Archinect
anchor

Hi all you fancy graphics lovers

1479
Per Corell

Then look at how architecture work --- it is the surface impression ,the unspoken attitude hiding the lack of structure or the old fasion structure that winn the game. Fancy clotches do better than core quality . Hidden tradisional steel grid systems that with a sweep of an eraser could magnitude a compleatly different expression, act spetacular feast talks ,and this is what you tear down in 30 years ---- don't complain about lack of life quality when architecture became so lame it don't last a decade.
Realise that just this tell it's value.

Aug 5, 05 11:02 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Quality , innovation , real values and cheap houses ---- now is that a part of today's architecture ? Is advanced computerworks ? Is genuine artswork ? Do people understand it ? Are architects able to explain it ?

Isn't there enough reson for a real new architecture ?

Aug 5, 05 11:06 am  · 
 · 

This discussion is for the people who liked the Hall of Mirrors as kids.

Aug 5, 05 12:28 pm  · 
 · 
mwad

That hall could be constructed much better with 3D-h.

Aug 5, 05 4:12 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

whew!...i just spent all day re-reading this thread and it feels great. although it is a challenge, i recommend everyone try it, especially if you are entertaining the idea of posting something. a lot has already been said before and if you can't think of anything new to add it might not be worth rehashing the old arguments even though per does not seem to mind in the least repeating his extensive rebuttals.

i also wonder if we couldn't turn this thread into some kind of book...or maybe a movie...or better yet a tv mini-series

Aug 6, 05 9:06 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

puddles i already said that back on page 4!

Aug 7, 05 12:15 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi

At DesignCommunity the tread untill recently been a bit slow, untill a new tread about the latest suggestion about a rebuild of the towers , showed a 200 feet bunker ---ofcaurse anyone knew that when Pentagon was projected it was so with windows as some clever guy calculated the dameage in a bomb blase ,with and without windows ---- windows ofcaurse saved the structure in these calculations. But anyway even I can's hardly get out of my bed cauesed a bad back, even my son challance me every day to still spend a few hours to help finish that new wall with a sliding door in his flat, even this make it so that I just standing up at sitting in a chair are to much pain, --- well then this guy at DesignCommunity challanced me with something like ;
"Well mr. Corell could you please in 3 day's make a suggestion with elevators ,ecapes , fireprove center structure , and in your new method " ------- and as no one shuld make such impossible suggestion I played along.
Now I love tight deadlines even sure it is a tight one as you realy need to hit spot on , even you have a vision about what could show the lead and it still will be a sketch, then enough persaving details ,such as the ones how cables and wires plumbering can be build into a framework structure , why and how an angled sheet steel structure must be relevant ; angled surfaces do work better than a box but that is just one thing ---- how to make this a project when you would expect only a third the money left, while the rest proberly are spend on spetacular exebitions and more then 3 years without pay,
Well taken into account that I been able to spend 3-4 hours on the first sketches that I myself look promising, then I guess a weekend can't be taken as whole work day's --- but there will be a fast sketch but it will be one that is not to discuss if a 22 millimeter rugid steel plate framework will carry the weight or not ofcaurse it will , but there will be I guess discussion, if it realy are needed with so heavy an use of steel sheet ------- well if it was just as easy to get it on a screen as realising it in your mind then there wouldn't be all that bordon trivial work , doing the same and same edditing and extrution and I would have been out of it yestoday night. Now I still need to show in detail , how leadway's are created by subtracting solids, and I need to show how a ready made window wall ,are interlocked into a framework.

Anyway anything must be better than a Bunker.

Aug 7, 05 8:09 am  · 
 · 
johndevlin

Per: Hope you back is much better soon...

Aug 7, 05 8:14 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Please don't think it's just a bad exchouse, ---

Aug 7, 05 8:29 am  · 
 · 
johndevlin

of course not. Get rest: you probably work too hard

Aug 7, 05 8:36 am  · 
 · 
6nuew

This thread is the main reason i joined this forum. Thank you, Per.

