as opposed to looking at universities or faculties as homogeneous lumps of academia with uniform tendencies, i think it would make more sense to suss out the individuals you're interested in vis a vis their shared interests. the basic ideas underl"emergent technology" can be otherwise termed "material intelligence" or "emergent morphology" or "computational processes in form evolution" or...etc. for instance, neri oxman, an AA Emtech graduate is doing her Phd at MiT as part of the Design Computation group. Tom Wiscombe, whose firm is actually called "EMERGENT" teaches at SCI ARC and UCLA. Columbia University probably runs studios with the same sort of sensibility, computational methodologies slash abstract materialist ordering slash bio-analogies slash spatio-structural continuities.

eventually you could map them out cross-universities as a web of reasonably like-minded compatriots.

having said that, the AA does bestow its program with idiosynchratic specificity and of course,being AA, with the factor of uber-cool.

As said above, Neri Oxman does seem to be doing interesting stuff at MIT. Also, again AA, Neil Spiller does a lot of interesting stuff there as well.

i just wonder why the EmTech website is not properly updated. its like they were merely content with that canopy structure they built somewhere in latin america and those billowing structures they erected on AA premises a while back and thats all. it would be nice to see whats been happening lately.

Yeah that's right, and oh well that latin american country somewhere is actually my contry! But that's another thing... So you are saying that basically I should aim for a research over individuals that form the institutions rather than the institutions itselves that hold them? Or did I got it wrong?

ok i don't care where you're from and i don't see why i have to know where that is!

Me neither, I'm just focusing on the other part, the one that really matters.

3BRBS: Yeah that's right, and oh well that latin american country somewhere is actually my contry!

the exclamation mark is telling.

noctilucent, see what I was talking about respecting other peoples cultures? Now your comments from other threads seem to make sense.

i didnt say i have no respect for other cultures. i said i didn't care where he came from or what his culture was. very different. on this account, you are also being stupid.

I don't like being moved from my original purpose on the issue I was asking, but well... it seems you like doing that. The ! mark stands for joy-pride, you say it's telling something, but not what is telling.

Saying all the rest about the not carying felt rude, but it's fine. I have a higher goal which is getting opinions on the first issue.

I appreciate your first comment, but all the rest that has developed since the ! mark was misleading and useless.

Well despiste everything that has been written, there are no more opinions on the original thread subject besides the ones by noctilucent and ocotillo?

Christ, noctilucent - you seem like a total twerp.

I go to the AA. Do you want to speak to a current Emtech student? Let me know/send me your email.

I already did, thanks a lot

Any input on Cornell's MArch 2 (ADR) program, UPenn (MArch), Yale (MArch) and/or CalB (March)?

Georgia institute of technology, might a similar masters to AA's Emtech.

I dont think Neri Oxman is an Emtech grad, but she did teach in it at some point.

I haven't checked 'Georgia Institute of Technology', and had no input about Cornell's MArch 2 (ADR) program, UPenn (MArch), Yale (MArch) and/or CalB (March).

I discovered though, that MSAAD of Columbia, and SciARC in California, have some exploration in Emergent Technologies in their courses through common teachers. Since this thread stoped to be active for a while I focused on those two schools based on the common points found.

About my original question, I would love to hear more. Specillay input about the programs mentioned.

I've heard terrible things about SCI-Arc's programs that are not the MArch or Barch. Even then, which has been stated 100x over on threads here, SCI-Arc makes super drafters, not practicing architects.

This is the program I was talking about:
http://www.sciarc.edu/portal/programs/graduate/march_2/index.html

Actually, I followed 'tammuz' first advice, and traced down 'Hernan Diaz Alonso' as professor at Columbia University GSAPP and in SCI-Arc MArch, being those the only 2 Institutes/Colleges that I found, talk in their websites about Emergent Technologies.

A friend and myself visited SCI-Arc for reviews and were impressed by 2 of 100+ works presented.There are some critical flaws in the MArch work. It's all about making pretty images, not compelling architecture. There were one or two that had intellectual concepts, but most were about imagery. That was personal opinion, however this was also shared with some practicing architects that I've spoke to. I made it a point to speak to practicing architects in Toronto, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston and Los Angeles. Those in LA were the most forgiving.

