Category Archives: Shreyas More

Shreyas More

Transmuting Supremacy

brain senses

 The complexity of human brain to be introduced into a machine to produce the utmost artificial intelligent. Highly ambitious but if it works, will there be a species more intelligent than man?


The theory of Architecture machines by Nicholas Negroponte, written in 1969, is a visionary scheme by the architect, about designing intelligent machines of architecture to ease out the process of attaining optimum design interpretations. It discusses about architecture machines that can learn about learning architecture which function in partnership with the designer through a dialogue.



Nicholas Negroponte describes that there is a need for machines to learn, understand, associate courses with goals, to be self-improving, to be ethical, in short, to be intelligent. A design machine must have an artificial intelligence because any design procedure is questionable when used out of context or in disregard of context of reasoning. He ingeniously explains that machines must understand the context before carrying out any procedure using their own wisdom learnt over time. He states that architects cannot handle intricate large scale problems and tend to overlook the small scale problems. Consequently, this causes a distinct manoeuvrability gap that exists between the scale of the mass and the scale of the individual, the scale of the city and the scale of the room. The architecture machine’s therefore come into play to exhibit alternatives, distinguish conflicts and make smart suggestions beyond the comprehension of the architect in the given time. The architect-machine partnership would form a perpetual iteration between form and principles.


According to Negroponte the 5 particular subassemblies of an architecture machines would be:

  1. A heuristic Mechanism – The machine provides with solutions based on thumb rules. Though not very accurate, it serves as a solution for the time being
  2. A rote apparatus – This mechanism stores events circumstances of events and when similar situations are encountered, it uses information from past
  3. A conditioning device – Consequently, repeated responses become a habit and machines will respond with a combination of rote apparatus and a heuristic mechanism to develop its own conditioned reflex.
  4. A reward selector – The designer must express his degree of satisfaction in order for the machine to understand when the process has been successful
  5. A forgetting convenience – The machines should be able to forget in order to remove the inflexibility of functions and to adopt new ways of addressing to situations


These five items are only pieces; the entire body will be an ever changing group of mechanisms that will undergo structural mutations, bear offspring, and evolve, all under the direction of a steersman.



Negroponte’s theories were far ahead of his period and we can see functional examples of his theories in the contemporary time. Machines and softwares used today have eased out the complex mathematical tasks and refined the process of production, however, they do not provide absolute design solutions unless programed to. Primarily, this is because machines possess only logical thinking and no emotional quotient, much required to design spatial character. My area of research will intervene the understanding of the possibilities of artificial intelligence, capable of combining of both emotional and logical decisions. The characteristics of intelligent machines should be attachment with goals, the self-critique, innovative thinking, common sense and most importantly the consciousness of comparing the right and wrong.


Will this evoke a possibility of machines being much better architects than humans? Or the creator will perpetually be the superior creature producing limitless solutions?

Posted in Shreyas More | Comments closed

Gyratory of Time and Architecture


Relations in architecture explain and investigate the observations about form and function by scientific and mathematic justifications. It elaborates on the harmony of design with its surroundings to create optimum results in architectural design. These relations do not only possess materialist values but also have the ability to cast psychological sways on the user experience.


Architect Phillipe Rahm’s laws of designing delineates that architecture is organic and is enclosed within an eco-system which identifies forms and functions through different cycles of time. With the increasing imbalance in nature, he redefines sustainability as conscious way of designing which doesn’t jeopardize the ability of future to sustain itself. It very important to understand through his theories that sustainable designing not only involves being sensitive about the needs of today but also about the possible scarcities of the future. Designing self-sufficient buildings doesn’t require perpetual dependencies on expensive technologies but requires thoughtful involvement of ecosystem in a passive manner.


For instance, the architect Andres Jaqúe of never never land house uses the positional relations of space with environment to design the house within the spatial dynamics. However, while the architect aims to achieve surreal experience from his design, I believe the impact is attained only by the essence surrounding and not the architecture. As a hypothesis, if we neglect the biota, the architecture cannot sustain itself and hence is not a balanced. The building is therefore isolated and not part of any dialogue with the system.


The theory on form and function follows climate draws a good relation between architecture and cultural contexts of different people from different time which respond to climatic shifts. It breaks from the notion that designed spaces should be rigid and that extricating them adds multiple dimensions to space resulting into perpetual architecture with organic use. It is important to break free from the idea of using technologically advanced systems which isolates the building from its surroundings. Instead, as architects, we need to open up to the environment and adapt to the effects of climate engulfing architecture.


We can draw a brief conclusion that architecture has progressed in a series of dramatic changes repeating itself in time. Beginning from the ancient architecture in caves, to exceedingly ornamental styles, to the reign of the modernism, and from there, the beginning of contemporary style which again showcases ornamental needs in a different fashion. Today we are conscious of advanced theories for a sustainable future. But what is sustainable future? The intended research would include exploration and answers to these questions. The need has come to design sensitively with multiple informative parameters. We need to understand that expensive technologies designed to minimise greenhouse effect, use up intensive fuels for production. Therefore it is not the optimum solution. If we continue the rhythm of change in architecture, will ‘advanced caves’ be the best resolution? Will advanced passive techniques be the key to sustainable architecture in future?

Posted in Shreyas More | Comments closed