Genomic architecture ?

[SDR]

After puzzling over this term, I found the following pages:

http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/1998/03/01/3aa7fcc62

http://comparch.org/2005/07/24/genomic-architecture/

SDR

[P.C.]

Hi

Some times when searching architecture you end up with a text where the word architecture are used in a bit misleading way.

Terms like "Pattern language" indicate that the issue shuld be advanced building construction , new way's to realise architecture aso. --- but when look closer the issue surely are "architecture" but in the sense of computing and programming. "Paterns" and pattern reconising realy are interesting issues with high level computing , lot of object oriented programming software solutions have profited from these concepts --- I just wonder where this effect building construction and architecture .

Now I don't say there are no use for object oriented programming or advanced genome science, but realy ---- where in today's architecture ( architecture in it's original sense ) do this shape and form buildings , how can it be that these advanced theories is not allowed to prove their value and display the new architecture they must mean , point me to a structure advanced with these usealy 2D concepts ---- where do we need patterns ; please don't point me to the bookshelf been there seen it read it, and none of it corrospond to anything but software engineering . None of it !!!

[SDR]

The term "pattern language" is from the work of architect Christopher Alexander, and has nothing to do (in his work, at least) with the use of the computer as a design tool; rather, it is a part of an investigation of the patterns in the built environment that appeal to people on a basic and instinctual level -- in other words, a means of designing appropriate to human need and use.

"Genomic architecture" is one of the issues of possible discussion on this forum, according to the heading; as I had not heard the term before, I was hoping someone can shed light on its derivation and meaning(s).

[Geometric]

Buckminster Fuller's designs were radical for his time. I think the time has come to start taking his ideas seriously. There are some very practical applications for the "Bucky" ball. A Geodome could float off its base in flood waters, or role in an earthquake and the frame structure is so strong I could see it surviving a mudslide and being buried without crushing.

Check out his information on this site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

Epcot Center is a large example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot

The frame or shell should be designed as the shape of the molecule Buckminsterfullerene or (Triagle,Hexagons like epcot)

[P.C.]

I am not sure I agrea when you say "I think the time has come to start taking his ideas seriously." ------- realy these geostatic domes have been the issue since it became possible to draw these on a computer, countless attemts all various materials different applications from my point of view only show , that even the Dome is a 3D object then the thinking is 2D ; it is a shell.

Not the building as a whole ,the Geostatic dome already had a deep inpac on various modern architectural styles but the foults was alway's the same. it is "surface thinking" ------- a house as a shell ; ofcaurse it become lightweight while "the building" is only the outher surface put into a math. formular , still this only describe the form not the matter, never the materials or how to project the structure and filter out the building compoments. Now if you generate a Dome in a computer what you will get is a structure that consist of 3D lines or 3D faces only by keeping it as a strait Dome you be sure that the faces are plane not single curved or as you see in the link facated into triangles ; just that is the first trouble you face with polymesh structures as these Domes been avaible in architecture since the late 70', with the first 2,5 D computer programs untill the trend died out while getting to know it, is nothing but real trouble.

True --- the Dome polymesh soon become Organic Dome like forms when you start forming and shaping them BUT ; they are still surface, 3D-lines and 3D faces , Nothing indicate how to build them in real and please belive me --- workshops and classrooms in various architect schools had been crowded with various Organic shaped polymesh Dome type structures from the late 70' up to the begining of the new millinium , all to prove that even exiting and easy Math. these structures was yet another dead-end .

Please -- I was myself a beliver ; I wrote my own software to unfold these Polymesh structures , I think I can say I been there tried that , and realy I know the limitations with Geostatic Domes . Surely you can realy unfold the faces and plot their form full scale ---- you can even design and build very nice small boats and ships but not without being a skilled craftsman and know a great deal about programming , you get the surface not the much more important structure to carry the panels , it's a hell and there are no way around knowing the Math. thruout to realise the foults that will occour . ---- why do you think Bilbao is knitted from tiny pieces if it would in theori be possible to unfold huge panels ?

