Low tech fabrication, Silk Wall, Neil Leach, Philip E. Yuan

Neil Leach; Fabricating the Future

Leach’s text on Fabricating the Future precisely explains the trend and style of parametricism and digital fabrication. From defining the factors that affect the style, the use of new technologies, the shift in materials, and ultimately, the way of designing. The main topics in the text are digital tools, digital fabrication, materials, drawing logic, aesthetics, design approach, and design methodology. Each of these themes are explained and compared with previous techniques and traditional fabrication.

On digital tools and fabrication, he places digital fabrication as a new style of architecture, a style that regards a different approach to architecture rather than an aesthetic value. He explains that digital tools, such as new software, are enablers between design and construction. “They provide an avenue to explore architecture.. as a series of inter-related and logically conceived parts assembled into a coherent whole.” This change in approach goes hand in hand with a change of process that digital fabrication brings forth. These new technologies change the previous modeling object design to a modeling process design. This opens a new way of communication between the designer and the builder (fabricator), a communication that allows reciprocal information exchange between computational systems and physical objects which in turn enriches the design and smoothens the fabrication process.

On materials and machines, he makes an emphasis on composite materials and computational design. Composite materials are a hybrid which brings forth the best of tectonic materials into a new material which performs better. This shifts the traditional and predominant tendency to layer envelopes and materials to achieve the desired effect to a single, new material, which does the job more efficiently. This efficiency in material is what should drive sustainability as it does in other design areas as industrial and machines. The idea is to achieve energy efficiency by lowering the ratio mass/performance which allows lower embedded energy and  consumed energy in the life-cycle of the material. This is supported by machining processes, in terms of design and fabrication. Leach supports the promotion of truly computational design where the machine learns and helps designs rather than just aiding the drawing representation. “These changes provide novel possibilities for a material-oriented computational design approach in architecture.

In practical terms, it is very interesting what is being done in China in terms of Low-Tech digital fabrication. Since most of the world still doesn’t have the technological nor financial means to use technologies and materials coming from the western world. This low-tech solutions are based on utilizing new fabrication technologies and traditional materials and “effectively reprograming them  (both digital tools and traditional materials) to deal with our situation as a redefinition and deep consideration of architectural design and fabrication logic.

Finally upon the aesthetics of this new style, he considers that “placing digital fabrication as a tool or approach to architecture rather than a style or from decision maker. Negotiating and restraining the visual opulence of these compositions is an operation that entails elegance.” It is important to understand this, since algorithmic modeling and parametric design itself doesn’t bring aesthetic beauty by itself, but it requires the designers ability to bring forth the beauty out of the logic behind it. This process requires “a highly sophisticated formal language – including the driving force of aesthetic pleasure – propels elegance”.

In summary, fabricating the future is both an explanatory text of how digital tools and fabrication is being used as much as how it should be used and where it is leading to in the future. A complete text that thoroughly explains new technologies, new fabrication processes, and new design approaches and how these create a new style of architecture, parametricism.

For this new style to become a new driving force in word architecture is absolutely important to place it in a worldwide reality.  Hence, it is of uttermost importance to explore and research on how to apply this new technologies to low-tech and low-budget architecture. I personally believe that any achievements on this field will have the power to change the world and solve many of the problems being faced in third world countries and catastrophe affected regions.

Fractal Forest (‘Monalisa’) Pavillion: Made Expo2012, Milan

Patrick Schumaker – Parametricism A new Global Tyle of Architecture and Urban Design

 Schumaker explains his theory on Parametricism as a new style. Based on the notion that a style is recognized as the convergence of research and approach to architecture done by several architects over the las two decades. In saying this, he supports his theory with a set of dogmas that rule over Parametric Style as well as 5 agendas of research. Out of these, what stands out is his ruling out of rigid primitives, the parametric manipulation of geometries, interaction of several systems, complex figurations, project responsiveness, and relationaity in urbanism. He defends the aesthetic quality of projects done by new software and parametric methods as minimal path systems and the like.

 As much as I believe that parametricism is a new style, I think the reasons and explanation of this theory by Schumaker is vague and superficial. When compared to work done by other authors as Neil Leach or the  origins of parametric in works by D’Arcy Thompson and Deleuze. Schumaker is lacking structure in his theory, a base to support his hypothesis. Examples of this is  the fact that he doesn’t give examples in which parameters have been used, how parameters are extracted, what is the process of design, and the role of digital tools and digital fabrication in parametrics.

