Structures and Things

Fixing It

I don’t know if you often get the chance to build the works you create. I often get the opportunity to re-create work that other people created because they don’t understand how to build what they created.

With the advent of readily available 3D modeling programs and visualization tools, it would seem to most that creating objects that can be constructed, fabricated or otherwise brought forth in to the real world would be easier.

Unfortunately, not all tools are created equal and some will happily create something under your direction that cannot be made. It still requires intelligent and informed input to produce the necessary output of the creation process.

It will often end with the contractor whose job it is to install or fabricate elements from the design creation process. It is at this late point in time that the monies to make the corrections are already spent, and that the review process is so compartmentalized that no one entity can say for sure that the created design will in fact work. When the contractor discovers the error, every effort is made to ‘FIX IT’ so that the schedule and budget are not adversely affected. They will use their expertise or hire someone to figure the solution for the least amount of money and effort, because of the late hour of decision making. The wheels are turning, the path has been laid, and the options available are few.

So my suggestion is to question your designs at the beginning, or hire an expert to review them if you have no expertise in the design creation of the object under consideration. Not everything is as simple as your schooling or beliefs make it out to be. If you have never done something, be sure to ask for assistance before someone is stuck Fixing It for you. Your reputation will not be harmed when you ask for help and be only improved when your creation is successfully created in the real world.

The computer never made anything. It cannot create reality, it can only model representations of it. Wouldn’t you agree?

4 Steps to your dreams

Step 1. Listen to the right people. If they haven’t done or currently have what you want, then chances are you should be polite and not waste your time.

Step 2. Ask yourself if you are willing to learn and if you are willing to change? If you answer ‘no’ to either, then you will stay right where you are and potentially slide backward as life moves forward.

Step 3. If your frame of mind is right, the facts don’t matter. Chances are they are just other people’s opinions anyway. Stay focused on your desires and let the universe handle the rest.

Step 4. Learn the means to achieving your dreams until you can do it in your sleep. You don’t know what you don’t know. When you get past knowing what you don’t know and then practicing what you know, you will get to doing without knowing. Just like tieing your shoe.

So simple. You must believe in what you do and design your life to be what you want.

Public spaces

We all know what spaces are. We all have personal space. If someone gets in to our personal space, they had better be invited or suffer the consequences of someone who feels trapped in a small space who will strike out at a threatening presence. When we are out and about we operate in the public space, and everyone agrees to play nice and not get into someone’s personal space. The boundaries of somone’s personal space vary slightly depending on where they are. The boundary moves from when we are at work, on the train/subway, and when we are among friends. Public spaces are an artificial creation designed to bring people to a single area for purposes of public entertainment, announcements, and common access to natural resources. Sample platforms include sidewalks, plazas, terraces, theaters, sports venues, retail establishments, markets, and parks. Places that push the interaction from a public to private realm mostly include transportation.

When we are in our car (with our personal attachments), it has its own space requirements, we have boundaries that mimic our own bodily boundaries. Scratches, dings, and fender benders offend our person as if we had received a personal affront into our personal space. However, when we ride the bus or subway and it gets crowded, we make some effort to establish our boundary by physical posturing and positioning. If the subway gets too crowded, we adjust until finally people are in our personal space and every effort is made not to engage people’s private spaces. These spaces that are intimate even to our friends.

So what does this all have to do with structures and buildings? I don’t know. No, I’m just getting there. The point is to create public spaces that address people’s personal spaces. Strategies exist for minimizing the impact of crowding in public spaces. So depending upon the space, you can also make an effort to keep someone from stepping on someone else’s toes.

Exits, entrances, and flow patterns for traffic generated by people are important elements in designing a proper public space. Let us begin with looking at what public spaces we have control over. We have the entrance, lobby, hallways, elevator, parking lots/structures, restrooms, break rooms, emergency exits, patio areas, walkways, mechanical equipment (because a good environment makes a difference), transportation access, traffic control studies for special conditions, and maintenance of the space to minimize the impact during service. (As an aside, did you ever wonder what the people in traffic control were thinking when they schedule work on a major highway in the middle of rush hour traffic?) We have the power to consider something besides occupancy. Providing for flexible and robust public spaces and accessways is the best effort you can put forward in to making sure people enjoy your building or public space.

