that used to be us

events tab informs there are 32 of them taking place but only one in US! I just finished book titled: That used to be us: how America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. Cannot stop to wonder.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lucas Issey Yoshinaga on October 1, 2011 at 12:07pm

as i said, not only in the final product we use GH, but also in the process of making it... was said in the next response, the client doesnt care if we use GH or GC... he/she will look if it's worth to spend their money, doenst matter if it's from the public or the private section.
and i will say it, it's damm hard to ask a client to pay more 10.000 bucks in a first floor facade or a funny shaped shelf...The client for the co-working facility is a mid 20's guy, with a little money to invest. He saw that by a more contemporary approach he would have more money back... (that's the kind of vision that i think clients show have)

But now i understand your point. But you can't argue that the US or Europe is falling behind some other economies because of their design approach. Mies was like that in a way. When he proposed the seagram building, that used 1/3 of the ground, when everyone were using 100% of it, he proposed something that would cost 3-5 times more per m2 that the others. Creativity and vision, i think, are the problems that surrounds our economy reality, which is disturbed by many insecure and greedy thoughts...

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on October 1, 2011 at 12:51pm

I understand GH was used in the "process". What I meant is that from the info/pictures of the website I could only tell it was used on the lower facade. I was asking if you could describe how it was used elsewhere (like in the design process).

It's obvious the client doesn't care what tools were used, I'm not sure why everyone is trying to point this out. Who is saying otherwise?

> he/she will look if it's worth to spend their money, doenst [sic] matter if it's from the public or the private section [sic].

Again, only the private sector has profits so only it can tell if a project is profitable.

Even if a design is considered really good architecture inside the architecture circles it doesn't mean it should be built. The resources in this world are scarce and people have different priorities. The pyramids of Egypt are considered by many a work of art, but few would justify enslaving people for decades just to build them.

Permalink Reply by Lucas Issey Yoshinaga on October 1, 2011 at 4:56pm

but i think that what makes this kind of break and difference in a economy race (talking about chaos theory here, when micro scale changes macro scale paradigms...) is more "seagram" buildings rather than pyramids (bilbao?).

the way i see this difference that you are talking about private and public sectors is that (at list here in Brazil) is up to the boss/chief/general/ceo/president who makes the decision of rather or not to buy the project. That's why for me doenst matter in which sector the architect/project is being employed. In the public sector, each department has an amount of money where they can spend whatever they wish, and it goes again in the matter of if you are convincing or not.

but i think i'm missing the point of the discussion....

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on October 1, 2011 at 5:41pm

Sure, both have a limited amount they can spend, but this is how it works:

- If a private business produces a product or service that is worth more than what they spend, they stay in business. If not, it goes bankrupt, closes and stops draining resources.

- If a public enterprise spends money without any positive result, they argue their budget is too small, so the get more resources allocated for next year's budget to squander away.

Permalink Reply by Michael Pryor on October 1, 2011 at 10:05am

I use grasshopper at the office I work at. Oli architecture, a new firm from head designers of I.M.Pei. We are currently designing a commissioned museum in Suzhou China for ancient silk embroidery. I use grasshopper for our facades, interior partitions, and program changes. We are finding more and more ways to incorporate it. But as stated before it's a tool so it's behind the scenes and not recognized as much as the architecture itself. Clients care about the product, not the tools that make it. Has a client ever worshipped the pencil that drew the plans? Or even the plans themselves? I guess I am just fortunate to have a boss who has an open mind towards the future and digitalization of the architecture process.