Hi
Puudles thanks for your essey , I guess it will take a few day's before I realy can ansver , esp. what you write about the attitude to the building structure ofcaurse is what instantly reflect, but.
As you can emagine it is difficult to communicate these issues so you strike the most important ones -- I did a lot promoting and realy I tried to refine my arguments, I guess to that you seen that this is not about "me" fact it never was , guess it never is for anyone who simply can't do can't make anything but where his special interests are, ----- anyway I am waiting for an article to be published and as the chinese say ,if you keep on doing what you can, keep on again and stay with it, it will succes. Guess I grupple a few day's about what you say about the communicating things, if there realy are something that I can't communicate --- well first I displayed the thing and had all those discussions about if it was ever possible, then arogantly I turned to trying to emagine what it would mean, then my critic about the tradisional structures went into it and it seemed more people started to look at it, but lately it is true that a greater picture seem to evolve,--- many say 20-30 years before it will be the natural core of many different structures , well it could be that I am to optimistic that my wish for a new architecture and the new jobs make me blind towerds real life barriers, but I am attacing the real problems in architecture the real problems in engineering I am up against a very tradisional way of thinking and doing ------ what I tried to communicate is, that I master a few skills and crafts so I would know real life barriers --- at the other hand it is not just the nordic design trends the "special" way to make the solutions , no it go deeper than that ; Guess in the treads what I tried to do, had been to presave that when you can build a boat, when you are allowed the workshops, when even the great Robert got free meals at your grandfathers when your brother are a skiled artist when so many others in your family are, then thinking outside the box come natural esp. when you are a perfectionist and sitionist at the same time and never used the scrap bin in any of your workshops for anything but taking what others scrapped. ------- well quite a trivial thing, but I had workshops and as every piece was allway's in detail planned, nothing was ever scrapped ,ok you maby don'tknow carpenter shops or boatbilding shops so you maby don't know about the scrap bin ; _then it is difficult to communicate. Also while talking about workshops , something I can't afford anymore after 12 years with this thing, -- I can tell you that some of the most famous danish architects acturly on regular counts, visited my workshop , ----- why , to get inspired to relax to get a small bit of advise that was worth some 20 mill. Guess you know that there are danish architects more famous than any english, and back to your post, there are a reson for that it is in the language ;))
How many famous designers and architects did I know , well I can't count them. Still they was the old garde, I never realy coped with the young ones their drive towerds fame and the social games was none of my interests. As you know in that sense I am very narrow minded, it is the process the actural realising the new that entlighten me ; this give 2 seconds of happiness and 12 years of fighting but it is worth it when the picture never dull, when the vision is first envisioned and you know it is ontop everything you know,and you know a bundle.
puddles I hope it is allright that I wait a few day's to respond, meanwhile I canonly state where I ended ; --- you want something that acturly work with computers and do the direct link to production, you want the new jobs and the new architecture, you want the tradisional architect applications to deal with the real thing and want creavity back into the crafts, well there are only one way and that is digital and being very critic. Maby what I realy shuld do, is to develob the humor side of it, guess that is the strongest and maby only weapon to use in this battle. Anyway the chinese will know.
don't worry, i see no need to reference hamlet. anyhow, i'd like to reiterate that i have been one of your most consistent supporters (previous posts provide ample evidence of this).
moreover, i am not complaining nor attemptin to disparage your efforts in any way. it is obvious that you are working very hard and, more importantly, are making a contribution to the tradition of building. and as you yourself have previously admitted, you are not capable of doing everything yourself as you are not an architect, nor do you have much interest in the fancy graphics that most of us young, internet architects seem to like. in fact, you need not worry about drafting a reply to what i wrote, just keeping working on the 3d honeycomb. my main point in writing the essay was that there are many perspective with which we can view architecture and its development. i tried through the essay to add another perspective to the mix since i feel that most of the previous critiques of your work have been based on the images alone that you have offered without much consideration for your contextual surroundings both geographically in denmark, as well as, temporally within the danish building tradition.
moreover, much of the negative energy directed towards you has simply been childish, even when accurate. thus, i feel that most of those who have harrassed you would probably benefit from considering more than just there immediate reactions as they craft their postings. even so, it remains worthwhile for all of us to remember that architecture is a very broad discipline with ample opportunity for contribution at a variety of scales.
Guess humor are the right aproach , --- when asking a response you must be faster than the ones you want to impress, you must act the right aproach ,guess this been what I been doing to. So nomatter any of the replies been a bit irelevant it is still my foult , becaurse I did not trim my request true. Still houses are not just about now being able to do them at a third the cost four times stronger ; if you do ,then what do it mean in terms of real cost. Are the overexposed costs for sad old expensive to maintain structures in fact what work against new visions, new way's to manufactor ,new jobs and cheap houses ?
Will it realy mean that much that the core structure in cost are a third if the cost of the actural buildworks are a small part, of what the guy pay the bank ?
Anyway as the chinese say "what go down must go up" , spinning wheel go around , --- it's just to be arogant for enough years and luck will turn your way's.
david zeiben:
although it didn't occur to me, you're right, that might make a nice shirt even though it would be a little short in the "fancy graphics" fortunately, i have a few other ideas up my sleeve for the contest.
sylvester:
i suspect that you are correct in reporting that there are many buildings in denmark today that are either brick or concrete (maybe they all are these days) but the important point (that i have admittedly borrowed from norberg-schulz) is that an identifiable danish building tradition emerged over many hundreds of years from the half-timbered structures of rural danish settlements. and that it is this structure which evolved into a recognizable gestalt of form most succinctly characterized by repetitive structural bays and consistent facade height as the result of a unifying roof. this is, of course a generalization of qualities that can be applied equally to rural wooden farmhouses as well as a contemporary city block, even one made of of steel. the extent of the validity of this assessment lies with norberg-schulz. i simply attempted to apply it to per's 3d honeycomb structures in a manner that might yield some different interpretations of the importance of per's work.
furthermore, material is but one variable in the complex stew of architecture decision-making. to refer to wood as nordic and stone and southern is a very broad generality but not, i believe, inaccurate nor without merit. and since per has proposed his 3d honeycomb as a structural form that doesn't required a specific material, i am commenting that maybe he (or perhaps a danish architect who choses to work with the formal possibilities of 3d honeycomb) would benefit by embracing the resistance offered in either committing to or reacting against a specific material.
this leads to where i feel that per and 3d honeycomb are most vulnerable to legitimate architectural critique, i.e., by trying to be universal or everything to everybody it has become nothing of importance or value to anybody. but if they accepted something as resistance (such as the danish building tradition described by norberg-schulz and relayed by me) then there may be some significant architectural potential involved in per's ideas, certainly more so than the joke that most of the posters here seem to think it is.
wow, i can't believe i have now spent at least two hours on one thread in the last two days, i don't know how per can possibly post so much.
puddles, dude do you know you just did? you`ve asked for more unendingmessages from per. i don`t know how you are gonna read them all, but u bet it`ll be there in a few days. yeah!
per, sorry meant no harm, but you have to take things the right way. atleast improve on your communication if you REALLY want to show what u are doing. if u got so much patience in responding to even a single dude who wants to know what the thread is about, u cud have learnt the art of communicating too..
You all know that all I want is to show what a new perception and a new architecture can bring, but you also know that it is limited what I can point to as I am not an architect I can only suggest and question today's production and prove how this limit your creativity.
New methods mean a new architecture.
that is the sweetest rendering I've ever seen, per. you're new perception is undeniably the most creative outlet of architectural thought i've EVER seen.
i mean - look at the way everything criss-crosses...that amazing GRID!
stupified. mortified. petrified.
all you fancy graphics lover should be afuckinshamed of yourselves.
Please remember that this is not just a rendering, it is a picture of the real building elements as how they perform ,after being manufactored processed and generated as 3D objects, also please reconise that this can make square rooms in organic shaped buildings, and you can't reconise it from any architecture of the past.