GSAPP is SCI-Arc's big brother and what SCI-Arc seems to aspire to be. I believe that there is far more pragmatism and intellectual discussion in design at GSAPP. The designs may seem similar but the ideas are not. Hernan does|did teach at both, but he is not an architect that does or seem to aspire to build. Keep that in mind when jumping on the bandwagon of certain instructors at any institution. I'm not saying that he is not good, but understand that his approach does not equate to anything in n the built environment.

I spoke to a guy that was in the Mediascapes program at SCIArc and completely lambasted it and the director. About 5 other people that were MArch students said that if you are not doing MArch don't do anything else at SCIArc. I say that because SCIArc now has an Emerging Systems and Technologies program.

Hope that helps.

wait so t a m m u z is the same person as noctilucent ?

I don't know.

I fell lost too



Didn't "emergent technologies" die about 10 years ago?

What do you mean?

Michigan has a M.Sc in emergent technologies if I am not mistaken

I've checked the website, I found nothing mentioning the concept 'emergent technologies'. With exception of the Dean in the Spring 2010 portfolio [http://taubmancollege.umich.edu/pdfs/portico/portico_spring2010.pdf].

http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/architecture/programs/msc/specializations/design_research/

http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/architecture/programs/msc/specializations/design_studies/

Maybe the concept has been rephrased?

I was mistaken, U of M does not offer "emerging technologies" but instead "digital technologies" and "building technology"

their poster is outside my studio and i glance at it often.

http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/architecture/programs/msc/specializations/

Well, I understand that emergent techonolgies is not directly related to building technologies and partially related to digital technologies. I think it's a sistematization (through algorythms) of organic design procedures, or something like that.

might want to check out omar khan at SUNY Buffalo as well, and Mike Fox at Cal Poly Pomona --- don't know if the offer Msc though --- and Ellen Do at GaTech --- also Sterk in Chicago

3B - I meant that it is a term that was lingering around 10+ years ago, back in the blob era. It resulted in nothing beyond pretty (and even that is subjective) images and some outrageously expensive cnc'd blobbery.

My 2 cents. Maybe it is something new that I know nothing of, but your comments sound exactly like the bs spewed around back then.

It is "cool", "fun" and you'll make some pretty sculptures, but what more? Nothing I've seen yet.

3brbs... Maybe it's a good idea to get better acquainted with the thema / context before searching for a grad school.

There were a few publications from AD co-edited by Mike Weinstock (Em-tech director, I believe) with Hansel and Menges. Would probably be a good point of departure.

Right now it seems that you're looking for a program without really understanding (at least the basic) subject.

trace, i think there is a range of 'emergent technologies' 'research' going on

there is the algorithmic, pretty stuff, as you've described, and all of the interactive installation art

but then, at the other end of the spectrum, ellen do teaches (or at least recently taught) a seminar at GaTech where architects were paired with systems engineering graduate students, computer science students and perhaps human factors specialists (can't remember the other discipline) and they each explored some sort of architectural interactive healthcare technology, including making full-scale working prototypes, with interfaces, sensing and controls, having industry participation and a formal evening of demonstration

serious work goes on in this area at carnegie melon, as well, look up the work of mark gross' students -- i think a good bit of it has to do with children's educational products

mike fox at cal poly pomona has collaborated with NASA and a other organizations/companies on the design of serious technology

i think, too, at berkeley, they work seriously on building technology and systems modeling --- been a while since i looked at their site, but seem to recall stuff related to energy modeling, etc

sterk, who i think went to simon fraser, and i think is now in chicago, does more artsy, theoretical stuff, but he builds these beautiful working models of tensegrity structures that are animated and have a high likelihood of transition to application

NC state does a lot of work on building performance, i seem to recall some cool stuff related to next gen materials going on at UT Austin

andy payne, who i think started this fall at harvard, has worked on using shape memory alloy to control openings in a facade assembly to regulate air flow through a skin

vincent blouin at clemson is working on computational fluid dynamics modeling of heat flow through houses related to sustainable design, as well as phase change materials for use as insulation --- he brings in grant money and works on everything from the architectural cfd stuff to helping to design things and materials and processes to consulting with companies; and their architecture+health program does research related to hospital design, working with a variety of engineers and psychologists; then there is keith green's collaborations with electrical and computer engineering, human factors experts, software developers, mechanical engineers, etc, on the design of intelligent/responsive environments, right now with applications in education (STEM learning), healthcare, work environments and interactive monuments

i'm sure there are many more examples --- emergent technologies work can be quite grounded, highly collaborative with people outside of architecture (and not just where they are our consultants) and geared toward near-term implementation of technologies, or collaborating with research scientists and engineers inventing tomorrow's robust, foundational technology ---- it is not all just theory and installation art

