arquitectura informacional
resumen del estado de la investigación 20201018

imagen Code Lars Plougmann. cc-by-sa

Propuesta

Esta investigación doctoral propone el modelado de los procesos creativos del proyecto arquitectónico mediante sistemas de alto nivel de abstracción basados en estrategias de pensamiento informacional.

Origen

  • El origen de esta investigación la fusión de un interés y una intuición:

    • La arquitectura como sistema de pensamiento y creación de espacio.

    • La intuición de que el pensamiento informacional tiene un potencial poco explorado en el campo del pensamiento abstracto.

Oportunidad

  • Para conseguir la fusión de este interés y de la intuición, la propuesta trabaja con la incorporación del espacio como objeto abstracto a las herramientas digitales contemporáneas aplicando estrategias informacionales de pensamiento.

  • Este planteamiento se diferencia de las dinámicas actuales de la mayoría de las líneas de trabajo e investigación con herramientas digitales en arquitectura en dos aspectos fundamentales:

    • que estas se están centrando especialmente en los procesos técnicos, en los gerenciales, en los de generación formal y fabricación experimental.

    • que las dinámicas de trabajo computacionales están, en su generalidad basadas en la aplicación de las herramientas digitales, con su particular idiosincrasia, sobre los objetos del trabajo. Este enfoque bottom-up genera una gran dependencia instrumental que pretendemos desmontar.

arquitectura como sistema

  • Además de enfatizar nuestro interés por el pensamiento abstracto sobre el espacio, tenemos que precisar que el sistema de producción de arquitectura objeto de nuestro trabajo es el que sigue la siguiente secuencia :

    • Pensamiento espacial (objetivos propios)

    • Incorporación de la técnica (requerimientos impuestos)

    • Producción de documentación (instrucciones de producción)

    • Comunicación con los agentes productores (traducción de las instrucciones en acciones materiales)

    • Construcción material (proceso de realización)

    • A medida que esta secuencia avanza se producen bucles de iteración.

Problemas

  • Detectamos en este sistema varios puntos que consideramos problemáticos:

    • El pensamiento espacial abstracto se produce generalmente en soportes analógicos y tiene una enorme abstracción (croquis, bocetos, maquetas de trabajo, diagramas, etc.)

    • La incorporación de la técnica introduce cada vez más una complejidad difícil de abarcar y sincronizar con el pensamiento abstracto sobre el espacio.

    • La producción de documentación gráfica (2D y 3D) se ha informacionalizado en un sistema de herramientas, procesos y metodologías que van desde el diseño computacional al BIM.

  • En nuestra opinión estos puntos son razón y causa de la distancia, desaprovechamiento y desafección entre los dos extremos del proceso arquitectónico que estamos trabajando.

Hipótesis

Desde la transdisciplinaridad de la investigación, planteamos la hipótesis base de la propuesta:

Al igual que los lenguajes de programación, que encarnan los procesos de pensamiento, diseño y producción en el campo de la ingeniería de software, los procesos en arquitectura también se pueden clasificar en sistemas de alto nivel de abstracción y de bajo nivel de abstracción; y se pueden integrar ambos tipos con un proceso de compilación intermedio.

Sigue leyendo arquitectura informacional resumen del estado de la investigación 20201018

Informational Architecture
20201018 summary of research status

This is a self-translated/enhanced summary of the presentation made on September the 27th. Feel free to leave constructive criticism!

Proposal

This doctoral research proposes the modelling of the creative processes of architectural design through high abstraction level systems based on informational thinking strategies. The models are virtualized into interactive digital constructs developed with visual scripting tools for the integration of all systems of the architecture process.

Origin: Interest+intuition

The origin of this research comes from the merge of an interest and an intuition:

  • We are interested in architecture as a thinking system whose main goal is the creation of human space.

  • We believe that abstract thinking in architectural design can benefit from informational thinking.

Opportunity

To achieve the merging of this intuition and interest, the proposal works by embodying space as an abstract object into contemporary digital tools by means of informational thinking strategies.

This approach is different from current dynamics in most of the research lines and work fields on digital tools in that:

  • These are specially focused on the technical, management, form-generation and experimental fabrication aspects.

  • The computational work dynamics are generally based on the use of digital tools on the work object. This bottom-up approach produces a strong instrumental dependency we strive to dismantle.

Architecture as a system

Besides emphasizing our interest in abstract thinking about space, we have to specify further in that the architecture creation system object of our research is the one that adheres to the following sequence:

  • Spatial thinking (self referential goals)

  • Document production (production instructions)

  • Communication with the production agents (translation of the instructions into material actions)

  • Material building (realization process)

With the particularity that as this sequence unfurls, iteration loops happen.

Problems

We detect several points in the mentioned system that we consider problematic:

  • Abstract spatial thinking is usually produced on analog supports and has a tremendous level of abstraction (sketches, work models, diagrams, etc.)

  • Tech embodiment introduces a kind of complexity that is more and more difficult to cope with and sync with abstract thinking on space.

  • The production of graphic documents (2D and 3D) has been informationalized through a system of tools, processes and methodologies that go from computational design to BIM.

  • In our opinion, these issues are cause and reason of the distance, disaffection and wastefulness between the two extremes of the architectural process we are working on.

Base hypothesis

From the transdisciplinar position of our research we propose the base hypothesis:

Like programming languages, that embody the thinking, design and production processes in software engineering; architecture processes can also be classified in high abstraction level and low abstraction level systems and both types can be integrated with an intermediate compilation system.

Keep Reading

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.