Eh --- mwad please exchouse but I know maby some 500 english words, most of them I can't spell, --- I hand out pieces of arts that if my critics saw them at an arts exebition , they would praise.; Now what is a MEP ?
Ok ------- when you already shape the building by adding and subtracting Solid objects , you don't just draw a box just to display the outher limits of a house, but subtract the bos a smaller box so you get the walls and floors, then adding leadway's for aux. is just subtracting a long cylinder or box, from the Solid model od walls and floors.
What will happen is, that when each frame are cut, holes that form leadway's for MEP is cut at the same instance as the frame form are cut.
You can subtract for many more items ; bolts ,rods even a heavy steel H beam can be incapsulated in the 3D-H structure with perfect fit.
When you realise this, a world of oppotunity open --- instead of single sections you can make two paralell ,please emagine that with any of mine 3D-H structures, that instead of one, you see two frames paralell.... I could point to several uses for that.
Eh Pixelwhore, maby I shuld rather describe how smooth you just subtract a long cylinder to get the leadway's ,and just after, describe the enginous way this is made today. Maby I shuld ask what would be best and smartest --- at projecting remember to subtract enough cylinders and long Solid boxes to make MEP a piece of cake, with a runway for each system cut out of the Solid model to form the frames with this feature.
What is best, well prepared runway's and leadway's or the additions as how they work today ?
Per:
I think that it would be helpful if you could put some examples of the MEP chaseways into your renderings, as I believe thats what mwad was asking for. What you're showing us is equivalent to someone showing a rendering of just a traditional structural frame, but the 3D-H version.
Pixelwhore I will remember your request, it is most relevant.
------- Now it is difficult to explain that as no one declared that a wall must, must be _this thick and must oly be made as walls are known to be ;
What I mean is that it is wrong to judge this acturly new perception and method from the fact, that some walls must be "thicker" than the same walls are today --- now if you have thick walls it would not weaken them if a tube was incapsulated the walls from the start,
likevise you can prepare all these features with a 3D-H basic Solid, as such one contain all walls and floors Plus the runway's for MEP.
--------- Eh all instalations are easy fitted into the walls or floors, you can even make a specific volume that transverse the structure, only to contain wires and pipes, fact is I find this smarter and it offer total overview proberly better than how these things work today. Il'l see what I can find to picture and show, my exchouse these day's are a bad back I can spend maby an hour a day at the computer, as othervise I am locked by pain.
sorry mwad, MEP was asked for already. too late amigo. No signs of its considerations though.
Connection details were asked for. nothing thus far.
Logic was asked for. Nada.
Fancy graphics lovers per? The system's concept is blandito and is not a novel idea. so we get NOT even "fancy graphics" to hold us off- more of those watery jagged angled renderings. I just dont buy it- and I think 99.9% of the users here dont either.
All interaction either intelligent architectural or otherwise has been rendered moot at this point.
We'll just continue to find the ranting and the inescapable " Hi " at the most- tolerably entertaining.
Per have you considered using tools other than 3d models to explore your concept? Perhaps a physical model, or just some sketches, especially of details. Just a thought, because i think a lot of the derision stems from the repetitive nature of your renderings.
at my university people did these egg-crate type designs all the time...except they usually integrated them with other formal logics and also usually botherd to figure out the construction details.
when I was learning scripting in maya, I wrote one that did the same thing, and would even identify areas where the thickness of the material would cause problems. (if you say have a window cutout that isn't perpendicular to the grid, you can wind up with problems due to the corner of the material sticking into the cutout simply because of it's thickness)
The script was about a page long and took maybe 4 hours to write and troubleshoot. I considered it an exercise that might come in handy for something someday, not anything revolutionary. Anyone who knows a small amount of programming could build the same tool in under a day, easy.
ferplexion the designs I put forth are based on the most serious Math. calculations, --- if my designs "don't work" science have a huge problem as the only way they can not work, is if CAD don't work, is if Computers don't work.
I am a boatsbuilder, in that craft much are dependant on your skills and experience --- back then a boatsbuilder who produced a new design, made a "halve model" of the boat he was about to build. Acturly the halve model was a way to compensate for lack of drawing abilities , today ---- except in this fora --- it is common knowleage, that if you draw the thing in a 3D CAD system, then it is bound to "work", --- if you can draw it 3D it can be build. Unless you want us to scrap any science that depend on computers you must realise, that it is quite a irelevant critic ; did anyone question the sketches for the disney new concert hall, even there shuld be all resons to do just that ; ------- In your world, is artists cut box shape to fit your expertations ? Do you think you can restrict arts and creativity , that things _must look like this" , that "no real new thing are allowed" , ------realy what do you expect from a revolusionary new method that solve all those challances, that my critics closed their eyes to. Do you realy expect something new, to be something you allready know ?
This method solve so many important issues ; think about how it replace 20 different steel profiles, girders hangers nuts and bolts, remember that it do so by the means of a computer ,that it make the computer work, not just as an accounting system, but in a direct link from screen to production mashin. Think about that this acturly create a new architecture ; now maby you are willing to underestimate even this fact, maby you don't realise that what the world need, is houses four times as strong and a third the cost, build with a method that do digital make sense.
Ontop I find it very disturbing, that so many seem to know so little about what a CAD program is, ------ but what I find vorse are, that instead acting in a positive way, instead of trying to make this new innovation profit from new idears, instead of nip-picking any nomatter how theoretic "problem" , instead of realising that even academics want it to be so, then "artists" are not square formed, and you can't hold this against them, there are no argument against this bright new concept, in either trying to make someone a fool or by group harasment and silli arguments , try to destroy a grand idea that need no fysical models, as computers work.
Your concept isnt new, it's been mulled over for years now - Look i'm sorry if you have been out of the loop sitting inside your shack making canoes for the past few years.
Besides how is this solving a theoretical "problem"? Other than giving us all inspiration to clown you in the form of a TShirt competition.
JohnProlly ------ in the various discussions about this new method I found out, that a lot of critics blind their mind and even you word by word explain that it would be silli to try project a 3D-H framework without a computer, as the whole point are the actural direct link production, --- now please point me to another method that carry a direct link oppotunity.
Again and again oppoments have pointed to structures that by first view, could show simularaty with a 3D-H, --- but every time I unproven these proven that they are something that could look alike, but don't carry the fantastic options using today's Solid modeling and today's N.C. controlled manufactoring , please I been publishing this method for round 12 years and don't you think that if this was allready invented, then in these years of discussions would have uncovered this ?
It is easy to say what you do, easy to just proclame ,tjew it and spit it out with an arogant aproach --- but you do not bring a link.
So remember that again and again , and realy I don't understand why this shuld be so important, but again and again I ansvered all claims but let's take it from there --- please tell me where you seen this before ;
If this is not new, where did you se this before ;
Please -------- when I first started promoting this method, the "arguments" was that this is impossible, your claim that this is made before ,have allready been discussed and no argument had been put forth to justify this claim. Some pointed to roof structures that when taken apart in detail showed to have nothing in common with a 3D-h structure, others brought pictures that just by seeing it showed frames do what is impossible and silli to do with 3D-H.
You see I allready documented my claims, but I feel sad about those who still think it is fun to make a laugh , those ancious to throw away my 12 years of work and the suffer it acturly mean, to be a real artist.
------ This attitude, the whole way this bright new method have been met, is a sad prove about how arts and innovative creativity have been replaced with social skills, that's a fact that beauty have a very limited space compared the obvious exiting group harasment. But this is just how arts evolved ; Academics more than ever hate the autodidacts such a I --- they will never forgive a bright guy getting a bright idea --- and if they can't do more about it, they can do all they can, to rob the guy ,try make him a fool, and then claim that this way of behaviour is the natural academic aproach towerds the stupid autodidacts they hate to the degree, that they would enjoy robbing the bread from their mouth.