You define the boundary of these spaces. You define the walls, shape of the building, location of the access points, vehicle access, pedestrian access, elevator location, daylighting, public furniture (for parks, plazas, transportation) and where the emphasis of the building is going to be from an architectural standpoint. People who face these challenges daily are designing hospitals, museums, universities, arenas, stadiums, transportation hubs, churches, apartment complexes, barracks, corporate campuses, oil platforms, submarines, cruise ships, senior care centers, casinos, airports, roadways, retail centers and parks (public/amusement). These are the public spaces of the city and sub-urban neighborhoods.

We find that public spaces used just for leisure and gathering are few and far in-between. Most of our public spaces are mixed-use commercial centers that accomodate housing, retail and professional offices. It seems that they are parking lots with places to spend our money attached. We do not gather at these places to engage in public discourse, cultural enrichments, social engagements, family activities, or as part of our path when we travel by foot. People are best able to appreciate their environment when they are not bombarded by advertising, work reminders and vendors asking them to part with their money.

It is the job of the designer to provide a public space that can be enjoyed by many people in a personal way. Give a path to the public to enjoy your achitecture and not rush them past so that they can avoid being trampled upon. This is not how I would want my building or structure remembered, as a inconvenience that had no place for me. Define spaces for the public with the public in mind.

Software vs. Wetware (Thinking & Processing)

Is executing specific actions in a sequence (linear or parallel) the creation of life or a machine?

The algorithms that comprise most actions executed by machines and software are specific steps, actions, or decisions that cascade from a singular prior act. Some complex programming includes conditional response algorithms and multi-variable actionable activities. These are put in the programming to address complex data arrangements and actionable activities. Yet, when each of these steps is taken to its fundamental element, often a module, they are in reality fixed actions adaptable only to the value, class and the range of specified objects. It might be a simple matter of adding 2 + 2 and equating it to 4. But is it any different to add two apples + two apples and equating them to four apples? Context and object class must always be defined and actionable steps only occur when the criteria are met. There is no understanding of intent, higher principle, or fundamental concepts of action. Walking, moving, skipping, crawling, driving all relate to the principle of motion.

When we work with software, and sometimes when we work on software as a developer, we configure our actions and input to the software to match its needs and language. It will process our actions, decisions, and values much more quickly than we are capable of producing in a format that is able to be shared among individuals. It is often difficult to describe our thoughts completely to others, and yet the complete object is there built completely in your mind in an instant. No steps required. Software cannot ‘imagine’ a concept. Its strength is processing, limited only by the hardware that houses its intelligence. Is what the software does considered thinking? Is it capable of understanding our intent without explicit instruction or indication by value, action, or input? Software is capable of intent measurement based upon trends, statistical analysis, and pattern recognition. These are the tools we have given to it. This must seem like the software is thinking about what we are telling it. What about new patterns? New languages of expression? That capability to learn or adapt to these new elements and modifying its current algorithms seems to be at the core of thinking, as opposed to processing. This is where people seem best adapted.

We are wetware. Some people think this only refers to the matter between our ears. It is our brain that makes us capable of thinking. I would ask what use the brain would be if it sat in a jar rather than in our individual chassis? Much like a computer with no electricity. Dust collector. We try to emulate our decision making into a structure that is more capable of leveraging the element of time than we presently are. We encode this structure to act when information is received and to act, transform or evaluate the information for compatibility, compliance, and accuracy. The process occurs quickly and we therefore decide that it is ‘better’ than our abilities. We do not process direct information nearly as fast as a computer software program and the gap is increasing. The capability for ‘number crunching’ is exponentially increasing as new methods to maximize time and data manipulation are developed. We ignore our own development and methods. There’s not much money in making smarter people, just faster computers and better software. We must remember that computers will only be as good as we are. We construct the systems by which development occurs. We offer our methods, knowledge, strategies and experience in to the coding of the modules and algorithms. We know what to do with information, how to evaluate it, and what meaning it will have out in the real world of the wetware.

Inside the computer space of electricity, binary decision gateways, and process decision actions lies a world unencumbered by gravity, feelings, money and longevity. Electricity is the only currency, and constructs the only reality. Mimics are actual, resident in permanent memory until replaced, modified, or deleted. Reason is a decision gate.

