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?

Case Study: Sendai Mediatheque l Toyo İto, Matsuro Sasaki

Reading Text: Emergence l Steven Johnson

Steven Johnson explains the ‘Emergence’ in a very good way in terms of understanding the relation between architecture and the city. He is defining the complex system in various scales(from micro scale to macro scale) with comparing the ants, body cells and cities and he takes our attention with the swarm logic of ants’ colony.

Swarm intelligence is the collective decentralized behavior. It is a system which is formed by simple individuals and it is transforming to complexity by interacting with each individuals and surroundings. For instance, ants manage to do their tasks for finding food and building shelter. But there is no reason, no logic about what they are doing. It is impossible to do it by itself; they are really successful when they work together. They get information from their surroundings and neighbors, in that way they do their tasks. This is the result of interaction which means it becomes ant colony and this example is also shows how ‘local information can develop global wisdom’. Also our body cells are precise example which proves the same swarm logic by creating the whole body with those simple cells.

According to the learning form ground level, there are 5 main topics to point out:

More is different: The more simple elements in numbers, can work more efficiently compared to 1 or 2 elements. For instance, only large amount of ants can create the colony.

Ignorance is useful: The simplicity is crucial for creating complexity. Learning from ants, each ant do only one task and they do not even know why they do.

Encourage random encounters: Different information and situations can create complexity in large scale. Ants behave individually and do their random unplanned tasks. They can adapt in any condition and they can change their tasks.

Look for patterns in the signs: As it is understandable, it is better to follow signs which priors leave. This is way to improve globally. To give an example from ants, they do not talk to each other. They work with their pheromones to find food and create path to build shelter.

Pay attention to your neighbors: Last but not least, this is how the complexity works; sharing information and interaction. Ants see the neighbors and change their tasks. Because they can not survive on their own.

Ultimately, this is where everything is getting clear. Cities bring minds together and the similar swarm logic of ants can be thought in human scale. Cities exist with their neighborhoods. If interaction needs a place, Steven Johnson points out the sidewalks of the city. It is a place that gives us a chance to get/share information and interaction with others (fluidity and continuity place for information). We are all individuals living randomly, but we are providing the exact amount of local interactions to achieve global wisdom. In other words, we are all a part of the whole complex system. By individually sharing information affects the whole complexity. As a result, Emergence is the ability to get and respond the information according to needs of global wisdom.

After analyzing Johnson’s examples and also Toyo Ito’s mediatheque, they changed my way of thinking about the complexity. Now I can say that also complexity can become from a simple element. I am very intrigued with the fact that there are so many patterns in our environment which has similar patterns in our lives. I would like to research about these patterns. It would great to learn how we can learn more from the micro systems in nature and implement them to our macro system. In that case learning more from nature, helps me more about understanding the advanced architecture.

Case Study Rolex Learning Center, Lausanne | SANAA

Text Deleuze and the Genesis of Form | Manuel de Landa

Form is an intrinsic feature of architecture. Architects and theorists of different ages have been developing various principles in order to define the form-finding procedure. Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, has developed his own philosophy which we are trying to conceive through the work of Manuel de Landa, Deleuze and the Genesis of Form.

According to the essay, matter has its own capability to generate forms in a way that is immanent to the matter itself. This procedure is mainly directed by the rules of mathematics, thermodynamics and is completely natural. Unlike the modernistic perception of generalization and perfection of solids, what is important for Deleuze is not the final form/ shape but the processes of morphogenesis that take place until that form is obtained. The final form is achieved as a state of inner equilibrium of the matter/material and it does not need to impose itself onto the matter from the outside. This diagrammatic operation described by Deleuze is applied onto the fields of society, geology and evolution.

In architecture, this principle could possibly be applied by studying the inner properties of the materials used and by allowing them to influence the final form of the structures.

At the Rolex Learning Center by SANAA architects, this inner equilibrium is supposed to be found by the users of the building.  It is comprised of one single fluid space of 20.000sq.m. The roof and the floor slabs undulate gently in parallel creating an artificial topography of hills and valleys with no conventional visual or sonic barriers. In this single-storey space the uses and the occupation of each space is free and defined by the inclination of the floor.

According to the architects, the movement of people is not linear but curved in an organic way, unless it is defined by strict paths. The Learning Center allows complete freedom to its users to walk, sit and occupy the space the way they want. It is almost like a park, it encourages people to choose where to go, to communicate and to develop a whole new way of learning. Although the success of this project in this aspect is doubtful, as the area to be covered is much extended and the photos available do not reveal full occupation of the space, it is a very interesting approach to design.

If we try to apply this case study in the philosophy of Deleuze, the matter that tries to reach its balance is the users of the building. The architectural form of the building is being created by human movement and occupation and only the curved background has been designed by the architects. Again, what is important here, as a principle of the function of the Learning Center, is the procedure by which people are occupying the space in order to achieve the best formation for their purpose each time – sitting, reading, discussing -, in other words the form-finding process to the equilibrium of Gilles Deleuze.

As a further research line, and as a continuation of my interest on dynamic architectural boundaries proposed by relational logics topic, I would be interested in exploring the relation between different boundaries and the architectural form generated in existing case studies as well as the successfulness of this kind of projects in terms of functionality.

Image Source http://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/rolex-learning-center-by-sanaa/8621669.article

Case study:                 Views House. Johnston Marklee and Diego Arraigada

Critical reading:          Mark Wigley, “The Architecture of Atmosphere”, in Daidalos 68, July 1998, pp. 18-27

Both case study and critical text investigate the atmospherical interaction between buildings and nature.

Case study: the view house designed by Johnston Marklee and Diego Arraigada tries to establish a relation between the living experience and its surrounding landscape.

For this purpose the architects have introduced the time as dynamic variable developing an internal staircase which leads to a roof deck. This architectural element allows the users to enjoy the nearby views on all sides in a dynamic and changing spiralling path that would engage an interaction among users and nature.

Critical reading: the Wigley’s essay speculates about the concept of atmosphere, defining it as a theatrical effect, intangible and personal. According to the text, trying to capture and control the atmosphere, architects often deceive themselves drawing perfect environments and thinking that they -the environments- can be controlled.

A tangible problem of intangibility: The idea that architect and architecture can control the nature creating the exact atmosphere they conceived is an illusion, especially because atmosphere is imperceptible and really subjective. Moreover the environment evolution is frequently unpredictable and it could compromise the architects aim.

In the view house, for example, Johnston Marklee and Diego Arraigada try to create an interaction system between architecture and its surrounding. However the architects cannot control the environment and, as result,  now the windows frame the neighbourhood houses, compromising the owner privacy as well as the main project feature.

Wigley seem to believe that there is no way to learn how to create atmosphere. The intangible ambience cannot be designed or predicted. The writer finally assert that architects as special effect producers should learn that the drawing they produced and the atmosphere in architecture are distinct.

Nevertheless I believe that the introduction of new digital tools as well as the use of virtual and augmenter reality could help architects to better understand the natural environment in order to produce more controlled and accurate projects, well suited to the morphological and climatic environment conditions.

Personal research: Personally I am really interested investigating the relation between architecture and its surrounding environment. In particular I would like to analyze how the natural conditions could modify an architectural project and how the introduction of the technology are helping architects to design better buildings as well as cities, redefining the architectural process.

Image: © dezeen.com