I wouldnt categorize emergent architecture as "part of a blob era" it is much more than cnc'd blobs as noted above

Columbia is nobodies brig brother, its a single child

Sci-Arc is in fact Columbia's rebellious cousin. i dont think Sci-arc wants to be like Columbia at all

There isn't anything "rebellious" about SCIArc. Someone on a previous post lickened it to a bad film school trying to be an architecture school. SCIArc is like M. Night Shyamalan. A myriad of bad work yet we keep expecting better for some odd reason, too much credit for a myriad of nothingness, and yes it desperately wants to be like Columbia. There's a reason why Mayne has little-to-nothing to do with SCIArc and part of UCLA.

thats a limited point of view that i really dont agree with. theres plenty rebellious about sci-arc and the work between Columbia and them is different.

anyone calling it a film school has been doing one too many wall sections.

What do you find rebellious about SCIArc? I agree that the work between Columbia and SCIArc is different. Columbia's work is intellectutally driven with a conscience effort of the aesthetic. SCIArc is purely image driven. They don't hide that fact either.

To say that someone the called it a film school as some sort of pragmatic, uncreative designer is a bold statement. (I have to somewhat defend them since I used their statement in my post.) So, what does your creative and imaginative mind deem as being so rebellious about the pedagogy and work being produced at SCIArc?

@ctrlZ,
Would you not recommend attending Sci-arc, if I may kindly ask you for advice? Because I have to choose between M.Arch I at Sci-arc and AA Dip and its sooo hard to decide

@ Sipushka89,

AA easily. I'm sure that you were sarcastically asking, but just in case... AA.

jmanganelli: Thanks for throwing out there some names to dig more. I also think that criticisms towards colleges as SCI-Arc, are extremely usefull for an outsider. This dispute is getting very interesting indeed.

i'm surprised, with wes jones at sci-arc, that the work is not more grounded. his work seems to epitomize grounding aggressive design in practical knowledge of fabrication.....also, he seemed quite into theory himself, at least from publications when he was younger

it seems, too, that it is worth noting what i perceive as a bifurcation in what people talk about when they talk about 'emergent technologies' --- there are programs that engage emerging technologies through the perspectives of the theorist or the artist/architect, on the one hand, and those that engage such technologies from the perspectives of an engineer or scientist, on the other. these are very different types of programs. for instance, my impression of the building technologies folks at MIT or Berkeley or Penn State or NC State is that they ground their work in quantitative analysis and performance assessments of the technologies ---- whereas the work at columbia or sci-arc or some of the work at the media lab or cca or similar places is more about working with emerging technologies in concept mostly, using simplified versions of emerging technologies to explore trends and potential

the key distinction i am drawing is that much of the algorithmic-meets-arduino-meets-newMaterialX stuff is developed and executed in a way that lends itself to one-of installation art and/or theoretical explorations, perhaps, but rarely, if at all, to true engineering design and optimization of the system(s) --- that is, usually the data coming from these explorations is in formats or developed to a level of detail which is not very useful when scaling up to actual building systems, which are much more robust and complex at the sw and hw level --- still, such design school conceptual explorations serve a purpose in allowing for a level of understanding and theoretical investigation of current technology trends, but they should not be confused with actually contributing to emerging technologies, in most cases. But while such endeavors may not usually contribute to technology directly, they certainly play an important role in understanding its potential for designers.

on the other hand, labs with architects that work more on the engineering side than the theory side could more legitimately be said to be developing emergent technologies in that the software and hardware is approached in such a way as to make it robust and scalable, not just usable as one-of installation pieces that 'express' a technological potential without truly 'embodying' it. still, the focus of such programs does not usually center on connecting such technologies to theoretical discourse.

3BRBS, which type of 'emergent technology' program is of interest to you?

I'd say there are plenty of people who'd love to see SCIarc take back a more grounded approach. But the place has become excessively political, and it can be difficult to maneuver when you're one voice vs. 20; all clamoring for the same empty form-making.

For anyone looking at the EmTech program, it may be worthwhile to keep in mind that as of ~2009 (I believe, feel free to verify on your own time) Menges is longer teaching at the AA as he's moved onto Stuttgart University.

