Trajectory Diagram, 9/21/2013

Trajectory Diagram, 9/21/2013


From Various Syllabus Drafts:

Why Computation?

Current and emerging technological capabilities becoming available to architects results in a needed reconsideration of our responsibilities. CAD programs launched the practice into a phase of increased productivity and sophistication of designing and documentation. Beyond the ability to digitally ‘draw’ the image of a building, computation in design empowers the architect bridge the gap between idea and execution. This ability of management is the root of reconsidered responsibilities. The information and the output of digital design processes must be conducted making the actual practice of building design one of sophistication, collaboration, and comprehension. Throughout the process of design, the relationship between form, performance, and production can be developed in consistent synchronization with each other and be presented clearly and understood comprehensively.

Architecture must adjust to the paradigms of how society and technology alike organize, understand, and utilize information. Warren Weaver, and American scientist, authored an article in 1948 titled, “Science and Complexity.” He outlines the history of science as follows:

1500s-1800s: Problems of Simplicity – understanding the influence of one variable over another

1900-1950: Problems of Disorganized Complexity – understanding systems with multiple variables, but assuming their relationships are random, and even chaotic

1950s-Present: Problems of Orgnaized Complexity – understanding complex systems with large number of variables, and recognizing these variables are interrelated and interdependent

-Warren Weaver quoted by Manuel Lima, Visualizing Complexity

Toward Generative Architecture:

Much like Jane Jacobs and Christopher Alexander’s critiques of the rigid hierarchical approach to modern urban planning, and it’s negligence of humanity, the process of design in architecture can be critiqued not only for its acceptance of standardized resolutions (namely in developer driven projects), but the process of “top down” design. That is to say: here is how I want the building to appear, now let’s do everything (and make all compromises along the way) to execute its realization. Given the current state of understanding information (Organized Complexity), the architectural process ought to be able to take direct influence from data, and relationships among datasets, to generate a model in which building information is derived based on the criteria of these datasets, and the criteria are given priority based on evolutionary processes or optimization. Thus begs the questions:

Where is the:








Designer of appearance/assembly > Designer of methods/production

Quality * Scope = Cost * time > Quality * Scope > Cost * Time

Building Parts > Building Elements

Mass Production > Mass Customization

Representation > Simulation



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: