As you might have noticed it has been quiet on this blog lately.

As I wanted a more structured approach, a better graphic environment and the ability to start individual projects, I started a new blog.

Please visit my new blog NightlyBuilt.org and feel free to leave comments.

“Blender is the free open source 3D content creation suite, available for all major operating systems ” says its impressive website. The light program (8 MB) is freely downloadable.

A big pro for Blender is that it supports NURBS, (non-uniform rational b-splines) which means that curves are really curves and not segmented, which makes your model more accurate and faster. Most proprietary CAD programs don’t support NURBS, with the exception of Rhino.

The downside of Blender is its complicated interface. The dashboard sits at the bottom of your desktop, which is pleasant because it leaves you a wide working space. But the icons used in the interface are few and most buttons are texted. This means that you have to understand all the 3D technical lingo before you can start, not to mention that most designers are image oriented rather than text oriented. However it is claimed that the interface is a unique approach with which quick results should be possible once the interface is understood.

Blender, however Open Source, is a professional program. The features are numerous which makes the program very complete. But this is both its strength and is weakness. The trend is that architects offices more and more tend to use simple programs like Sketchup. It is easy to learn and understand, intuitive, and can be customized with plugins when desirable. Simplicity means not having to train people, which is an important aspect in the every day reality of personell flow through. In this perspective, Blender could be too complicated to learn.

However Blender’s results are superb. Check it out at http://www.blender.org/

In addition to my previous post in this video made by Guiniture you actually see the software presenting different options based on fixed parameters.

And this video, placed on YouTube by the same user, you can clearly see an iteration from which eventually an optimum is formed.

Fascinating.

Last week at the office I’ve been busy working out schedules for configurations of 350 dorm rooms for a student facility. It was about finding the right and most effective and economic configuration for six bedroom clusters, twin bedrooms and studios, based on a percentages which in turn were based on marked research done by the client. I had to take into consideration the positions of fire escapes, traffic lengths in case of emergencies and other building regulations as well as contextual aspects like the orientation of the site, planning specifications, the position of the sun etc. etc.

These rather dull exercises are necessary to develop a perception or ‘feeling’ of the building before the development of an actual architectural concept can commence. It means working through loads and loads of options, just to acquire the necessary intuition of what iss possible and realistic within the boundaries of your assignment, and what is not. It is sheer number crunching. Consequently I’ve seen loads of spreadsheets and schedules and done loads of calculations.

An iterative approach as such is inherent to design. And it applies to all levels of design. I remember visiting the Content exhibition of OMA in De Kunsthal in Rotterdam, where vast numbers of models were exposed of what was to become the CCTV building in Beijing. They were needed to get a perception of the concept, to explore all aspects and define the consequences of all options.

Norman Foster, when designing the Swiss RE or Gherkin building in London, used software to define the most profitable shape for the building in terms of aerodynamics. The aim was to reduce the winds at ground level or ‘canyon effect’ in order to keep life for pedestrians worthwhile.The computer iterated all options based on some predefined contextual parameters, and eventually the perfect section rolled out which provided the starting point for the actual design process.

Now Fosters approach could be seen as semi automated as most of the preliminary work was done by a computer. And truth be told, so was OMA’s, as all its preliminary work is done by unpaid interns. So we could cautiously conclude that the computer could take over some of the boring work done in an architects office. Regulations are fixed parameters and are not open to discussion or interpretations. So human involvement is not vital in this stage.

This video, made by Daniel Davis, illustrates this point beautifully.

Continuation: here.

Related issues: here and here.

Nokia provides us a possible view into the future.

Design on the spot. Will this become reality?

These are the first two pages of Bruce Mau’s outstanding book Massive Change. The show a power line of which the towers collapsed under the weight of ice and snow. The book is a collection of innovative products, thoughts and systems that influence, or will influence, design.

Very inspirational. Higly recommended.

I got this quote about Operating Systems Linux and Windows from Slashdot:

“Here’s what Compy McNewb sees. He can get both OS’s for free. But one of them is worth over three hundred dollars, while the other one is worth nothing. ‘That’s not true!’ I hear you scream. ‘Linux is worth a lot! It’s just being offered for free!’ I know it’s not true that Linux is worth less than Windows. It’s far more valuable to the end user in terms of getting things done. But that’s not what Average Joe Computer Newbie sees. He sees a free product versus a three-hundred-dollar product he can get free. It’s all about the perception!”

Why is Linux catching up so slowly on Windows as the most popular operating system? According to Vlad Dolezal, the reason is simple; Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable.

