P.C. vs. The Blob

For discussion of structural innovations ranging from 3D Honeycomb to genomic and self-generating formal systems. All welcome.

Postby P.C. » Wed May 24, 2006 5:30 pm

I can't see why it shuld --- us this your argument why new methods is silli even it could mean cheap new safe houses , at a third the cost ?

Listen I am a profesional boatsbuilder that's where I started, I know and is acturly good at detailing and interiours and still I progressed further as fancy labor heavy Decor is NOT what architecture need, JugentStyle will be just another re-invention , Massive mahogony and rare materials will not profit the architecture of the future, only an efficient manufactoring and the fact that there are millions of P.C. capable of CAD programs will.
A rare detail what do that profit architecture, if you knew what wonders was made in Jugend style --- now do you even reconised why it was replaced with ArtDecor ?
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby mx2 » Wed May 24, 2006 5:32 pm

mx2
millennium club
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby mx2 » Wed May 24, 2006 5:35 pm

But most likely, because of "cheaper, better, faster" development, we shall soon fall victim to the computer age and live like this:

http://snarkmarket.com/blog/snarkives/suburbs.jpg

mx2 :roll:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
mx2
millennium club
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby P.C. » Wed May 24, 2006 6:39 pm

And why do you claim this and use such meaningless picture to show you don't understand what you blame -- methods like 3D-H don't care if one house are equal shape to the next or if they are totaly different ,have you even understood or just looked at the multible and very different designs in 3D-H where the cost are not different even the designs are totaly opposite ? --- Then "what" are your argument where are your answers ?

Do you even understand the idea about generating the actural building compoments from a 3D model , are your "argument" that as today the only way to minimise cost is to Think Lego then future "must" be that ---- well 3D-H is just the opposite of Lego thinking and invite to creative designs , and becaurse we today can not figure out how to cut cost without copying this do not mean that smart new methods can not deliver different houses at equal cost --- with 3D-H this is the obvious oppotunity and please mx answer me instead of pointing to some silli houses that carry _NO_ argument as 3D-H don't work like that.

Only your perception work like that , you havn't answered one single question and none of the pictures can be used as any sort of argument, esp not the last one that only tell that you blame somthing you obvisly don't understand ; if you did you would know that this is the exact opposite of 3D-H. It only say somthing about brick houses and that is not the issue.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 pm

Image
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Wed May 24, 2006 6:52 pm

Display a Better suggestion.

Somthing that use one plain material , can be handled with a standard P.C. and a plain CAD program, somthing that allow the Designer to go strait from projected design to manufactoring mashin and have each building compoment cut with simple digital mashins.

Do that or agrea that all your "arguments" been of Social nature, that you did not argue one real point , that all your arguments was about your "taste" and of personal charecter rather than real arguments.

Go take up the challance and Deliver somthing Better !!!
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Wed May 24, 2006 6:53 pm

Deliver somthing better than what you see here .

Image
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby mx2 » Thu May 25, 2006 8:32 am

P.C., we've been over this amillion times with you, over and over and over again and again and again...your images of computer rendered structure is just that: a computer rendering of the concept of a potential process for designing structure. It's not real structure since you've never built anything with it, not even a boat, it's not cheaper since you have no calculations at all, and more importantly it's not proven to be good or bad. There is potential for making the construction process better and ultimately simply coming down to only one real "improvement" which is that it completely eliminates the need for engineers.

No wonder you're here arguing in some foreign language for years and years....some free advice to you P.C.; go build something with it, anything!!! A 12" High model even...

By the way, thanks for ruining the topic. Now all we're talking about is your favorite obsession....again. Sad, very sad.

P.s. - if it's "cheaper, better, faster" be assured that developers will use the process (steal it) and then duplicate as many units as possible per hectare and sell them for as much as the market can handle. You may think "cheaper, better, faster" will somehow revolutionize Architecture, but all it will do is give a new tool to the developers to make a lot more crappy houses!

And most importantly, that which you brilliantly ignore all the time, you completely avoid discussing the design process. Your machine does nothing to improve design, and thus, the built-environment that we all live in. I'll say it again if you want...but I expect more rambling about "romans", "stoopid", "obseddions", "why don't you tell me why you don't love my idea?", and "why reject the emminent future?"... :roll:

mx2
mx2
millennium club
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby P.C. » Thu May 25, 2006 9:47 am

"There is potential for making the construction process better and ultimately simply coming down to only one real "improvement" which is that it completely eliminates the need for engineers."