People are capable of creation and mimicking as well. Our world consists of elements which we have no understanding or cognisance of. Those particles, elements, wave forms, energies and matters that pervade our space. We have many currencies and embodiments of our memories, beliefs and history. We call them buildings, temples, oral records, and writing. Our expression is redundant, robust and often ineffective. It is always being refined, replaced and recreated. So the question of methods comes to the fore when comparing software and wetware. Which is best and why?

We must remember not to abandon our own development for convenience. Time is an element that we personify. We clearly do not understand its full conceptualization or implication. Our perception is guided by concepts like efficiency, production, and value. Our lives are measured in meaning, value, and enrichment. Let us not mistake processing for thinking, and not confuse perceptions with our lives. We use the tools that we create to provide for our lives. We do not live to use tools. When you find software lacking in its responsiveness to your needs, then your only hope is wetware. Think about that and spend you time developing for it.

Support the heart of complex structures.

At the base of all structure is a fundamental element that keeps the rest functioning. It can be the legs, trunk, stem, molecule arrangement, ground, or chassis. It is this structure that provides a platform for beautiful expressions to spring forth in response to the environment that must be endured. This is the center or heart of structures. It is the means by which structures find their ultimate form.

Form and function have been linked as though they were inseperable. A form can exist in many environments. Functions exists that express themselves across a variety of applications. It is when we try to combine the two for a specific application, like building architecture, that we often ignore the environment that must be adapted to and the function of the building in a greater context. It is not often that building designers are able to have the luxury of designing an entire community or ecosystem. Is this really a sufficient reason not to explore the greater context during our planning and discovery phase?

Buildings, like other structures in this world, exist within a specific environment. We all exist in a gravity field. The sun shines on most of the earth regularly, the winds blow, the snow and rain fall. Ice forms, the ground swells, and seasons change. The ground that all structures perch upon is comprised of differing materials that each respond differently to the pressures placed upon them. Mostly, buildings interact with a rigid platform constructed of concrete, steel, or wood. These are our foundations, pylons, piers, slabs, and pads. We stand on the earth and understand that it is fixed, rigid and immutable (geotechnical engineers will disagree because they know better, and they are right).

Would we be able to achieve the great structures of the world without having mastered this basic element? I don’t believe so. However, we do sometimes forget to carry this concept forward from the ground to the rest of the structure. We fight a bad design with more design, engineering and compromise. In order to achieve complexity and robust ability in our structures, we must study and occasionally mimic nature’s structure. Humanity has developed his own structures and systems independent of nature. These exist mostly in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. They exist independently from outside interference. They are young structures that lack the rigor of time to test their robustness.

Isn’t it interesting that we look to the natural world for our inspiration and then we ignore the lessons we just learned in favor of our synthetic structures. We could not possibly know of all the real world influences that shaped the structures we find present in nature. Do we really take into consideration the following when we design:

• Solar cycles, radiation, daylight cycles, infrared radiation, UV, thermal impacts to the earth surface
• Rotational spin, gravitational variance, air pressure, lunar cycle, seasonal changes, moisture content, soil changes, acidity
• Availability of resources, water quality, waste, occupancy

Yes we do, and more so on a regular basis. Well how about the following:

• Adaptive mechanisms to move the structure to optimize current conditions
• Skin/facade systems that absord and use, rather than deflect and absorb
• Regenerative materials that correct damage and/or wear
• Mechanisms for resource allocation to avoid over-saturation or depletion of local resources
• Symbiotic relationships with structures of differing function and form

These are features that we have yet to mimic and master. Complex structures require the infrastructure and systems that provide them the opportunity to flourish and enrich their ecology. The irony of it all is that the strategies employed are often simple when understood. A basic methology is employed consistently throughout the design. Great design employs continuity, robust features, and adaptive mechanisms to weather the world’s impact. We have termed our understanding of basic methodology ‘science’. We describe its codification as ‘design’, ‘engineering’ and ‘architecture’.

Complex structures only exist when the proper infrastructure and mechanisms are in place. Without the heart of the system, replenishing, nourishing, and healing the systems, you have failure. When design efforts include complex structures, it is important to consider robust fundamental principles and continuity. No matter how high we rise in to the sky, it is the ground that steadies our stance. When we conquer the effects of gravity it will be a whole new game.

Afraid to design…get out of your comfort zone!

