Alejandro Zaera-Polo makes the argument that design no longer needs to be the reproduction or re-working of something done in the past. It is more beneficial to design through processes, which inherently imbue a much greater depth and sophistication, than through instantaneous 'design ideas.' The reading focuses on the architectural firm Foreign Office Architects' competition proposal and subsequent construction of the Yokohoma Port Terminal in Japan. Zaera-Polo goes on to argue that it is essential to make use of the latest technologies in the construction process and anticipate a certain level of 'play' in the implementation. Rather than reinventing the wheel, it is of greater benefit to combine existing knowledge of processes and techniques, and mesh them with local constructs [in this case origami and shipbuilding], thus developing an accumulated experience.
The reading dives into many of the design decisions that had to be considered along the way, particularly in response to variables and inherent traits of the numerous construction systems employed. The chosen design method looked to find the most regular form of construction for each individual member, thus anticipating the probability of change and allowing it to be absorbed into the decision making process. Towards the end of the article, Zaera-Polo comments on a specific discourse with the contractors of the project, who were taken aback by the fact that the system did not have to maintain a strict precision, but could rather adapt to the conditions of the field, to which one correlated the design solution to roller coaster construction.
I feel like I want to argue with Zaera-Polo's point. Brian Kelly spend a lot of last semester reminding us that for the first 30 or so years of our careers we will always be designing based on precedent...that it take so long to generate your own language. But this is looking at each precedent as structures that can be broken down into shapes that we can morph and formulate through our own original processes? Is this simply a product of the design process being further developed in the digital world? If we took this notion outside of the digital context, would it still apply?
ReplyDeleteAbby
ReplyDeleteYour point raises a good question, how to we objectify the success or failure of our own language? Furthermore, are architects A and architects B architectonic language translatable?
Within the digital construct one could argue that parameters and folding are a kin punctuation, timbre, and emphasis, creating a unique voice to a given project. However, outside a digital realm, our we able to perceive these alterations? Where in the language of architecture does the digital dialect fall? Is it a small segment of the population, or does it have potential to become a mother tongue of the profession?
In my opinion, I believe the answer should not be a decision of either|or, but rather of both|and. A key part of the analysis of precedents lies in the community and culture that surround the building. Both previous building types and local constructs should be examined to create a building that responds correctly to its environment.
ReplyDelete