Search for Architectural Quality (part 5)

Similar to my last post, I did another animation to inspect a different reaction diffusion mesh result (see below). I think the last one certainly had stronger moments that can be turned into architecture, and this one tended to provide more channels and pathways as opposed to the one previously which tended to open up more spaces.

I’ve realised as of late that the parametric process, while being a wonderful exploration and visualisation tool, is hardly ever going to produce architecture directly as an output, and this is likely because architecture is determined not by a deductive method, but rather an inductive method of reasoning. Architecture relies on abstractions – the designer. For the most part, at some point the designer needs to either enter the realm of the building, or form needs to exit the speculative realm and become something rational. That’s not to say that it can’t be done, but nine times out of ten, in order to turn a process into something tangible, one has to deviate from the logical process. To borrow a line out of The Terminator, “What is it that makes us human? It’s not something you can program. You can’t put it into a chip… The difference between us and machines.” Machines do not have the ability to make assumptions, that’s an inherently human quality, and that’s where the divide lies between process and architecture.

Hence, at this point, I need to step in and begin to manipulate the form on my own, over the next few days I will be cataloging my own forays into what can be done with the form, to begin doing manual iterations and architectural abstractions. The way I imagine the process going at the moment is that my architectural programme for the building is largely going to be developed as a result of the form, where I begin to populate the spaces I see as I see fit.

Leave a Reply