-------- Or maby you shuld translate the response towerds a bright new method in a different way ?
per, read my post. I gave you links documenting a commercially released version of this method, that is directly linked to manufacturing, that was written about in october 1996. Car manufacturers had the basis of that program several years before that.
You were there first? prove it. link a journal article, dated press release, or anything.
You say it's easy to say what we say. I say it's easy to do what you do. As I said, I wrote a script that did the exact same thing in under half a day, it's not a hard challenge for anyone with minor programming experience.
The papers write ;
"Now referring to FIG. 1, a full-scale styling clay model 10 is illustrated in broken lines with the right door thereof in full lines. Styling clay model 10 is scanned in a conventional manner to obtain surface data generally defining the surface thereof on "X", "Y" and "Z" axes."
Please a-f this is a description about an 3axis router working with a clay model --- Eh where are this relevant according 3D-Honeycomb that I published in several open architect contests since past 12 years ? You talk banana and I refere apples.
Another cut and paste ;
"The egg crate templates can be constructed by, for example, plotting on paper the wire frame plot plan with the surface offset a dimension below the surface of the full size wire frame plot plan in a direction normal to the surface. In short, the template edges should define a surface offset by some appropriate dimensions (in a typical application, this might be about 3/8" below the rough computer data for the face of the object). The paper plots can be used to produce 1/8" to 1/4" thick wood hard board type templates. The hard boad material is layed out to the plot information and saw cut to final shape, including the grooves required for egg crate effect. Preferably, however, the making of paper plots is not required. The same plot data base can be used to drive a conventional N/C laser machine to directly produce complete templates defining an offset surface, and egg crated at the body grid lines for the egg crate effect. The use of a laser cut eliminates the paper plot requirement and much of the hand labor to prepare the egg crate templates for asse"
This describe foloowing the computer mesh lines 90 deg towerds the surface of the object , something totaly alian to 3D-H where paralell slices form frames, not an unspecified in terms of acturly manufactoring a totaly different structure ; --- 3D-H do not continue down the calculatd object in a direction dependant on the surface face normal vector direction, as this attempt to try --- now in terms of difficulty in acturly manufactoring, 3D-H beat this with a mile, 3D-H do not try to cover everything a 3 axis router can do on a extreme expensive lump of styrofoam or clay, 3D-H support a compleatly different attitude towerds designing ,than producing exclusive expensive ,use for one time only "models" by 12 engineers trying to make 3D routing make sense. It only make sense supporting an outdated technology acting as a supporting technike to produce a cheap one-off. 3D-Honeycomb do not support an outdated technike it do on it's own , I see no relevanse in the papers fro an online service anyway.
But again a-f no also this is not 3D-Honeycomb, go look for something that look like the examples I allready published and the graphics explaining it all, but then you will be within the past 12 years, after I started sharing a great new idea, with graphics and all, becaurse I am an artist, not a stiffneck engineer pleased with rotten minds and the praise of the thief.
JohnProlly I am not as you try to make a fool of me, sitting in a shead doing canoes --- all this is in your mind as I can tell you that I am a family man with two children, particular skilled in many crafts and doing my best to develob modern actural new building methods, for the bread of my family.
Your cramped imagination is so evil and the whole issue as you refere it, have nothing to do with a spledid new method and poverfull graphics --- as you seem so angry that I attract all that response, you care a shit about my honest work past 12 yeras doing good for my family.
Maby you have a safe chair at a not windy colleage , maby you can even wrap up your dirty words and arogant behaviour caused by yout jeloxy, but having so screwed thoughts about someone you don't even know say something about not just how academics allway's hated the autodidact artist --- the one that can come up with a vision so great that you instantly hate it -- why do you hate it, why do you never reflect the arguments.
FLASHBACK FRIDAY!! er, thursday. Here's a golden oldie I posted exactly one year ago as of yesterday.
//////////////////
alright, first of all:
per corell, this is a discussion among people that know what is going on in leading design schools. i don't want to be mean about this, but it has to be said: you are laughably out of touch. your 3D-H system, ie, laser-cutting and assembling cross-sections of the three axes of a computer model, is a method used daily by columbia students to build studio models. and it is (in my opinion, unfortunately) used when blobitects get chances to build their designs in the real world. so, you are actually selling something that, in your opinion, would revolutionize architecture... except it is already being done, and it is far from revolutionizing anything.
and now to collins:
blobs "put the question of construction in crisis"?
the problem with blobs labeling themselves architecture, as i've said before, is that their utter disregard for structure and, thus, materials keeps them squarely within the realm of abstract theory. if an architectural object is to have real significance as part of the discourse on construction, it needs to be able to claim membership to a valid structural system.
per corell may find laser-cutting to be an effective method of boat construction... i don't know anything about it. but collins, i'm surprised that you think cutting cross-sections of any curvy shape a student comes up with in maya is worth throwing the construction industry into a state of crisis (though i think it is far from crisis). the ability to cut cross-sections through literally any possible digital form has given the architect true carte blanche...
as in politics, 'anything goes' rarely leads to enlightened discourse. collins, you say it's a good thing that maya can allow designers to 'create their own rules.' charles eames (charles eames???) said that the constraints in design are what allow brilliant solutions to arise. if there are no valid constants or variables other than those the architect chooses to create, then nothing can be invalid. there is nothing to question. the justification for the design is the design.
and so students draw their splines, delineate their rails, hit the loft button and... voila! a building, ready to be laser-cut from steel and assembled on-site (gasp!). regardless of any programmatic or spatial conditions that were supposedly considered in the design, you, collins, cannot tell me that this is in any way a rigorous way to engage the issue of 'constructibility'... that it is in any way a worthy challenge to the (admittedly stagnant) building industry.
i am not discussing the generalized value of an avant garde education that will eventually prove itself just as useless as a traditional education once a student gets into the workforce. i am discussing, and have been since my first post, the fact that students in columbia are taught to regurgitate jargon and rhetoric about the future of the profession and new construction methods. if laser-cutting is to be the substantiation of these claims, as it appears to be, i am entirely opposed and will continue to voice my opposition.
3D-H, as i will now condescendingly refer to the process of laser-cutting buildings, is a pox on serious architectural design and discourse.
Joed don't it vorry you, when I from your text can see that you totaly mis-understood 3D-H, that "the studends at this or that scool" on every day basic is doing _NOT 3D-H structures_ , they are doing meshes like computer meshes where string in several directions , when you don't look for the clue can show simularity --- ontop I published this 12 years ago, you talk about recent years.
Please I checked hundreds of structures someone misunderstood to be a 3D-H while they seem not to understand the 2 plane reality of a 3D-H.
And yes maby from a safe chair food every day and no financial problems it is difficult to understand that people who learned a practic craft, know better than theoretics. --- Some of the theoretics architects who tried robbing me my credit, was on the stage of free floating bio-organic dull talks, when my 3D-H suddenly allowed them to give the dull thoughts a body --- and then what do they make ; a commersial study piece not a sound family house at a third the cost four times as strong na na ,a spetacular idiotsyncratie something to sell tickets, not houses and nice iviroments, but "spaces", wierd ones ontop making dull music not core life quality.
Joed where are the pictures that prove your claim, what if you from the start was totaly blinded unable to understand the difference between tradisional sections cutting and 3D-H ----- again and again I told that this is so simple, that "anyone would think this is just obvious -- bu no Joed this acturly describe the real innovative thing, that it is so simple, that it is strange no one thought about this before, now show me some 3D-Honeycomb structures older than 12 years --- do you even remember that at that time even sectioning was difficult ?
Anyway when that at that time was difficult, we just as well skip out the architects, as they _never_ reached the sky, in terms of computer skills, esp not back then, please I did work at the architect acadamy for 3 years. Maby later some thief have seen my promoting on the web, about 3D-H ,maby you know thiefs are everywhere also in architecture firms, ------- but back to the issue , you only use words, what about some graphics ?
the old fallback of architects to make construction (or worse, the revealing of construction) the focus of their "discourse" or "rigour" is pure professional masturbation.
blob-architects (are you a square-chitect?) are trying to push the profession into other spaces and other discourses to try to engage with the world and its modern processes. conservative thought will always be around, and here it finds a voice in a 20-something (too bad, you seem so content to rehash old debates/mistakes made by people long dead) that espouses *shudder* modernism (of course the dwell LIFESTYLE modernism, devoid of any of the old genoristy or social agenda, aesthecized and anestheticized)
and the idea that a stick built grid is somehow more rigorous than per corrells sliced bread - well, thats laughable
the architecture of "splines" (versus lines? architecture of lines is hard, architecture of splines is point and click? of course it is the oposite, as anyone who has dealt with complex geometry will tell you - maybe you even had some experience yourself with this) is compelling for one basic reason - it is constantly changing and therefore exhibits a manifold of different experiences and conditions - i.e. and architecture that produces MORE
tectonics can be fetishized later!
figure out what it can do rather than be the nay-sayer who sees something emerging and chooses to retreat back into a too-cozy inbred culture
in PC's words, now YOU go progress your vision
to per correll - dont listen to the haters, take it as far as you can
I think the problem go much deeper that architecture realy have a problem is at a turning point, and guess what --- I think this turning point in one way or another deal with digital.
Do the flat database create beautifull houses or just neat accounts. Isn't today's architect applications an account in a computer database with scalable objects symbols on a screen ?
Do this realy hold the promises of further refinement of methods will it profit eficiency ------ isn't is so, that in future ,following today's dead-end track, houses will just become more expensive that they will not be stronger or faster build, and will take up thousands of different production lines, --- can this be efficient can it bring safe houses at expenses common people can pay, do it offer the skilled home builder to make his own house, when percenteages are taken a level higher making no alternative except the tadisional construction for the small master builder ?
I wonder if anyone on this board even follow the fierce fight about coding regulations in different contries, how in one contry things work in way other systems, are defined as being building com,poments that in other contries don't even exist ---- now do you realy think that this is nothing but a dead end road ? And how could we then avoid this well --- if there are one basic 3D drawing that all later participating will use as basic 3D drawing ------ a 3D drawing that will yield a floor plan if that is what you want , a 3D drawing where "object oriented" mean describing the object calculating it up against the plain geometric data in the 3D model, and that way calculate how big the walls are ,do the volume calculations strait from measuring the actural volumes, also from the basic 3D Solid model. Or is fact that none of you been out of school, and know the nip.pic windows counting that is the real work for most architects ?
As I said it is architecture that in general have this problem ; the direct-link production will come, and when it do it will make a house at a third the cost, in 3D-H with four times the strength and the ability to make the structure grow by adding new framework, replace the old with original spareparts, as long as you have the basic 3D drawing.
Now try go to soem of the real cutting edge studio's and ask them, if they realised and is using a basic 3D drawing, Object oriented building blocks and don't use the computer screen as if it was just another sort of flat paper for tradisional floor plans.
mark chill out dude, it was flashback friday, er, thursday. we talked about this stuff like two days ago, you know i'm no straight up modernist junkie... i was posting it, if for any other reason than boredom, because i was amazed at how much effort i used to put into posting online here.
"Please a-f this is a description about an 3axis router working with a clay model [...] 3D-H do not continue down the calculatd object in a direction dependant on the surface face normal vector direction, as this attempt to try"
For once, learn how to read. It's a method to process data from a scanned 3D-model (in clay) to produce a series of surface curves. The sections are then offset normal to the surface in order to produce templates. The sections have to be offset, otherwise the templates would have zero height. 3D-H does exactly the same. (I presume you don't offset along an axis, since the height would approach zero if you have to "steep" curves?) Now, why all this work? Because:
The hard boad material is layed out to the plot information and saw cut to final shape, including the grooves required for egg crate effect. Preferably, however, the making of paper plots is not required. The same plot data base can be used to drive a conventional N/C laser machine to directly produce complete templates defining an offset surface, and egg crated at the body grid lines for the egg crate effect. The use of a laser cut eliminates the paper plot requirement and much of the hand labor to prepare the egg crate templates for assembly. [...] Once cut, the completed egg crate frame templates are assembled. The grooves at the body grid areas interlock to produce a three-dimensional object (egg crate effect). The egg crate structure is glued together and set on a base type structure to insure structure integrity and base relations to the computer data base.
To me, it seems like 3D-H is actually what they call "egg crate structure" in the car industry. It's not "bananas and apples".
Per: forgive a stupid question from me, an architecture dropout, but does your work owe anything in inspiration to Nervi, or is the resemblance between his work and yours just superficial? Do you see yourself as proceeding from where he left off, but with computers used to assist in design? Don't answer this question if it sounds too stupid.
Hi
johndevin I find it very interesting whenever a structure ask a new way to build , as this is a two way thing --- you develob a system that meet the demands and at the same time you see the side effects, those that could form the next design as when this is possible then the side effects maby show other options you would never have thought of. I am quite sure Nervi would have reconised this attitude, I guess it is the only way to reach that far to be able to envision and at the same time have an open mind for what forces and what options you see in theori and in hands-on work. Still I think it only work when you combine the two or atleast study related technikes to be able to be critic or simply be able to scrap it all, to turn the problem upside down to find a different solution. ---- these works seem to ask quite a bit of feel about the structures ,that also will be a valuable experience.
I endore works like those, but by princip they must be made even better, touching other facts, such as production and projecting. Guess Utzon shuld know these works.
a-f this can be a discussion about letters , but if you read these papers you will reconise that not just is it two different technikes but the whole attitude are a world apart --- I pointed to the technic fact, that to transverse in any direction these people very precice pointed to an offset of the mesh lines , quite anatural thing as there are nothing else to steer the route ; but can't you see that just doing that make it impossible to assemble without bending and fidedeling --- why do you think I again and again point out, that with 3D-H there are not one single bended frame ?
But ontop what you progress are huge firms investing in making patent on whatever little gadged, where my aproach are that of the free spirit and good skills, you progress a technike where the high-tech are there only to support outdated old casting or pressing technikes, that can only be done in huge factories, you progress a technike to be shared by 12 engineers each specialised in their little arear and only to produce a plug or a form cheaper not any different just forcing the new technike , into supporting outdated production making sure the houses will stay expensive and the Solid modeling do not find a natural way to yield the building compoments that so easily and simple are produced with 3D-H.
Eggcreate are a totaly different attitude a different technology an alian technike towerds 3D-H it's ælike apples and bananas.
Anyway I progess something that bring a new architectue, cut out 20 different expensive production lines replacing it with just one, one that acturly work with computers work with today's Solid modeling and is a good alternative for most structural challances , it don't just produce a flexible surface but a rugid structure or a flexible structure all dependand how it is scaled what sheet materials are used, but first of all it make the direct link from screen to production without any papers.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Hi
Puudles thanks for your essey , I guess it will take a few day's before I realy can ansver , esp. what you write about the attitude to the building structure ofcaurse is what instantly reflect, but.