Architecture must be projected to be build ,in modern architecture the Dome concept that taken so many years to realise it's foults , the zero thickness problem , how the intire structure crumble in terms of projecting as soon as you "translate" the zero thickness faces and 3D-lines into real building compoments --- from that point it is one huge fiddeling and compromising ,ending with a project that more deal with fiddeling and compromising , than the actural original idea.

The 3D-H build ontop these concepts but offer the major imporant thing of a building structure, the structure itself not just a zero thickness shell displaying only the form. The new architecture you see around the world ,build ontop these experiences ------- it is the planes the sections , not the varying surface that make great architecture.

Knowing and understanding the Geostatic dome don't help you understand a building structure like this ;



3D-H on the other hand explain the building structure so you can see why 2,5 D patterns or building one house inside another to get one house is not the future .

[Geometric]

You mentioned the difficulties is building these strutures. What were the difficulties in building Epcot center? I can not find any history of this project. I think Epcot was built before the advent of computer design. A Bucky Ball shell is really simple math. Hexagons and pentagons of equal size. Modern fabrication factories could pre-fab the shell (frame) with little difficulty. The Bucky Ball design is very stong and does not has shear issues. What i am proposing is creating homes is the design of Epoct Center in natural disaster areas to increase survivability of the structure and the occupants.

[P.C.]

I am so glad you mention these facts G. --- also that you are aware what I say and in particular what I do not say.

As you are quite right --- these technikes do not requier a computer, they even was at their top at a time where there was none of the computers I refere, the early CAD programs. No these structures was- are - logic geometric structures and the early polymesh just expanded some of the early options , made them possible on first in isometric then perspectiv view on a computer screen, great structures was experimented and the form language of those times was very different, possible more futuristic than today but, the Geostatic Dome suffered from obvious problems "translated" into a computer pogram. Not that the programs didn't went smooth no, the transformation matrixes worked perfect ,everything display as vectors on the screen but, -- but they are not real building parts just lines in 3D.

The tradisional manufactoring work perfect translating and changing various materials to perform from the simple rules but, these rules are vectors not timbers, and the translation alone make "translating" inefficient compared modern methods that simply omit the whole "translation" ; How to xplain --- well if you want to learn from the WTC destruction and say that the girders and hangers was those responsible for the collapse, while they gave away in the fires , then emagine a building method where these hangers and girders do not exist.

G. I do not talk against the Geostatic Dome, I just say it can be made better, stronger and with interiour structures not just as a shell, with new methods based on compleatly different structural idears , methods such as 3D-H that explain these issues --- 3D-H proberly even can be altered and develobed, but it is the first of it's kind that allow a genuine direct likn from 3D computer drawing, to manufactoring mashin by allowing the program to calculate easy produced building frames.

[SDR]

So, the trouble with the Fuller dome is that it can be drawn and manufactured without the help of modern computer programs.

This is a problem ?

The dome is a perfect solution to SOME architectural/engineering problems. It is in successful use in many places around the globe -- as a covering for radars, for instance. Its light weight and portability (either as parts or as a complete structure) are indispensible in many cases.

Must we really destroy the reputation of all that comes before, in order to make room for our own child ? I don't understand this.

[P.C.]

This have nothing to do about reputation, I never said the Geostatic dome are useless this is not my point, my point is that the Geostatic Dome is surface thinking, that the concept is from before the computer and with the options of just the computer, there are just as many arguments for what else you can generate with computing pover as there is for the Geostatic dome.

"G. I do not talk against the Geostatic Dome, I just say it can be made better, stronger and with interiour structures not just as a shell,"

And the interiour structure is exactly what is alian to the Geostatic dome, but not alian to a house , -------- very roughly it could be said like this, that with the Dome concept you have to fit everything into the Dome shape oposed 3D-H where you make the 3D-H replace any form ,even a Dome, but not Just a Dome not everything as Domes.

