Animate Form

Topology - a mathematical study into the nature of space - - One would guess that architecture would be the obvious next step . . .


I understand and share Lynn’s excitement about the potential for “virtual” environments to simulate a series of forces upon an object to determine its form. Lynn’s examples include boats, planes and other constructs whose design is integrally related to actual movement. While buildings are affected by many forces - physical, social, conceptual, etc. – it is their specific goal to not move(at least most of the time). They are the setting in which movement happens. So the question becomes, how does one incorporate motion and time into an intentionally immobile thing?

It makes sense that perhaps a building form is dependant upon circulation patterns, directed views or even structural forces (wind, earthquakes, gravity). Of these, only structural forces are universal and quantifiable. How are we then to validate forms that are generated by unquantifiable forces? Are our applied forces are invariably arbitrarily assigned?

Forces can be assigned by site conditions (marking a corner, framing a view, terminating an axis), social goals (sustainability, affordable housing) and contextual issues (vernacular style, local customs), amongst others. None of these design decisions are “arbitrary.” The weight assigned to certain “forces,” (i.e., how architects make decisions) has been determined by architects since architects have been architecting. The good ones have been able to correctly calibrate the multiple forces under which they are operating.

I also found Hans Jenny’s studies interesting in the way that the resultant forms were imbedded with “history” due to different rates at which the materials solidified. Similarly, Lynn’s discussion of landscape as both a stable and dynamic system creates an interesting model. Landscapes are at the same time evidence of historical forces as well as continually evolving.