The 1A class at SCI-Arc recently completed an installation for the main entrance using laminar flow. Professors: Andy ku, Jenny Wu, Marcos Sanchez. Opening today at 3:30pm (December 10), open to the public. The installation is quite stunning actually, as seen in the Image Gallery.
23 Comments
Absolutely stunning.
Really nice looking, would love to see more.
That's nice - I like how it deals with the air vents. It reminds me of office dA's ceiling at Upper Crust in Boston. What are the horizontal bits made of? Are they continuous?
ok, i'm going to make myself hugely unpopular and simply say: yeah, it looks nice. maybe. but i think it's dull - how many more "flowy" wall structures do i have to see coming out of arch schools...what is it you're trying to achive specifically and how does this scale? what about materials?
sorry, fed up with this stuff...this work on it's own does not intrigue me.
@ SavedbyTech,.
I assume it is all about computer generated skins/facade etc.....??
But your right how many such wall installations have we seen since the 90s.....
if i may, i would like offer a little insight into this installation, as i know every inch of it all too intimately. it is made from 57 plywood profiles hand cut into an internal truss system consisting of 132 diferent pieces, all painstakingly dovetailed together, with a total of 6000 notches, which allow for the 3950 linear feet of hand cut 1/4"x1/4" basswood strips to be attached to the profiles, creating a very strong structural system with a high level of material efficiency. [_] as for the "flowy" comment, it is interesting how you choose your words-flowy and unpopular- especially in the context of a sci-arc installation. "flowy" is controversial, as you have hinted, (1st off, not a word); however, the topic is never "unpopular." the fact is that, yes there may be alot of "flowy" designs out there, some interesting, and many quite nauseating. however, the camp that cares not for "flowy" have made it quite popular to write off such forms for the sake of self gratification, and would apparently rather see more boxes, because God knows we havent seen enough of those yet. anyway, i apologize for making you (un)popular, but i have to say, this project is from first year first semester studio at sci-arc. this is my first big project i have designed, and my first design that was actually built. if you see it in person, touch it, look through it from every angle, you will see the care that went into it. my class have spent the past two weeks designing, building, and installing this thing and its shows in the attention to detail and craft.
as the designer, i cannot say i have ownership over this piece, i was simply an author. it was my job to take the winning proposal (my classmate travis vliet) from a class competition, and give it a more specific context within the site, drawing upon a broader influence of ideas and resolutions, and giving ownership to the class. i tried to add complexity that was readable in degrees and layers. this involved a rapid iterative process, treating travis' design as a starting point. the different readings of the piece are viewer dependent, suggesting at once both transparency and opacity depending on the viewers location, resulting in a moiré line affect, which was completely unexpected. [_] from one angle, it is a surface, flowing through unseen turbulence, while from another, it is a structural grid of trusses, held steady by the laminar flow over each edge, each truss being itself manipulated by the flow, or perhaps countering with its own force to change the direction of flow, and so is a system that both adapts and redirects. this is the essence of the project. a sectional experience. a surface experience.
How long will it be up for?
Thank you for all you positive comments and critique.
As stated before the original design was redesign but by both John Isbell and myself. The overall design is a product of the class and jury's comments. This could not have been possible if it wasn't for the whole class effort and commitment, for that i would like to say thank you to the class and to our instructors. Its an honor to have something I designed built.
it will be somewhat permanent.
I'll be in LA over the holidays. Do you know if the school will be open at all? I'd LOVE to take images of this.
Congrats to Travis and invenio.
(abbreviated to comply with 2500 char. constraint!)
well, thank you for the replies. i think it's great that my deliberately simpleminded post could provoke a response...perhaps.
btw, i would be curious to hear what kind of crit you received on this work?
i am impressed that this is a first year, first term project (well, in a sense that is also a bit sad. to me it is already far too seriously "architectural" for what should be a year of utter confusion and despair and perhaps silliness and failures). not knowing the course structure at sci-arc, and hence not being able to relate "1A" to anything, my immediate reaction was that this looked like an MA course project (by which i mean an MA after 5 year undergrad) or at least late undergrad work.
as for words/wordings. "unpopular" simply because archinect appears to have a large sci-arc contingency and the school keeps popping up in the posts/articles/news whatnot quite a bit. that's all.
