Posted by Paul Malo on October 22, 2002 at 06:46:53:
In Reply to: Re: future of profession- architecture is posted by dan-england on October 22, 2002 at 04:26:44:
As I understand it, Per has a SYSTEM of structure, to which he would have buildings conform. He doesn't care for the architect's ad hoc way of determining form initially from considerations other than the structural system, subsequently improvising some sort of way of building that preconceived form.
Per's method is not so restrictive as conventional constructional systems, however--say Corb's Domino, which begins with the limited palette of horizontal slabs and vertical columns, into which everything should be jammed. Per's notion is a uniform, homogenius, fine-grained matrix which can cut away in any geometrical fashion, the residue sufficing to provide structural integrity.
The visionary aspect of this is appealing, but as a hypothesis it requires more rigorous testing. My own structural sense suggests that the apparent freedom promised by such a system would prove impractical to realize because of the high cost of the redundancy that allows removal of so much of the matrix, concentrating stresses in remaining portions.
Yes, it can work, but no, it won't achieve greater structural efficiency or elegance. In the end, the elegant promise probably would prove to be a clumsy, over-structured system.
Free 3D Models