Cadalyst - November/December 2008 - (Page 16)

techtrends By Kenneth Wong Designed after Our Own Image Biomorphic tower of the future builds on BIM to unite technology, antiquity, and community. I t’s nearly impossible to describe in words the enormous structure that currently occupies a place of honor in Anderson Anderson Architecture’s downtown San Francisco office. From a distance, it appears to be a human figure, reaching out for something. Close up, it’s a collection of hundreds of 3D paper objects — among them, several squid, a high-heel shoe, and a dangling angel — folded, glued, and pinned to a wire frame. Upon inspection, what seem like crude, origami objects turn out to be image-printed card stock that is laser-cut and folded into complex geometric shapes. The conceptual model represents what the firm’s founding principals — brothers Peter and Mark Anderson — envision as a new kind of superstructure where San Franciscans would live, work, and play in 2108 A.D. (figure 1). In fact, they imagine one in every neighborhood, each stamped with the color and character of its locale. Some might view Anderson Anderson’s towering giant as biomimicry, an emerging science that seeks design and engineering inspiration from nature. Others might call it a radical social and design experiment. The Anderson brothers call it their entry for the History Channel’s City of the Future Competition (www.history.com/minisites/cityofthefuture). If they turn out to be the architectural prophets of the City by the Bay, the project could usher in a new building practice — best described as communal building information modeling (BIM). Figure 1. Peter and Mark Anderson, founding principals of the San Francisco–based Anderson Anderson Architecture, imagine a tower in the shape of a human figure as a possible solution to their city’s population growth in 2108 A.D. A closeup of the model reveals intricate, geometric shapes created from laser-cut surfaces that are folded to form iconic symbols associated with the city. Reconstructing the City’s Dichotomy “San Francisco has two opposing forces,” observed Peter Anderson. “One is the collective consciousness, a shared sense of social, cultural, responsibility. The other is the fierce individuality, not just in people but also in its neighborhoods.” One of the civic challenges Anderson was trying to address with this concept was population density. According to Anderson Anderson Architecture U.S. Census Bureau www.andersonanderson.com statistics, every Autodesk Ecotect square mile of San www.squ1.com Francisco currently is inhabited by roughly IES VE www.iesve.com 16,000 residents. By contrast, every square GGC LaserPro mile of Cincinnati, www.laserproi.com Ohio, houses only McNeel North America Rhino 4,200. Because most www.rhino3d.com San Franciscans cur16 rently live in low-rise structures, Anderson anticipates some high rises will inevitably become part of the solution to the city’s future housing problems. “So our proposal,” he said, “is to leave the individual neighborhoods relatively untouched, but add vertical structures, a type of mixed-use communities.” The final shape of these humanoid towers would be determined not by the architect but by the residents who will move in, by the services they need, and by the microclimate of the region. “The armature [base skeleton frame] would be the support infrastructure, producing its own energy, plumbing, and water-filtration mechanism. Not only is it self-sufficient, it also supports the surrounding community,” said Anderson. “Certain components, such as elevators, would be communal. And the community would build on the base structure, adding to it whatever substructures they need — libraries, restaurants, gardens.” In other words, the architect provides the foundation, which, in this case, happens to be vertical, to which the end users can plug in whatever they might need. Anderson expects the ad hoc nature of the project, which seemingly contradicts the precision requirements of BIM, will force builders to rethink how they use BIM. In Anderson’s vision, perhaps best described as open-ended BIM, the architect is encouraged to leave enough room in his basic design for unforeseen growth — yet-to-be-defined units that residents will design and add on to the central structure. www.cadalyst.com cadalyst November/December 2008 http://www.history.com/minisites/cityofthefuture http://www.andersonanderson.com http://www.squ1.com http://www.iesve.com http://www.laserproi.com http://www.rhino3d.com http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - November 2008

Cadalyst - November 2008 Contents Editor's Window CAD Central Tech Trends: Designed after Our Own Image Budget-Conscious Workstations — 64-Bit CAD Power for Less than $2,500 Cadalyst All-Star Awards 2008 SolidWorks 2009 — 3D MCAD Software IES Virtual Environment 5.9 — Building Performance Analysis Software View Point: A Design with Teeth CAD Manager: CAD Manager’s Survey 2008 MCAD Modeling: Ask for What You Want AEC Insight: AEC Software by the Clock CAD Cartoon Issue Indexes Hot Tip Harry: Hot Tips for Cold Days

Cadalyst - November 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.