Aug 7, 05 1:35 pm  · 
 · 
johndevlin

poor funny Per: in my own odd way I love you...

Aug 7, 05 1:38 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
There are ofcaurse 3 new promising way's for each time you enter one , two are one, where just shaping a number of 3D thick wall boxes and a number of various type 3D-H in various directions can form a structure of two or more seperat volumes , teaching within eachother ofcaurse.

The other to just see the volumes as one thing, the structure in steel frames as something quite different --- sort of carve out with the Solids required to leave enough structural strength ( easy with 24 mm. steel plate). But just realising how nice you can form a square box shuld tell the vision. This is not about strength as that is avaible in great scale in a 3D-H , the whole thing depend on if I can find the right scale steel grid then even the simplest design aproach will proberly be, just to carve out square office meters from a likevise square building mass. with enough building structure between the volumes extruded for squaremeter space this is a question about cost so steel plate and cost pr. cut meter.
But you could also shape the individual halve or quater floors ( here there are btw. four or tree buildings try knok that down ;)) they are each one connected framework , and ontop interconnected two ot tree others , now isn't that a nice side effect. You could shape collums to hold intire squaremeter blocks even in several floors in the air, all service from the same 3D-H lattriceworks collums with elevators and cables in other individual building parts, making everything even stronger , this all depend if you lock the 3D-H right , ----- still if I don't find the right scale it either is impossible when edditing the sections and very often also not good as architectural rendering.

Aug 7, 05 3:02 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Dammit if this mean I need to design 3 different types : carved volumes, assembled thick walled boxes with licked in standard window walls easy, and one where there are both space between the hollow boxes being the squaremeter volumes and building mass , performing the needed strength by 24 millimeter tight steel sheet.

This is what I mean --- emagine a new method that just provide your building mass, still a quite strong type of building structure mass --- right away there are 3 different way's to handle the design.

Just chosing what one would in other circumstances requier atleast a week just to find the best way.

Aug 7, 05 3:16 pm  · 
 · 
P.B.

Per Check this out if you havent seen it yet. Its a guy here in london that design and builds his own furniture with one cad router.... :Untothislast

Aug 8, 05 5:03 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
That look just great --- didn't have the time to look closer, but when I got my first pen plotter many years ago I also had my workshop where we used hand held routers and guieded hand routers for furniture dovetail corners aso. ---- this was when I first started dreaming about what an N.C. routed one could produce in terms of first furniture and then later boat frames and architecture but.
Whenyou look in history about carpentry and boatsbuilding , you find some interesting facts ; hundred years ago mashines like bandsaws and huge planers revolusionised the small-shop industry ; suddenly the carpenter or boatsbuilder could buy the second hand bandsaws from bigger wood companies and furniture became much cheaper by the fact of more efficient production with stationary routers, band and circular saws , and ofcaurse huge planers. Still it was the second hand mashines that the small masters could efford and it was a decade before the small shops could start a small production that could make their bread --- mashines like this still surfaced some 20 years ago, mashines build in parts where the carpenter shop themself, made the basic table for the circular saw or bandsaw wheels to bolt onto some heavy timber in the workshop, and then flat belt drives.
Well --- today a skilled new started carpenter shop can't rely on finding today's digital paralell to the early mashinery that was what acturly made it possible for ordanary people to get cheap quality furniture, guess the investment simply are to high it would be for me anyway, even I would know dusins of designs where a flexible N.C. routed router would make mass production of complicated pieces a piece of cake.
Nice to see though, that the thing are catching on.

Aug 8, 05 6:14 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell
Aug 9, 05 2:22 pm  · 
 · 
P.B.

