When I think about Buckminster Fuller’s idea of Universal Architecture it reminds me of the other notions of a utopian society.  The difference I see between Fuller’s ideas and that of architects striving toward a utopia is that Fuller is thinking more holistically.  Fuller is trying to generate a framework that can be used to create architectural form universally.  He is trying to create an architecture that has the ability to work anywhere because it can adapt to human needs.  When you start to talk about how time will affect architecture you can begin to look at architecture as it relates to ecology.  To be successful you must adapt or evolve.  What is interesting about Fuller’s idea is that you are creating a framework for human habitation but what he doesn’t talk about is how this will evolve over time.  I feel the dome structures created by Fuller do not allow for evolution but create a microcosm which slows the evolutionally process and at the same time close out all the inputs into the system whether they are natural or man make.  I think it would be extremely difficult to create a piece of architecture that can adept to an ever increasing number of inputs and still operate as it was originally intended.

“Technology is far more than a method; it is a world in itself. As a method it is superior in almost every respect.”

“And that may be the reason why some people are convinced that architecture will be outmoded and replaced by technology. Such a conviction is not based on clear thinking.”  I feel a great piece of architecture could never be designed by a machine.  The human experience can never be understood or replicated by the machine.  I do feel machines could design mass-produced housing better than it is being created today.  The machine has the ability to process large quantities of information and produces a result based on the parameters programmed by the software designer.  In this case I feel the machine could at least produce housing that is more environmentally sustainable because it is programmed to think that way.

While this type of technology has its benefits we must always think critically about the use of technology not only in the field of architecture but in all branches of society.  Using design software to generate a building based on inputs into a system is a way to use technology to help advance the human experience.  Frank Lloyd Wright questioned the use of the machine compared to handcraft feel that the machine would hinder the experience of the architecture.  Although technological advancements in building construction and materials allowed FLW’s architecture to function in a way that had never been seen before and was a big part of his success.  The same was true of Mies van der Rohe without the advancements in steel and glass technology the spatial experiences created would not have been possible.

Although there are new advancements in material manufacturing that are effecting the construction of buildings I see the real technological advancements coming in the field of computer software.  Software advancements are effecting material technology, building and structural assemblage, building form, environmental impact and spatial experience.  But with all these advancements it is important to remember that we use technology as a means to an end and not a way to generate architecture.

Folding in architecture is a very complex notion that seems to owe much of its success to the advancements in computing power and the influences of deconstructivisum.  Much of the folding deals with the complex relationship between the organic material and mathematically generated forms.  Folding has the ability to combine program, social, contextual and tectonic influences into a piece of complete architecture.  The tectonic of the architecture is influences by the laws of nature and is replicated in building form using mathematically generated algorithms.  This is just one method for using folding in architecture to generate form. External influences that effect architecture have increased over the centuries and I feel that folding in architecture is a response to the increase in complexity.  Folding has the ability connect building program and the building occupants into a fluid form.  Lynn speaks of the connection between the culinary arts and how it can influence the way we think about architecture.  This comparison is a great way to think about designing architecture.  While cooking you are following a recipe but at the same time there is a degree of happenstance.  Architecture and culinary arts may begin with a recipe but find that you could not produce the result you were looking for from that recipe so you have to reformulate the recipe to produce a complete product.

“Unfolding is the increase, to grow; where as to fold is to diminish, to reduce to withdraw into the recesses of a world.”

The above quote from Gilles Deleuze has a resonance with me thesis project.  Folding and unfolding of nature is part of the natural process of life.  The folding and unfolding of nature all relates to time.  The processes of nature work on an annual time scale as well as a millennium time scale but there is always folding and unfolding the cycle of life and flow of energy.   The principles and process that govern the natural world also influence the places we habitat.  If our buildings have the ability to adapt and evolve they have a better chance to be successful over time.  I feel this is the real power of folding in architecture.  If folding allows the building to evolve and adapt and at the same time meet the program, cultural and contextual needs of the site then it has the ability to be a successful project.

Frampton speaks about topography and the importance of the how the building interacts with the earth.  I like the idea that original dwellings were created as a sort of extension of the earth and the material makeup of the building reflects that idea.  The walls had a material makeup similar to that of the earth and the roof was similar to the makeup of the tree canopy.   I find the interaction between building and landscape particularly important because I am looking at it from the perspective of a landscape architect.  Not just the way the building touches the ground but the location of the building on the site in relation to topography and how the interaction between the building and the landscape speak to the ideas of the project.  I feel Tado Ando has some of the best examples of the landscape and buildings are working together as one form.  I find his project successful because he burrs the boundaries between building and landscape in a way that makes it difficult to determine where the building ends and the landscape begins.

Walter Gropius

While doing this reading I found a resonance with the conceptual framework used to educate contemporary architects.  As architects and designers the ability to think creatively across many disciplines gives us a broader understanding of the world around us and the importance of thoughtful design.  First and foremost as architects we should be designers and have the ability to design across different disciplines and different scales.  The problem I have with the education at Ball State is that you are not taught the basics of design that gives you the ability to produce design solutions.  Where the Bauhaus allowed students to refine there own area of focus Ball State gives you a very narrow focus and doesn’t show how to carry design principles through different disciplines.

What really interests me is the notion of growing your creativity.  I have never really given much thought to how influences throughout our live can stifles our creativity.  “the misuse of the machine is creating of soul-flattening mass mind.”  It seems that Gropius is struggling with the place the machine plays in the in the creative process.  “Our object was to eliminate the drawbacks of the machine without sacrificing any one of its real advantages.”  I think Gropius sees the machine as a way to mass-produce objects and to use the technology of the machine to enhance the design without letting the parameters of the machine stifle design.

Gropius stresses the importance the senses play in design.  I feel the senses play a vital role in the design process.  The ability for a piece of architecture to stimulate of the senses can make the architecture communicate to the users no matter their background.  A successful piece of architecture has the ability to stimulate the senses and transport the user into an experience that leaves a lasting impression.

“By imposing the order of his foot or his arm, he created a module that regulates the entire work; and this work is to his scale, for his convenience, for his comfort, to his measure. It is to human scale.”

These two quotes from the regulating lines chapter really resonate with me.  I have always struggled with the scale of architecture.  Maybe the more experience you have with designing a piece of architecture then experiencing the built space will you be able understand scale.  How does the handcraft fit into our experience of scale in architecture?  I wonder if the influence of digital modeling has allowed us to design outside of our means.  I’m not sure if digital modeling has helped us get a better understanding of scale or not.   The reading is a critic of the machine and the aesthetic created by the machine.  I can see the beauty in the objects created by the machine but I feel that there is a lack of humanistic qualities created by the machine.  Maybe the computer modeling will create the perfect confluence between nature and machine.  Digital technology has the ability to process and replicate forms found in nature.

The argument is about the purpose for housing is the same today as it was in the time of Le Corbusier.  Today engineers design most houses as a machine for living. Le Corbusier begins to define housing in his housing manual.  I think the manual provides a framework for the type of spaces that should be present in a home.  To me engineers can create spaces but what they cannot do is create the experience.  Engineers can create a formula that works to provide the spaces needed and repeat the formula a million times in different configurations but they cannot respond to external influences that create the experience of a home.  How do these program elements fit into the notion of form, space and volume?