Architects often honor old masters by applying their architectural and morphological methods when creating new concepts. Here is a brief collection of Risku’s studies of master architect’s designs, ideas, patterns, systems and solutions.
Risku discusses with Frank Lloyd Wright
Two applications of scaling the floor plan: Frank Lloyd Wrigth and Juhani Henrik Risku. Wright developed a room function schema year 1938 and applied it in forms of a triangle, circle and square-rectangle. Risku planned a free form plan and applied it to three houses with different form factors in structure, material and roof, year 2000. The roundish copper roof variation was chosen for further development, but the Kukkia lake island house remained as a project.
Architects discussing means interaction between architects… on architectural morphology… over time. Here architects can be apprentices and colleagues with historical persons and apply their theories, thinking and morphologies into new concepts and buildings. This method applies scientific research methods, where nobody writes alone, science can build on top of former research results (or criticize and correct them).
Risku discusses with Buckminster Fuller
Architects design cars. The designs are of high novelty and fundamentally elegant. The solutions are all-inclusive and visionary, elegant and technically demanding. When Fuller’s Dymaxion car was Omni Medium Transport, a vehicle that could go anywhere, RodMobile is the “IKEA Car for DIY people“. Rodmobile is a platform to uberise the teslafication of electric car industry. Tesla is a good but closed systemic solution. Rodmobile is the “AppStore of Electric Cars“, the “IKEA of Cars”. Rodmobile opens the Tesla‘s success to engage millions of car developers to create their own car on certified and approved electric car platform. Everybody can build their own car in their garage and workshop like coachbuilders in the history. Just build your own car chassis on RodMobile platform and enjoy. All these concept cars could be realized on RodMobile platform to getting a drivable and inspection proof vehicle.
An architectural concept is an architectural act and the concept is architecture. So, a concept is a real architectural entity without no built artifact in space, time and materia. Still the concepts in architecture have to follow the credibility factors of concepts.
List of credibility factors of concepts:
- The concept is a plan and design which can be realized iteratively
- The concept needs to have all fundamental structural, functional and aspects of meaning* in exact order to be fulfilled in a credible and sustainable way to reach the level of independent, viable and beautiful** item, entity, product, service and/or system
- The concept has to be realised by the author, planner, designer and/or architect (later the Author)
- The Author can include into the concept only things he/she (later she) can plan, design, realise, build, lead and/or manage alone and/or in a team
What is not a concept:
- An idea, thought, drawing or sketch is not a concept, they are only ideas, thoughts, drawings and sketches (later idea)
- A model, prototype, simulation or written description is between (below) idea and concept (example 1: idea…..|…………………..concept, where a thought is on its way to direction concept) ; (example 2: idea……………………..|..concept, where the sketch is a dense draft plan to be realised by fine-tuning or added add-ins and add-ons); (example 3: ….…idea……………………….concept, where the thought/throw is less than an idea).
Today when innovation as a term is inflatory, and art, design and architecture is filled with mediocre students, architects, professors and DIY-people encouraged by TV programs most of architectural, design and art concepts are on level example 3:
The biggest concern is that the world is realised and constructed with bad or idiotic ideas, by mediocre clowns for people who don’t understand and care. Mathematically two minuses don’t make a positive result [an architect idiot realising an abysmal idea, (minus x minus ≠ plus)]. Three minuses never makes a plus.
Architecture is between WOW-buildings and architects’ survival fight for life (life and death struggle of architecture) and architects seems to have lost the game, that bad is our newly build environment and cities. Also architect’s historical end-to-end service from the idea and sketch to a building is replaced with building management consultants. The 1700 architect schools are filled with B-class local architects with a track record of C-class housing and other buildings. Form-giving is on level carving-a-butter-piece-with-hot-knife, and finding-a-natural-object-to-be-magnified. This scales globally from Lund (S) to Cape Town.
How improve architectural concepts in quality
Architectural concepts are rare, even masters fail. First, architecture is not the thing what architects are daily making. The archi and tekton, the superior and prior + master of any art [αρχι– (archi-) + τεκτων (tekton)], can be found only in 0,001% of today’s coeval architects’ works. As an example, Apple’s new spaceship headquarters designed by architect Norman Foster is a soviet quality concept in a doughnut round steel and glass disguise. Where is the form-giving, where is the creativity, where are the new architectonic game changers? Now a company with $205.7 billion gets a soviet-mindset house from an architectural culture maned by Claude Nicolas Ledoux, Buckminster Fuller, Reima Pietilä, Louis I. Kahn and Frank Lloyd Wright. Each of them revolutionized roundish form-giving from large scale to details, in structure, material, form and order. Apple’ HQ spaceship is not architecture. Luckily the spaceship can be upgraded to architecture, either now before summer 2016, or during its first renovation year 2019 (with morphologies like bank-vault-door, real spaceship forms, or others). We could ask: what more could Mr. Foster do for Apple, especially with his architectural credibility? He is the rounded morphology master (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Serge Salat discussing with Claude-Nicolas Ledoux
Two French architects, 220 years of distance with wide impact in architecture and city planning. They both are Parisians. Mr. Salat’s impact in city planning and city forms is as fundamental as Mr. Ledoux’s visions on architectural forms and morphologies. Today, architects don’t base their works on own architectonic forms, and the cities are neither planned following existing city forms, nor by composing new hybrid forms from the best cities. Totally new livable forms, of course, are not under development. It is easy to recognize, that these both architects are discussing over the 200 years of distance, because of their common interest of architecture, city planning and the French culture.