Informational architecture.
A brief opinion about Hypar.io and what I hope comes afterwards…

I invested today’s holiday morning in watching all the tutorials for using @HyparAEC through #GH3D (@McNeelEurope & @bobmcneel a GH3D specific twitter account, PLEASE!) and what started as a twitter thread, has become now a whole post. Buckle up!

First let´s go with what I consider Hypar´s breakthroughs. And I say breaktrhouth because I don’t like the concept of aradigm shift. I hope, believe and expect architecture future changes don’t come only from tech.

Simply put, the main functionality in Hypar is that we have to break down architectural production processes in sub-tasks (called functions) and then chain them in an integrated AEC production workflow.
This produces a sort of pipe network that directs the process in a sort of stream. Stream of what? A stream of information.

Hypar is purely #informational.

This information that goes in and out of the functions does it in the form of entities that are called elements and which have properties. As far as I know there is no predefined ontology, and that is for me a HUGE point.
Not having a predefined ontology means @HyparAEC could (can) adhere to any thir-party-externally-defined ontology. It just needs a translation schema (I think in a very similar fashion to BHoM approach). In Hypar we can define our own ontology to structure the architectural knowledge we need in our design and then, if need to translate it.

The hardcore use of Hypar is developed in C#, that means coding… BUT its inner workings are so clear that its implementation on grasshopper seems a walk in the park (just watch Andrew Heumann’s videos). Wonder why they didn’t choose Revit first, maybe Heumann had something to do with it…

Why do I find Hypar SO important?

Mainly because it opens up the use AND reuse of architectural knowledge. BUT that is no easy feat. To use it first we have to extract this knowledge from our heads. Architecture has worked too much time hiding its musings under the cloack of subjectivity and creativity and embedding it in analog-iconic representation systems that block any form of transformation-operationallity besides the intended construction process.

In my humble opinion, working with knowledge in architecture will be not anymore about expert knowledge systems, as research on AI and generative design have sought, but about explicit knowledge systems.

It doesn’t matter if the knowledge is expert or novice, not even if it is good or bad, what is important here is that we will be able to work over it. We will be able to work on the true genetic material of architecture.

This is not about generative design, optionieering, optimization, or even AI. This is about harnessing the enhanced potential of our creative human power after its enhancement with informational infrastructures. But to achieve this goal I see just a couple small, easy to solve caveats.

I think Hypar is not working YET with space. And architecture is space.

Some could argue we just need BIM elements to produce architecture, but that renders plain construction. The A in AEC stands for much more than that. The implementation of topologic into Hypar (coming soon)is a step towards this solution, and I´m eager to see it.

The second and more important problem for me is that, despite the tools are readily available and the coding barrier is not there anymore (use of HyparAEC and topologic over Grasshopper is proof), there is still no informational architecture thought.

We/architecture need/s to understand space and translate it into informational substance.

It’s not about scientification of creativity, it’s about decomposing OUR knowledge into information and reworking it into new emergent knowledge.
This demands alternative and complementary thinking processes. We have relied for centuries on the cognitional (making knowledge production-resource) power of analog tools but it´s time to move on and strengthen our tools.

Just to be clear: I’m not advocating for the demise of drawing or cardboard models, I’m rooting for their enhancement.

And now I can arrive to what I feel is the draft (I’ll have to rework it a lot) of my thesis conclussions:

With the combination of analog entities and information fields in knowledge modelling digital infrastructures, we can think of architectural designs as integrated design systems, spanning from early creative stages based on raw constructionless space to technical production BIM models for 7D architecture management.

Dejar un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *