11.20.2017
- Performative Architecture / Kolarevic – This reading talks about digital “appraisal aids” which give feedback on things such as heat loss, energy consumption, etc. Kolarvic says that the next step is to create technology that can effectively aid the designer in the early stages of a project, when its still being conceptualized. Then the architect can take the information and adjust the design to create a more effective and efficient space. Does architecture’s identity change when technological intervention such as this occurs? is architecture/ architect obligated to engage these technologies when they are available, to create the highest performing space possible?
- Responsive Architecture / Khan – Beesley – Price’s Fun Palace and Halpins Lovejoy fountain are both discussed as examples for designs which engage and interact with their inhibitors. Fun Palace uses collective action and ever changing shape (the perpetual construction site) to adapt to what the user wants from it. While the Lovejoy fountain draws from nature as inspiration and creates spaces for performance and leasure, allowing people to move through the space. Are these equally effective ways of creating responsive architecture? How can these qualities be implemented in a more traditional building? These concepts can move much more freely in these examples considering they are 1 unbuilt and the other a public park style program
- Responsive Architecture / Khan – Beesley – On pg 32, the idea of geometry being a means to control material behavior is discussed and is contrasted with geometry used for inconography. How does the geometry inform the material assembly on how to perform? Is this just to say that an objects form determines which materials are capable of supporting it?
