“however, it is systematic that when space technology is discussed it is not in terms of architecture but in terms of engineering, an engineering which propels us beyond the atmosphere”
Wow this is a very interesting, yet ironic question circulating in my mind right now. It just so happens that I am in the ‘cyborg studio’ which has incidentally facilitated my design for a waste water treatment facility that will be inhabitable by human and infrastructural occupants simultaneously. Essentially what’s involved in designing this entity is performing precise spatial calculations in order to facilitate the exact amount of space required for such a program. In addition to massing I must also understand the amount of water that will be treated throughout the building as well as the number of people (and their daily water consumption) that will procure from the systems capacity.
Today I received a very sketchy comment stating that due to these simple calculations that I “was an engineer”. Now this did not sit well with me and I couldn’t quite understand why. Are architects simply required to drawn interesting forms and have theoretical explanations as to why they did so? Are we restricted to non-practical and non-technical spatial organizations because in a sense that is my interpretation of the comment at hand?
Is my project unworthy or architectural reclamation because I used numbers and calculation in order to conceptualize the technical phase; not the design phase? I have been thinking. I have been working in a firm for the past year and every project I have worked on has had programming and spatial calculations that must be performed at the beginning of each project. In a sense is this not the same thing? I do agree that technically an engineer would be designing a conventional waste treat facility, but the truth is this isn’t conventional. Rather this is the schematic phase of any architectural design project from my perspective. In my opinion this adds an entirely new layer onto my project because I have now fact to reinforce a theory
Wow this is a very interesting, yet ironic question circulating in my mind right now. It just so happens that I am in the ‘cyborg studio’ which has incidentally facilitated my design for a waste water treatment facility that will be inhabitable by human and infrastructural occupants simultaneously. Essentially what’s involved in designing this entity is performing precise spatial calculations in order to facilitate the exact amount of space required for such a program. In addition to massing I must also understand the amount of water that will be treated throughout the building as well as the number of people (and their daily water consumption) that will procure from the systems capacity.
Today I received a very sketchy comment stating that due to these simple calculations that I “was an engineer”. Now this did not sit well with me and I couldn’t quite understand why. Are architects simply required to drawn interesting forms and have theoretical explanations as to why they did so? Are we restricted to non-practical and non-technical spatial organizations because in a sense that is my interpretation of the comment at hand?
Is my project unworthy or architectural reclamation because I used numbers and calculation in order to conceptualize the technical phase; not the design phase? I have been thinking. I have been working in a firm for the past year and every project I have worked on has had programming and spatial calculations that must be performed at the beginning of each project. In a sense is this not the same thing? I do agree that technically an engineer would be designing a conventional waste treat facility, but the truth is this isn’t conventional. Rather this is the schematic phase of any architectural design project from my perspective. In my opinion this adds an entirely new layer onto my project because I have now fact to reinforce a theory
No comments:
Post a Comment