Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #20765
      May
      Guest

      Actually, I am not sure about how this so called mechanical cable works, because I’ve never got in touch with this kind of machine before. And whether it can cope with reasonable structural challenges? It is so incredible that I think it looks like a surreal science fiction scene. Maybe there is something about structure which can be shared?

    • #20766
      Jezim Fuentes
      Participant

      I have the same question with regards to the 3rd place work. Plus, some honorable mention entries and finalists don’t have a single narrative in their boards, some are not English but still qualify, and some have a single quote, not own words in their panel. No offense, but for learning more about their boards, we hope to receive transparency about how the jury judged it and what we can get from their idea so that we can apply it for our future entries to your upcoming competition.

      • #20790
        arkitekturo
        Keymaster

        Hi @Jezim,

        Including text on the presentation boards was totally optional. The brief did not require or limit the amount of text that could be included in the presentation. Some teams decided not to include any text, and that’s ok, as long as their projects could be understood through their drawings and other graphic elements there’s no reason why they could not be awarded. As a matter of fact, architecture is a highly visual language, and it is possible to tell a story and represent an idea without the need for words.

        As for language, this matter was widely discussed on the forums through the competition and the answer was always the same. We encourage everyone to use English for three main reasons. 1. To be sure the jury understood your presentation. 2. To maximize the chances of other participants understanding a project and 3. To increases the chances of architecture magazines and media publishing your work. However, we also said that no project would be disqualified for using a language different than English.

        • #20794
          Jezim Fuentes
          Participant

          That is true but is there a chance to know the jury’s feedback for the finalist because, as you have said, there is something they understood behind the visuals. Even if we look at some images, we still could not see their reason behind their designs; maybe the juries could help us by showing their feedback on how those entries became finalists.

          About the language they use, We hope that they have an English version of their boards so that we could read it clearly on how they respond to the Bauhaus campus2021 challenge and learn from them.

    • #20784
      arkitekturo
      Keymaster

      Hello @May and @Jezim,

      The jury’s meeting minutes can help you understand a little bit better what they jury valued about this project.

      Technically speaking the project is challenging, no doubt about that, but there’s nothing in this solution that’s so far from reality that one could not imagine how it might work.

      The cells themselves can be seen as small hot-air balloons, or zeppelins. The exact diameter of the cells and the composition of the gas to make them float would have to be carefully studied, but the idea of being able to elevate from the ground without the need of a propeller is not new.

      The cables themselves could be just that, a cable that could be rolled or unrolled with the push of a button, very much like the systems you see on tow trucks.

      The cells would not tangle with one another for the same reason kites can be flown very close to one another. The wind is the same for all of them, and so when the wind changes direction they all move at once without crashing into each other.

      Of course those are just the main ideas that make this project work “in theory”, and there are still many other challenges that would need to be solved, but every daring structure humanity has ever built, including landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge or the Sydney Opera, were initially only ideas that could work “in theory” with tons of challenges that needed to be solved, and they were, even though they might have looked like science fiction at the time.

       

      Hot air balloonsZeppellinTow Truck engineKites

      • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
      • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
      • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
      • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
      • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
    • #20796
      May
      Guest

      Firstly,I agree with the thought “ every daring structure humanity has ever built, including landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge or the Sydney Opera, were initially only ideas that could work “in theory” with tons of challenges that needed to be solved” very much!But for an architecture,a structure,a bridge engineering is different from a kite,all the bold and amazing imagination of architecture and engineering is based on objective physical law,nobody can ignore gravity, can’t they?talking about an architecture without mechanics,it is just like talking about a cartoon.
      At the same time,please offer some cases that use the similar technical solutions about suspension. Additionally,comfort level of space is really deserves to be suspected within such solution.

      • #20801
        arkitekturo
        Keymaster

        Hi @May,

        It’s easy for us to look at any standing structure and think that their physics are obvious. After all, they are standing there before our eyes. But if you do a bit of historic research you’ll find that people were actually scared of them when they were first proposed. In their minds such structures could and would not stand. They too thought that such designs were ignoring the laws of physics.

        Take a look at this quote published by the Popular Sciences Monthly in March 1904 regarding the idea of commercial airplanes:

        “…The machines will eventually be fast, they will be used in sport, but they are not to be thought of as commercial carriers. To say nothing of the danger, the sizes must remain small and the passengers few, because the weight will, for the same design, increase as the cube of the dimensions, while the supporting surfaces will only increase as the square. It is true that when higher speeds become safe it will require fewer square feet of surface to carry a man, and that dimensions will actually decrease, but this will not be enough to carry much greater extraneous loads, such as a store of explosives or big guns to shoot them. The power required will always be great, say something like one horse power to every hundred pounds of weight, and hence fuel can not be carried for long single journeys.”

        Or even this one other one on the same matter, published by Harper and Row in 1962 (remember that the Wright brothers had already made their first successful flight in 1903, 59 years earlier!):

        “…The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across the Atlantic and carrying innumerable passengers in a way analogous to our modern steamships…It seems safe to say that such ideas must be wholly visionary, and even if a machine could get across with one or two passengers the expense would be prohibitive to any but the capitalist who could own his own yacht. Another popular fallacy is to expect enormous speed to be obtained. It must be remembered that the resistance of the air increases as the square of the speed and the work as the cube…If with 30 h.p. we can now attain a speed of 40 m.p.h., then in order to reach a speed of 100 m.p.h., we must use a motor capable of 470 h.p…it is clear that with our present devices there is no hope of competing for racing speed with either our locomotives or our automobiles.”

        These statements were made by reputable people with knowledge in the field, and yet today we fly people and cargo across the world all the time.

        If you are looking for an example of a house suspended in midair, there probably isn’t one. But you can definitely book a romantic dinner on a hot air balloon. Could we call that a dining room? Could we imagine a nice bath after that dinner sometime in the future? Probably. Would that be called a dining room and a bathroom? Will it be comfortable? Probably not, at least not at first, but neither where the first airplanes, and today you can travel on a full flat bed watching cable TV and take a nice hot shower before landing. Innovation needs to be approached with an open mind and taken one step at a time. Groundbreaking ideas rarely go from not existing to fully working, ready to use, comfortable products or solutions.

        Anyone else would like to join the debate and share their thoughts? We would love to hear them! 😊

        • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
        • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by arkitekturo.
Viewing 3 reply threads
  • The forum ‘Bauhaus Campus 2021 – Post result announcement debate’ is closed to new topics and replies.