Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Actualizing

2017, Technology|Architecture + Design

https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2017.1354627

To cite this article: Ford, Chris. (2017). “Actualizing,” [Editorial, Associate Editor]. Technology | Architecture + Design, Simulations, 1:2, 241, DOI: 10.1080/24751448.2017.1354627 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2017.1354627

Technology|Architecture + Design ISSN: 2475-1448 (Print) 2475-143X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utad20 Actualizing Chris Ford (Associate Editor) To cite this article: Chris Ford (Associate Editor) (2017) Actualizing, Technology|Architecture + Design, 1:2, 241-241, DOI: 10.1080/24751448.2017.1354627 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2017.1354627 Published online: 28 Nov 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 138 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utad20 241 Actualizing Chris Ford, Associate Editor Stanford University Notes 1. FiveThirtyEight. “Who Will Win The Presidency?” 2016 Election Forecast, https://projects. fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/; Joseph Morgenstern, “The Fifty Nine Story Crisis,” The New Yorker (May 29, 1995): 45–53. EDITORIA L Design history reveals highly differentiated types of simulations that precede the computationallydriven modeling with which it is often synonymous today. When considering the impetuses shaping these types, it is curious to consider to what end simulations are most helpful. The invited content of TAD: Simulations suggests each possess varied levels of fidelity helpful for supporting back-end architectural operations toward actualization. Some of simulation’s design-actionable processes featuring levels of intrinsic fidelity include Representing, Modeling, and Prototyping. Architects invest considerable time and energy representing. Representations are strategic for developing our personal comprehension, and through their distribution, induce the comprehension of others. Across different fields, researchers engaged in original research deliberately separate the acts of data creation, management, and visualization while utilizing skills developed for each. In this Issue, both Christensen and Nicholson review resources for organizing and representing data in formats both familiar and unfamiliar. For those working with geospatial data, Hogue reviews the latest compendium of cartographic works. While data visualizations and mapping are each their own established representational field of inquiry and practice, it will be interesting to monitor how imported and emerging practices positively disrupt our own. Modeling removes undesired ambiguities present within representing and reveals qualities that were previously unknown. As an active process, it is both motivated by and obligated to truthfully relate to all available information. In turn, modeling then enables foresight into the properties, behaviors, and effects of solutions not yet actualized. We build confidence in such models when they prove successful, and our rational selves are encouraged. Park, Simondetti and Birch, and Alberti each share insights gained through modeling the lattice structure of a material at submicron scale, crowdsourcing design feedback, and analyzing variables within urban ecosystems, respectively. However, when models fail, our confidence in their value plummets. Our reasonable selves accept that predictive analytics are not as purported. As Alberti also observes, failed models are either informationally incorrect or structurally incomplete. In this light, Nate Silver’s forecast for the 2016 presidential election comes to mind just as easily as the pre-construction calculation of lateral wind loads on the Citicorp tower by Stubbins Associates and LeMessurier.1 The escalation from modeling to prototyping requires the appropriation of physical material at 1:1 scale. Operating at full scale is essential for prototypes, as they are subjected to the same set of physics as the final solution. In turn, working tangibly guarantees the discovery of new resistance in both material shaping and use testing thereby informing future attributes. In this Issue, McGee reviews the latest international survey of prototyping techniques that tease out these attributes in greater detail, and Beaman attends a symposium to assess if mass customization has further separated from legacy paradigms of standardization. From the front lines of engineering practice, O’Donnell, Gerber, and Ren write of an Arup / RMIT collaboration that developed bespoke structural components, which in turn independently suggests the mass customization agenda is now bolstered by expanding technological experimentation and maturing logistical practice. When shaping the built environment however, we cross a threshold where simulating ends and actualizing begins. Unlike industrial design where product cycles incorporate end-use testing to fuel iterative redevelopment, architecture is disadvantaged as the scale, schedule, and finances required preclude similar cyclical development. Architecture therefore is delivered more as a sophisticated craft object and less as an industrial product. The stakes are too high to not simulate. For architecture, the penalty for temporary under-development in our process is the permanent under-performance of our solutions. The featured work of Branch Technology, Future Cities Lab, and Studio Roosegaarde have been positively informed by different types of simulation in their path to actualization. Furthermore, the methodology essays by Jan Knippers and Robert Peña both share insights gained through simulation and architectural actualization combined, for informing either future architectural solutions or the improved tuning of existing ones. Herein, perhaps, lies the greatest value proposition of simulations: To positively inform the actualizing of our larger built environment.