Beside I think that there are questions that must be asked ; is it enough to have a building that is only a shell, --- is it realy an argument what geometric forms that make a Dome , ---- sure it sound great when one are made from hexa oktant and whatever basic geometric 2D , but still it fail everything I think about when I think about a house.

I don't like to be tight up in one particular form and force everything to fit that esp. when there are so many other forms and the thing is acturly not very efficient as a computerised building method , --- that I have to change everything to fit this form with no real reson , but esp. what I don't like is tha when talking about architecture and computers, then a concept develobed before computers have taken the place of that. --------- by so many are thought to be the major computerised architectural concept , when so many Professors and teachers, scientists and students failed making it the revolution it was thought to be, so many years ago.

Everything can be projected on a computer, then why be tight up in just one concept, why be tight up in that just becaurse it is made from standard geometric forms ; that is the argument used the most, but are there any argument in it ? ---- that just becaurse it is basic geometric forms ,then --- then what it still is a shell.

So "reputation" is not what this is about , beside it is not reputation but develobment we need ------ way's to turn the building process upside down ; allow the 3D drawing to be used to generate the building compoments for manufactoring, by allowing the program to transverse the 3D model , oposed today's code thinking and Revit concept where piece by piece and manual ,even CADD, it is just the old methods rewritten into a computer program.

Instead of building with standard geometric that we know will shape a Dome, be able to draw any form and by going the other way around have the computer calculate the building parts to form whatever we envision. ---- and that can be done without being tight into only a limited set of forms .

[Geometric]

Let me clear something up. I am not talking about merely a dome. What I am saying is to start building homes as Bucky Ball spheres. Example the Epcot Center of Disney World in Florida USA. This design is a good for coastal areas with floods, tsunamis, even earthquakes. The sphere will be resting on four concrete pillers with metal posts that slide into the sphere frame . These posts act as electrical grounds, wind stabalizers and flood level releases. When flood water rises the sphere rises off the posts and floats on the water. That way that sphere floats is it is made up of two air tight shell frames . The air between the inner and outer frame shells creates the boiancy. The sphere will be the size of a normal size room. Each additional living sphere area will be connected by short hallways. Theses hallways are not bolted or fasten to the spheres. If there is a flood the spheres will float off there mounts breaking away from the hallways.

[SDR]

Anybody have a definition of "genomic architecture," yet ?

That was the purpose of this thread. . .

[dgt]

SDR

In response to your question I may shed some light. Genomic architecture as the arcticle describes it seems to me to be complete hogwash. I will get to my definition toward the end of this post. The articles definition relies on mapping that may be flawed based on other mapping that could be correct overlayed with still more mappings.

"Like its biological counterpart, this genome is universal and encompasses all architecture — past, present and future."

IMO this is just an absurd statement. First of all, the 'biological counterpart' that is 'universal' and encompasses 'past, present and future' does not exist. A genome is a complete sequence of DNA base pairs of a specific species. It is universal (if insisting on that term) only within that species.

Therefore, how can the architectural genome be universal?

On the other hand, I think the mention of biomimetics is admirable. However, it is not blind self-generation or obtuse algorithmic procession unless there is a fundamental application of adaptational pressures as parameters. The limit case scenerio is rubbish. Contemporary buildings do not occur naturally. Consequently, our place will be to design the systems and tools to make them grow, adapt, self-repair and reproduce.

"First, biology as a goal for organic architecture assumes that such a biology (namely, existing biology) is frozen in time since it is based on “life” as we know it presently." No, No, No. This is answered by adaptation. Not only does adaptation respond to pressure or triggers it passes along that information.

"Extrapolation of architecture from present biology ignores past and future biologies. Nature’s ongoing experiment comprises structures that are extinct, structures that exist now, and structures that have yet to appear." This is delving into the absurd again. Or maybe is more like Bart Simpson's statement, "your dam-ned if you do and your dam-ned if you don't." I may be an idiot but how does nature comprise that which will happen in the future?