I guess what I find rebellious about sci-arc is that they have the courage to abandon what an architect typically does. i know a lot of ppl on here shit their pants when they hear that, but i like to get blown away by ideas from time to time

At first, i anxious when i saw all the arduino stuff, the scripting, i was like what the hell? this is like interactive design at best. but somehow theres something exciting about it, because it is uncharted territory, people dont know what the hell theyre doing, and the other day when i was in London, i saw similar things at the AA and the Bartlett, and in the UK they are really making stuff not just scripting it.

emergence is just a property,and when its applied to engineering it makes engineering interesting, but its the concept of emergence that deserves all the credit.

That is why for me at least Wolf Prix is so awesome, his student work in the 60s. he was about ideas, barely making any buildings.

@ fade to blacktoe,

Really, the rebelliousness that you find intriguing is the disengagement of architecture as architecture?

The AA Emergent Technologies program’s pedagogy is far, far, far different than any Arduino single course at SCIArc. - Please don’t use the new Emergent Tech studio at SCIArc as an example since it hasn’t started yet and Hernan has openly stated that he does not care about building. If you decide to use the Mediascapes program directed by Jean-Michel Crettaz, please don’t. That would work in my favor as it is the laughing stock program of the school itself. – When applied to the built environment and societies ideas and technologies are then filtered from the innovative, creative and beneficial from the fantastical concept suited for paper. There’s a difference between film and the real world. SCIArc’s “rebelliousness” hasn’t allowed it to create an association between the two to form architecture. Instead these “ideas” (fyi, are not derived from any intellectual concept but rather image driven) remain untested, unproven while the designs are more of a representation of the ignorant blob search rather than an innovative solution to a design problem.

Considering the omnipresent blob or parametric search at SCIArc, there’s nothing rebellious there.

(I actually don’t hate SCIARC even though it may seem so with my posts. I only find it interesting that they continue to promote themselves as innovative or provocative when it’s anything but.)

This is on the Archinect's homepage and I found it interesting.

http://www.new-territories.com/sci%20arc%20cancel.htm

In now way am I trying to get tied up in the SCI-Arc debate that seems to be carrying through a couple threads, but thought I should chime in on the new EST program at SCI-Arc because I recently traveled out to LA to meet with people about the program, its direction, etc.

While Hernan is the director/chair of the new EST program, its work won't be based solely on his interests. Students will be able to pick which professor(s) they want to work with at the school in the Xlabs (I believe thats what they're called) which are 2-semester advanced studios looking at a range of topics ranging from robotics, form-finding, and composite materials. While the program itself is yet to be tested, it seems as the Xlabs have been looking at these topics for a bit of time and by evaluating these studios you may get a better idea for the direction of the program.

jmanganelli: '3BRBS, which type of 'emergent technology' program is of interest to you?'

My original interest was to enter EmTech MArch (still very enthusiastic about it), but I tried to open my view span (opening the range of options) checking programmes in the States, that either might be similar to EmTech or... with other values (which would make it different in form/spirit etc.), like exploring procedures, intellectual approach, deepness in analysis, I didn't wanted to phrase it too much, so it would be as open as it ca be.

Being more accurate, I'm absolutely not interested in digital mambo–jambo creation of cool-looking images, that will take me to be sitting behind a computer rendering and rendering stuff that has no other goal than being just a complex nice image.

So in other words, I'm looking for substance! Core!

My only two U.S. 'website' approaches to something like (I thought) I was looking were, SCI-Arc at California and MSAAD at Columbia... but there are hundreds of amazing colleges in the States, and maybe I was missing them. Also, I feel that websites are extremely deceitful and give an image to limited.

If you're looking for substance then SCIArc is obviously taken out of consideration.

The letter from the potential lecturer is pretentious at best, but hopefully you'll see the consistent critique of the pedagogy at SCIArc. It's also wise to read the comments. One of the better ones is from "Cherith Cutestory" SCIArc alum.

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=105409_0_24_0_C

I think you linked that info before right? At least the letter. Reading the comments I found kinda funny that someone said that the 'frenglish' was confusing, becasue it made perfect sense to me (maybe because is not my first lenguage).

It's a heavy critique, bur it gives a lot to think (nice!)

So getting back to the subject, which college/programme do you think has substance in the States then?