Came across these two videos via Bruce Sterling blog today.
While I agree with Bruce’s sentiment here and previously expressed that it is wonderful to see “architectural fiction” being explored (ie; pushing the boundaries of what is architecture) most of the work shown/discussed i find less than inspiring. Not because they are particularly “radical” but rather because they are not radical enough? It seems as if for the most part “robotic” architecture is used mostly as a generative, formative and expressionistic device rather than proposing particularly new ways of thing about architecture or creating/building architecture. Or buildings that address particular pressing concerns of contemporary society. Movable buildings aren’t new. What about a building that built itself? Even that idea wouldn’t be original.
However, one of the proposed “works” I did find enticing. Specifically the last one in the second video wherein the girl describes a “carpet with small circles” that featured movable sectional pieces and was inspired by “plant robots”??
The idea while interesting was over shadowed by the image(s) of a “green” robotic “flower” carpet growing over the city.
Via Bruce Sterling’s blog Beyond the Beyond (here)
Archinect discussion I started (here)