Wrong again ------ there are an Enourmous potential while this is just the beginning , there are a need for an engineer more than ever to develob True new digital production methods, this is just scratching the surface , I bet you stunned with the first image years ago ,that you blinded your emagination ; your words prove that.
Can't you realise that this is a complete other world but a concept that acturly solve so many of the real problems , that your critic is the same every visionary new concept alway's met ,the backstriving closing your eyes for each and every real argument ,and havn't thee already been plenty reasoable arguments ; cheap and true digital production where everything go strait from 3D drawing to production ; now what is Realy wrong with a brilliant new idea , You havn't put one real argument forth only personal oppinions.

"No wonder you're here arguing in some foreign language for years and years....some free advice to you P.C.; go build something with it, anything!!! A 12" High model even..."

And why that --- You can not "emagine" that aswell as year 1905 Artists are in exact the same situation today ---- back then you would have banned the "hero's" you praise as genious personalities ; don't you realise it artists back then had trouble just buying a piece of canvas and some lead paint why shuld that be different today where YOU ask Me to deliver a "model" that would cost me 10 K. I call it double moral of first class as you seem not to be able to learn from history and seem to be willing to take the place of the efinity backstriving guy , who's only achivement seem to be to fight the bright guy.

"By the way, thanks for ruining the topic. Now all we're talking about is your favorite obsession....again. Sad, very sad."

So how to acturly BUILD these organic shapes , these computer generated 3D forms that you think is Ok when they are on a screen ; will you "throw a sketch" and not profit from the obvious options to let the computer generate Exact work drawings ?
Will you realy say it is advanced architecture just becaurse you can "manufactor" somthing on a screen --- with no thought how to put it into reality ; do you think theorie about what is on a screen will ever compare with a Complete system that gurantie that what is drawn 3D is realy what will render in reality ?
From what I can see 3D-H is the Only method that deliver a method to acturly build a blob ---- unless you want to fill one hand with a lump of halve hardened concrete and by looking with the other eye on the drawing, clach in into place Hippievise.
Do you realy think Blob is a "Whole" technology without an obvious method to generate the actural building frames to produce the forms, --- it is _not_.

"P.s. - if it's "cheaper, better, faster" be assured that developers will use the process (steal it) and then duplicate as many units as possible per hectare and sell them for as much as the market can handle. You may think "cheaper, better, faster" will somehow revolutionize Architecture, but all it will do is give a new tool to the developers to make a lot more crappy houses!"

Why ------ just becaurse You think so why shuld this be different than with Any other method ; I don't get you. Would you use the same arguments if you never seen concrete houses and only knew brick houses --- well the "argument" you use would "work" exactly the same towerds concrete ; "emagine what bad houses that can be build with concrete, ban it !"
Can't you see how silli this argument is ------- beside you havn't put forth one single technical problem, there are none.

"And most importantly, that which you brilliantly ignore all the time, you completely avoid discussing the design process. "

100 Times I said this and this fact shuld make you realise ; I am no f...... Architect" --- go blame the inventer of concrete, the inventor of bricks the inventor of building compoments and building systems the EXACT same silli argument ; it is not my responsibility what architects or designers will use this brand new genious method for, ---- your argument about this is silli , realise it for heavens sake.

"Your machine does nothing to improve design,"

Go blame the BRICK.


"and thus, the built-environment that we all live in. I'll say it again if you want...but I expect more rambling about "romans", "stoopid", "obseddions", "why don't you tell me why you don't love my idea?", and "why reject the emminent future?"...

Becaurse people like you alway's had joy harassing the real artists --- right now you think "He think he is somone" , and just that fuel your next personal attack while it is funny and you have a funny time harassing somone as you have a splendid fake name and this real guy have to use his real name to promote somthing you don't understand .

Just look at the poison you try destroy a splendid idea with ;

"----be assured that developers will use the process (steal it) and then duplicate ----"

Listen all you are doing is harassing an honest guy from the sick picture in your mind. All you are doing is to try make a few cheap points by harassing , throwing dirt and stones, at some guy who "think he is someone" , maby this discussion could have been an interesting one, but you have only one thing on your mind and you don't even spend the time trying to understand what you try make a fool of ; Realy do this creativity bring you any joy ?

mx2
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Thu May 25, 2006 10:09 am

MX do you even understand what I say when I point to the fact that today's architect programs is just rewriting the old methods into fast code ?

Do you understand the argument in this ? Can you realise that it will not bring any new architecture just writing oldfasion methods into computer code ?

