jun 26, 08 8:41 am ·
·
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.
reading "refabricating architecture" any thoughts of your own?
Hey folks, I am in the process of reading this book and it's been quite interesting so far. The explanations of processes related to auto, ship and plane manufacturing have been relevant and smart.
But what I'm wondering is whether there is other ways of constructing architecture that does not come from an outside source of manufacturing? Or, can architecture produce it's own way of manufacturing/construction that is not only efficient, unique and capable of more beautiful structures?
I guess my main criticism is, why are looking so far outside our own profession to find new ways of doing things?
I am going into thesis and am probably going to focus on new methods of manufacturing and construction. Any good feeds or reads for me to check out? Any other cutting edge manufacturing tech for me to look at?
thanks...
this is a fascinating subject...I am curious to see what you find by not "... looking so far outside our own profession to find new ways of doing things..."
I always saw the profession as playing teh role of a complier...i.e. Reiser + Umemoto talk about not having to know how an egg chemically coagulates in order to make an omelet...
^"compiler"
--sorry can't type
there is a typo in a caption on page 24 i think
steve and james have a new book out.
"...other ways of constructing architecture that does not come from an outside source of manufacturing? Or, can architecture produce it's own way of manufacturing/construction that is not only efficient, unique and capable of more beautiful structures?..."
i think one of the main points of the book is that they say Architects now have (or will have, the book is not that recent anymore) more control over the whole architecture process, from conception to fabrication, many offices now can prototype the elements 1:1 inside the office/studio, and i guess at some point office will go back to the "workshop" model where as carpenters we would draw and fabricate inside the own office and just transport and install....
I dont think its bad for architects to look to other fields...its been like that always, as any other art, if only looks or researches inside its realm wont have any progress at all..... still... most of the things which were developed for boat and car manufacturing and design, come from technical drawing that was always used first by architects.... soi dont see like looking that far, i think we r just trying to get advantage of what others had developed based on the technical drawing base...
i liked that book when i read it... is a good intro to what digital fabrication is, i think one of my favorite things is when they point out that we are moving from a MASS PRODUCTION period into a MASS CUSTOMIZATION one.... and not only in architecture, just think about NIKE I.D.
MAD,
Yes that i think is the key. Master customization almost to mean seems similar to the paradigm of "master craftsmen".
Everything individually created.
That is the promise of prefabrication etc.
And of course not because you make one of everything, rather make everything from maybe not one but two or three (etc).
i would also recommend what i just posted into this thread, which includes examples of MASS CUSTOMIZATION in architecture this days:
a thread about latest rhino plug-in GRASSHOPPER and how people dont understand why autocad is not the only software to be used in architecture practice:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=76696_0_42_0_C
So many of the same words I used to justify 3dh.
That is about the potential in the computer, the potential that the computer can one to one calculate the lattrice, the structure. And all that is then needed , is a different manufactoring, one where N.C. cutters cut the pieces in sheet material.
After detailing the 3D model into a "real" model, to press the button , and the computer calculate the 3D puzzle .
Architects claim that "then you ruin it all" and destroy the creativity -- where I say you move the creativity to 3D detailing knowing the computer will deliver. Even the Architect do more accounting than projecting, then 3dh destroy all we care for, and that way the paragime shift everyone knew would come, is not welcome. As we can allready build that, so why make it different.
And true "we can allready build that" , but with a lot of trouble, and then the new architecture become a painting of how you emagine it will look, instead of the genuine impac of the structure within.
It is nice to see things progressing the right direction, -- that today's production are questioned.
I do see the point with the mass customization appeal. But then, I think you get less efficiency, which is the point of this type of manufacturing to begin with. HOw much time is saved if a home is built (custom) just because it is built inside? I know there is the fact that if coordinated correctly, the foundation can be built while the house is, but I think it's been tried and tried and never mastered. This is why I question prefab and it's comparisons to auto manufacturing.
I agree with corell that we as architects should be progressing more towards a digital prefabrication (which we are) and use the type of prototyping that the auto indistry does. Not the factory warehouse production.
Note: doesn't marxism come into play with all this talk of the factory?
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.