Designers, architects and engineers all have skills that they rely on. The skills vary and so do the results. If you fall in to one of these categories, then chances are that you have done work on limited types of structures, buildings and products. Belonging to these groups comes with some expectations and a lot of responsibility. You are often asked to be brilliant, daring, efficient, effective, inventive and creative. You are also asked to spend your time wisely, follow the code, think of the little details, don’t waste money, have a budget that the owner will approve, and use as many standard parts as possible so a cost budget can be put together. We are conditioned to forever counter our desire for discovery by having to redefine, refine, and rethink all the same elements that we use all the time. There is no opportunity for a paradigm shift. The rigid structures that define our spaces, interiors, work environments, our internal climates, our paths, and rectilinear transportation systems are all in place. It’s amazing that the first hut was built. What was wrong with the cave? Well some caves were nicer than others. Maybe there were no caves. How about those pesky wild animals that also like caves?

We have an opportunity now, if we do not follow the path of further restriction, to change the citiscape and housing industry for the next hundred or so years. The push to use materials that are of the earth in a more constructive and sustainable strategy is an opportunity to step outside of our comfort zone. Let us forget carbon for a moment. Let us forget green house gases also. Let us decide that any changes we make are from a strategy of abundance and intelligence, rather than a position of fear and public legislation/administration. Do we really have no other choice than to listen to propoganda used for political and economic gain? Are the strategies that we are being asked to use any different that those employed by our ancestors? Our solution varies only in a matter of scale. It is not a different problem. It will never be a different problem, whether we return to huts or build space stations or colonize other planets.

We have let economy, commercial interest, and banking decide how we should live. Their question is always about up front costs, profits from occupancy, and maximum short term yields from investments. They always say that the most important thing is ‘location, location, location’. Is it really? What is it important to and to whom is it important? The local residents, city, and future use of a structure seem to really be what’s important. Aesthetics, citiscape, cultural impact and beauty all contribute to the function of a building. They provide identity, continuity, inspiration, and worth to the residents, occupants and visitors of any significant architecture.

Architecture should challenge the designer, architect and engineer to extract all these values from their structure. Sweeping curves, engaging volumes, inspirational spaces, and culture defining symbols should be our design goals. We have the technology and knowledge to push the limits of architecture through effective planning, design, engineering, manufacturing, construction and occupancy metrics. We are able to tune buildings to their occupants, use passive methods that are age old techniques used before electricity, have sensors and controls that monitor the health of buildings and their occupants. We can provide comfortable spaces that allow people to live healthy, experience the beauty of nature, and work effectively. The way architecture has bent to maximize work from the building occupants, and yield the highest dollar per square foot for a few ammenities lends me to believe that we have not experienced the best from our designers, architects and engineers. Every structure should add something to the community and be a symbiotic component that contributes to the infrastructure rather than burden it with its waste, energy use, and ineffective transportation demands.

There are many strategies, structures, and systems for us to discover. We must not fear our desire for discovery. We must also not suffer and cower below the threats of individuals and administrations that demand we pay in perpertuity for a system created by its regulation. We have already given much to be licensed, funded, taxed, regulated, protected, and misinformed by people seeking a steady stream of income rather than an improvement in the standard of living. Our citiscapes and towns reflect the demand for efficiency and regulation. Roads, signs, arrows, and real estate plots have defined us until this point. We have failed to bring individual choice and public transportation into alignment. We have taken the life-blood of humanity and removed it from our cities. Our food and water comes from hundreds of miles away because we have poisoned our local resources, covered every inch with concrete, and failed in our responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

We have been led to believe that we are ‘consumers’ with no opportunity for balance with our environment. Is this how you see yourself? For I surely do not. We have a great potential to live, and we just need to choose the path we will take to realize it. We will err many times. We already have. Let us not be afraid or intimidated in to giving away our power of choice by people seeking a regular return on their money or tax base. Administration and regulation never lead to a paradigm shift. Dare to design and get out of your comfort zone!

Scarcity and Ingenuity

When there exists something needed and it is not present, what choices are there? The choices embody the person’s choosing and the environment that they find themselves in. Need is determined by an absence of an object, resource, or condition. Establishing need only mandates that no other object or condition exists to meet and satisfy the current conditions. Need surpasses desire. It is not something that you want, it is something more. Need is often conditional to the experience of the individual. They have come to believe that they need something specific and no other thing that will satisfy the present condition. The precept is that they know of no other thing that will satisfy their demands and therefore they need a something. What happends when what you perceive is not present? Your choice is to rely on ingenuity.