Do you realise that for 50 years architects been takling about Organic architecture without having relevant new methods to make it make sense ?

Anyone can sketch a rounded building, but can "anyone" ontop deliver a method to manufactor the building compoments for that organic shaped building ?

Anyone can sketch a Blob but isn't "the trick" to be able to point to exiting new Building technikes to replace the old ones that don't fit with what computers are capable of. What idea shuld there be in just making boxes round if there are no further idea with it than just other fancy forms and no detail, no gain no savings, no new technikes ?
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Thu May 25, 2006 10:33 am

" P.C., we've been over this amillion times with you, over and over and over again and again and again...your images of computer rendered structure is just that: a computer rendering of the concept of a potential process for designing structure."

All your words prove is how rigid and unwilling you been thruout years to realise that there are new ways. And what you say is wrong --- 3D-H provide a real method , a different one one that could gurantie a new architecture, rebuild for a third the cost and at the same time make a revolution with new jobs ( though you don't care about this argument you never answered), ---------------- what is it you are protecting mx, is it plywood houses , the plywood state, do you harass me becaurse you are afrait of new things , have you ever put up a real argument or is it your misperception that reflect in all your arguments" ;

""Your machine does nothing to improve design,"

Did I say it shuld , shuldn't that be up to the designer using this tool ?

"The eye of the beholder...computers do not imagine such possibilties! "

What --- this is a never seen before tool, one that work with computers , where did I say "the computer" shuld "emagine" anything ???

"You may think "cheaper, better, faster" will somehow revolutionize Architecture, but all it will do is give a new tool to the developers to make a lot more crappy houses! "

This is the most silli argument , read it and think about what it mean ; a new method that would offer houses at a third the cost and spark new technikes into old crafts, --- _that will just produce crappy houses so therefore we don't want new building technikes the layman can use to sketch his new cheap house, no new business no new jobs, no new way's to put things together as if a bad designer get hold on the tool, he could happen to design an ugly house ; now that wouldn't happen with timbers or bricks ?
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby mx2 » Thu May 25, 2006 10:58 am

Anyone can sketch a rounded building, but can "anyone" ontop deliver a method to manufactor the building compoments for that organic shaped building ?


This is the essence of the endless argument with you P.C. You "say" this is what your invention does but you have no proof, none, zilch, nada, nein...as so far as I, and everyone is concerned, we've always told you that it sounds as if it has great potential but that is it. End of discussion.

Now back to reality...for the rest of the world (or most anyway).

mx2
mx2
millennium club
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Postby P.C. » Thu May 25, 2006 11:43 am

"End of discussion" is a silli reply, this link prove that ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg

You expect that I am so stupid, that to "prove" for you I shuld be dim enough to spend money for pleasing an unplesant web Troll who seem not to grasp just a single basic creative aproach -- realy if I did that how stupid wouldn't I seem from your narrow perspective ; for you it is ot about the beauty perfection or joy with it, no "glorifying" youe Ego, by picking on some bright guy is your "progress" , no wonder architecture havn't moved the past 20 years from that perspective. You attack me as person rather than even trying to understand a new advanced production method , you can't come up with a better one you even refuse Computers to engage a creative process Now the one you are doing is _not about progressing a better method, your perfection seem to be that of bullying , Gee how stupid I would seem spending my family's bread on your sad obsession .
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 pm

Mx I just find it so vain to be obsessed preventing new building methods, esp. from the resons you seem to engage. The very words yo call a relevant discussion about Blob architecture.
I point to the fact that new technikes can create a mountain of new jobs, you Arogant don't reply but throw another vain remark, as if architecture is about your reach , you don't even ansver if you are a retired cycle mechanic, you seem stoned in your own selfrightness ,issues that obviously deal with your lack of creativity that in this dicussion are Zero, ---- No bright visions from your arguments only vain complains about my "person", now is that Your offer compared my 3D-H , Sorry I would not find that progressive in any way ,but if you belive so or not the ones that grasp this first, are sure to win a mountain of money.
The jobs that will follow new technikes, new way's to use the computer ,new goods, nicer and cheaper houses , stronger ones --- such prospects you see as insults ; guess they would be from where you are coming.

Be bold not Nasty.

Gee architecture _is a joke.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby solidred » Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:59 pm

[i] thou dost protest too much [/i]
User avatar
solidred
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Scotland

PreviousNext

Return to New Structure Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In this forum zone there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 593 on Sat May 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.