Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: Architects live in a world of illusion...dreams...and disillusion

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  Per Corell on November 21, 2002 at 05:46:17:

In Reply to:  Re: Architects live in a world of illusion...dreams...and disillusion posted by steveA on November 21, 2002 at 05:18:47:

Hi
Staying in the middle will not progress your emagination outside the borders created by your means ; staying in the middle of what you describe, will only make you think all your dreams are to be made from these bolts and fittings.
Please allow me to point to an example ;
Geostatic domes and fancy surface structures are among the forms architects been progressing for decades and still these occour time after time ,and you can find many different applications where this is again seen at top technology and visionary architecture ; as 20 years ago, nuts and bolts.
Expensive nuts and bolts that is, so expensive that the cost in itself keep you dreaming. Now shyldn't a building system be focusing on the simplest material and the simplest production type to be true visionary. Can you say that a technology that offer fancy but extreamly expensive structures that been develobed over and over again for decades are true innovative when the first ones were done hundreds of years ago.
Is geostatic structures realy so fantastic, compared their actural cost and trouble , ------- when you beside this know that they only focus on a surface. Spending all your innovative emagination with only a surface covering, a structure of a climat shell or whatever geostatic Dome , you will end up seing that you forgot the floors, the walls, and foundations for the stairs, and only have a huge arear covered with a lightweight and expensive structure formed by special fittings.
What's wrong with the cheapest possible materials and avoiding nuts and bolts all together. What's wrong building at a third, somthing four times as strong , that with only halve the trouble projecting, manufactoring and assembling , make an end to all expensive stainless steel fittings, and offer the interiors aswell as the thin surface covering.
Why try to bend any shape by hand, when cut in sheet material you can form the solid intergrated framework for any honeycomb structure form, even use it as form with build-in holes for extra reinforcement rods. Get rid of all bolts knees and fittings in one go, as pressing the button and having the actural structure framework generated instantly.
This way you get better time for your real visions, about forming nice designs or generating healty housing at a third the cost, earthquake safe, and build from the common language of simple math.

True ; ----- 3D-H form square boxes forming the honeycomb structure, the boxes are not hex form, but it's the most efficient way to form a true honeycomb structure from only two section directions and as noone else seem to want this, I take full credit for the most effective method, using the cheapest materials and the simplest production method.

Nice talking to you

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/23636.html