The past presents the future
As the population grows, we start to notice the negative effects of outdated systems. This happens with product design every day. Ergonomics are brought into question as people speak up to say “hey, one size does NOT fit all.” Public transport becomes less convenient as the needs of individuals grows in quantity and diversity. Our current concepts of a city seem inadequate. Where do we put all these people, and how do we provide for them? As any designer can tell you, look to nature for an answer.
While going about our day performing tasks and making plans, we might not stop to recognize the affect that our surrounding is having on us. That is until the surroundings become an inconvenience. In product design this is commonly referred to as a “pain point.” If a product can work without us knowing it’s there or with minimal effort, then we consider it a successful design. Throughout our day we experience this on a grand scale through the architecture of the city in which we live. Do the influences of our architecture go unnoticed because we have adapted, or are we on the brink of a design revolution?
Milwaukee hasn’t seen much change in the way of architecture in a long time. There are parts of the city where you can walk down an old side street and you almost expect a horse and carriage to pass by. Milwaukee retains much of its old structures, like the iron block building and the endless amount of brick factories and warehouses that stretch from the lakefront into Menomonee valley. It’s almost like a midwestern version of an old-world European town whose gothic buildings still stand, but inside you may find the latest fashion. The importance of preserving this architectural history is prevalent amongst Milwaukee residents, but is this sustainable?
With the addition of the new Fiserv Forum, it seems change is coming to Milwaukee and it might make one wonder if it intends to integrate into the old charms of the city, or if it’s time to make a new one. The problem with this is that Milwaukee is carved up by rivers which make it difficult to expand roads and buildings. There is also a disconnect between the neighborhoods that build up the city. A lack of transportation is possibly to blame for the growing segregation between wards but, are there bigger culprits to blame for the lack of cohesive development in Milwaukee?
The idea has emerged that architecture has become outdated in its practice. Buildings where put up with a narrow scope of purpose and sustainability. As they become obsolete, we tear them down and replace them with something that suffers from the same problem. One thing we do not need, as a growing population is more of the same thing; this does not equate to progress. When we build, destroy and rebuild we are wasting resources. If architecture could be more modular then maybe it would meet the needs of a rapidly growing population.
It would be helpful if structures had the ability to expand or reduce in size as needed. It could be argued that this utilitarian function would remove the creative aspects of architecture from the equation. Perhaps this would have the opposite effect though. Instead it could stimulate creativity by forcing the artist to think in a whole new way. For example, victory gardens during WWI where a way to encourage the population to be more self-sufficient in order to ensure rations for the troops overseas. Features like this expand the dimension of the idea of modular architecture. It needs to be modular both physically and functionally. In short architecture needs to be able to adjust to its environment in a more organic fashion so that it can grow with the needs of the population. It’s time to ask what else can these structures do for us?
In nature, trees grow new branches and play host to fungus. They provide food and shelter for the animals, but these trees eventually die and provide food and shelter for a different animal until they fertilize the soil for the seeds, they’ve dropped to grow a new tree. The forest has several components within it, trees being only one of them, that have been changing over time to become a perfectly sustainable environment for its inhabitants. If the architecture of the future could take on this more organic form where things are growing, shrinking and re-growing in a much more interconnected way, then we could start making the most of the limited space we have.
The buildings are the trees of the concrete forest we live in. They provide shelter and amenities such as plumbing and electricity. Building could be providing food as well. Do we have to worry about how much farmland we need when there is plenty of surface area within a city then never Gets used? Do we have to waste resources to build a new structure when someone’s needs change? In a time where the population grows at such a rapid rate, these old systems are no longer feasible. We need a system that is ready to change and provide along with us in a much more efficiently.
You wouldn’t think it But, old Milwaukee (the city not the beer) is a great example of this idea of sustainability. The limited number of new building projects shows Milwaukee’s ability to make the most of the resources that have already been spent. We continue to repurpose our old building repeatedly. Using this idea in the practice for future construction is vital to creating a truly sustainable city. Paired with new technologies we would be able to take it one step further by adding, altering, modifying structures. This would allow us to change with the needs of a growing population. Cities that stayed behind, nested in the comfort of their classic architecture are the perfect starting point for studying the future of living.
As a product designer I see this as one of my obligations. From a product standpoint this makes a lot more sense. It’s much simpler to break down the process of a consumer good and pick out where you want to make changes. Architecture, although a lower production rate, is a much larger structure and involves a greater number of recourses and processes. It would be a great benefit to both parties, Architecture and product design, to combine their collective skillset to design the future of living. Incorporating material, manufacturing and modular design into large scale living structures. Approaching it from scratch as a user-based design rather than a box that will eventually get filled with things and people.
When people hear the word “modular” in reference to housing they of course think, cheap Prefabricated parts, being used on a modifiable platform. They would be correct in making this relation, but this is the past of modular construction. Many types of materials and manufacturing started life as a cheap unreliable process, but through further refinement have become leaders in their field. Plastics are a great example of this. Plastics have reached a point that are more efficient and of higher quality, in many cases, than their metal counterparts. For example, who would have ever thought people could go 200 mph in a chassis that was woven? Well, mix the age-old process of weaving fibers, with the infusion of synthetic resin and voila, you have the stronger than steel carbon fiber. Moving forward in time, we’ve seen 3D printing explode onto the market in only a few short years. Since its popularization it’s made huge leaps in quality and affordability in the public market. So much so that we’ve already started testing it by 3D printed buildings. There are multi material extruder heads that can fuse different materials into one print. The interesting thing about 3D printing is that it doesn’t mill, cut, or stamp. No, instead our leading future prospect for manufacturing grows! Just like plants do in nature. With this fantastic new technology (3D printing), it would be a crying shame if we didn’t rethink what we’re building. Imagine using it to build the same outdated structures, it just doesn’t seem right.
Many people are still under the impression that the problem with plastics is that they’re not biodegradable and there’s nothing we can do with them. The reality is, that the problem isn’t with plastics, but with America’s incredibly deficient recycling program. Manufacturers have become quite efficient at categorizing and recycling plastics for re-manufacturing. The good news is, 3D printing has moved beyond just printing plastics and is now using several different materials. Anything from metallics to organics can be 3d printed. This means that buildings could be made layer by layer from the same process. This technique could prove to be incredibly efficient. What’s better is that, with the growing understanding of material recycling a building could be modified in place without total deconstruction. A simple cut and extrusion of a computer model would bring an endless world of possibilities to fruition.
I’m not an architect nor am I training to be one, but just as science has drawn inspiration from artists, I believe that architect can draw inspiration from the problem-solving techniques of product designers. Problem solving in human factors is a product designers’ specialty. With a rise in population, this makes product design more necessary than ever.
While going about our day performing tasks and making plans, we might not stop to recognize the affect that our surrounding is having on us. That is until the surroundings become an inconvenience. In product design this is commonly referred to as a “pain point.” If a product can work without us knowing it’s there or with minimal effort, then we consider it a successful design. Throughout our day we experience this on a grand scale through the architecture of the city in which we live. Do the influences of our architecture go unnoticed because we have adapted, or are we on the brink of a design revolution?
Milwaukee hasn’t seen much change in the way of architecture in a long time. There are parts of the city where you can walk down an old side street and you almost expect a horse and carriage to pass by. Milwaukee retains much of its old structures, like the iron block building and the endless amount of brick factories and warehouses that stretch from the lakefront into Menomonee valley. It’s almost like a midwestern version of an old-world European town whose gothic buildings still stand, but inside you may find the latest fashion. The importance of preserving this architectural history is prevalent amongst Milwaukee residents, but is this sustainable?
With the addition of the new Fiserv Forum, it seems change is coming to Milwaukee and it might make one wonder if it intends to integrate into the old charms of the city, or if it’s time to make a new one. The problem with this is that Milwaukee is carved up by rivers which make it difficult to expand roads and buildings. There is also a disconnect between the neighborhoods that build up the city. A lack of transportation is possibly to blame for the growing segregation between wards but, are there bigger culprits to blame for the lack of cohesive development in Milwaukee?
The idea has emerged that architecture has become outdated in its practice. Buildings where put up with a narrow scope of purpose and sustainability. As they become obsolete, we tear them down and replace them with something that suffers from the same problem. One thing we do not need, as a growing population is more of the same thing; this does not equate to progress. When we build, destroy and rebuild we are wasting resources. If architecture could be more modular then maybe it would meet the needs of a rapidly growing population.