As you can emagine it is difficult to communicate these issues so you strike the most important ones -- I did a lot promoting and realy I tried to refine my arguments, I guess to that you seen that this is not about "me" fact it never was , guess it never is for anyone who simply can't do can't make anything but where his special interests are, ----- anyway I am waiting for an article to be published and as the chinese say ,if you keep on doing what you can, keep on again and stay with it, it will succes. Guess I grupple a few day's about what you say about the communicating things, if there realy are something that I can't communicate --- well first I displayed the thing and had all those discussions about if it was ever possible, then arogantly I turned to trying to emagine what it would mean, then my critic about the tradisional structures went into it and it seemed more people started to look at it, but lately it is true that a greater picture seem to evolve,--- many say 20-30 years before it will be the natural core of many different structures , well it could be that I am to optimistic that my wish for a new architecture and the new jobs make me blind towerds real life barriers, but I am attacing the real problems in architecture the real problems in engineering I am up against a very tradisional way of thinking and doing ------ what I tried to communicate is, that I master a few skills and crafts so I would know real life barriers --- at the other hand it is not just the nordic design trends the "special" way to make the solutions , no it go deeper than that ; Guess in the treads what I tried to do, had been to presave that when you can build a boat, when you are allowed the workshops, when even the great Robert got free meals at your grandfathers when your brother are a skiled artist when so many others in your family are, then thinking outside the box come natural esp. when you are a perfectionist and sitionist at the same time and never used the scrap bin in any of your workshops for anything but taking what others scrapped. ------- well quite a trivial thing, but I had workshops and as every piece was allway's in detail planned, nothing was ever scrapped ,ok you maby don'tknow carpenter shops or boatbilding shops so you maby don't know about the scrap bin ; _then it is difficult to communicate. Also while talking about workshops , something I can't afford anymore after 12 years with this thing, -- I can tell you that some of the most famous danish architects acturly on regular counts, visited my workshop , ----- why , to get inspired to relax to get a small bit of advise that was worth some 20 mill. Guess you know that there are danish architects more famous than any english, and back to your post, there are a reson for that it is in the language ;))
How many famous designers and architects did I know , well I can't count them. Still they was the old garde, I never realy coped with the young ones their drive towerds fame and the social games was none of my interests. As you know in that sense I am very narrow minded, it is the process the actural realising the new that entlighten me ; this give 2 seconds of happiness and 12 years of fighting but it is worth it when the picture never dull, when the vision is first envisioned and you know it is ontop everything you know,and you know a bundle.
puddles I hope it is allright that I wait a few day's to respond, meanwhile I canonly state where I ended ; --- you want something that acturly work with computers and do the direct link to production, you want the new jobs and the new architecture, you want the tradisional architect applications to deal with the real thing and want creavity back into the crafts, well there are only one way and that is digital and being very critic. Maby what I realy shuld do, is to develob the humor side of it, guess that is the strongest and maby only weapon to use in this battle. Anyway the chinese will know.
Eh --- please don't put the Hamlet issue into it, I see it is relevant but am glad the issue have not been fighting windmills.
per,
don't worry, i see no need to reference hamlet. anyhow, i'd like to reiterate that i have been one of your most consistent supporters (previous posts provide ample evidence of this).
moreover, i am not complaining nor attemptin to disparage your efforts in any way. it is obvious that you are working very hard and, more importantly, are making a contribution to the tradition of building. and as you yourself have previously admitted, you are not capable of doing everything yourself as you are not an architect, nor do you have much interest in the fancy graphics that most of us young, internet architects seem to like. in fact, you need not worry about drafting a reply to what i wrote, just keeping working on the 3d honeycomb. my main point in writing the essay was that there are many perspective with which we can view architecture and its development. i tried through the essay to add another perspective to the mix since i feel that most of the previous critiques of your work have been based on the images alone that you have offered without much consideration for your contextual surroundings both geographically in denmark, as well as, temporally within the danish building tradition.
moreover, much of the negative energy directed towards you has simply been childish, even when accurate. thus, i feel that most of those who have harrassed you would probably benefit from considering more than just there immediate reactions as they craft their postings. even so, it remains worthwhile for all of us to remember that architecture is a very broad discipline with ample opportunity for contribution at a variety of scales.
Guess humor are the right aproach , --- when asking a response you must be faster than the ones you want to impress, you must act the right aproach ,guess this been what I been doing to. So nomatter any of the replies been a bit irelevant it is still my foult , becaurse I did not trim my request true. Still houses are not just about now being able to do them at a third the cost four times stronger ; if you do ,then what do it mean in terms of real cost. Are the overexposed costs for sad old expensive to maintain structures in fact what work against new visions, new way's to manufactor ,new jobs and cheap houses ?
Will it realy mean that much that the core structure in cost are a third if the cost of the actural buildworks are a small part, of what the guy pay the bank ?
Anyway as the chinese say "what go down must go up" , spinning wheel go around , --- it's just to be arogant for enough years and luck will turn your way's.
david zeiben:
although it didn't occur to me, you're right, that might make a nice shirt even though it would be a little short in the "fancy graphics" fortunately, i have a few other ideas up my sleeve for the contest.
sylvester:
i suspect that you are correct in reporting that there are many buildings in denmark today that are either brick or concrete (maybe they all are these days) but the important point (that i have admittedly borrowed from norberg-schulz) is that an identifiable danish building tradition emerged over many hundreds of years from the half-timbered structures of rural danish settlements. and that it is this structure which evolved into a recognizable gestalt of form most succinctly characterized by repetitive structural bays and consistent facade height as the result of a unifying roof. this is, of course a generalization of qualities that can be applied equally to rural wooden farmhouses as well as a contemporary city block, even one made of of steel. the extent of the validity of this assessment lies with norberg-schulz. i simply attempted to apply it to per's 3d honeycomb structures in a manner that might yield some different interpretations of the importance of per's work.
furthermore, material is but one variable in the complex stew of architecture decision-making. to refer to wood as nordic and stone and southern is a very broad generality but not, i believe, inaccurate nor without merit. and since per has proposed his 3d honeycomb as a structural form that doesn't required a specific material, i am commenting that maybe he (or perhaps a danish architect who choses to work with the formal possibilities of 3d honeycomb) would benefit by embracing the resistance offered in either committing to or reacting against a specific material.
this leads to where i feel that per and 3d honeycomb are most vulnerable to legitimate architectural critique, i.e., by trying to be universal or everything to everybody it has become nothing of importance or value to anybody. but if they accepted something as resistance (such as the danish building tradition described by norberg-schulz and relayed by me) then there may be some significant architectural potential involved in per's ideas, certainly more so than the joke that most of the posters here seem to think it is.
wow, i can't believe i have now spent at least two hours on one thread in the last two days, i don't know how per can possibly post so much.
per:
do you ever sleep?
Hi
No I go stand-by.
bump.
per...
your wack.
I'd like to suggest a diagrid string vest for the competition...
puddles, dude do you know you just did? you`ve asked for more unendingmessages from per. i don`t know how you are gonna read them all, but u bet it`ll be there in a few days. yeah!
per, sorry meant no harm, but you have to take things the right way. atleast improve on your communication if you REALLY want to show what u are doing. if u got so much patience in responding to even a single dude who wants to know what the thread is about, u cud have learnt the art of communicating too..
damn! did i ask for a long reply?? nooo.. i did`nt.
i'm worried about per. he's been on standby since july 21st.
either something bad has happened to him or he has been working on something new and we are about to get flooded with 3d honeycomb version 2.0.
either way, is archinect ready for this?
Hi
You all know that all I want is to show what a new perception and a new architecture can bring, but you also know that it is limited what I can point to as I am not an architect I can only suggest and question today's production and prove how this limit your creativity.
New methods mean a new architecture.
that is the sweetest rendering I've ever seen, per. you're new perception is undeniably the most creative outlet of architectural thought i've EVER seen.
i mean - look at the way everything criss-crosses...that amazing GRID!
stupified. mortified. petrified.
all you fancy graphics lover should be afuckinshamed of yourselves.
rock on, per
Please remember that this is not just a rendering, it is a picture of the real building elements as how they perform ,after being manufactored processed and generated as 3D objects, also please reconise that this can make square rooms in organic shaped buildings, and you can't reconise it from any architecture of the past.
Per,
Where is the MEP? (Sorry if this has already beeen asked I haven't read all 1k+ posts)
Can I see a detail?
