Poto credits: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/15/robot-doctors-online-lawyers-automated-architects-future-professions-jobs-technology

Case Sudy_Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines_Nicholas Negroponte

Negroponte’s article ” Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines”, published back in 1969. when the technology has not yet been developed to such an extent, represented very revolutionary not proposal but a big vision of a futuristic architecture machine.

This text introduces the idea of “Evolutionary machine“-  self-improving machine which, beside designers step-by-step instructions, would be capable of creating its own method of solution and would liberate the designer allowing him to do what he really enjoys. Rising the aforementioned machine to a higher level, Nicholas explains the “Learning machine” mechanism which actually presents the union of five very complex subassemblies: 1) a heuristic mechanism which strategy is based on solving certain problem by comparing it to similar ones; 2) a rote apparatus that acts when similar situation encountered, by storing the event and interconnecting it with a response; 3) a conditioning mechanism grounded on the idea that simple repetitious responses after certain time become habits; 4) a reward selector which operates when teacher exhibit happiness or disappointment and 5) a forgetting convenience  or “exponential forgetting” that basically has the ability of forgetting less significant things. The whole system works exclusively  in cooperation with designers. The final point “Seeing machine” is setting an idea of interface or interaction between a machine and the “information environment”. Processors would have capability of communicating with a humans. In order to make this possible in terms that machine has an image of a designer, 3 performances which together form the interface are required: an event (that can be visual, auditory or extrasensory); a manifestation (measures the event according to parameters like friquency, luminance etc. are) and final  a representation.

Personally, I experienced this text as an union of the 3 explained “machines” into one futuristic machine, into one robot that would be innovative in many aspects, especially in terms of designing principles according to which it would have ability to machine itself  brings some conclusions, but never completely  independent of man. In my opinion, the author doesn’t give a “project” of the future machine but he only theoretically investigates  how it might look in the future. As long as the authorship of a certain project is primarily attributed to a man, not to machine, we should not be scared of the technology and of the impact it has nowadays on creativity. As long as machines are only tools under the influence of humans, architecture as well as other branches can only become more interesting, leaving a wide margin for innovation and creativity.

On the other hand, we have all witnessed how today’s technology is advancing fast, and that in many cases the machines are completely replacing man’s role. As a topic for personal research i find this uncontrolled technological growth very interesting. I wounder what we can expact in the nearist future and how things will change in terms of understanding architecture through available technology. Is it going to help our creativity, to open some new windows, new features or is going to close our touch with reality?

photo credits: http://www.archdaily.com/38196/never-never-land-house-andres-jaque-arquitectos/

Case Study_ Never Never Land / Andres Jaque Architects

Reading_ Form and Function Follow Climate / Philippe Rahm

Since ancient times, nature was an integral part of the architecture. Until today, that fact has not changed in terms of the interplay of nature and architecture, but the time has changed and is changing the way how humans, architects perceive the specified kind of relation. In advanced architecture of the 21st Century trees play a very sensitive role in the design proces, to the extent that it becomes part of the architectural ensemble.

Never Never Land house, located in Ibiza (Spain), was designed according to mentioned interplay by respecting  four guiding decisions and logics: minimum removal of existing vegetation (trees, bushes); lifting more than 80% of the building mass on piles, to prevent irritation of the soil as much as possible; grouping of all systems (for filtering and processing waste as well as water tank), that could cause spills into the subsoil, into a reinforced concrete vessel; reusing  part of the soil, that removes during the construction of the house, in a manner that the removed substrate incorporates in the building (in combination with water-retaining gelatine) allowing  the growth of plants and animals in the future. The house was imagined to depict the archipelago of islands where it was located, where each part of the house represents one of the islands. Interaction with own desires is what makes this house very provocative, even if the the whole idea is very personal architect’s vision and experience.

The mentioned fusion between architecture and its environment, as well as architecture which is supposed to reflect our desires and to be adaptable in terms of environment, weather and seasons, is very present in Phillipe Rahm’s text “Form and Function Follow Climate”, where the author primarily draws attention to the sustainable development as a phenomenon that affects invisible building structure, like ventilation and heating systems, emphasizing the problem of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. Rahm sees sustainability as “reduction of building’s energy consumption” what requires modifications of architectural form and function. In addition, the author tends to reconcile two very different, conflicting theories. On one side is Louis Sullivan’s “form follows function” where he challenged symbolic and decorative status of architecture, defining it as an expression of programme. On the other side is quite the opposite Louis Kahn’s “function follows form” where he criticises Sullivan’s statement towards needs and activities which were deemed to be changed, by proposing a system of hierarchies where architecture was independent of the programme. Following these differences in attitudes, Rahm suggests the idea of architecture  that would spontaneously merge form and function in response to climate and which could be adapted according to seasons, weather conditions, as well as new functions and unexpected forms.

Personally, this interplay between architecture and climate I define as part of “Bioclimatic architecture” in the area of sustainable development, where i would like to pay special attention and explore modern flows of interpolating architecture with the environment, in terms of their interaction.