I've been thinking about how to retain a desirable level of flexibility in the roof structure and a way of reducing the volume of the form when compacted. Some of the spacing techniques that I've been thinking of are a bit too clunky, unresolved and inefficient.
One of my next tasks is to model something similar to the images shown here from 'Digital Fabrications'. A key part of this will be materiality. Ideally, I would like this to be made of a very flexible plastic.
....but anyway, turns out many of my ideas and the terminology I have been using to describe them has already been thought of by someone else.....
Lately I've been working most on a large scale model of the folding arm / umbrella idea, but in doing this I have been thinking about some issues regarding process.
Firstly, (about the current phase in model making): I've begun to make this model at a scale that implies a degree of resolution in purpose that I have not yet achieved. I am merely trying to enlarge a model that I already have, probably because I just want to do stuff in the workshop and to make a large structure out of nice timber.
If I want the roof to create a consistent curve, then why? What would be the benefit of that in terms of the creation of place.
To resolve these issues, I think it would be appropriate to briefly divert this project back to a more 'conventional' architecture approach, and to concentrate on issues of program. What is in the brief?
One question that I continue to ask of the system/s that I have created so far is if they are advantageous over a standard wall and clip type system [diagram below to explain what I mean]. I think the designs that I have been pushing so far are not typical even in the context of flat pack construction, so I have to think about why it isn't typical and the benefits of it.
Some of my previous posts talked about a site responsive flat pack. I think I should definitely retain this idea.
I think it is fair to say at this point that this project has been unusual in terms of an iterative process, and I've been struggling find a point where program would come into . I think I may have been discounting flat pack architecture as a way of creating , instead thinking about it simply as the invention of building elements (a retractable roofing system, a lego-like wall..........), with only a secondary focus on the user experience, if there was a focus at all.
maybe not rethinking the project, just concentrating on an aspect of the project that I haven't yet. I'll still keep on working in the workshop on the bending arm / roof structure, as I am confident that it will remain relevant to what I am doing throughout my investigations in program.
At this stage I would like to think about program, and an approach to program that might be best suited to this brief [in an earlier post] and, perhaps more crucially, a flat pack design generally speaking.
Perhaps a prefabricated design projectmay only be perfected after a few different implementations.
A couple of interviews that I've been interested in recently are attached. The initiation of these interviews is 'architectural transparency' and how that might be construed, though I see some application to what we are doing here. I essentially view these readings as identifying a way to deal with program that is loosely defined, momentary and impermanent.
ADAPTABLE flat pack architecture has an inherently transparent program potential. A good adaptable system will remove barriers between the user and their potential to change their built surrounds.
[I think from now on I will just say that Flat-pack architecture easy to construct and adaptable. But in broader terms, these two qualities are exclusive from one another.]
(good) Flat-pack architecture is transparent. It acts as if were part of us and we don't even notice it.
I think this is one of those points of inspiration points that isn't completely related to what I'm doing, it just prompts some thinking. If I was to take the approach of forming a solid, defined and unmovable building program then that would not be congruent with flat-pack architecture.
I must concentrate on the formation of different potential scenarios for my system/s.
After the presentation last week I have decided to cull some ideas and expand on others. The journal documentation from this point will involve determining the best of the models that I have done so far, making larger scale models of them and examining the possibility to use them as a holistic building system.
With this in mind, I have begun to construct a larger scale model of the idea about a foldable 'umbrella' roof.
I think when I was presenting on Friday, my proposal for site relevance exaggerated the connection between form and the landscape. It would be inappropriate to merely elevate the contours of a site in built form three metres above the ground to create a roof. It is overly simplistic.
True site relevance could not be achieved by such a simple gesture.
While the poster did address some of these points, I think it is a suitable time to elaborate.
The form of a roof could be generated [poetically] by the surrounding landscape, but ultimately the function of the roof is to provide shelter and to appropriately diffuse light. This is where modelling of the site and its natural characteristics comes in. We can give the sunlight values to particular parts of the site and then establish parameters for the roof to move or create openings in appropriate spots; or, analyse movement patterns throughout the site to generate optimum positions for openings. Given that this site could be considered blank, this sort of analysis would focus on the urban context.
This seems to be a pretty basic sort of empirical analysis, and I think it probably is, so as the project develops I will further investigate these possibilities.
