THE ISSUE
1. Mechanized manufacturing, cheap energy costs, and globalization have resulted in an economy which is defined by products which are mass manufactured at a relative (meaning somewhat) high quality and a extremely low cost. (You will be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in your immediate environment for which there is not at least a million identical copies of that object)
2. As a result of this economical condition, architecture and in specific the construction industry, has pursued similar building techniques to the automobile and ship building industries. We are now at a state in which prefabrication and component based design is on the verge of taking over the traditional, stick framed, hand crafted techniques used for the past 6000 years.
MY POSITION
The reality of prefabrication and mass customization is that they have fundamentally changed the way we construct and think about buildings by increasing our ability as architects to control the cost and quality of construction. In many ways firms such as SHop and Kieran & Timberlake have exemplified the mass benefits of thinking about architecture in this way. However, as we engage in this increasingly fabricated, product based industry we must be reminded that architecture is fundamentally different from cars, ships, and planes. Architecture is not transient, it occupies a singular point in space which spans generations and bridges the gap between times gone past. Keeping this in mind (as the the realities of digital fabrication and mass customization threaten to dominate the practice of construction) we must continually ask ourselves; Are we, by removing the hand crafted aspects from our buildings, sacrificing an important and valuable aspect of architecture?
"In the digital era the architect is not a craftsman, but is one able to apply craft thinking to digital making"
Joanne Aitchison
In order to retain the value and meaning in handcrafted architecture in an economy of prefabrication and mass manufacturing we need to engage the following strategies:
David Pye defines the 'workmanship of risk' and 'workmanship of certainty' as two realities of craft which are present in our modern construction techniques. The 'workmanship of risk' is work where the outcome of a given action in not predetermined, but the determination and skill of the worker determines its outcome. The workmanship of certainty is work which has a predetermined outcome through digital design and fabrication. Any everyday example of this is to think of writing with a pen as the 'workmanship of risk' and a printing press would fall under the 'workmanship of certainty'. Rather than designing buildings to engage EITHER the risk (Frank lloyd Wright) or the certainty (Larry Sass) of workmanship, we must make a conscious effort to integrate the two types of craft.
2. Diversity of Materials
One of the realities of mass production is the shift towards singular materials and generic systems. As architects we must resist the pressure to focus on singular materials to create buildings , but rather to engage a diverse pallet of old and new materials to continually investigate the relationship of parts to the whole.
"The relationship between parts and whole is essential to the evaluation of quality, meaning, and experience of any architectural design. Greg Lynn
3. The Mobile Production Facility
CNC fabrication technologies and 3d printing has allowed us to bring the manufacturing facility to each individual site (exemplified in Facit Homes D-Process). On site fabrication allows for the integration of hand craft and machine craft at one source. This process reduces embodied energy and allows for a much higher level of flexibility and cost management.
Architecturally my idea of creating a hybrid architecture of both digital and hand craft is to fabricate the exterior envelope and hand craft or stick frame the interior portions. The slight "V" form of the exterior walls is used to show the significance of the interior space.
The design you propose is still a bit primitive as it is difficult to discern where the three strategies you present manifest themselves. Given the source material and the position you have taken, it is not to your advantage to use semiotics or metaphor in the design so it might be more appropriate to discuss the design from a craft or material perspective. This also brings to question how you will present this work as the plan you present here does not speak to the 3D qualities of design, craft, materiality, and even visible process you allude to. Think about this as you proceed to the presentation of the work for the first deadline.
ReplyDeleteAlso be mindful of using quotes that are taken out of context or at the very least selected solely to support a point. This is a danger many architecture thesis students fall prey to. It is far better at this stage to present a thorough case from an authoritative source than multiple quotes that are selectively taken to force fit an idea you have.
A few notes about your context:
-be wary of Pye; his critics respond to his polarity on craft with the fact that in both cases with the workmanship of risk and certainty both rely on tool translation (a mason can mess up as much as a poor router bit or poor path creation); it is unclear where your balance lies (it is doubtful that it is an equal relationship you are proposing)
-given your description of production management, you may wish to brush up on Joseph Pine and his Mass Customization work; though the book deals with mass customization at an economic force, he does describe some critical insights for management in this new field; this is not immediately relevant for you now but potentially in your own thesis investigations later on
-your second strategy does not really have a strong rationale; how is it proposing more than building with a diverse material palette for the sake of doing so?; if you are reading the Lynn work in full context it is not about material response simply out of straying from the generic
-mobile production facilities for architecture, much like the previous point, should not be presented as a strategy done for the sake of integrating some novelty; please think about how this is useful in curbing the "sacrifice of important and valuable aspects of architecture"?