All you need is:
1. a laser-cutter ( ~$6500 for materials, DIY)
2. a CNC machine ( ~$1800 for materials, DIY)
3. a 3D Printer ( ~$800 for materials, DIY)
Its amazing to see how these seemingly complex and exclusive machines can one day be a common tool for our daily use. With this future in our hands, how will it influence the way we live, consume, and shop? By bringing the manufacturing process into our very own households, which industries can we eliminate and which new ones will emerge out of it? Is this exactly what we need in a potential post-capitalist world? Just something to ponder upon.
So, any takers?
P.S. another cool DIY, presented to you by Nortd Labs too.
With our current project for studio, I know a few people have been looking for a good tutorial for grasshopper, myself included. Thanks to some help from Jordan in the dFAB lab, he showed me this tutorial, from liftarchitects.com. Don’t be intimidated by the 160 pages, it is pretty simple and very helpful. I have gone through about 50 pages already and found it really useful!! Hopefully you will to. Just be aware, that some of the components and parameters are in different windows or changed. Also, the end files are able to be downloaded to be used for comparison. One last word of advice that was given to me, don’t skip ahead. It is meant for you to go through it page by page so don’t expect to jump ahead and understand it. Well enjoy!
To get us ready for Patrick Schumacher’s lecture on Tuesday, I am reposting a 48-200 blog post from May 2010 below. Also, the “Introduction” to Schumacher’s new manifesto “The Autopoesis of Architecture” is available through my “History of Theory” website. – Kai
Patrik Schumacher, a partner in the office of Zaha Hadid, and Co-director of London’s A.A. Design Research Lab, has been steadily making a case that “Parametricism” is the most important theoretical position in architecture since modernism. Espousing many of the same ideas that Thom Mayne talked to us about, Schumacher proposed a Parametricist Manifesto in 2008 that states:
“[Parametric design is] penetrating into all corners of the discipline. Systematic, adaptive variation, continuous differentiation (rather than mere variety), and dynamic, parametric figuration concerns all design tasks from urbanism to the level of tectonic detail, interior furnishings and the world of products… Architecture finds itself at the mid-point of an ongoing cycle of innovative adaptation – retooling the discipline and adapting the architectural and urban environment to the socio-economic era of post-fordism. The mass society that was characterized by a single, nearly universal consumption standard has evolved into the heterogenous society of the multitude. The key issues that avant-garde architecture and urbanism should be addressing can be summarized in the slogan: organising and articulating the increased complexity of post-fordist society. The task is to develop an architectural and urban repertoire that is geared up to create complex, polycentric urban and architectural fields which are densely layered and continuously differentiated.”
This week, he continues his argument in The Architect’s Journal:
“In my Parametricist Manifesto of 2008 I first communicated that a new, profound style has been maturing within the avant-garde segment of architecture during the last 10 years. The term ‘parametricism’ has since been gathering momentum within architectural discourse and its critical questioning has strengthened it. So far, knowledge of the new style has remained largely confined within architecture, but I suspect news will spread quickly once it is picked up by the mass media. Outside architectural circles, ‘style’ is virtually the only category through which architecture is observed and recognized. A named style needs to be put forward in order to stake its claim to act in the name of architecture.”
Parametricism, he claims, “finally offers a credible, sustainable answer to the drawn-out crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching.”
Do you agree? Can we ignore parametricism? What are legitimate alternatives to parametric design we ought to be working with? Why?
a compilation of images on inspirations, ideas, and inquiries regarding our current project
A useful website for all who may be searching for something to read, over the break or next year: http://www.designersandbooks.com/. A site of books recommended by designers and architects from around the globe. You see who recommends what; you can look up books by subject, etc. It’s a who’s who of designers… Dolores Hayden has criticized it for being to object-fixated, but that’s our culture today.
I came upon this and although the description of the dance does not really give a lot of information on how they interpreted an “architectural placebo” (I’m assuming they used their bodies and the props to create space?), the general idea of a placebo for architecture is really compelling. Is architecture delivered to people like medicine through your bloodstream? If architecture is designing and defining space, what would a placebo for that be? Can it be achieved through dance? Can people be tricked into thinking something is architecture when really it isn’t? So many questions…