Per check out my design for a library I did a few years ago, it has some similar principals to what you have been ranting about the last 699 posts...
library

Aug 10, 05 4:15 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi

P.B. very impressive what realy show is how detail and great lines still very clear lines and so many quality spaces occour , without you get trapped in some of the same detail limitations I tend to end up in.
What I found the past 3 day's with a silli challance about a better alternative than a bunker, is that when you go in detail and prepare the engineers solutions about acting connections for window walls and closing the outher surfaces, is that these are quite trivial issues --- the solutions when projecting with sections in Solids are so simple solved, just any window wall factory can profit in great ammount by being offered a basic structural structure but, what your project show are more than the trend architecture we seen in bundles, you seem to be able to realise the openness and the light aproach in a way I would like to copy, --- the fact that with a limited use of materials you can cover a huge space and at the same time display a positive aproach to what will be the new architecture, the architecture not bound in steel grids and glass as the solution for covering surfaces that the architect could not find any other less expensive solution for --- fact is that what the new architecture show, are a more likely distribuated use of materials it is a way out of an architectural dead-end, maby we go a bit back in time to find another sideway , but fact is that to get out of a dead-end , it sometimes are nessery to go back and revisit the qualities in ealier architecture, and refine .
As you know my focus are the basic structural news that this aproach bring, the fantastic detail and the obvious gain huge production will find in a more efficient production ---- but as you know this attitude also bring a fresh blow of clean air and light inviroments, --- it proberly will be the death of the sadly misunderstood architectural "space" description, Space are more than hollow rooms space are a 3D thing not just "spaces" as how so many architects express quality squaremeters.
Nice.

Aug 10, 05 7:30 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Sorry I didn't contribute the graphics that let up to my past graphice, I did publish a bit more at DesignCommunity but here are two more about past framework design ;



Aug 10, 05 8:32 am  · 
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]
joed

beta, how you can say witout utter confushion that yurts are NOT 3d-h?? why do an angry bees try to fluter all when a legittamet new teknology i started over 20 year ago??

Aug 10, 05 2:18 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

These are great but not 3D-H It's like the celtic when they saw Viking boats ; their own was like an upside down yourt nomatter how much you row it just turn round and round , but then what it was for lake use not for sea , then the Vikings turn up with boats that carry port and starboard, fore and aft up and down , and everything suddenly make sense except a Viking longboat make no sense on an inland lake.
No the fact that it is so square that it can acturly be made without bending a single piece, that make a 3D-H beside a few other facts. But what don't show before you start realising that this must be compleatly different than your expertations, that it will not work as you expect, that a new thing ofcaurse must be obviously different and proberly "do" things, that was never "allowed" before, that's another fact, a fair price to pay for something that acturly do the direct link.
The design concept behind a Yourt seem to be as surface oriented , as things made today from more refined materials, Still don't this just show how bound in conservative thinking design is, that even the materials got better, it is still fiddeling and bad measures, things that turn out different than how planned or why go further than sketches, while the thing anyway will be different than you would plan.

Aug 10, 05 4:08 pm  · 
 · 
WonderK

Hi

I'm slightly drunk right now and thought it best to post to this thread whilst inebriated.....

beta, you know, that's the 3rd or 4th time I've heard yurts mentioned in the past month. Very strange. You go your whole life not knowing what a yurt is and then they start popping up everywhere.

Per, your point is taken. Probably was about 700 posts ago. Do you think we think that 3d-h is a bad idea? I mean, it's just a different way of building, I won't be able to use it anytime soon which is fine too but it could be interesting (read: 3d-licious) if executed properly. Don't call me a roman.

Aug 12, 05 10:38 pm  · 
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

that;s funny and i accidentally found that. it reminded me of per. drink one for me.

Aug 12, 05 10:49 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

hi

per, i designed this t-shirt. you are my inspiration. thank you.






please stay away from blythe...she is mine. you can not have her.

Aug 15, 05 11:27 pm  · 
 · 
sustainableBS

per is somethingelse...

as time passes, obivously his grammar has been improved.

Aug 16, 05 10:07 pm  · 
 · 
momentum

i thought this thread would die soon after reaching 1000 posts, now i am sure it will reach 2000, and at that point we will have to have a "hi all you fancy graphics haters" t-shirt contest.