"Second, it ignores the creation of the new, e.g. new materials (new chemistries) not found in nature, new technologies not found in nature and new organisms (based on known or new biologies) not existing in nature." He has given no reasons that the limit case scenario does not include these things. Logic would tell you that 'projected technologies' incorporates the 'new'. Very poorly structured argument.

Putting the article aside, for the last nine months I have been doing research on overlaps between architecture, evolutionary biology, evo-devo and genetics. It seems to me Genomic Architecture has begun to be a catch-all phrase when describing an architecture which is algorithmically based and self-generating.

Recent investigations of architecture and genetic algorithms are obvious examples.

As far as the moniker of genomic is concerned, I see the greatest potential in the investigation of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology). This theory states that the development of form beginning with an embryo and continuing to adulthood is based on similar genetic tools that are shared amoung phyla. For instance, the gene controlling eye development is very similar in humans and fruitflies.

This does not prove the universitality of the article right. Quite the contrary, the morphological diversity lies outside of the genome. As Catherine Ingraham notes in Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, “a bird is a bird’s actions, the nest, the forest, other birds, other animals that co-inhabit its territory as well as broader ranges, predators and prey, and so forth.”

I think the analysis of development genetically, within the flow of heredity and environment is the key in understanding the 'genome' of a project. Consequently, I look at genomic architecture as a continuum of adaptational pressures resulting in an equilibrium within a specific context (exactly what Sanford Kwinter asked in a recent lecture, "what can form do").

Anyway, this is my humble opinion. As the article is an example, I am immediately frustrated with these scientific analogies in architecture when they turn out to be shallow and naive in definition.

Regards,
dgt

[SDR]

Thanks for the excellent and clarifying reply (based I gather on a lot of current investigation on your part), dgt. I too was disappointed in the article on many points, and chose to dismiss it as a result, I'm afraid.

In the case of adaptation, need it be said that in any human-directed "genomic"/biologic activity, the adaptation(s) are made consciously and (potentially) instantaneously -- though the lumbering beast of the built environment moves a little more slowly than that, I suppose ?

(I might have thought that evo-devo stood for evolution-devolution -- but I'm hopelessly under-read in these matters. . .)

I agree that spurious or superficial study, miming the real thing, is a distraction; we all struggle to put our thoughts to words, and woe to him whose thoughts are ill-considered, for the words will mean little in that case.

SDR

[dgt]

SDR

To answer your question I think you are correct when you state "adaptation(s) are made consciously and (potentially) instantaneously." But this is only the case if the human-directed "genomic"/biologic activity is a computational simulation.

I think the key word is consciously. Nature does not adapt consciously, nor does it know the outcome before it begins. It's only purpose is sustainment and procreation. These terms have many subcategories like avoidance of predators, territorial disputes, location of suitable territory, etc. However, basically those are what it boils down to.

This is the epitome of the paradox. Too often these cutting edge articles dealing with these subjects fail to acknowledge the true development of natural adaptive pressures. We need to create systems that incorporate a system of pressures and parameters adapted from a rigorous analysis of the context (similar to ecological research in Evo-Devo).

Therefore, computational adaptation occurs instantly. We are now delving into biomimetic active architecture. Active archtitecture is a very exciting field with a somewhat dubious past. I believe through biomimetics and Evo-Devo it can be reinvigorated. Adaptational architecture is the goal.

I believe the hope of self-generation in architecture does not exist. As I stated before, architecture is a human invention. Consequently, if we do not traditionally design the building, then we will design the system that generates it.

It reminds me of the Cooper Union task of 'designing the tool to make the tool'.

If tools made themselves....what good are we, and how good would the tools be?

By the way, I have always enjoyed your careful and intriguing posts, so I am glad I could pay you back a little.

Regards,
dgt

[SDR]

Thank you -- I'm a bit clearer now on the issues, as well as on the purpose behind the study.

One has a nostalgic fondness for the "walking city" and other adventures of the British group Archigram, in the early 'sixties; I was disappointed that this movement didn't become a permanent part of the ongoing architectural research. Perhaps the new work can be seen as a picking up of that thread -- albeit in a far more serious vein ?

SDR