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.
**********************************************************************************
[rethinking the project]
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 project may 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.
Alejandro Zaera (2007) A Conversation with Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa in El Croquis: Sejima and Nishizawa 1983-2004, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Idea Books (p12-18)
Ursprung, Phillip (ed.) (2003) in Herzog and De Meuron: Natural History. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Muller (p316-317)
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.
