Siim Tuksam

 

Among architects one often encounters the attitude that algorithmic architecture is a new phenomenon that professionals are forced to accept. Furthermore, it is seen as a danger to the architectural profession and digital culture is seen as something that devalues the profession.

In the architectural education edition of MAJA, the architect Jüri Soolep wrote: “The architect is turning into one of many consultants. For 30 years spatial planning has been gradually slipping into the hands of geographers, urban planners and landscape architects. The interior is taken over by interior architects, designers and fashion designers. The architect as the main author of the spatial solution is gradually dissolving.”¹ Soolep thinks in this context, architects should turn their attention to virtual realities as well. As one of the authors of “Interspace”², an interactive installation, bringing together the digital and physical public space, I obviously support such an approach. Architects must work with communal space in a new complicated context, inhabited by neoliberal individuals, both virtual and physical. Having intensively worked with this issue, I cannot dismiss the physical side of this super-networked continuum.

Identifying the symptoms

It is becoming increasingly evident that students of architecture are unable to relate to the traditional discourse. Or their projects lack fully developed ideas and the contemporary context. Many of the 2015 graduates of different schools of architecture in Estonia have acquired perfect technical skills when it comes to drawing and producing visuals. Even the quality of the models is increasing, although the materials and forms are rather dull. So at first glance one could agree that those projects really are worth a Master’s degree in architecture. However, on closer inspection, their lack of knowledge of the precedents and overall history of architecture becomes quite clear. There is certainly an enthusiasm for statistics, technical parameters, cost evaluations, development plans, polling interest groups, and yet the result of all of this is barely beyond a collection of diagrams, or in the worst case it severely hinders research. Twenty-five years ago architecture was taught through masterpieces. The works of Corbusier, Wright, Mies van der Rohe, Hoffman, Loos, Lutyens, Ledoux, Palladio, Bernini, Borromini and others were analysed in terms of their capacities, mass, construction, space, landscape design, vertical circulation or facade. Then, for some reason, universities began teaching architecture through the analysis of design data.³

Despite its benevolent, albeit probably misinformed, goal of trying to express the technological context of the 20th century, architecture has taken on a language that communicates through secondary components like paths, lifts, staircases, escalators, chimneys, pipes and disposal shafts. “Nothing could be further from the language of Classical architecture, where such features were invariably concealed behind the façade and where the main body of the building was free to express itself – a suppression of empirical fact that enabled architecture to symbolize the power of reason through the rationality of its own discourse..”⁴ While the architecture of the early 20th century mirrored the feats of the industrial revolution and was influenced by the austerity of cities heavily damaged in the wars, most of the large projects of today reflect the tyranny of Excel charts and architects’ inability to add anything meaningful in the contemporary algorithmic world.

A recent article by Rem Koolhaas starts with the question: “Will the digital revolution leave architecture behind?”⁵ Koolhaas thinks we are subjugated to a digital regime. Hand in hand with a new trinity in society – the French “liberty, equality, fraternity” has been now replaced with “comfort, security, sustainability” – the smart house and the smart city now flatten all of the previous practices of architecture and cast aside the smart artists, architects, commissioners, rulers and craftsmen who have understood the intelligent nature of cities and buildings for thousands of years.

Hypothesis

It is important to understand that banal architecture does not result from the digital tools architects use, but from a broader cultural, social and economic environment that comes with them. Maybe it is still possible that smart cities are developed together with an increased number of smart inhabitants, designers and architects. Instead of looking for new areas to work in, maybe it is possible for architects to come to terms with the algorithmic world and design it without forgetting about the traditions and collective intelligence that has developed over thousands of years.

Digital Architecture

Broadly speaking the influence of the digital on architecture is two-fold: firstly the cultural influence that focuses on developing design traditions and secondly the technicist influence that focuses on increasing utility and effectiveness. At one end of the scale there is digital architecture that developed out of certain branches of architecture in the 1980s. At the other end there is the all-encompassing grasp of BIM, which, on the one hand makes Hadid’s and Gehry’s designs possible; however, on the other hand it may also become a tool for imposing regulations and impeding creativity or enforcing the power of local government. Both contain prerequisites for creating great architecture, especially when the two are brought together.

In the catalogue for “Archeology of the Digital” Greg Lynn describes the participants’ conscious relationship with the new tool: why they started using computers and how they followed their goals with extreme precision – they did not experiment aimlessly like many of the younger generation of digital architects do.⁶ When it comes to the early years of digital design, one could say the interactive, liquid, ‘blobist’, hyper-surfaced, virtual, print architecture of the 1990s was too speculative and oriented towards promises of the future. Yet seeing how fast the 3D printing technology, robotics, sensorics, analytics software, software for analysing construction information and other digital and networked technologies are, and how these technologies are used in the research facilities of universities, we can discuss what is possible today, here and now.

Fabrication

In the ICD (Institute of Computational Design) led by Achim Menges and located at the University of Stuttgart, a full scale research pavilion has been built together with the university’s department of civil engineering. They are able to construct prototypes in a completely novel way. The design of the last one was based on the structure of the elytrons of beetles and material studies – it is a composite fibre material with a unique structure that allows the wing to be light and durable. Using an integrative computational design process, the pavilion was given a form that meets construction as well as spatial needs. In accordance with the distribution of forces in the construction and using a seven-axis industrial robot, carbon and glass fibre panels were produced that are best suited for receiving the calculated forces. The same technology is used to create a permanent facade, a prototype of which can be seen at the main exhibition of the Tallinn Architecture Biennale “Body Building”.