Eh --- mwad please exchouse but I know maby some 500 english words, most of them I can't spell, --- I hand out pieces of arts that if my critics saw them at an arts exebition , they would praise.; Now what is a MEP ?
MEP = mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems
Ok ------- when you already shape the building by adding and subtracting Solid objects , you don't just draw a box just to display the outher limits of a house, but subtract the bos a smaller box so you get the walls and floors, then adding leadway's for aux. is just subtracting a long cylinder or box, from the Solid model od walls and floors.
What will happen is, that when each frame are cut, holes that form leadway's for MEP is cut at the same instance as the frame form are cut.
You can subtract for many more items ; bolts ,rods even a heavy steel H beam can be incapsulated in the 3D-H structure with perfect fit.
When you realise this, a world of oppotunity open --- instead of single sections you can make two paralell ,please emagine that with any of mine 3D-H structures, that instead of one, you see two frames paralell.... I could point to several uses for that.
Eh Pixelwhore, maby I shuld rather describe how smooth you just subtract a long cylinder to get the leadway's ,and just after, describe the enginous way this is made today. Maby I shuld ask what would be best and smartest --- at projecting remember to subtract enough cylinders and long Solid boxes to make MEP a piece of cake, with a runway for each system cut out of the Solid model to form the frames with this feature.
What is best, well prepared runway's and leadway's or the additions as how they work today ?
Per:
I think that it would be helpful if you could put some examples of the MEP chaseways into your renderings, as I believe thats what mwad was asking for. What you're showing us is equivalent to someone showing a rendering of just a traditional structural frame, but the 3D-H version.
Hi
Pixelwhore I will remember your request, it is most relevant.
------- Now it is difficult to explain that as no one declared that a wall must, must be _this thick and must oly be made as walls are known to be ;
What I mean is that it is wrong to judge this acturly new perception and method from the fact, that some walls must be "thicker" than the same walls are today --- now if you have thick walls it would not weaken them if a tube was incapsulated the walls from the start,
likevise you can prepare all these features with a 3D-H basic Solid, as such one contain all walls and floors Plus the runway's for MEP.
--------- Eh all instalations are easy fitted into the walls or floors, you can even make a specific volume that transverse the structure, only to contain wires and pipes, fact is I find this smarter and it offer total overview proberly better than how these things work today. Il'l see what I can find to picture and show, my exchouse these day's are a bad back I can spend maby an hour a day at the computer, as othervise I am locked by pain.
sorry mwad, MEP was asked for already. too late amigo. No signs of its considerations though.
Connection details were asked for. nothing thus far.
Logic was asked for. Nada.
Fancy graphics lovers per? The system's concept is blandito and is not a novel idea. so we get NOT even "fancy graphics" to hold us off- more of those watery jagged angled renderings. I just dont buy it- and I think 99.9% of the users here dont either.
All interaction either intelligent architectural or otherwise has been rendered moot at this point.
We'll just continue to find the ranting and the inescapable " Hi " at the most- tolerably entertaining.
now off to win a tshirt competition I go.
is Per an Outsider Architect, in the best sense of the word?
Hi,
Per have you considered using tools other than 3d models to explore your concept? Perhaps a physical model, or just some sketches, especially of details. Just a thought, because i think a lot of the derision stems from the repetitive nature of your renderings.
Ok, I didn't read the whole thread...but:
has anyone mentioned that this is basically the Cross Sectional Prototyping lasercamm tool that been around since 1996?
http://www.lasercamm.com/rapid.htm
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151175.html
{scroll down on the second one}
at my university people did these egg-crate type designs all the time...except they usually integrated them with other formal logics and also usually botherd to figure out the construction details.
when I was learning scripting in maya, I wrote one that did the same thing, and would even identify areas where the thickness of the material would cause problems. (if you say have a window cutout that isn't perpendicular to the grid, you can wind up with problems due to the corner of the material sticking into the cutout simply because of it's thickness)
The script was about a page long and took maybe 4 hours to write and troubleshoot. I considered it an exercise that might come in handy for something someday, not anything revolutionary. Anyone who knows a small amount of programming could build the same tool in under a day, easy.
Hi
ferplexion the designs I put forth are based on the most serious Math. calculations, --- if my designs "don't work" science have a huge problem as the only way they can not work, is if CAD don't work, is if Computers don't work.
I am a boatsbuilder, in that craft much are dependant on your skills and experience --- back then a boatsbuilder who produced a new design, made a "halve model" of the boat he was about to build. Acturly the halve model was a way to compensate for lack of drawing abilities , today ---- except in this fora --- it is common knowleage, that if you draw the thing in a 3D CAD system, then it is bound to "work", --- if you can draw it 3D it can be build. Unless you want us to scrap any science that depend on computers you must realise, that it is quite a irelevant critic ; did anyone question the sketches for the disney new concert hall, even there shuld be all resons to do just that ; ------- In your world, is artists cut box shape to fit your expertations ? Do you think you can restrict arts and creativity , that things _must look like this" , that "no real new thing are allowed" , ------realy what do you expect from a revolusionary new method that solve all those challances, that my critics closed their eyes to. Do you realy expect something new, to be something you allready know ?
This method solve so many important issues ; think about how it replace 20 different steel profiles, girders hangers nuts and bolts, remember that it do so by the means of a computer ,that it make the computer work, not just as an accounting system, but in a direct link from screen to production mashin. Think about that this acturly create a new architecture ; now maby you are willing to underestimate even this fact, maby you don't realise that what the world need, is houses four times as strong and a third the cost, build with a method that do digital make sense.
Ontop I find it very disturbing, that so many seem to know so little about what a CAD program is, ------ but what I find vorse are, that instead acting in a positive way, instead of trying to make this new innovation profit from new idears, instead of nip-picking any nomatter how theoretic "problem" , instead of realising that even academics want it to be so, then "artists" are not square formed, and you can't hold this against them, there are no argument against this bright new concept, in either trying to make someone a fool or by group harasment and silli arguments , try to destroy a grand idea that need no fysical models, as computers work.
Your concept isnt new, it's been mulled over for years now - Look i'm sorry if you have been out of the loop sitting inside your shack making canoes for the past few years.
Besides how is this solving a theoretical "problem"? Other than giving us all inspiration to clown you in the form of a TShirt competition.
(that was cruel; per has feelings too even if he DOES have a one-track mind)
JohnProlly ------ in the various discussions about this new method I found out, that a lot of critics blind their mind and even you word by word explain that it would be silli to try project a 3D-H framework without a computer, as the whole point are the actural direct link production, --- now please point me to another method that carry a direct link oppotunity.
Again and again oppoments have pointed to structures that by first view, could show simularaty with a 3D-H, --- but every time I unproven these proven that they are something that could look alike, but don't carry the fantastic options using today's Solid modeling and today's N.C. controlled manufactoring , please I been publishing this method for round 12 years and don't you think that if this was allready invented, then in these years of discussions would have uncovered this ?
It is easy to say what you do, easy to just proclame ,tjew it and spit it out with an arogant aproach --- but you do not bring a link.
So remember that again and again , and realy I don't understand why this shuld be so important, but again and again I ansvered all claims but let's take it from there --- please tell me where you seen this before ;
If this is not new, where did you se this before ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/lade-2.jpg
Please -------- when I first started promoting this method, the "arguments" was that this is impossible, your claim that this is made before ,have allready been discussed and no argument had been put forth to justify this claim. Some pointed to roof structures that when taken apart in detail showed to have nothing in common with a 3D-h structure, others brought pictures that just by seeing it showed frames do what is impossible and silli to do with 3D-H.
You see I allready documented my claims, but I feel sad about those who still think it is fun to make a laugh , those ancious to throw away my 12 years of work and the suffer it acturly mean, to be a real artist.