Aug 18, 05 12:36 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
Here in copenhagen it seem like concrete , cast as from a solid model doing the surfaces as molds are the trend. These go in profile organic shapes to the same old stuff ,same rigid squarebox now with fancy semi hand shaped but glass smooth surfaces in concrete --- all surface and what alway's was under the curly surfaces ,just tradisional everyday column and floor cast , Iron Iron everywhere heavyweight.
Now I guess the right thing to do is to evaluate , just did.
Summer just keep on in copenhagen.

Aug 18, 05 2:27 pm  · 
 · 
vera marie galvez

per,

i admire your persistence. maybe we're all missing something here. maybe we're all being a bit to overexpectant... the stakes grow higher when you start posting projects in front of an entire world of architects. and you might not have received such criticism had you posted that on a site for another set of professionals.

your project, seeming very much like the a transformed framework to an existing cathedral does need a lot of development. maybe you could tell us a little about what it was exactly that you were trying to do? it seems that you had designed a form (in the shape of a church...) and then taken that mass... and cross-sectioned the framework that was built around it. so, what was really so special or different about it?

other than the fact that you had done an animation that might have been simply put by 3 or four axonometrics displayed consecutively, i wasn't really intrigued by much on the link. i think that for the most part of that 30 second timeframe, my brows sunk down low in confusion... and they're still a bit tired of being in that position now that i realize it.

if you've been doing this for a while, i would either reconsider, or find work at one of those firms that still designs high end residential villas with colonnades and vaults...hehehe.

if you're new to this world, i would take the criticism and advice...

if this was your first time using a 3d program, i'd be proud that i could do an animation and use it towards really designing....

Aug 18, 05 3:30 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
The Gotic structures was build on one simple princip, lots of stone even more trouble stacking the weight as how you can ,knowing the basic fysics a chalk line and a few rules of thumb. --- even such attitude can bring a wonder, no need for any grammer or advanced math. just plain strait lines and a few arches.
Now today such attitude ofcaurse bring no new architecture , for that you need something that go strait from 3D model to production,
What you see in these graphics ofcaurse depend on your projection ; if you will see something and respond with this ,as you do here , you say that you think architecture are "a designed form" , sorry it is not, it is not the first time in history that a pipe are not a pipe ; your expertations are far from the fact.
What you see are what you want to see,
Well V. today it is not enough that a brick are "clever" as the next brick are same measures and dirt fill the spaceas ,this is not enough smartworks. Even a steel profile need to be worked and that is done by mechanic but did you give it a thought, that today a drill bit and the drilling mashin and process are way over expenses, compared having the same holes cut with a laser or a plain water cutter. If you have lived when lumber houses was the top trend handycraft and someone showed you a piece of stone, a brick long a brick high and a brick broad , you would have laughed and sworn that no wooden churches ever would come out of that --- and you would have been right.
One of those firms you refere, proberly kick your ass , when they do you will blame yourself knowing so little even pretending knowing so much.

Aug 18, 05 5:36 pm  · 
 · 
Louisville Architect

hark!

what's that?

another heathen trying to convert per?

Aug 18, 05 5:40 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
Exactly that's what happen when someone claim that CAD and Solid modeling is not for measuring how many bricks is to be bought if you want to build a wall one wall long one wall high, and a wall deep.
As soon someone claim that digital are not here just to copy the old way's but to develob new systems to be able to produce a new architecture, someone doubt your words, as architecture alway's been dictated, never build shaped or formed , but ordered.
Sad thing being an artist ; today people say "that is not a pipe" -- please what else shuld it be, it look like one, it steal a great design of one, it even have the same colors and yet it have to be something else, something else for each one.

Aug 18, 05 5:52 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

It seem that a few people keep on writing the same words even not looking at the pictures , it seem like that the vorse hurdle is to open peoples mind to be able to see something else than what they want to see, ------- I guess none have even reconised how the latest 3D-H do not show sections with same distance that it is not equaly divided into a lattrice with sections with same distance ;






But what frighten me are more how so many people "see" me doing what they think I am doing, nomatter how many times I try to explain to show to prove that I am not in this for the fame so many think design is about , nomatter how many times I ask for a better alternative a better way to go strait from screen to producing the actural thing ---- there have been plenty of ansvers like ;

"other than the fact that you had done an animation that might have been simply put by 3 or four axonometrics displayed consecutively, i wasn't really intrigued by much on the link. i think that for the most part of that 30 second timeframe, my brows sunk down low in confusion... and they're still a bit tired of being in that position now that i realize it."

