RE: Reconsidering Creative Work to Earn More Cultural Value & Relevance. Part 4: The Model

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Reconsidering Creative Work to Earn More Cultural Value & Relevance. Part 4: The Model

in architecture •  8 years ago 

Architectural models are an insignificant proportion of trash, and technology to recycle plastics is in development. Meanwhile, a physical model is invaluable to a desgner even in the age of real-time 3D rendering. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

The exact "value" of any part of any practice is definitely worth some discussion in itself. I'll try to break down my stance a bit -

First off, I agree that from a very personal perspective it doesn't compute to anything significant. You're an architect or student in the field, making maybe a dozen models that come out to a mere several dozen cubic feet of landfill material. But multiply that by x 50 students for an average architectural class, x4 or 5 for every grade level in a school, x 5-20 for each state, x 50 for the states, x XX for western countries that follow the same model... and you can quickly see how what seems like a molehill is actually the tip of an iceberg that indicates major and broad systemic problems throughout the entire profession. Theoretically, it is addition. In practice, it is exponential growth.

Second, on any of these 'Reconsideration' posts/articles, I try to highlight the negligence (whether purposeful or not) that we adopt in the profession just because they are age-old practices that no one seems to ever critique outright. "Of course we have the build models, draw plans, render unrealistic and aggressive futures, etc. etc. etc., that's what we do!" I believe complacency is ultimately what weakens any creative profession and not thinking through why exactly something is done and how its done is a major fault in the real world.

But I'm glad this is getting a wider range of responses. These posts are aimed to spark discussion on aspects that we don't ever really discuss!

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

The contribution of architecture models in trash pile might be more of an innocuous one amongst many others. However, there are many small portions in a wasteland that started to take life on its own. How many arch model trash piles are we going to dismiss when there are thousands of architecture schools around the globe with hundreds of students making models each semester? How about the amount of money we collectively spend on models (that will most likely end up in a trash bin after a semester)? Yes, our profession does not have a critical discourse regarding model making practice because we do not want to measure what we consider as a "must" impact on the environment as a whole. Our pedagogical practice could be way more sustainable than it is now.

Instead of condemning an invaluable practice, maybe it's time to think outside the box and find new ways to recycle models. For example, architectural models could be contributed to local game shops for physical terrain to be used in war games and role-playing games.

I think what Michael is getting at is more about waste in the design process... sure physical models are valuable. But today in star-architect firms you have TONS of that horrible blue foam junk that's for quick and dirty studies on form and geometry. With digital 3D modeling software today - we go through thousands of design iterations on screen. It's a wasteful process, and that consumerist mindset translates over to these model shops. I think Michael is saying that it's a needless contradiction when - for example - you're designing a "sustainable" building. The process needs to smarten up... and ultimately, they just don't make models like they used to...