I agree that this metaphor is often used very loosely. But I see no problem
with loose usage as long as it helps people to think in new ways.
I do not think that PhD about Christiania actually mentions "open source"
(by the way I was wrong presuming all of it was online). I did mention it
because it seemed relevant to the desire for inclusive, collaborative
design. This, rather than a direct parallel to open-source movement in
software design is my interest anyway.
Oh, and I do not think buildings as material objects, taken on their own,
are central to what architecture knows or ought to deal with but this is
another discussion.
> How much architecture is proprietary
> in either the sense of others not being able to see how it works or others
> being restricted from using the original product as the basis for further
> architecture?
More narrowly, architecture is actually becoming more proprietary in both
senses you mention.
For example, it begins to adopt parametric techniques common in other design
fields. A few software companies (with non-architectural background) make
and own computational objects with which architects assemble their
parametric models. Consequently, these companies impose their "ontologies"
(in the sense used by computer scientists) on the way architects think and
work.
Another example is to do with buildings becoming more "intelligent" (think
about RFID tags, climate control, access control, surveillance,
adaptability). As this happens, both inhabitants and other architects know
less and less about how what operates. Patents are one way to protect this
knowledge. In reality, it is inaccessible to many (most) professionals
because it is complex, expensive, foreign to their discipline as it is
taught, etc. As a result, currently, worldwide, there are only several large
engineering consultancies that can cope with complex structures that require
sophisticated computational techniques.
It seems to me that in both cases, architectural communities can try and
grow initiatives not dissimilar to the ones that lead to the development of
open-source software even though design circumstances and the artefacts will
be different.
Stanislav Roudavski
Cambridge University
The Digital Studio, Department of Architecture
1 Bene't Place, Lensfield Road
Cambridge CB2 1EL, UK
http://www.stanislavroudavski.net
|