Monthly Archives: January 2013

new technology

I am always looking to what is coming in technology, and how that can free-up form to allow it to do what it wants to do. Solar panels have long been something that students typically stick on, rather than considering them to be a material that has its own unique properties. After all, what is the difference between a photovoltaic panel and a brick? But new technology has the potential to allow for still other ways of integrating this essential technology. (For integrate it we must! Some of my colleagues can’t seem to find a way to look at these aesthetically, yet see no problem in having boilers and AC. Why is one tech acceptable, yet another not? Habit, mostly. Habit of thought.)

spherical-solar-cellssolar-spin-cell

These spherical solar cells are really cool. The actual cells are the little dots, and the whole in this case is inserted into a concentrating lens about the size of a fist. The nice thing about this is that they could be mounted onto the flowing surfaces of a biomorphic project, maybe looking like dew drops on a leaf. Another cool form factor I’ve come across is this spinning conical-shaped collector. Much larger than the sphere, of course, but another take that alters the flat plate mindset.

solar-scattering algorithm

There have been so many innovations happening in the lab and in start-ups. Particularly interesting are the nano scale developments, such as this light scattering pattern. Of course I wish it would be a visible pattern maker, but even that is possible, since more color options are becoming available as well.

I am a graduate of SCI-Arc, which has had three different locations over its existence. A Home Depot opened right next to its second location. It was apparently a beta-testing store, meaning that they used the store to evaluate trends for the overall market. The way the students use material is nothing like the standard market; they see potential and application completely unlike the average person. I like to think that the way students use things, how they see the potential in things, can influence markets.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Decoding the Review – Fall 2012 final

I was rather appalled that all students were not there for there for their colleagues reviews. This is unacceptable. Do I really have to take role, and grade on attendance at reviews? This is disrespectful to your peers, disrespectful to the jury (who, for the most part, came in and stayed for the full time – which is more than can be said for many of the students), and disrespectful to me.

At mid-term, most students used a digital presentation format. The narratives were generally to-the-point, and flowed well. This format was universally eschewed in the final, for whatever reason. Is it only because I did not demand it? I sometimes feel that there is no learning happening, that skills developed drop so easily away. I did require students to pin-up their semester’s work, but I asked that they only describe the pertinent information and their most recent scheme. This, too, in many cases, was ignored. For some reason, many of you reverted to the lowest form of presentation: “first I did this, then I did this, then I did this…”

There is a book called The Checklist Manifesto. The contemporary world is a very complicated place, and the author posits that the simple devise of the checklist is a way to manage complex and complicated situations. I dread the thought that a checklist must be issued to students, but perhaps I am just denying the reality – that comprehensive design is highly complicated, with many interdependent parts, and 11 NAAB student performance criteria.

Checklist:

1. Limit your presentation to 5 minutes.

2. Run through your presentation ahead of time to make sure it runs in that amount of time.

3. All arguments need to be supported by diagrams, drawings, models, etc.

4. Do a digital presentation, but have copies of the drawings on the wall as well.

This was a rough review for some. Unfortunately, often the bad review stems not from what was done, but what was said (it doesn’t help when the work isn’t all there either, though).

Following the review, a big question needs to be asked again: what do you want to achieve this year? How can your project support your vision of architecture? (Often this is asked in relation to your career, I think this is thinking too small – think in more global terms about where architecture needs to go, and how your project supports that vision.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized