what you're saying does make sense, aml. and i think there is evidence that it's happening in little independent ways all over, maybe just not connecting into anything larger yet?
some designers are adept at both conceptualizing/communicating the goals of their work and also becoming integral to the process of getting it made. scale seems to be an issue. it's common for designers of furniture and products and small buildings to be engaged in the making. it's less common for architects to be integrated into the whole construction process in any but an oversight way. the use of bim and the short-circuiting of the shop drawing and fabrication processes in which designers can be talking to fabrication people directly and - in some cases - doing fabrication themselves (like jump and the pavers at the house he did), is opening windows to more of this engagement.
important in this is the conversation: sharples is not only engaged in the process with the masons, concrete guys, etc, but also talking about shop's process to other practitioners - the technical aspects, the legal aspects, the economic aspects - so that others across the profession may learn from it. and he's publishing articles in the same language in journals like perspecta, and teaching the same things at ccny...
steven- i agree. who you are addressing is extremely important. looked at from the other side, many of these theorists are writing these essays addressing each other. they don't speak that way 'in real life'- they don't even speak that way in their classes. they use very simple, direct phrasing to explain sometimes very complex ideas.
but when they sit down and write for publication, they stop that and make use of extensively footnoted writing, because they are addressing other theorists as an audience. a space were they are 'forced' to confront each other would be nice [of course there is more merit in speaks, in the sense that no one is forcing his open dialogue]...and by space i mean here as a website, maybe making a feature of having conversations between theorists and practitioners? it would depend on the pairing and their willingness to participate, but i think this could be potentially fruitful...
aml, I think the Featured Discussion: Volume project was an attempt to do just that: link theorists and whoever wanted to talk. As I recall, however, none of the featured people chimed in on the discussion.
Similarly, I am veritably certain two or three of the speakers at the convention are reading this thread (hi, Michael and Kevin!) but they are staying quiet.
Unless of course noctilucent is one of them, in which case: noctilucent: I know you're trying, but don't you sometimes feel talking to me is like trying to teach physics to a cat? I do appreciate the effort, though!
lb- on a point you made earlier, i was told in past periods of economic 'slowness' theoretical production has gone up because architects with no jobs retreat to the academy [specifically the 70's]? but i agree that we probably won't be able to tell until much later.
on people reading this thread: yes, i slowly started to realize that and now i'm very self conscious. you are very right, of course, volume was just that, but i didn't think it was particularly succesful.
on my last point- i think it's also relevant to change who you are addressing, not only through what venue [journal, whatnot] and language, but to an attitude that informs the content of what you are writing. i mean, how does a particular theoretical position affect the production of architecture [i'm very into tafuri for this very reason in which he is often misread]. this from the theory point of view.
from the side of practice, sharples is a great role model. the fact that he's also publishing in perspecta is great. i guess the question is, how to reproduce that model... part of the answer has to do with academia... how students are taught to engage practice.
ok, now i'll be quiet for a while, not only due to self-consciousness but also because i need to get back to my reading.
No, I do, noctilucent, if not for me then for all the people reading here who aren't commenting but are hopefully learning something. We're all just throwing ideas out there; it would be cool if people who aren't regulars would join in on the fun too.
How do I draw a little typeface emoticon with whiskers?! ;-)
a stray thought- i don't claim to know exactly what reinhold martin means with his utopian realism, but this project just published on archinect is what i wish he meant. because on that terms, i think there are grounds for a positive discussion between an academic utopian project that addresses reality, and real practices such as shop's [and as an extension, between 'utopian realism' and 'projective architecture']
is it possible to enter utopian proposals avoiding or bypassing the decisive economic and political change?
i mean, we can go on and on about formal utopian communities, cities, even nice renderings, but at the end, fundamental starting point devoid of different political infrastructure, society, system, way of life is pretty much null and trite.
is the utopian realism at all possible on current capitalist economies? perhaps china had a chance to start something different, because of inherent utopian destiny in marxist future, at least in theory.