But realy shuld this be a relevant critic about something you _never_ seen before, something that with just a bit efford will show a compleatly new architecture ----- is it realy a critic that this is different ?

Now "Vera" ask ;

"your project, seeming very much like the a transformed framework to an existing cathedral does need a lot of development. maybe you could tell us a little about what it was exactly that you were trying to do? it seems that you had designed a form (in the shape of a church...) and then taken that mass... and cross-sectioned the framework that was built around it. so, what was really so special or different about it?"

How can I ansver this --- when what I am doing is so far from Vera's expertations, when what I show is a new way to perform a structure , produce the actural building frames, do it in a compleatly different way, then what the heck do it matter how things ___was___ made, what do it mind if I know how it was made 500 years ago, is that any critic towerds a method that is not supposed to build chatedrals but offer a way to build with today's digital options ????
Now would it be a relevant critic if Vera have found that the Catedral was not designed with the right proportions , would it then be a critic towerds what I realy is showing , something that have nothing to do with the form and shape that Vera critic while being blind to the thing right infront Vera's eyes.
Now there been a lot of expertations in this tread, the critic been about any other issue than what I been displaying the vorse critics havn't even looked at the pictures but refered their expertations maby even what others have said, without even realising the thing. The fact that this is not just doing the same carpentry or the same bricklaying just in another fasion ----- that this is by core different and acturly offer much more than just re-aranging the bricks to form another trend. This go digital and it do so in a way that work with a CAD system, this is what it is about.
If you want to critic this for just being different it's ok with me, but then don't try use your expertations as they don't work with things never seen before, and if you _think_ you seen this before , try look better at both what I show and what you think is simular, do that before you put up your critic --- I say so as it seem so many don't realy care if their arguments realy are true, I say so while it seem that so many think that this is about finding the best way to harras some guy who got a bright idea nomatter if the arguments are real or not, nomatter if just looking at the pictures will tell all you need to know as if what this is about is staying in the caves making the social skills more important than the innovative mind.

Vera what I show do not fit into your boxes , what I show do not follow your expertations about art and I realy think you shuld be glad about just that, --- I know a lot of academics think that art is those things in the museums and artists are those dead ones that created that in the museums. But it don't work that way, ------ you see when you critic this, you must not critic it for not using the brick or the profile steel beam that everyone else use ------ as this is not about creating fantastic buildings but develobing methods so the computer can be used, in another way than just rewriting old methods into computer code. This is new so why shuld I reply you when you ask ;

"it seems that you had designed a form (in the shape of a church...) and then taken that mass... and cross-sectioned the framework that was built around it. so, what was really so special or different about it?"

Realy what do you expect me to ansver, you already ansvered yourself when you ask, can't you see that ? And yes I do not stack heavy stones ontop eachother as they did 1000 years ago and still do, no I develob something that work with today's computers, I develob something that make an ansver to the call for more efficient building methods and I asnver the call for a new architecture, now do you rush out and critic any new house whils they just used the bricks as they alway's was used or is it so that it hurt so much to see real new methods, is it so difficult to realise that to make a critic , you must show another method that is as efficient , that realy make a direct link from screen to production, ------- realy I think this is the most sad critic I met, it is refined critic against something a critic that is realuy about that this is new.


Aug 20, 05 10:39 am  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

i am not sure if i am more amazed that people like vera marie continue to post old/lame critiques or that per has continued to have the patience to respond to all of them.

how many times has someone tried to give per shit about his idea by trying to poke fun at his renderings, his animations, or his forms. how many times must some one glance at per's work and then try to write it off as something that has already been done before. firstly, a quick glance only re-inforces pre-conceived notions of what one is looking at. secondly, architecture is often more about the things that are unseen. the process is at the core of what per is doing. per seems to understand this, but too many of his critics are dismissing him before even considering this.

and lastly, seeing someone with all of two posts to her name (whom i doubt has read most of this thread given her comments) dismiss per's work in such a flippant manner is similar to watching a child in kindergarten attempting to pick on a pre-schooler. the arrogance is simply unearned and uncalled for.