------ This attitude, the whole way this bright new method have been met, is a sad prove about how arts and innovative creativity have been replaced with social skills, that's a fact that beauty have a very limited space compared the obvious exiting group harasment. But this is just how arts evolved ; Academics more than ever hate the autodidacts such a I --- they will never forgive a bright guy getting a bright idea --- and if they can't do more about it, they can do all they can, to rob the guy ,try make him a fool, and then claim that this way of behaviour is the natural academic aproach towerds the stupid autodidacts they hate to the degree, that they would enjoy robbing the bread from their mouth.
-------- Or maby you shuld translate the response towerds a bright new method in a different way ?
per, read my post. I gave you links documenting a commercially released version of this method, that is directly linked to manufacturing, that was written about in october 1996. Car manufacturers had the basis of that program several years before that.
You were there first? prove it. link a journal article, dated press release, or anything.
You say it's easy to say what we say. I say it's easy to do what you do. As I said, I wrote a script that did the exact same thing in under half a day, it's not a hard challenge for anyone with minor programming experience.
Hi
The papers write ;
"Now referring to FIG. 1, a full-scale styling clay model 10 is illustrated in broken lines with the right door thereof in full lines. Styling clay model 10 is scanned in a conventional manner to obtain surface data generally defining the surface thereof on "X", "Y" and "Z" axes."
Please a-f this is a description about an 3axis router working with a clay model --- Eh where are this relevant according 3D-Honeycomb that I published in several open architect contests since past 12 years ? You talk banana and I refere apples.
Another cut and paste ;
"The egg crate templates can be constructed by, for example, plotting on paper the wire frame plot plan with the surface offset a dimension below the surface of the full size wire frame plot plan in a direction normal to the surface. In short, the template edges should define a surface offset by some appropriate dimensions (in a typical application, this might be about 3/8" below the rough computer data for the face of the object). The paper plots can be used to produce 1/8" to 1/4" thick wood hard board type templates. The hard boad material is layed out to the plot information and saw cut to final shape, including the grooves required for egg crate effect. Preferably, however, the making of paper plots is not required. The same plot data base can be used to drive a conventional N/C laser machine to directly produce complete templates defining an offset surface, and egg crated at the body grid lines for the egg crate effect. The use of a laser cut eliminates the paper plot requirement and much of the hand labor to prepare the egg crate templates for asse"
This describe foloowing the computer mesh lines 90 deg towerds the surface of the object , something totaly alian to 3D-H where paralell slices form frames, not an unspecified in terms of acturly manufactoring a totaly different structure ; --- 3D-H do not continue down the calculatd object in a direction dependant on the surface face normal vector direction, as this attempt to try --- now in terms of difficulty in acturly manufactoring, 3D-H beat this with a mile, 3D-H do not try to cover everything a 3 axis router can do on a extreme expensive lump of styrofoam or clay, 3D-H support a compleatly different attitude towerds designing ,than producing exclusive expensive ,use for one time only "models" by 12 engineers trying to make 3D routing make sense. It only make sense supporting an outdated technology acting as a supporting technike to produce a cheap one-off. 3D-Honeycomb do not support an outdated technike it do on it's own , I see no relevanse in the papers fro an online service anyway.
But again a-f no also this is not 3D-Honeycomb, go look for something that look like the examples I allready published and the graphics explaining it all, but then you will be within the past 12 years, after I started sharing a great new idea, with graphics and all, becaurse I am an artist, not a stiffneck engineer pleased with rotten minds and the praise of the thief.
JohnProlly I am not as you try to make a fool of me, sitting in a shead doing canoes --- all this is in your mind as I can tell you that I am a family man with two children, particular skilled in many crafts and doing my best to develob modern actural new building methods, for the bread of my family.
Your cramped imagination is so evil and the whole issue as you refere it, have nothing to do with a spledid new method and poverfull graphics --- as you seem so angry that I attract all that response, you care a shit about my honest work past 12 yeras doing good for my family.
Maby you have a safe chair at a not windy colleage , maby you can even wrap up your dirty words and arogant behaviour caused by yout jeloxy, but having so screwed thoughts about someone you don't even know say something about not just how academics allway's hated the autodidact artist --- the one that can come up with a vision so great that you instantly hate it -- why do you hate it, why do you never reflect the arguments.
Stealing lieing robbing false --- now shuld we add more criminal mind to architecture.
FLASHBACK FRIDAY!! er, thursday. Here's a golden oldie I posted exactly one year ago as of yesterday.
//////////////////
alright, first of all:
per corell, this is a discussion among people that know what is going on in leading design schools. i don't want to be mean about this, but it has to be said: you are laughably out of touch. your 3D-H system, ie, laser-cutting and assembling cross-sections of the three axes of a computer model, is a method used daily by columbia students to build studio models. and it is (in my opinion, unfortunately) used when blobitects get chances to build their designs in the real world. so, you are actually selling something that, in your opinion, would revolutionize architecture... except it is already being done, and it is far from revolutionizing anything.
and now to collins:
blobs "put the question of construction in crisis"?
the problem with blobs labeling themselves architecture, as i've said before, is that their utter disregard for structure and, thus, materials keeps them squarely within the realm of abstract theory. if an architectural object is to have real significance as part of the discourse on construction, it needs to be able to claim membership to a valid structural system.
per corell may find laser-cutting to be an effective method of boat construction... i don't know anything about it. but collins, i'm surprised that you think cutting cross-sections of any curvy shape a student comes up with in maya is worth throwing the construction industry into a state of crisis (though i think it is far from crisis). the ability to cut cross-sections through literally any possible digital form has given the architect true carte blanche...
as in politics, 'anything goes' rarely leads to enlightened discourse. collins, you say it's a good thing that maya can allow designers to 'create their own rules.' charles eames (charles eames???) said that the constraints in design are what allow brilliant solutions to arise. if there are no valid constants or variables other than those the architect chooses to create, then nothing can be invalid. there is nothing to question. the justification for the design is the design.
and so students draw their splines, delineate their rails, hit the loft button and... voila! a building, ready to be laser-cut from steel and assembled on-site (gasp!). regardless of any programmatic or spatial conditions that were supposedly considered in the design, you, collins, cannot tell me that this is in any way a rigorous way to engage the issue of 'constructibility'... that it is in any way a worthy challenge to the (admittedly stagnant) building industry.
i am not discussing the generalized value of an avant garde education that will eventually prove itself just as useless as a traditional education once a student gets into the workforce. i am discussing, and have been since my first post, the fact that students in columbia are taught to regurgitate jargon and rhetoric about the future of the profession and new construction methods. if laser-cutting is to be the substantiation of these claims, as it appears to be, i am entirely opposed and will continue to voice my opposition.
3D-H, as i will now condescendingly refer to the process of laser-cutting buildings, is a pox on serious architectural design and discourse.
////////////
Joed don't it vorry you, when I from your text can see that you totaly mis-understood 3D-H, that "the studends at this or that scool" on every day basic is doing _NOT 3D-H structures_ , they are doing meshes like computer meshes where string in several directions , when you don't look for the clue can show simularity --- ontop I published this 12 years ago, you talk about recent years.
Please I checked hundreds of structures someone misunderstood to be a 3D-H while they seem not to understand the 2 plane reality of a 3D-H.
And yes maby from a safe chair food every day and no financial problems it is difficult to understand that people who learned a practic craft, know better than theoretics. --- Some of the theoretics architects who tried robbing me my credit, was on the stage of free floating bio-organic dull talks, when my 3D-H suddenly allowed them to give the dull thoughts a body --- and then what do they make ; a commersial study piece not a sound family house at a third the cost four times as strong na na ,a spetacular idiotsyncratie something to sell tickets, not houses and nice iviroments, but "spaces", wierd ones ontop making dull music not core life quality.