It would be helpful if structures had the ability to expand or reduce in size as needed. It could be argued that this utilitarian function would remove the creative aspects of architecture from the equation. Perhaps this would have the opposite effect though. Instead it could stimulate creativity by forcing the artist to think in a whole new way. For example, victory gardens during WWI where a way to encourage the population to be more self-sufficient in order to ensure rations for the troops overseas. Features like this expand the dimension of the idea of modular architecture. It needs to be modular both physically and functionally. In short architecture needs to be able to adjust to its environment in a more organic fashion so that it can grow with the needs of the population. It’s time to ask what else can these structures do for us?
In nature, trees grow new branches and play host to fungus. They provide food and shelter for the animals, but these trees eventually die and provide food and shelter for a different animal until they fertilize the soil for the seeds, they’ve dropped to grow a new tree. The forest has several components within it, trees being only one of them, that have been changing over time to become a perfectly sustainable environment for its inhabitants. If the architecture of the future could take on this more organic form where things are growing, shrinking and re-growing in a much more interconnected way, then we could start making the most of the limited space we have.
The buildings are the trees of the concrete forest we live in. They provide shelter and amenities such as plumbing and electricity. Building could be providing food as well. Do we have to worry about how much farmland we need when there is plenty of surface area within a city then never Gets used? Do we have to waste resources to build a new structure when someone’s needs change? In a time where the population grows at such a rapid rate, these old systems are no longer feasible. We need a system that is ready to change and provide along with us in a much more efficiently.
You wouldn’t think it But, old Milwaukee (the city not the beer) is a great example of this idea of sustainability. The limited number of new building projects shows Milwaukee’s ability to make the most of the resources that have already been spent. We continue to repurpose our old building repeatedly. Using this idea in the practice for future construction is vital to creating a truly sustainable city. Paired with new technologies we would be able to take it one step further by adding, altering, modifying structures. This would allow us to change with the needs of a growing population. Cities that stayed behind, nested in the comfort of their classic architecture are the perfect starting point for studying the future of living.
As a product designer I see this as one of my obligations. From a product standpoint this makes a lot more sense. It’s much simpler to break down the process of a consumer good and pick out where you want to make changes. Architecture, although a lower production rate, is a much larger structure and involves a greater number of recourses and processes. It would be a great benefit to both parties, Architecture and product design, to combine their collective skillset to design the future of living. Incorporating material, manufacturing and modular design into large scale living structures. Approaching it from scratch as a user-based design rather than a box that will eventually get filled with things and people.
When people hear the word “modular” in reference to housing they of course think, cheap Prefabricated parts, being used on a modifiable platform. They would be correct in making this relation, but this is the past of modular construction. Many types of materials and manufacturing started life as a cheap unreliable process, but through further refinement have become leaders in their field. Plastics are a great example of this. Plastics have reached a point that are more efficient and of higher quality, in many cases, than their metal counterparts. For example, who would have ever thought people could go 200 mph in a chassis that was woven? Well, mix the age-old process of weaving fibers, with the infusion of synthetic resin and voila, you have the stronger than steel carbon fiber. Moving forward in time, we’ve seen 3D printing explode onto the market in only a few short years. Since its popularization it’s made huge leaps in quality and affordability in the public market. So much so that we’ve already started testing it by 3D printed buildings. There are multi material extruder heads that can fuse different materials into one print. The interesting thing about 3D printing is that it doesn’t mill, cut, or stamp. No, instead our leading future prospect for manufacturing grows! Just like plants do in nature. With this fantastic new technology (3D printing), it would be a crying shame if we didn’t rethink what we’re building. Imagine using it to build the same outdated structures, it just doesn’t seem right.
Many people are still under the impression that the problem with plastics is that they’re not biodegradable and there’s nothing we can do with them. The reality is, that the problem isn’t with plastics, but with America’s incredibly deficient recycling program. Manufacturers have become quite efficient at categorizing and recycling plastics for re-manufacturing. The good news is, 3D printing has moved beyond just printing plastics and is now using several different materials. Anything from metallics to organics can be 3d printed. This means that buildings could be made layer by layer from the same process. This technique could prove to be incredibly efficient. What’s better is that, with the growing understanding of material recycling a building could be modified in place without total deconstruction. A simple cut and extrusion of a computer model would bring an endless world of possibilities to fruition.
I’m not an architect nor am I training to be one, but just as science has drawn inspiration from artists, I believe that architect can draw inspiration from the problem-solving techniques of product designers. Problem solving in human factors is a product designers’ specialty. With a rise in population, this makes product design more necessary than ever.