Posted by Per Corell on June 04, 2003 at 12:55:02:
In Reply to: Re: What will society be like in the future so we know what we need to design? posted by Ruud van Heyningen on June 04, 2003 at 05:30:00:
You are quite right .
Still options is, that a nice Cabin can be cut in 1/4 inch steel sheet and be safer, easyer to build, structure lasting for 100 years and original spareparts avaible for anyone who know a CAD program, or the steel companies suddenly se the light , and want to sell steel.
I am a designer I try emagining how a programable world will feel , still don't se the trouble, as it's already programable. Artists naver was anything but skilled craftmen , some skilled in mind some in abilities and mind, you can't take the two apart.
Future is nothing but what we want, technology is for me just more tools, the method to have a direct link to producing the imagineworks you know is possible, as othervise you can not produce a 3D drawing.
You want a measure of a ships wall I have no trouble doing one even better, then opposing architecture with this restriction is no problem ; an inventor already ruined his economics twice this contry, guess this is a scientific fact . Romans don't want to make money, they know Digital is right, still inch. and mm. is a great concern, even producing acturly need not millimeter nor inch. If so ,a direct link production method , that make an end to hangers and fittings, strait booms and counterworks ,but make the thing there, at a third the cost, four times as strong, -------- this is the microsoftes that produce 3D-H the computerworks doing the gadged, This have no value ???
Today we force architect studends into Solidworks, that naver hit a BOM , even with 3D-H ,you can acturly build the thing, much better.
Steelworks is done many places in the world, guess you Romans don't mind doing submarines for space , can be sold anywhere ;))
Architecture as the fulfillment of what is nice and cosy, that would I like, I would like true Digital projected buildings produced that's true, you get what you pay, it don't hurt doing the wrong decision, just a little so you don't se.
If you have the cost pr. cut meter, beside transport source and technology avaible you could produce a highrise structure in say one inch. top quality steel, it will stand for a thousand years, and be replacable but you need the exact sq. feet cost. Doing anything from wrong means or to do a specific volume will produce a bad measure, beside if you ask a skilled designer do a lot of crap, you get the best crap ever. Just ask yourself, if doing a better house , than you got now, can be done at same rent building new building structures, with low cost , 3D steelframe structure .
The building structure in WTC-7 is interesting from my point of views, but this only deal with my description, of the 3D-H method I am progressing.
Young people btw. alway's was better doing detaile drawings, is't the whole thing just details, nice details ,easy details beautifull ones.
With 3D-H you get it all, and it's your choice. Now wouldn't an earthquake safe structure be a nice gadged, maby one produced by this Digital technology, somhow related groups and usenet, even then architect applications is not producing 3D-Honeycomb as that is halve way a craft ; easy for anyone grown up with computers, ---- shuldn't steel companies be aloved to sell four times as strong nicer houses, build in a third the time, much easyer.
Only thing I know for sure about Lego, is that at some point it fall apart. 3D-H can not fall apart as how WTC one and two fell.
aparent technologies is those of WTC-7 that is an allright but still to limited method doing it at a third the cost.
You Romans never get to understand grand Design ; it's not the actural design but the method for heaven sake.
What do I care what monsters can be drawn this is also possible today Digital calculated space , ready to build steel beams, can be produced in very cheap designs and be great.
What I suggest is veakely argumented as a 3D mesh structure, that form the actural design, with building elements the scale you ask, for any style structure, you must know when 9 mm. steel is enough in one or a double framework ,but it will be a third the cost, it will be Digital is any other as direct related producing a cheap house and a strong inviroment ?
Than new visions progress and jobs, what's wrong putting this in the pyramide, no one will even realise when it turn, there will be no difference , I want future societies to profit from Digital I don't care who produce it, but who already will use it. Don't this transform industries, have any industries realised this.
I am the first to suggest a more profetable steel sheet sale, Ply industrie would gain to , ------ why is it you Romans demand perfect building methods, then when they are there, it couldn't be this as that acturly produced the nice livings.
Drawing mesh entity shapes and tubeworks, is producing a tenth of what 3D-H do just like that , extreamly cheap as non-reusable concrete formwork, to create the most nice structures.
With no hangers, fittings and multible material types, if you wanted a stronger structure. 3D-H
Transfering a technology is easyer the more advanced the technology, bringing a framework and a surface alway's was bringing a surface, with mesh structure technology, framework is very different but will wotk with zero thickness mesh entities , no problem ;))
If I spend two years in space, I would not like my flat, to be divided into 4 I-Units that ask 2 years assembly warning.
With the structures I measured, the cost of producing a small building in 3D-H is very promising, unless you think a sq. meter cost of 10$ is expensive, but pavilions in chip wood frameworks is very cheap, almost as cheap in steel sheet that make a pavilion structure last 100 years or more, 3D-H provide explosion safe structures , more earthquake safe idears , and a promise about progress as the technology is already here, and you can sell steel or Ply as you please , you just need good designers;((
Romans se artists as some kind of main directores as what they was 1903 and 1932, ------ my concern is the reborn of beauty into these dull visions , huge town must be made sense, and if any sense why stay with bad building methods, if it is cheaper develobing new .
Why repair old structures, when new and stronger is cheaper.
In architecture they want beauty as that is what is missing , then no one want an assembly float bridge, even also this, was a documented and realistic project what do you Romans expect, a complete world with full profit, just opening the mouth and fried birds come flying ; Local Romans know nothing about countworks , in german a P.C. have another name even. Also if you ever thought about the WTC restructure, the most important of a project, will reach further and expand in time, building methods and avaible technology is important issues ,hopefuly also in architecture, Designers like I develob building methods , that's an exiting buiness now the tools are there, ------- build a model with assembly framework laser cut and you se a new world, don't forget .
The computer I use is made from parts all over the world, the technology and the software origin the same place. But future will have it's own envision of what is best, not vorse I guess then going 3D-H is no bad idear. Investing in a flat to be build when the structure reach there if you want safe cheap structures ,maby is not as bad an idear as you think, when the thing is build even before payed, when pyramide games is replaced with somthing that bring jobs --- this would even provide better houses and more happy people, guess happy people is all right being the result of architecture ;))
Sorry I am not an architect, but a designer.
The dimentions of grown architecture depend of the greenworks, maby town can grow in 1000 years, untill then we shuld not wait, as maby the way it come, need other methods to unfold.
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet