The Babble/On Project

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Fear and Loathing in Babble/On

I ended yesterday's post by throwing up a couple of screenshots of the building that I just started working on, the first building that I've ever worked on, in fact. I'm not going to be too hard on myself for that very reason, but I'm going to list some of the things that are wrong with it.

• The colors are hideous because I haven't started to learn how to give a model a realistic (or even plausible) texture
• The footprint is too small, I think, as are the rooms. I think I did a 30'x30' floorplan, which doesn't really allow for an elevator and stairs
• I didn't make any allowances for Mechanicals/Electricals/Plumbing, mostly because I am largely ignorant of these things
• There are no windows or doors
• The roof looks awful and is open on the sides, because I have been having trouble creating a surface between the roof line and the rest of the building

Anyway, I could go on, but you get the idea. As I've thought about the problems of pulling this whole project off, I have a tendency to divide the problems into two categories -- problems of skill The first category is problems of a technical nature, like figuring out how to put in a window, or make a solid wall under the curve of the roof. The second has more to do with aesthetics. Will what I design be any good?

The first category doesn’t keep me up at night (other than staying up till 2:30 to write the blog about it) because it’s basically just problem-solving, and I’ve always been a good at figuring things out. I mean, after all, the software was designed for people to use, so aside from hardware limitations, I’m confident that I’ll be able to become an expert 3D modeler. The second category seems trickier. It seems to require that the stuff that’s in my head is somehow interesting enough, or that my design sensibilities are keen enough that the product I create is of interest to people.

The reason I’m so unsure of being able to design interesting buildings is because that seems like something artists do, and I’ve just never thought of myself as an artist. I think it might have something to do with my awful freehand drawing skills, but I think most of it is a result of the kind of clicquish determinism that we all settle into a bit in our childhood. Kids start developing their identities and look for ways in which they’re different from others, and I think it’s easy (even as an adult) to be drawn to a simple ‘type’ that they can emulate.

But now that I’m older, and I know some people who do art for a living (and done a little myself), it seems to me that design works the way a lot of others things work. You can have a knack for it, but a lot of it seems to be learning technique and gaining proficiency through experience. Instead of turning on the faucet and letting your inner Buddha nature shine onto the page, design seems more about using rules of thumb and problem-solving skills as much as anything else. And I’m a good problem-solver.

9 Comments:

  • *Sigh* This post gives me hope that one day I might be good at math.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:29 AM  

  • Have you seen the photos of the planned Fordham Tower in Chicago?

    (Go to http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-kevin26.html and scroll down to the view images link.)

    Some people love it's flowing design versus the usual rectangle, some people call it a "drill bit." Seems like you can never please everyone in architecture.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:47 AM  

  • That link got partly cutoff, the last part should read:

    /cst-nws-kevin26.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:50 AM  

  • My brother, a designer, is steadfast in his determination that design is NOT art, nor should it be treated as such. He does not consider himself an artist.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:25 AM  

  • Hey A!

    Congrats on your blog! I almost want to take notes while reading it ;)

    Good luck building your city, and don't stress about design if you are a good problem solver; that's half the battle there.

    Later!

    L.

    P.S: Viva la Straight Dope! (woo hoo!)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:29 AM  

  • I read about the Fordham building in the NY Times. Frankly, I don't see why you can't love it's awesome, flowing design and still acknowledge that it looks a little like a drill bit. I think that it looks quite delicate and lovely and seems like a great place for a luxury hotel and condominiums. Also, the rendering they have of how it would look on the skyline at night looks nicely balanced.

    By Blogger Arazu, at 2:36 PM  

  • Question regarding the Fordham Tower: is anyone going to occupy it? I'm surprised that peeps are still willing to undertake a costly skyscraper project in the current environment. So many people are afraid these days to live or work above 80 floors. At least, I remember reading that several years ago -- maybe the mood has changed and I wasn't aware...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:33 PM  

  • Calatrava dismisses security concerns by saying that by being a purely residential space it won't have the symbolism of the World Trade, which was a center of capitalism in the Capital City of Capitalism, and I think he has a point. Also, the building wouldn't have to as many tenants as you might think because it's awfully skinny and a full 1/4 of it's height is the uninhabited spire. They want to use the bottom 20 floors as a hotel and the Times reports that a few movie stars and at least one Fortune 500 CEO have expressed interest already in the condos. And (foolishly or not) I think people are just less anxious about this in Chi-town than here in NYC. There are apparently 3 80+ story towers planned there in the near future.

    By Blogger Arazu, at 4:20 PM  

  • A bit off topic, but it reminded me of your previous interest in "escape velocity" (see item #6).

    http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home