Same goes for air, freedom, democracy, wealth. Same goes also for for your design. If you do your client a pleasure by doing something extra without charging him, he will not value your work. Your market position will idevaluate as a result, which will eventually bring your business into a nose dive. From another perspective, as in a strange paradox, you can value your own work and dictate the client this value. Of course this only works to a certain extend.

Bottomline: allways send your bills.

Recently the Macbook Air was presented, an unprecedented ultra thin notebook by Apple.

One of the reasons why the Air can be so thin is the development of a small Intel processor, the size of a coin.

The real breakthrough though is not technological, but conceptual. Apple made a strategic decision (and gamble) to fully focus on the possibilities of the wireless connection. In the design of the Air, the possibilities of wireless are exploited to the limits and as a consequence, a DVD driver is no longer needed.

In the view of Apple, a DVD driver is necessary either to play movies, install software, make backups or burn music CD’s for you car. To replace the need for a driver Apple offered alternative services using the wireless connection and software solutions.

Movie: the commercial for the Macbook Air.

Losing the DVD driver is a mayor saver in terms of energy and dimensions. Consequently, the battery can be smaller and the physical absence of the DVD driver makes the notebook smaller. It shows that, though technology is important, conceptual thinking is at least equally important.

This approach distinguishes Apple from the other hardware producers.

See the presentation of the Air in two parts by Apple CEO Steve Jobs (and notice that Sergey Brin of Google is sitting in the audience).

Part 1 of the presentation here.
Part 2 of the presentation here.

On the 23th of January I attended a lecture of Michael Braungart in Rotterdam. His message comes down to this:

Minimizing waste is a negative agenda and is based on guilt. If we focus on minimizing our ecologic footprint we in fact say to our children they are unwanted. The total biomass of all ants extends that of all humans and yet they do not have a negative effect on our habitat (except when they are in your kitchen). All good things in life are wealthy: a symphony of Mozart, a painting of Van Gogh. We should cherish wealth, but with a focus on recycling materials either in the biosphere or the technosphere. Then the concept of ‘waste’ will cease to exist. Waste will equal food.

 Image: Michael Braungart in Rotterdam

From all material cycles 70% is related to buildings. As a consequence, architects have a key role in the responsible use of materials. Right now we design buildings that are sealed. Toxic gasses that evaporate from building materials stay in the building, just like dust. As a result 40% of all 5 year olds already developed an allergy. We shouldn’t approach a building like a machine, but like a tree: from Bauhaus to Baumhaus. A building is not a product, but a service. Buildings should not be eternal but temporary. For the architect it is primarily not a matter of eco management, but of ego management.

Some regarded Braungart’s approach as being to limited, especially in relation to the renovation of existing buildings. His solution: demolish and rebuild. Braungart however is not an architect, and his approach should be seen in relation to his definition of sustainability. In his view, sustainability should not be seen as an overall concept, but as a kaleidoscope of approaches that together help to build a better environment.

In Braungart’s words: we should cherish mediocrity.

Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas mentioned once he is driven by his sense of responsibility, which is a surprisingly traditional, because Calvinist, statement for this avant gardist. His sense of responsibility explains his continuous commitment to redefine the role of the architect. This came from an interview by Charlie Rose:

Any architectural enterprise takes at least 5 years. Today, in this economy, in this political system, globally, almost no ambition, and no coalition and no agreement lasts for more then 3 years. So there’s a painful discrepancy between the slowness of architecture and the constant turmoil with which everything moves and changes and mutates. (…) Maybe we could apply architectural thinking in its pure form without necessarily building.

This approach moved Koolhaas in founding AMO as a think tank counterpart of his architect’s office OMA. This comes from Wired:

What’s interesting about AMO is not that it will develop things that aren’t buildings, but that it will continue to work architecturally – to sell clients its analysis of the relationship between human behaviour, built structures and the invisible networks of commerce and culture.

Considering architecture is primarily an literally about housing processes (regarding our daily life as a process), architecture as Koolhaas describes it would be about shaping processes in whatever possible form. It would bring the work of the ‘hardware architects’ like Koolhaas closer to the work of the ‘software architects’ that we know from ICT. Moreover it would mean that everybody that is involved in management or policy, principally could be regarded as a designer (as Gilberto Gil does, see here and here).

This is not new. When architect Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) got involved with the cathedral of Florence, the Basilica of Santa Maria del Fiore, he did not just design the building. He designed the whole construction process. To this purpose he even designed construction devices that were so sophisticated that Leonardo da Vinci studied them thoroughly. In Brunelleschi’s view a cathedral in itself is not architecture. Building a cathedral is architecture.

It would be exciting to see what happens if we replace the polarized thinking that is so common in management and policy with design based thinking. Design considers contradicting factors as possibilities rather than obstacles. It aims to combine contradicting factors into a new design, the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

That would be progress.