"flowy"...well, replace with parametric or algebraic or mathematically modelled/devised piece of work.
i come from a school/environment where this approach seems to have taken the fort over the last few years: it is perceived as offering us future architects an advanced tool set in particular with regards to speed (my personal view) of the design process. however, i think that's a fallacy.
sorry, this already sounds superficial and awful, but i think these tools have become popular as a way out for people who have very little design confidence. the perceived complexity takes over as primary validity of the project and i am supposed to be in awe, because i cannot understand the process/pipeline (maths/scripting whatever).
let's put it another way: what kind of statement does this piece make? what is it saying about architecture? what kind of space is it or what does it do to the space you have constructed it in?
that leads to my question about scale. is this 1:1?
1:100? what happens if this is 1:1000? what happens to the material at that point? what happens to the structure? what is it then? a wall, a facade, a building...??
from what you state above, looks like it is well constructed as a model, so you should be able to perhaps make some predictions here. and actually, i don't mean in a technical sense, but perhaps for you explain/think about why/if it still works at other scales and how.
lastly, i don't think there are "two camps" fighting each other over these issues...
thanks.
sorry, just read/reread some other posts. perhaps you have already started to address the "statement" question.
but i would like to hear more :-)
SavedByTech,
You've got a series of good points up there, and I tend to agree about 'perceived complexity' as a serious danger (especially now that i'm familiar with all the techniques and challenges involved in the design and fabrication of something like this)
Certainly I look at this and think "oooohh...someone built one of the digital media experiments from Columbia/Sci-Arc/AA, etc."
The difference here is that unlike most (built) projects coming from the current experimental academic circles, this one has a lot of depth, from the perfect choice of material in contrast with the concrete support, to the suggestion of a response to the context (it engages with the ceiling, walls and floors quite nicely, and as someone mentioned before, one of the stronger moments is the interface between this piece and the HVAC/structure protruding into the foreground)
I'm most impressed by the supporting trusses, which suggest the possibility of useful space within the wall itself. I would imagine that something really wonderful could happen if you decided to connect the voids in the trusses themselves with some type of skin, and deployed the entire project as a scale model of habitable space (perhaps piggy-backed to a cliffside as an eco-resort, or something equally fashionable)
I think the criticism coming from SavedByTech and others is less than specific to this project, and can easily be applied to just about every exhibition, academic or otherwise, that we've seen recently. On that note, I hoped that someone could counter these arguments with an example of something, somewhere at a similar scale and budget that embodies success where this has failed...
I see only one thing I can not understand, -- why route halve a 3dh when a cross section more , provide just fine -- I find it easy to emagine one more array of sections, then this wall is acturly exiting, as the various internal volumes within the framework look fancy, but why then not build houses instead of walls , do 3dh where that profit a framework , -- why just why build halve a 3dh ?
I would like to clear up some misconceptions about this exercise in Laminar Flow. The original designs were all done by hand with no computer. The fact that we took it into Rhino to model was not to enhance the design with the use of technology such as mathematical equation or scripts. The sole purpose of computer modeling was only to help the production process and make the construction, as well as the use of material, more efficient.
It was at this time when John and I redeveloped the design using Rhino so when we finished we could print out templates. Rhino served as a tool for construction documents and checking the design against the space not for design. I am well aware of Rhino's capabilities to create skins and it use of scripts to design algebraically (see Stan Allen's Essay, "Field Condition", which is also apart of Sci-arc's 1A Studio Curriculum) and with complex algorithms. I can assure you that is not the case in this situation.
To really understand this project you have to understand that the design was based off rule sets. It was these rules that negotiated systems of lighting, structural, HVAC, and the circulation.The 4 systems are existing in the site and I had to develop my rules for the design so when it encountered each system it would react in a different way. This means the design was resultant of the rule sets which derive from one system of design coming encounter with another system of design. The end product is a design that is responsive to existing condition.
