[p2p-research] Commentary Physical Design Co.

[Michel Bauwens]

Excellent Eric, it's slated for publication on the 8th,

Michel

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Eric Hunting <erichunting at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is the blog comment you asked for. Let me know if it's suitable or if
> you would like me to change anything.
> ______________________
>
> Physical Design Co. - Putting the 'fab' in 'prefab'.
>
> http://www.physicaldesignco.com/
>
> A spin-off of recent MIT work on the use of the fab lab's new generation of
> machine tool technology in architectural applications, start-up venture
> Physical Design Co. offers the ambitious service of converting customer
> designs in the free Google SketchUp program into prefabricated kits for real
> large-scale structures. Currently limited to 'accessory structures' such as
> garden sheds and back-yard office/studios somewhat similar to other
> Modernist prefab microhouses such as Edgar Blazona's Modular Dwellings
> (http://www.modulardwellings.com/), the venture seems to aspire toward
> eventual full-scale house production capability, through this may be
> hindered by acceptance of its unusual building technology.
>
> Key to the business concept is exclusive software that translates the
> simple geometric primitives-based model data of SketchUp into a surface
> model that is then converted into a virtual kit of parts based on a
> puzzle-fit joinery system suited to production in plywood using CNC table
> routers. This building system seems identical to that developed for the
> Larry Sass/MIT Printed House project ; a demonstration New Orleans 'shotgun'
> style house recently shown at MoMA. Company co-founder Daniel Smithwick is a
> graduate researcher who co-lead that very project.
>
> Physical Design Co. seems to be at the bleeding edge of a fab-on-demand
> start-up trend established with ventures like Ponoko (
> http://www.ponoko.com/), ambitiously seeking to push this to a whole new
> scale of structures, products, and complexity. However, it has yet to face
> the challenges of a recalcitrant building industry with a compulsive fear of
> and resistance to everything new that all proponents of new building
> technology from at least the start of the 20th century on have desperately
> struggled with. For its business model to excel, it must break-through to
> full-scale housing but will likely face an up-hill battle getting there.
> However, the potential application to relief and military housing is very
> plain and this could be a critical venue through which this venture can
> circumvent the traditional barriers to acceptance. Stage and movie set
> fabrication is also another route where this could have remarkable impact.
> It would not surprise me if there are people in that industry already
> looking at this and chomping at the bit.
>
> Though very impressive from a technical standpoint, the puzzle-fit building
> system employed by Physical Design Co. does have some key limitations. At
> present, it can only produce self-contained designs which, though infinitely
> variable 'up-front' and demountable, are extremely limited in later
> adaptability. Components are modular, but not necessarily interchangeable or
> standardized across multiple designs and evolution with expansion or
> modification through later-designed parts has yet to be demonstrated. This
> seems, though, more a limitation of the freely-custom design than of the
> system itself. Finishing of these structures further complicates this. At
> present, the fabrication technique used for these primary building
> structures has not been brought to the level of the finishing, which still
> requires the application of conventional finishing materials that use the
> plywood surface as an underlayment -and American-made plywood has it's own
> issues in terms of latent toxicity of some products. In some ways this is a
> 21st century way of building 20th century architecture, devoid of the free
> adaptiveness and technology-integration of plug-in architecture. This
> technology confronts us with a key question; is a house in the contemporary
> context still appropriately considered a discrete artifact that can be
> fabbed whole -much as they have been for the past century by more primitive
> means- or as an interactively adaptive assemblage coalescing into a habitat
> and dynamically responsive to increasing paces of lifestyle change? Many
> applications of fabber technology to architecture -such as Contour Crafting
> (http://craft.usc.edu/CC/modem.html)-<http://craft.usc.edu/CC/modem.html%29-> seem
> to present this same question. Many in the community of developers of the
> new digital fabrication technology are still thinking about 'products' in an
> Industrial Age context, even as the very tools they are developing are
> obsolescing that perspective. We are, in a sense, striving to fab sports
> cars in an age when the concept of the car itself is slipping toward
> anachronism.
>
> Be that as it may, Physical Design Co. represents a fascinating new foray
> into the as yet uncharted territory of applied digital architectural
> fabrication. Though it remains hard to predict the nature of the impact of
> this technology, that there will be dramatic impact seems certain.
>
> Eric Hunting
> erichunting at gmail.com
>
>
>
>


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090402/914997c2/attachment.html>