but they too have opted for free market banlieue train. kind of wall street gravy and short term, one flat screen luxury per household and thereafter a car and a small apartment, sort of like tax breaks for people who doesn't make any money. spread model. office commute. rent the farmland to large agricultural corporations and get an office job or work in a factory. swelling urban centers with infrastructure overload eventually leading to unmanageable conditions.
there has been enough tiptoeing under the protective cover of positivism. for the built environment, there has been nothing but positivist walking cities, walled and air conditioned islands on solar power, floating escapelands and innovative surface detailing for the people who first need "fair" distribution of resources. plenty dreaming from arm chairs. some even "theory grade." positive sells. good deals smile... the problem is they are mostly closed circuit speculations. fundamental dead ends put on another spin. buying more time for another enterprise.
utopia has to have fancy plumbing fixtures or without exception everybody get to eat? let's say it can't have both for the argument's sake.
I cannot believe I just found this thread - this is great stuff...
re SW: prince-ramus commented about louisville's museum plaza in one interview that he was focusing on thinking about actual construction and that it was somehow not something that architects usually bothered with. my reaction was Q: 'WHAT architects don't?' and then i realized, A: signature architects who have been insulated from the rest of the profession.
having worked for several non-signature architects, I can attest to Prince-Ramus' comment. I can't count how many times I've been frustrated with a principal for trying to cram in structure and building systems after they've already designed the facade and floor plans. Almost everyone I've worked for has some vague idea of construction based on previous experience (usually just cost estimates), but have never used this knowledge to inform design, or taken a critical look at systems and materials. talk of construction usually never comes into the picture until DD. Maybe it's just who I've worked for, or an east-coast thing - but it's rare to find an office that actually thinks critically about the construction process early on. most people are inclined just to pick stuff from sweets and call it a day. less risky.
IMO - this whole thing is reminiscent of how practice was structured at the beginning of the 20th century - there was much more of a connection with construction processes than there is now.
risk management... There was an article in the Harvard Business Review recently about how Pixar structures their organization - might be a useful model in terms of encouraging innovation, but architecture is a different beast...
front-line ideas + regional tradition = potential for a design culture of thinking/making?
what you're saying does make sense, aml. and i think there is evidence that it's happening in little independent ways all over, maybe just not connecting into anything larger yet?
some designers are adept at both conceptualizing/communicating the goals of their work and also becoming integral to the process of getting it made. scale seems to be an issue. it's common for designers of furniture and products and small buildings to be engaged in the making. it's less common for architects to be integrated into the whole construction process in any but an oversight way. the use of bim and the short-circuiting of the shop drawing and fabrication processes in which designers can be talking to fabrication people directly and - in some cases - doing fabrication themselves (like jump and the pavers at the house he did), is opening windows to more of this engagement.
important in this is the conversation: sharples is not only engaged in the process with the masons, concrete guys, etc, but also talking about shop's process to other practitioners - the technical aspects, the legal aspects, the economic aspects - so that others across the profession may learn from it. and he's publishing articles in the same language in journals like perspecta, and teaching the same things at ccny...
steven- i agree. who you are addressing is extremely important. looked at from the other side, many of these theorists are writing these essays addressing each other. they don't speak that way 'in real life'- they don't even speak that way in their classes. they use very simple, direct phrasing to explain sometimes very complex ideas.
but when they sit down and write for publication, they stop that and make use of extensively footnoted writing, because they are addressing other theorists as an audience. a space were they are 'forced' to confront each other would be nice [of course there is more merit in speaks, in the sense that no one is forcing his open dialogue]...and by space i mean here as a website, maybe making a feature of having conversations between theorists and practitioners? it would depend on the pairing and their willingness to participate, but i think this could be potentially fruitful...
aml, I think the Featured Discussion: Volume project was an attempt to do just that: link theorists and whoever wanted to talk. As I recall, however, none of the featured people chimed in on the discussion.
Similarly, I am veritably certain two or three of the speakers at the convention are reading this thread (hi, Michael and Kevin!) but they are staying quiet.