Joed where are the pictures that prove your claim, what if you from the start was totaly blinded unable to understand the difference between tradisional sections cutting and 3D-H ----- again and again I told that this is so simple, that "anyone would think this is just obvious -- bu no Joed this acturly describe the real innovative thing, that it is so simple, that it is strange no one thought about this before, now show me some 3D-Honeycomb structures older than 12 years --- do you even remember that at that time even sectioning was difficult ?
Anyway when that at that time was difficult, we just as well skip out the architects, as they _never_ reached the sky, in terms of computer skills, esp not back then, please I did work at the architect acadamy for 3 years. Maby later some thief have seen my promoting on the web, about 3D-H ,maby you know thiefs are everywhere also in architecture firms, ------- but back to the issue , you only use words, what about some graphics ?
the old fallback of architects to make construction (or worse, the revealing of construction) the focus of their "discourse" or "rigour" is pure professional masturbation.
blob-architects (are you a square-chitect?) are trying to push the profession into other spaces and other discourses to try to engage with the world and its modern processes. conservative thought will always be around, and here it finds a voice in a 20-something (too bad, you seem so content to rehash old debates/mistakes made by people long dead) that espouses *shudder* modernism (of course the dwell LIFESTYLE modernism, devoid of any of the old genoristy or social agenda, aesthecized and anestheticized)
and the idea that a stick built grid is somehow more rigorous than per corrells sliced bread - well, thats laughable
the architecture of "splines" (versus lines? architecture of lines is hard, architecture of splines is point and click? of course it is the oposite, as anyone who has dealt with complex geometry will tell you - maybe you even had some experience yourself with this) is compelling for one basic reason - it is constantly changing and therefore exhibits a manifold of different experiences and conditions - i.e. and architecture that produces MORE
tectonics can be fetishized later!
figure out what it can do rather than be the nay-sayer who sees something emerging and chooses to retreat back into a too-cozy inbred culture
in PC's words, now YOU go progress your vision
to per correll - dont listen to the haters, take it as far as you can
As far as China ;))
1100!!!!
Made you look, Suckers!!
I think the problem go much deeper that architecture realy have a problem is at a turning point, and guess what --- I think this turning point in one way or another deal with digital.
Do the flat database create beautifull houses or just neat accounts. Isn't today's architect applications an account in a computer database with scalable objects symbols on a screen ?
Do this realy hold the promises of further refinement of methods will it profit eficiency ------ isn't is so, that in future ,following today's dead-end track, houses will just become more expensive that they will not be stronger or faster build, and will take up thousands of different production lines, --- can this be efficient can it bring safe houses at expenses common people can pay, do it offer the skilled home builder to make his own house, when percenteages are taken a level higher making no alternative except the tadisional construction for the small master builder ?
I wonder if anyone on this board even follow the fierce fight about coding regulations in different contries, how in one contry things work in way other systems, are defined as being building com,poments that in other contries don't even exist ---- now do you realy think that this is nothing but a dead end road ? And how could we then avoid this well --- if there are one basic 3D drawing that all later participating will use as basic 3D drawing ------ a 3D drawing that will yield a floor plan if that is what you want , a 3D drawing where "object oriented" mean describing the object calculating it up against the plain geometric data in the 3D model, and that way calculate how big the walls are ,do the volume calculations strait from measuring the actural volumes, also from the basic 3D Solid model. Or is fact that none of you been out of school, and know the nip.pic windows counting that is the real work for most architects ?
As I said it is architecture that in general have this problem ; the direct-link production will come, and when it do it will make a house at a third the cost, in 3D-H with four times the strength and the ability to make the structure grow by adding new framework, replace the old with original spareparts, as long as you have the basic 3D drawing.
Now try go to soem of the real cutting edge studio's and ask them, if they realised and is using a basic 3D drawing, Object oriented building blocks and don't use the computer screen as if it was just another sort of flat paper for tradisional floor plans.
mark chill out dude, it was flashback friday, er, thursday. we talked about this stuff like two days ago, you know i'm no straight up modernist junkie... i was posting it, if for any other reason than boredom, because i was amazed at how much effort i used to put into posting online here.
"Please a-f this is a description about an 3axis router working with a clay model [...] 3D-H do not continue down the calculatd object in a direction dependant on the surface face normal vector direction, as this attempt to try"
For once, learn how to read. It's a method to process data from a scanned 3D-model (in clay) to produce a series of surface curves. The sections are then offset normal to the surface in order to produce templates. The sections have to be offset, otherwise the templates would have zero height. 3D-H does exactly the same. (I presume you don't offset along an axis, since the height would approach zero if you have to "steep" curves?) Now, why all this work? Because:
The hard boad material is layed out to the plot information and saw cut to final shape, including the grooves required for egg crate effect. Preferably, however, the making of paper plots is not required. The same plot data base can be used to drive a conventional N/C laser machine to directly produce complete templates defining an offset surface, and egg crated at the body grid lines for the egg crate effect. The use of a laser cut eliminates the paper plot requirement and much of the hand labor to prepare the egg crate templates for assembly. [...] Once cut, the completed egg crate frame templates are assembled. The grooves at the body grid areas interlock to produce a three-dimensional object (egg crate effect). The egg crate structure is glued together and set on a base type structure to insure structure integrity and base relations to the computer data base.
To me, it seems like 3D-H is actually what they call "egg crate structure" in the car industry. It's not "bananas and apples".
Per: forgive a stupid question from me, an architecture dropout, but does your work owe anything in inspiration to Nervi, or is the resemblance between his work and yours just superficial? Do you see yourself as proceeding from where he left off, but with computers used to assist in design? Don't answer this question if it sounds too stupid.
Hi
johndevin I find it very interesting whenever a structure ask a new way to build , as this is a two way thing --- you develob a system that meet the demands and at the same time you see the side effects, those that could form the next design as when this is possible then the side effects maby show other options you would never have thought of. I am quite sure Nervi would have reconised this attitude, I guess it is the only way to reach that far to be able to envision and at the same time have an open mind for what forces and what options you see in theori and in hands-on work. Still I think it only work when you combine the two or atleast study related technikes to be able to be critic or simply be able to scrap it all, to turn the problem upside down to find a different solution. ---- these works seem to ask quite a bit of feel about the structures ,that also will be a valuable experience.
I endore works like those, but by princip they must be made even better, touching other facts, such as production and projecting. Guess Utzon shuld know these works.
a-f this can be a discussion about letters , but if you read these papers you will reconise that not just is it two different technikes but the whole attitude are a world apart --- I pointed to the technic fact, that to transverse in any direction these people very precice pointed to an offset of the mesh lines , quite anatural thing as there are nothing else to steer the route ; but can't you see that just doing that make it impossible to assemble without bending and fidedeling --- why do you think I again and again point out, that with 3D-H there are not one single bended frame ?
But ontop what you progress are huge firms investing in making patent on whatever little gadged, where my aproach are that of the free spirit and good skills, you progress a technike where the high-tech are there only to support outdated old casting or pressing technikes, that can only be done in huge factories, you progress a technike to be shared by 12 engineers each specialised in their little arear and only to produce a plug or a form cheaper not any different just forcing the new technike , into supporting outdated production making sure the houses will stay expensive and the Solid modeling do not find a natural way to yield the building compoments that so easily and simple are produced with 3D-H.
Eggcreate are a totaly different attitude a different technology an alian technike towerds 3D-H it's ælike apples and bananas.
Anyway I progess something that bring a new architectue, cut out 20 different expensive production lines replacing it with just one, one that acturly work with computers work with today's Solid modeling and is a good alternative for most structural challances , it don't just produce a flexible surface but a rugid structure or a flexible structure all dependand how it is scaled what sheet materials are used, but first of all it make the direct link from screen to production without any papers.
I cant read this anymore... someone lock this thread.
Arggggh but it's addicting for some reason. Maybe it's the bad grammar and the 5 year-old "concepts"
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.