Machine muse

Algorithmic design does not end with writing code. Andrew Witt thinks “design has reached a new era of technical invention”.⁷ The limitations of CAD-CAM machines have been overcome – they are being modified to create new aesthetics by reconstructing the mechanics or by creating completely new machines, using mini controllers and computers like Arduino or Raspberry Pi. When it comes to industrial robots, building one’s own tools is inevitable, since it is a universal machine tasked only with operating the tool connected to it. Although the way designers and artists hack machines is nothing new. One of the most memorable examples Witt gives is how artists used the machines designed to calculate the trajectories of ballistic missiles to create drawings of complex periodic curves.⁸ A new aesthetics that appeared was soon used in special effects in the film industry. This topic is still relevant today – in June “The New Creativity: Man and Machines”, an exhibition curated by Sylvia Lavin was opened in the Schindler House⁹ in Los Angeles. The show presents drawing machines constructed by architects, from those of R. M. Schindler to contemporary young architects who regularly use robots and machine vision for creating drawings and models in their work.

Specialisation

To a certain extent hacking of this kind requires specialisation. At the same time it is crucial not to let the big picture out of sight. Humanity has reached a stage where no one person is able to produce contemporary products. The most important part of the architect’s profession is the ability to orchestrate or at least be an active part of extremely complicated processes without losing sight of set goals. After all, architects do create systems, whether they are regulations, plans, buildings, objects, texts, schools or events. The world we live in is algorithmic. If we are not capable of writing architecture together with its cultural and social values as algorithms, the digital revolution will leave architecture behind.

Artificial Intellect

When a computer beat Kasparov, it was an incredible feat. A few years ago when IBM’s AI Watson beat Ken Jennings, the champion of Jeopardy! it was not so surprising as it was scary. No wonder architects fear for their position.
By creating AIs man takes on the role of god. This means letting go of notions of time. AI does not develop gradually – at one point it just exists and at this very moment it needs to be the way we wanted it to be. The philosopher Nick Bostrom knows that “AI comes like an explosion.”¹⁰ When it is created man will forever be less smart than the machine. It is the same in architecture. If we do not contribute to the conversation about smart cities and smart houses now that they are being designed, it will be too late. What do we want from smart cities culturally and socially? It is like the story about the goldfish – we must be very careful with what we ask for.
We must see that architecture would stand as a critical discipline of design. In order to do that, on the one hand, a public discussion has to be created, on the other, we need competent architects with an extensive architectural education including an integrated understanding of algorithmic systems and the ability to create systems instead of objects.

Society

Right now it is almost compulsory to design zero-energy buildings with small windows, yet in ten years we may have access to unlimited renewable energy with nowhere to put it. Similarly, we are building intricate multileveled highways that may soon have no purpose, since self-driving cars can be shared and they take up less space in the city. Furthermore, we will not need parking lots, as cars will be servicing someone all the time instead of just standing in waiting. It is extremely difficult to tackle these issues, since we can not be sure how they will develop in the future. It makes a lot more sense to focus on the question of what type of space would be the best and most interesting for people. Designs should be flexible and allow for different scenarios. A good space is always functional, despite the development of technology. For example, in their evaluation of the quality of life, Mercer in 2015 has once again named Vienna as the highest-ranking city.¹¹ In the Viennese property market, the altbau is valued – the term refers to early 20th century buildings with ceiling heights over 3 metres, whereas neubau is used almost as an insult.
By thinking algorithmically or parametrically we are not creating only one specific type of future, but establishing systems that function in an unpredictable situation the way we want them to. This does not mean everything will be predetermined. No software can ever be finite. In addition, it is always possible to integrate public opinion, polls and so on – the law as a software upgrade.
Christopher Hight and Chris Perry, the editors of the autumn edition of the 2006 AD titled “Collective Intelligence in Design” discuss the issue of collective creation, using Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s vision of multitudes (“Multitude”) as an example. In Hardt and Negri’s view, multitude is a political concept; however, in this context it is data-based design that interests us the most. Hight and Perry interpret it as follows: “Multitude” is a way of imagining the emergence of new forms of social, economic and political power enabled by the very same communication and information technologies, wherein a common space is constructed by linking an infinitely diverse set of individual interests […]”¹² In this vision the possibility to not generalise is significant. “Multitude” is not a simplification like “people”, signifying a unified social body – multitude takes into account each individual. A theory like this fits well when describing the possibilities of design in a networked society.

Author

The architect as author will not disappear. Nevertheless, the flexibility and adaptability of the algorithmic world will change the role of the author. In the epilogue of his book “Alphabet and Algorithm” Mario Carpo talks about a split agency – he distinguishes between designers who design objects and act as digital users and those who create objectiles¹³ and act as digital authors. To become an author with digital tools, using pre-existing programmes is not enough, since the program as a tool – stylus – is already encrypted with stylistic restrictions. Authors of the digital age create systems the final shape of which is defined by its use. “What is at stake today, and what could really disappear, in not the author as a timeless category of spirituality, but a technologically specific kind of author. It is the author of identical copies easily reproduced – definitely a large and influential, but not necessary category.”¹⁴

Conclusion

If the main critique of algorithmic architecture lies in its inability to link up to the fundamentals of architecture¹⁵ and foresee its consequences, we could view it as a challenge to connect parametric architecture to those critical aspects. To do that we need capable thinkers who could navigate the world of digital architecture and evaluate it objectively, and practicing architects who would be able to further develop architectural concepts with algorithmic means.
At the moment most practicing architects have no such competence. Only a few nerds are developing algorithmic architecture – it is a niche – or on the contrary, only a few superstars of architecture exist. What is being taught to the future experts of the built environment should be critically reviewed. In Estonia a pilot project to start teaching programming already in the first grade has been established. The same should be done in schools of architecture as well. Instead of designers with technical cause and effect type skills, we need people who can navigate the algorithmic world, are able to see its potential, not prescriptions and work using intelligence gathered over thousands of years, and neither hoping that algorithms will provide all the answers.