Thank you for comment about the project looking like it should be a upper undergrad or Graduate study. I feel this is a true testament to the level of comprehension and work that is expected of the student at Sci-arc.
I personally feel this argument has allowed the project to leave the walls of the school and really make its way into the architectural community. I feel Architecture needs to foster these types of experimentation and exposures, which creates such arguments. I strongly believe it is these arguments with in architecture that allows architecture to progress.I fear the day when the argument no longer live, because that is when architecture will regress.
If you have any more question please feel free to ask.
I love a good argument. Once again thank you for your interest.
i am glad that some discussion is being generated here. keep it coming. i am sorry for being too playful earlier, i meant no harm. it seems there may be some confusion as to the actual scale? it is full scale, the ceiling height being about 10.5' high and the wall nearly 40' long.
i have seen this project up close, and i have to say, it is well made, well considered, and quite beautiful.
But, the 'seudo scientific' justificaiton for this and other similar projects is getting sort of annoying. Unless you have a degree in computational fluid dynamics, you probbly do not know anything about laminar flow, just as an architecture student without a degree in biology, really knows little usefull information about 'biomimicry'. From what i understand about lamanar flow, it is the tendency of parallel streams to not mix, when in a similar fluid. (see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08_KlTKP50 ) I do not think it simply describes something that is smooth...but then again, im not a scientist.
inserting scientific terms into projects is an effective smoke screen to fool critics who are trying very hard to stay trendy in their middle age, i know because i have tried it and it works.
that being said, i like this project alot, and really makes that space quite beatutiful. It would have been great though if something practical, say signage, or a pinup wall for exhibits could have been incorporated into it. It is certainally the best of the first year projects still in that building.
that's interesting, xcarlx. It's worth distinguishing between concepts as driving forces and concepts as form-finding exercises. If this project were to use laminar flow or certain rule sets rigorously to determine the form, probably with some sort of scripting exercise, it would be a different thing. As it stands, the project seems to use concepts of flow and deformation/negotiation as form generators and creative tools. The concept is very present in this project, and the various dips and weaves can be defended programmatically, for sure. There is obviously also a good bit of artistic license in the form and details (as well as in any argument about why a "flowy" wall is an improvement in the first place), but recognizing those elements does not mean the concept and rigor was compromised, or that architecture students are meaninglessly tossing about fancy words they don't understand. If that were the case, no project I've seen could stand up to the scrutiny of its own concept, and "conceptually successful" and "hideous" would become synonymous. There has to be some flexibility in our expectations of a project's conceptual genesis, otherwise the whole Project (and I don't mean just this wall) gets thrown out the window.
I'm enjoying - and elarning a lot from - the discussion going on here, thanks everyone for being so engaged.
As for the installation: it LOOKS absolutely gorgeous.
well then that brings up the question as to weather the conceptual basis of this project was brought into the project by the students, or the instructors. If the 'idea' of laminar flow was a jumping off point for the students to run with, then fine.
my only problem is where it is used to justify design decisions, above and beyond astetic choice. it can make the project sound pretentious, when it doesn't need to, sometimes it might just stand on its own merits, with out an un-needed concept. i think this is one such example of that. i like it as simply a 'thing' in a 'space'.
trust me, im guilty of this my self.
You are complete right xcarlx laminar flow was a jumping off piont introduced by our insturctors. By doing so we were asked not cross the paths of the horizontal members. This was an idea meant to guide us and allow us to explore the idea of laminar flow. If you notice the final design deviates from the idea of laminar flow because of the section that allow for you to look inside stop and then continue.
THIS PROJECT REALLY IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE ONE SYSTEM OF DESIGN ENCOUNTER ANOTHER SYSTEM. THIS ALSO TAUGHT US ABOUT DESIGNING WITH IN RESTICTIONS AND WORKING WITH SPACE NOT SO MUCH CREATING SPACE, AS MUCH OF ARCHITECTURE DOES.
The final design followed the rule sets and the idea of laminar flow but for astetic purposes were broken at times, which was a decision agreed upon by the designers and instructors. Both John and I want to do explore by breaking up the flow in certian areas so we felt it was only right to consult instructors.
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.