1. Chester says:

    I have difficulty in realizing the mechanical systems (water, waste, energy; the requirements of the project) within this ‘celibate machine’ mentioned in the project brief. Diagrams of the systems described in the brief would have been helpful.

    Also, in regards to comments made about an architect designing for an architect, or an architect designing for people; I suggest you consider an architect’s code of ethics.

  2. Z1443 says:

    @Arch Prof. Princeton
    I don’t know your training as an architect, and I don’t understand your first point, yes we eat, we sleep, and we poo, yes we are humans, even the most beautiful woman poops and farts, so I don’t get where you want to go with this. You as professor should know one thing pretty clear, that architecture school is not for everyone, how many people rather drop from architecture school because it was too much, no sleep, or harsh crits. If it was easy to understand design, architectural school would be the easiest program to go for, everyone would see something and understand it, and diagram it and they all would be right, and becoming an architect would be s easy as 1, 2, 3. So, yes we are not supernatural, but we have gone through an extensive program to be called architectural designers.
    I think your arguments are in reverse, your argument from a your architectural experience about Hernan Diaz, and Caltrava are perfect examples of architecture for the people not for architects. One, they would not called Hernan Diaz Alien forms architecture, and that’s what architecture schools are trying to keep away from. In the eye of the architect is just forms in space, but show it to anyone else and they would say they look really cool, that they look like spaceships or it represents a near future, but will they analyse circulation, structure, function, the answer is NO. If you ask me, they look really cool, do I wish I could model like that, but I can’t.
    Calatrava is one of the few architects that can get away from designing form, and from what I know, many architecture professors don’t like him for that reason. Like I mention before, his buildings are a perfect example of architecture for the people not the architect. In going back to the museum in Milwaukee, the form can be explained in a thousand ways, one can say it looks like a boat that opens its sails to navigate away, or it looks like a bird that opens his wings, or that the forms are based on proportion on nature, or just structure. And the whole conversation of architecture for the people, is about getting all different responses, in the conversation of architecture for the architect, there’s only on response it came from analyzing every perspective, like in Rem Koolhas buildings, great architecture, but the conversation is between the an architect with other architects. There is very little logic in to what the regular folks have to say.
    I never argue that I was a great thinker and philosopher. I’m sure people in the 80’s were great thinkers and had better ideas, and did great HAND DRAWINGS, so what, are you proposing that I imitate them? If this is your average joe response, I would say yeah Syd Mead brought tron to all you, but if he had our current technology, wouldn’t you think that he would use it. I would give them a better response to them, look at Future System’s Jan Kaplicky sketches, and HAND DRWINGS, I think they’re better, and e has a better visionary approach to architecture than a sci-fi visionary.
    And I don’t know if you understand what an apocalyptic scenario is, but the way I see it is that humanity is close to extinction, or the world is about to end. And well, if there was a zombie crisis, I wouldn’t stay in my house watching tv, especially in the city with a population of millions, are NUTS?
    Yeah I’ll stay home while hell is loose, watching a movie and eating pop corn, then I’ll just run to the store for supplies, and everything would be free, I would just close my blinds if I see a human eating zombie outside my home, I would punch him in the face and tell him to stay away from here and I will be safe, why didn’t anyone think about this, people we have a winner, professor Einstain here has the perfect solution, we all stay home. LOL

  3. Arch Prof. Princeton says:

    Regarding your comment about architecture for “architects” or for “regular folk”…well architects are regular folk as well. We eat, sleep, and poop. Please don’t use cynicism and marginalize anyone (ie: regular pple are too dumb to understand design) to justify your project(s)…it just makes you look immature. Its also not good for any of your future school crits and career

    I’ll give you a critique from both perspectives, as a successful architect from New York but also as a regular Joe.

    From the architect;s point of view…it looks too dated…like something from the 90s….blob-itecture…you say it looks cool…but any well read architect can tell you that its just Maya architecture…its not even extreme Maya architecture (think Hernan Diaz Alonso). You critique Calatrava’s Museum, but however crazy it appears to be, it also has a logic behind the form, stemming from proportions and shapes found in nature. Your project on the other hand has no logic behind the form. Why are some places bumpy and some places smooth? You could’ve made the argument for aerodynamics and surface area for sunlight, but you didn’t.

    As a regular Joe, this project simply doesn’t seem extreme enough, Sci-Fi designers in the 80s had better ideas and details (check out Syd Mead). They were all HAND DRAWN as well…no one had Maya in those days. To say that you have this incredible machine only to have it sit on an island and wait for the coming of Christ is silly to say the least. People have to go out of the safety of the home to “forest for food”, are you nuts?????

    Before you decide to bash other people and take on the world, give a good hard look at your own design first, there’s always room for improvement and its fine to do crazy sexy forms, but you to be as comprehensive as possible…so that even skeptics can be swayed. Try actually figuring out the project but still keep much of the logic of the design instead of just bashing people.

  4. Z1443 says:

    @ Pictograph, to answer the question of food, there’s underground chambers that can be used as storage and living spaces, the tunnels would lead to the river for water supply, and it can be used as an escape route, the end of the tunnel would be hidden and it would have lockable gates. This object is situated on the Northeastern region of Canada, which is isolated and it’s located on a island like region called LAC MANICOUGAN, due because its a large area surrounded by a river in a O shape which follows a river to the St. Lawrance gulf, and into open sea as a form of escape.
    Food will come from hunting, the location would be in a mountainous forest, I apologize for not showing that in my renderings, and the fur from the prey would be used for clothing in that harsh environment, but according to what I read the wild life is plentiful in that region.
    To be honest, I did focused on form, I think it was a fun competition and I didn’t wanted to get too formal, so I did something which would look cool, I also tried experimenting something which I always wanted to try but never got the time to do so, which is fusing mechanical engineering into a building to make it come alive, I guess I did it too literate but it was a first try.
    I wanted this object to move, but it would shake too much and it would of depended on lots of fuel. The arms would only operate when necessary.
    @Zombified, I completely disagree with that statement, I think that a museum has a specific program and function, when designing a museum one should know what goes on in it, when are you letting natural light in, when are you letting light off, what experiences it need to portrait, how are you displaying art, there’s a million questions to be answer in designing a museum, so what shapes a museum is not form, is function, plus we are all familiar to what a museum should look like, there are norms to follow and others that we should not follow. In a zombie scenario there is no existing norm that dictates what a perfect zombie house should look like, and this is part of what this competition is about, trying to figure out what a zombie safe house would look like.
    Think of this entry as the Calatrava museum in Milwaukee, just a cool building with no sense of why the form took that shape, but that’s what people like, the average person knows shit about architecture and design, and there’s two paths to choose from, you create architecture for the people or architecture for the architect. Its just a mere choice of who you want your audience to be, the people or other architects. From what I know of the average people, is that they love cool looking things, put a cool installation somewhere and people will like it just because they think is interesting, they don’t care of the why, just for what their eyes see. And whether you agree with me or not, just by doing something cool has help me got over 700 votes, and again why? because the average person don’t need to understand why this or why not that.

  5. zombified says:

    Form not Function. Fine when you’re designing a museum but not a zombie safe house

  6. pictograph says:

    just not practical… what about food, fuel? Is this stationary or mobile (too small to read)? What happens if more survivors show up and there’s not enough room?

  7. CCT says:

    Just a form that simply makes no sense without the text! I can’t read, very small!!

  8. Sandra says:

    It might not move but it has like a life of its own. like it. nice job.

  9. Alfredo says:

    I love the idea.

  10. farrah mata says:

    Zombies love the design

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s