Unless of course noctilucent is one of them, in which case: noctilucent: I know you're trying, but don't you sometimes feel talking to me is like trying to teach physics to a cat? I do appreciate the effort, though!
lb- on a point you made earlier, i was told in past periods of economic 'slowness' theoretical production has gone up because architects with no jobs retreat to the academy [specifically the 70's]? but i agree that we probably won't be able to tell until much later.
on people reading this thread: yes, i slowly started to realize that and now i'm very self conscious. you are very right, of course, volume was just that, but i didn't think it was particularly succesful.
on my last point- i think it's also relevant to change who you are addressing, not only through what venue [journal, whatnot] and language, but to an attitude that informs the content of what you are writing. i mean, how does a particular theoretical position affect the production of architecture [i'm very into tafuri for this very reason in which he is often misread]. this from the theory point of view.
from the side of practice, sharples is a great role model. the fact that he's also publishing in perspecta is great. i guess the question is, how to reproduce that model... part of the answer has to do with academia... how students are taught to engage practice.
ok, now i'll be quiet for a while, not only due to self-consciousness but also because i need to get back to my reading.
no you don't liberty bell, you're just polite :o)
yet being catty :o))
No, I do, noctilucent, if not for me then for all the people reading here who aren't commenting but are hopefully learning something. We're all just throwing ideas out there; it would be cool if people who aren't regulars would join in on the fun too.
How do I draw a little typeface emoticon with whiskers?! ;-)
;-})
mmm..or maybe thats more like a sleazy moustached guy emoticon.
a stray thought- i don't claim to know exactly what reinhold martin means with his utopian realism, but this project just published on archinect is what i wish he meant. because on that terms, i think there are grounds for a positive discussion between an academic utopian project that addresses reality, and real practices such as shop's [and as an extension, between 'utopian realism' and 'projective architecture']
is it possible to enter utopian proposals avoiding or bypassing the decisive economic and political change?
i mean, we can go on and on about formal utopian communities, cities, even nice renderings, but at the end, fundamental starting point devoid of different political infrastructure, society, system, way of life is pretty much null and trite.
is the utopian realism at all possible on current capitalist economies? perhaps china had a chance to start something different, because of inherent utopian destiny in marxist future, at least in theory.
but they too have opted for free market banlieue train. kind of wall street gravy and short term, one flat screen luxury per household and thereafter a car and a small apartment, sort of like tax breaks for people who doesn't make any money. spread model. office commute. rent the farmland to large agricultural corporations and get an office job or work in a factory. swelling urban centers with infrastructure overload eventually leading to unmanageable conditions.
there has been enough tiptoeing under the protective cover of positivism. for the built environment, there has been nothing but positivist walking cities, walled and air conditioned islands on solar power, floating escapelands and innovative surface detailing for the people who first need "fair" distribution of resources. plenty dreaming from arm chairs. some even "theory grade." positive sells. good deals smile... the problem is they are mostly closed circuit speculations. fundamental dead ends put on another spin. buying more time for another enterprise.
utopia has to have fancy plumbing fixtures or without exception everybody get to eat? let's say it can't have both for the argument's sake.
solyent green is People!
I cannot believe I just found this thread - this is great stuff...
re SW: prince-ramus commented about louisville's museum plaza in one interview that he was focusing on thinking about actual construction and that it was somehow not something that architects usually bothered with. my reaction was Q: 'WHAT architects don't?' and then i realized, A: signature architects who have been insulated from the rest of the profession.
having worked for several non-signature architects, I can attest to Prince-Ramus' comment. I can't count how many times I've been frustrated with a principal for trying to cram in structure and building systems after they've already designed the facade and floor plans. Almost everyone I've worked for has some vague idea of construction based on previous experience (usually just cost estimates), but have never used this knowledge to inform design, or taken a critical look at systems and materials. talk of construction usually never comes into the picture until DD. Maybe it's just who I've worked for, or an east-coast thing - but it's rare to find an office that actually thinks critically about the construction process early on. most people are inclined just to pick stuff from sweets and call it a day. less risky.
IMO - this whole thing is reminiscent of how practice was structured at the beginning of the 20th century - there was much more of a connection with construction processes than there is now.
risk management... There was an article in the Harvard Business Review recently about how Pixar structures their organization - might be a useful model in terms of encouraging innovation, but architecture is a different beast...
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.