Ingenuity is often about changing your perception. The answer and solutions are there in front of you, just beyond your everyday perception. In design, we seek solutions that are just beyond our vision. This is akin to the “Kobayashi Maru” scenario (Star Trek reference) given to cadets. The test is primarily to gage a person’s response to conditions that provide for no direct solution based on our training and experience. When conditions exist that provide for no options, then there is need and it is a powerful motivator and a powerful restraint on our minds as well. When we need, we become fearful, desperate, anxious, and overly focused on the challenges that face us. It is the perception of scarcity and the further potential for loss that keeps us from finding alternatives. Change ‘need’ to ‘want’ through ingenuity. When there is something wanted, it is often easier to supply a variety of options that will satisfy some or most of our requirements. Scarcity of a need then becomes an abundance of alternatives.

Scarcity is a mindset. People who have resources (money, time, labor) at their disposal see their activities and options entirely different than people who lack resources. It is not because they have resources that sets their mindset, it is their mindset from the beginning that provides them the required resources. They have wants that are identified often as goals, plans, or dreams. They are focused today to move forward to tomorrow. They see past present needs that block their progress and reframe their vision to find the options that encompass their future wants. If water is your immediate need, and you’d have recognized this previously and would therefore plan for it by putting some aside or by drilling a well previously. Ingenuity involves planning and investment. You would invest in yourself through education, and would find stategies and methods to solve future challenges.

Have we failed to teach and embody these principles? I believe that asking individuals to rely entirely on the group provides for inherit weaknesses in the robust nature of groups. If the group begins from the same point, receives the same education and experiences, then where is the investment that provides for ingenuity? Groups are robust because of the varied experiences and education of its members. When scarcity strikes a group, it is because of a lack of vision and planning. The dynamic of groups who face challenges often degrades to a point where a few individuals decide and act for the group. Again this degrades the robustness of the group. While group dynamics offers many benefits, they are not suited to scarcity or ingenuity.

Scarce resources provide individuals and groups an opportunity to reframe their perception from a need to a want. This is not about having less or living with fewer comforts. This is about living and not being carried by a group without contributing. Being adrift on a great ocean is not living nor choosing. It is also important to make the decision. Someone else’s need is not necessarily the best for you. I won’t argue that certain aspects of living are not the same for all people. Beyond survival, there is civilization and culture, society and law. At the core of it is the individual choice and ingenuity. What else provides for greatness and quantum leaps forward except for scarcity and ingenuity?

Architecture and building space

It would seem like a contradiction to be building space. In fact, what’s done is the confinement of space, harnessing of space, defining of space and assigning function to space. Space in its self has no definition. Unless you’re a phycisist and would argue that space is defined by mass-energy-quantum-particles and influenced as a medium by gravity, dark matter and unseen forces, then we can state that space is undefined until people step into the equation. We define spaces for living, working, sleeping, eating, bathing, and so many other activities.

The defining process is architecture. So in order to satisfy architecture, we ask many questions regarding those elements that will help form and develop the undefined space in to occupieable space. Will it be for groups of people? Will it be for private occupancy? Will the outside world impinge on the interior space? How will the space be lit, sound controlled, access given, and what geometric configuration will the space occupy? How does the space interact with other space?

It might be argued that each space is a dynamic environment that must see, listen, breath, process, recover and endure. It is not living, though it may be alive when used. It’s artificial heating/cooling mechanisms, its apperatures to control daylight, its electroluminecent contol mechanisms (lighting), its sound control mechanisms, warning messages for danger, its interior linings and entry/exit passage ways. It has similar characteristics to living organisms. It has some self awareness through sensors, controls, and corrective algorithms. However, it lacks the ability to achieve self-preservation through fight/flight mechanisms. We as architects and designers provide all of these mechanisms to defined space so that it can care for our needs without our active efforts. It protects, entertains, feeds, joins us together, and seperates us from one another.

Should space be so defined that it can only perform one function for us? Is space a specialized feature of our lives? We don’t live that way, changing our minds, habits and activity every day. Do rooms provide us a place to act or do we act according to the room? From experience, we have seen people live their whole lives in a single room that serves all their daily functions. It does not necessarily serve their needs. It is limited to be only what it was designed to do. We sometimes need confined comforting spaces and sometimes vast unending spaces. We sometimes need to sit and concentrate, while other times we need to run free from a single place.

When we design, build and engineer architecture it is up to us to remember that flexibility and the use of a particular space will not always be what we think it should be. To provide longevity to a particular space, we must be willing to provide the space with the needed mechanisms, controls and features that allow it to adapt over the years to serve many differing people. Open floor plans, so popular in high-rise complexes, office building and convention centers, provide unique conditions in the built world. This practice is so different from our residential design practices where each room and space is assigned a specific function. It is becoming more rare that an individual or family will live a single generation in a home, much less mutliple generations. The needs of one family will often differ considerably from the next and as different cultures begin to occupy foreign architecture, the challenge is to provide space and platforms for people to live their lives.

When was the last time you learned of a major city coming into existence? I’m not talking about sub-urban city centers or expansion of an existing metropolis. I mean a city, founded near a natural resource, grown and planned to meet a growing population and commercial interest. The closest thing is perhaps a college campus or new corporate campus. This is not the same. I don’t think we’ll see too many fresh opportunities to define communities or large city centers (except perhaps in countries outside of America). I think we’ll define and redefine existing spaces to serve the current population and technological method.

So, with this in mind, seek to provide flexible space both inside and out when defining new architecture.

Emotional Form Design Methodology

It might seem that something that produces such concrete objects in the world as the act of design would involve an abundance of metrics, science and predicated structure. We might also say that people design to meet the needs of society. The design is only involved in making up for some lack that exists within the communal infrastructure. I would argue that the judge of design and its value to the public is an emotional one.

I would say that people who design and people who experience design do so immediately on an emotional level. The experience is similar to meeting someone for the first time. You either like them or not. You can often learn to appreciate them as you discover those elements of their personality that were not so obvious when first introduced. You can also find more and more things to support your dislike. However the progression occurs, the initial response is emotional. How else could it occur?

Our experience is taken in through our senses and funneled through our emotional channels. We are wired to experience and decide quickly. Our lives depend on it. We experience color, texture, shape, motion, contextual presentation, and blend it in to our present emotional state. Could we not just suspend our judgment for a brief time in order to best experience a design and evaluate it based on its merits and lacking elements? We could if we knew it was coming. This is what happens when someone asks us to justify, qualify and quantify our judgment of a design. This is when our training, experience, science, metrics and quantitative analysis comes to bear. When we are safe and have already determined that something does not threaten, offend, or challenge us directly, we can act from a position of quantitative analysis.

I would offer that during the design process we are emotionally driven to balance, placate, and meet undefined needs that exist in our minds. Each step and stroke of the pencil shapes what is to come next. Each stroke is judged as being ‘right’ or not. You know it as soon as you finish the stroke and receive the response in your body. Each strike of the chisel, each brush stroke, each regeneration of the model, and every session that we sit down to design. There is something about each part in context that must be ‘right’ and builds to the whole that is a ‘good’ design.

How many scraps of paper are in the waste basket or recycle bin? How many times do you start from scratch? Why? Is it inspiration or did you feel that the design just didn’t feel right? You are trying to answer with your design hundreds of unasked questions in the form of psycho-psomatic response mechanisms. Is it really wrong to design this way? Is it really counter to all your training and experience? I would say that emotional design is the only way to find design that strikes a chord with other people. How can people relate to metrics and structure? They relate through the response of the designer as another person.

A design finds its proper place when it finds its proper context. Putting a ship designed for water in the desert where no water exists defeats the design. Having an understanding how the design would impact you and others is key to developing an emotional link and empathic conduit between designer and user. Know where, how, and why a particular design is going to be used. Also, getting an opportunity to receive tactile feedback from a prototype, visual-spatial response from a mock-up, and emotional satisfaction from using a design successfully will all contribute to present and future design success.

Design is a form of expression that encompasses the entire human experience. It is physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, and communal. Design let’s other people experience parts of who we are that are not obvious when we first meet them. People are rich, complex and ever-changing. Our design should not be any less. Let your emotion, experience and metrics empower your design.