 To complete this theory I would like to mention other texts which support and give body to this structure. In terms of parameter extraction and manipulation to create form, Thompson’s work in “Growth of Form” explains it magnificently. The use of mathematical models and observation to see how a biological being change shape by the modification of parameters explained by the mathematical models. He extract  the parameters that control shape and them manipulates them to create new shapes. In addition to parameter extraction, the work by Stephen Johnson in “Emerge”, explores swarms and new ways of object interaction. As a decentralized model where individuals make up the whole, where the part knows only a simple set of behaviors yet put together make the whole work in unison.

 In terms of process, the work of Deleuze and Delanda in “Rhizome” and “Deleuze and the Genesis of Form” respectively,  clearly point out to a new process or approach. They turn the way of designing from top-down to down-top, making the detail complete the whole. The idea of a basic object or parameter, call it morpheme, replicates and joins itself to create something bigger or modifies parameters to fit to different situations.

As for aesthetics and the role of digital tools and fabrication, Niel Leach and Nicholas Negroponte have a better explanation to how they influence the style. In “Architecture Machines”, Negroponte describes the evolution of machines (also applicable to software) on how they can achieve learning architecture. This evolution let’s use this machines for more detailed designs as well as design inputs and analysis, which in turn gives a richer project and parametric manipulation. Neil Leach in “Fabricating the Future” on the other hand, explains the role of digital tools and fabrication as an aid in the approach to architecture, a new thinking process which involves trial and error as well as deep analysis of parameters. A more precise description of the role of this technologies. Also in this book, Leach counters Schumakers dogmas on primitives and parametric manipulation for figuration by defining the aesthetics of the style not as a result of parameter manipulation and algorithms, but as a negotiation and restriction of the visual opulence of these compositions as an operation that entails elegance.

 In general, Shumakers´ text is hiding the lack of information and substantial background examples behind a clever play of words by saying that a style is defined by the common interest of a certain field. His dogmas, as any dogma, is too harsh and doesn’t let the richness of parametrics develop its true potential and value. All in all, in is not a good example of parametricism as a style and can lead to confusion and disregarding of it as such.

 It would be interesting to explore and research the nature of the parameters being manipulated in parametricism as well as how the new technologies are being used and what design processes it is bringing forth.

The bubble house

Architecture, from modernity onwards, has ignored nature’s genius. Is it wrong, is it right? Many can debate this theme in terms of technological advancement that lets us overcome the issues brought by designing regardless of what surround us yet, in my opinion, nature has to be brought back.

As seen in class there are several ways to bring nature into architecture; positional, metaphorical, atmospherically, intangible, disturbed, and environmental. All of them valid yet, it depends on the depth and manner that this relationships are brought that matters. To shallow a relationship and becomes only decorative, too deep the relationship and the users comfort might be compromised.

The clearest examples to explain this are probably Fujimotos’ and Phillip Rahm’s approach. Fujimoto relates to nature in a metaphorical way. He takes from nature the quality of it spaces and the possibilities it brings. In “Primitive Future” he brings forth the idea of a gradient applied to different situations; functions, limits, and special relationships. Spaces with no clear function that can be explored by the user to use as he/she pleases as would be on a cave, the blurring of a limit or envelope of a building so the boundary gets erased and becomes a gradual change, and the way trees relate to one another as a metaphor to what the city and the house should be.

In terms of Phillip Rahm’s ideas, it is more of an environmental relationship regarding energy. He brings forth the idea of a “form follows climate” approach to architecture where the local climate conditions shape the building and it’s energy performance. In this case the relationship is more technical in a sense as well as a proposition to a new way of developing floor plans regarding the different sub-climates that happen in a space. This new idea of how to use a space strongly relates to Fujimoto’s idea of a functionless space, since sub-climates are changing all the time and can’t be used in the same way all year long.

This ideas are supported as well by Toyo Ito in “Demolishing Generation” where he speaks of how modernity forgot about nature and how a change is needed. It evident that there was a change made since it can be clearly seen in “The Habitats of Saint Jerome” by Alisson Smithson that the ration between nature and built environment was intertwined since the times of the renaissance.

This change of attitude is becoming a trending topic in architecture so it is possible to assume that change is being made by this generation. Still the debate between technological and vernacular approach to it is still in the air. The outcome of it I believe will be another gradient as Fujimoto’s, a palette of grays where both meet in between.

It would be interesting to research upon the solutions as in how “functionless spaces” have been designed and how people actually use them. A photographical study of how different people inhabit them and see if a pattern stands out or if it is a random distribution based on the subject’s personality.