Architecture In The Digital Age

Submission by Marc Krawitz_Temple University Thesis Student

As architecture dives deeper and deeper into the digital revolution, and falls farther into ‘explorations’ in digital modeling and fabrication, at some point we as architects must look back on what we are doing, and the mode of working that we are engaging in.  It seems that this notion is being increasingly forgotten - that architecture and design is a product of process.  This stated does not simply refer to the figurative sense, but the literal one, regarding the idea that the way in which one works (material, technique, resources, philosophies, pedagogies, etc) directly guides how one makes and thinks about designing architecture.  It seems that research in scripting, 3D modeling, and parametric design processes (coupled with digital fabrication) are more often than not attempting to remove the hand of the designer from the results of the work through computational logic.  It, however, goes without saying that these designers will still emphatically claim not only ownership but also intellectual property over a disembodied design process.  This means in certain terms that the idea of a computational logic is kind-of bundled up within the constructed notion that architecture must rest on certain methodological or "inspirational" foundations - that architecture came from somewhere we did not invent. Be this from the 'natural' [architecture from nature], to the computational - or these days - the parametric, architecture has been removed from its origin as a divine work of human hands into a speculative array of process and production that rejects capricious ideas for the sake of argument.  An architect no longer says “good, this [thing] satisfies the divine order of the gods” but rather nowadays: "good, none of this is arbitrary," or "look how the logic of this thing comes from somewhere else."  One must question in this moment if we are really saying in aesthetic appeal: "look how many times I hit the random button until the computer produced something that I thought looked nice.”  It is appropriate to say that this argument isn't touching upon either the aesthetic or anti-aesthetic notions of form.  Merely, it states that we as designers must be fervent in how we structure these modes in which we design.  One cannot, with certainty, look back on their past and argue for why they chose to do this, rather than just saying that comes from a higher place; a deep love and passion for the making of things. It is in this way that architecture, or perhaps just design, can be understood as an arbitrary decision in and of itself.  It is therefore wholly unfair to judge the arbitrary position of architecture in the vacuum of a design process, since the quest for the arbitrary is fundamentally a structuralist quest for the origins of the work, which, if for this moment we can trust deconstruction, is an abysmal search in its simplest form.  It was one thing to employ the technology that we have invented in the means of figuring out or discovering new ways to build and new methods of thinking, but entirely another to support the production of building that utilizes a 3^rd party computational approach. To add to this issue, the production of these architectures often falls on the laser-cutter and cnc router to simply fulfill the crutch of people who don't actually know how to make or craft what they have produced on the computer.  In simple terms, if architects would like to continue to stand behind their work as "Architects" then they should be able to demonstrate beyond their capacity to simply be highly adept computer programmers.

It's not the nostalgic idea of the architect-craftsman that necessarily drives this argument, but rather a recognition that technology should be understood in its capacity to assist [as a tool], and not in its capacity to invent as a demiurge. I am not necessarily calling for a specific theoretical camp to overtake architecture.  Rather, I would like to call upon the people conducting this digital research to tell me at what point the computer stopped making their decisions for them and when they themselves started designing their buildings.

Philly: a quick and dirty re-imagining in 20 minutes

Did you ever wonder if SEPTA could be improved if you had some say in how it ran? Do you think you might appreciate school more if you could determine what you were learning? What if you could decide what happened with the vacant lots in your neighborhood?

This afternoon I took a break from my occupation of studio and I went to a workshop on the commons at Occupy Philly and we discussed some of these questions. We sat in and around the empty fountain at City Hall. They gave a quick introduction in which the facilitators explained what commons meant, which was space that is owned, maintained and for lack of a better word, managed by the people. This is not the same as city-owned public space, which is controlled by the city's various bureaucratic departments.

Then we split up into four groups and were each given a giant yellow sheet of paper, one for each topic: Transportation, Education, Vacant Lots and Libraries/Recreation Centers. Our task was to re-imagine these public goods and services as commons, that is, not run by the city or an executive, but by Philadelphians themselves. As would be designers we like to think that studying a user or user typology (that is one person or a certain group of people who will, you guessed it, "use" your design) gives us enough of an insight to know how to make an appropriate intervention that will function well. We may visit the site, we may even test out the design in studio, but we will not live with it everyday and architects are rarely accountable to the public if it does not work.
But the great premise, and promise, of this workshop is that the plans for these systems were user-determined. For each topic there was a small group of 3-4 people who didn't know each other, who were not necessarily in possession of any specialized knowledge on the topic, shouting out ideas. We were given 20 minutes and at the end each group presented their ideas to everyone.

Here is the direct link to the audio/pictures from that workshop: http://occupyphillymedia.org/audio/private-public-commons-reimagining-philly-report-backs


The transportation group had plans for improving accessibility, lowering fares, connecting transit to other transportation methods and making it more pleasant to ride. The libraries group wanted to make libraries community run, so that the city could not simply close them when it wanted to make budget cuts. People would contribute books, determine what was available at the library, staff it themselves and could even write their own books for the shelves. The education group wanted to create free schools, the curriculum would be determined by the community and not simply dictated by professional organizations, corporations and the need to get a job. And vacant lots became parks, hair salons, community meeting spaces, schools, party spaces or even vertical farms (and many of these functions could probably happen on the same lot).
So that all sounds great, but what about this will work practically? I think the Occupy protests are an example of how these self-organized systems can be successful. Occupy Philly has given shelter and food to hundreds of homeless people and protesters daily, they've organized a tech tent, medics, media, workshops, have working groups, and basically have a functioning small town in Dilworth Plaza. Why can't working groups of people make decisions about the things that happen in their everyday lives? Why do they need the city to approve it, or a group of design professionals to create an extravagant plaza with colored steam?

Occupy works because its not just the usual activist line-up, all agreeing with each other, but a diverse group encouraged to think for themselves. During our workshop people came and left, giving the opportunity for fairly independent input (so the ideas were not shaped by groupthink). It may not look pretty to corporate funders, but I'm willing to bet on the argument that well coordinated groups of diverse people like this can come up with more practical, functional and imaginative planning ideas than a group of architects, planners and city bureaucrats. Just imagine telling a group of architects to re-think the city in 20 minutes, they would waste the entire time just arguing about how to talk about redesigning the city.