Aug 21, 05 12:20 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Exactly architecture are much more than that, it is the detail and logistic it is not just the Icons even I guess everyone who belive that spaces are what form our life somehow overestimate these, architecture are more than design much more , so new methods only take up a small corner.
There shuld be so much old stuff to complain about , but we know all of that and ontop it is the new that shuld spark our wish for something better , --- strange then that it is the new and not the old that get all the critic.

Aug 21, 05 9:54 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

It must be this Vera complain about ;

Aug 21, 05 10:25 am  · 
 · 
momentum

Per,

check architectural record page 69 for this month (september). You should enjoy the project.

Sep 14, 05 3:01 pm  · 
 · 
Dazed and Confused

And Per discusses his new theory with the experts . . .

Sep 16, 05 12:39 am  · 
 · 
BOTS

... his communication frustration grows.


Sep 16, 05 3:39 am  · 
 · 
newuser

I should post some of my first year undergrad work on this forum. It looks distictly simliar to some of the work in debate here.
I'm going to read this post when i have time...

Sep 16, 05 4:07 am  · 
 · 
momentum

you better have a lot of time (and caffiene).

Sep 16, 05 8:11 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Sadly I am now starting a new project , just a small one about cheap houses ,a project that been underway for some months , I hope you exchouse that if I need to comment , I will do so with just graphics and sadly it will be old ones , guess this is the newest one you will see for some weeks ;



This is still about a great new method, a way to go strait from 3D drawing to acturly forming each building block. It is still a challance compared the way today's architect applications work. Shape amd form, and then press the button and the assembly basic structure are there, ------- please realise how different this are compared fighting the materials to shape a wonder.

Sep 16, 05 8:39 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Sorry wrong picture --- the piano have been drinking ;

Sep 16, 05 8:45 am  · 
 · 
SuperHeavy

For six entire minutes i was amazed at per's seemingly instantaneous growth as a designer and, i'd imagined, as a person.

though the experience was sadly fleeting.

Sep 16, 05 10:58 am  · 
 · 
Per Corell

If the whole thing is just about surface expression it wouldn't be any problem , there are a world of angled geometrics and sharp corner steel profile applications --- but is this realy what you want, buildings that is only surface and lookalike hightech with a core of old fasion steel profile boxwork just like the old WTC7 ? . Anyone can emagine that but the detail quality that most of these cold icons fail ,what about that ?
----- Sorry if you think this is a critic about Liebskind, but I find it amazing that most of what you see is pure surface never the inside, only the outside surface never the interiour quality or the structure holding the glass in the air , sorry but I allway's ask myself where the innovative thing gone, how this can ever produce the capasity housing the safe inviroments and the jobs, and the new architecture.
As it is not a new architecture nor new methods, or experimenting .

Sep 16, 05 11:11 am  · 
 · 
garpike

This is different? I am sooooo bored.

Sep 16, 05 6:21 pm  · 
 · 
Alana

Sometimes Per is funny... but then I just feel sad for him, and bored...

Sep 16, 05 11:07 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell

Hi
Im'e bored to

http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T01/T01459_9.jpg

Every time I am bored I look into some of the fantastic hardware, you collect being a designer. Ofcaurse you own a double A0 penplotter , the top penplotter technology and --- a great old german Epidiaskop ,a genuine case holding two Leitz lenses 400 and 800 millimeter .

Sep 17, 05 12:34 pm  · 
 · 
Per Corell


This is maby one remaining the largest in "size" of the Epidiaskop's

Now with that I can make a presentation in world class , do it on a grafiti fence right opposite my windows on a public grafiti canvas ;))

Sep 17, 05 12:39 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: