Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Can open source culture offer credible alternatives to current
conventions within architectural practice?
Architecture DissertationMA (Hons) Architecture
Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture 2015
Henri Lacoste
i
ii
.abstract
The specialisation of knowledge and tools used in architectural processes has
progressively negated the end user from an engagement with the design and
construction of the buildings they inhabit. Open source culture is beginning to
offer an alternative to the rigid relationship between professional and client, in
favour of an approach which values participation.
Posing software development as analogous to architectural practice, this
dissertation will provoke the notion that just as open source software
challenges the values of its proprietary counterparts, so too could the concept
of open source architecture. Open access to information systems coupled
with networks of enthusiastic contributors has become commonplace on the
internet and in a myriad of fields. These networks with informed, supportive
communities extend potential for the co-creation of legitimate architectural
proposals by amateurs and pose threat enough to consider the relevance of our
current approach to architecture.
This dissertation presents the case that open source architecture offers a
credible means to critique current conventions within architectural practice by
offering a review of relevant literature, supported by case studies of nascent
open source architecture initiatives. In further support, a practical experiment
pulls together each area of inquiry. This has been conducted to assist a
tangible understanding of how open source culture is capable of challenging
linear relationships between design, manufacture and consumption.
The research conducted in this dissertation culminates in a reflective
conclusion. The findings declare that there are limitats for the migration of
open source culture to architectural practice. However, many aspects would
make meaningful contributions to the profession and as such, should be
pursued.
iii
Word count: 10,556
iv
.contents
.foreword
.introduction
.chapter 1:
.a brief history of open source
.chapter 2:
.motivation
.chapter 3:
.organisation
.chapter 4:
.legislation
.chapter 5:
.architecture for humanity
.chapter 6:
.wikihouse
.chapter 7:
.conclusion
.bibliography
.appendix a
.interview with marlon blackwell
.appendix b
.instructables tutorial
.media disc
2
3
5
11
17
21
25
29
33
37
43
45
50
1
[Fig.1 - Incorporating Arduino in the design studio.]
2
.foreword
The inspiration for this dissertation was born out of an interest in incorporating
basic robotics with my design studio work, through which I was introduced
to Arduino; an open source physical computing platform1. Arduino makes
interactive electronics accessible for artists and designers, allowing real world
data to affect pieces such as sculpture, installations and products. Arduino is
predicated on a “hacker culture”, which should not be confused with the media’s
association of hackers as computer criminals, but instead consider the hacker
as “an enthusiast, an artist, a tinkerer, a problem solver, an expert.”2
Through involving myself with the Arduino online community of enthusiasts, I
experienced first hand this diverse, collaborative environment; which facilitated
great creativity and successful projects. Seeking advice for my project I
encountered many generous hackers, who offered their time and expertise
for freeh without whom my project would not have been possible. The deeply
cooperative and creative nature of this online community initiated my inquiry
into the meaning of open source, the philosophy on which Arduino is founded,
and what motivates its followers.
My existing enthusiasm for architecture and new interest in open source
culture unsurprisingly led to my discovery of such innovations as WikiHouse
and Architecture for Humanity. These projects adopt open source principles in
an architectural environment, being a few of the first examples to practically
engage with the concept of Open Source Architecture (OSArc), and a further
source of inspiration for this project.
1. What is Arduino? <http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/Introduction> accessed 28.02.2015 2. Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral & The Bazaar (California: O’Reilly Media,2001), 14.
This statement, by the late Italian
architect, educator, writer and
critic Giancarlo De Carlo is an
appropriate initiation for this
project, bringing forward the issue
of the “present condition” that this
dissertation aims to challenge.
Although expressed over 40 years
ago, De Carlo’s concerns and
ambitions for a higher degree of
participation, within architecture,
are still relevant today.
Open source architectural projects
are predicated upon this notion
of participation. Indeed the term
“open source” is founded upon
a philosophy of collaboration,
transparency and sharing and it is
through an understanding of the
term “open source” that a critique
of current social conventions
within architectural practice may
be constructed.
One of the most publicly rec-
ognised open source architectural
undertakings, at present, is the
WikiHouse project. Founded by
Alastair Parvin in 2011 the initia-
tive aims to establish an online
resource of architectural drawings
and documents that anyone is
free to download. The drawings
for the building may then be mod-
ified and cut (from plywood), using
a computer numerically controlled
(C.N.C.) router and the parts are
then assembled without extensive
machinery or training. WikiHouse’s
goal is to empower the end user
and encourage participation
in the design and construction
phases of architecture, through
simplification. A lecture given by
Parvin from 2013, provoked me
to begin a project which would
enable a deeper understanding
of Parvin’s objectives and further
my understanding of open source
culture; a framing exploration to
consolidate my findings from this
dissertation. My ambition was
to access the WikiHouse online
database of open source designs,
download the drawings for a
house, manipulate the design and,
inspired by Parvin’s statement of
democratising production:
“if design’s great project of the 20th century was the democratisation of consumption… design’s great project in the 21st century is the democratisation of production”2
Alastair Parvin - 2013
build an open source C.N.C.
machine capable of printing
that design at a 1:100 scale. This
exercise would entitle a first hand
critique of the WikiHouse project
and how successful it has been in
its aims for a more collaborative,
participatory and open approach
to architecture.
“In reality, architecture has become too important to be left to architects. A real change is necessary, therefore, which will encourage new characteristics in the practice of architecture and new behaviour patterns in its authors: therefore all barriers between builders and users must be abolished…The change, in other words must coincide with the subversion of the present condition”1
Giancarlo De Carlo – 1969
.introduction3
Through my experiment I will
also have the opportunity to
offer a first hand understanding
into each of the areas of inquiry
addressed herein: motivation,
organisation and legislation
around the subject of open source.
The dissertation is structured such
that each area of inquiry includes
research conducted through the
experiment, combined with an
insight into related Free/Libre
Open Source (FLOSS) methods
and ideas. The areas of inquiry
have been considered to prompt
the idea that the architectural
profession could benefit from an
uptake of open source methods.
Beginning with a contextual
section on the origins of the
term open source and its free
software ancestry, chapter 1
will provoke the idea of open
source software development
as potentially analogous to
architectural practice. This section
will introduce key characters in
the history of open source, such
as Richard Stallman and Linus
Torvalds, whose contributions
to its evolution will help build
an understanding of the moral
and ethical flavour of the term.
Software development, in
particular the development of
free operating systems in the
latter half of the 20th century,
demonstrated the power of an
open, collaborative culture and
challenged existing proprietary
methods. The success of projects
such as Linux, has triggered many
to question whether a migration
of open source ideas may benefit
other fields beyond software
development.
The following three chapters
will serve to develop the readers’
understanding of how and why
some open source projects
successful. An introduction
into the history of open source
software inevitably ignites
conversation about the motivation
that drives the thousands of
volunteers, who offer their time
for free. Chapter 2 recognises
that it is necessary to appreciate
the motivations of a hacker to
involve themselves in open
source projects so that we might
offer parallels to the possible
motivations of the open source
architect. Although large numbers
of diverse, enthusiastic volunteers
may be an invaluable workforce
and ensure the success of an
open source project, the nature
of their global scattering extends
considerable complexities to
do with organisation. Chapter 3
will explore technical structures
that manage workload, as well
as the social structures which
manage disputes, opinions and
newcomers and offer alternatives
to current architectural office
structure. A great deal of what
gives Free/Libre and Open Source
Software (FLOSS) communities
their structure is the practical
legislation that enables sharing
and maintains freedom, whilst
avoiding exploitation from
opportunists. Chapter 4 will
investigate the licenses and
intellectual property attitudes
that have come to define FLOSS
culture.
Chapters 1-4 display how FLOSS
culture is able to subvert its
proprietary counterparts and
provokes reflection on how FLOSS
ideas could migrate beyond
software development and in
to architectural practice. The
following chapters present case
study reports exploring current
open source architecture (herein
referred to as OSArc) projects.
Architecture for Humanity and
WikiHouse have been chosen since
both adopt progressive attitudes
towards licensing, networking
and collaboration, offering
alternative means to conventional
architectural practice.
1. ‘Architecture’s Public’, in Giancarlo De Carlo, by Benedict Zucchi (Oxford: Reed International, 1992), 210. 2. Alastair Parvin. Architecture for the people by the people (TED: 2013) <http://www.ted.com/talks/alastair_ parvin_architecture_for_the_people_ by_the_people/ transcript?language=en> accessed 07.03.2015
4
.a brief history of open source
5
It is through a summary of the
key events, people and ideas by
which the term “open source”,
with regards to software, came
about that we might begin an
exploration in to the opportunity
open source holds for architecture.
There is no single person who
represents the whole story, nor a
specific beginning of open source1,
rather an evolution.
Typically when we run a computer
program we run the executable, a
series of numbers that practically
no human is able to make sense
of, understood only by computers.
The executable is compiled from
a source code, an algebraic-like
code written by programmers,
which can be edited to change the
function of the program2. At its
most fundamental understanding,
open source software refers to
the ability to legitimately access
the source code, allowing the
user freedom to see how the
program works, learn from it and
manipulate it should they wish
to do so. Without the source code
this is not possible. However,
the term “open source” implies
factors beyond source code
transparency to do with copyright,
intellectual property, community
and philosophical and political
stance; subjects with which
the architectural discourse is
intrinsically concerned.
.multics unix gnu & linux
In 1968 Bell Labs decided to
cut funding to the collaborative
project, led by MIT named Multics,
an early, influential time-sharing
computer operating system3.
Computer scientist, and key
figure in the Multics project,
Ken Thompson returned to Bell
Labs following its withdrawal.
Missing the Multics environment4,
he began work with fellow
hacker Dennis Ritchie on a new
project. In the space of two years
Thompson and Ritchie created
a full programming language
named “C” and a complete
operating system named UNIX
(formerly UNICS), a trivial pun
on Multics5. What made UNIX
unique and especially popular at
the time was that although the
software was proprietary, licenses
were not free, the source code
was included in its distribution6.
By including the source code
many users manipulated the
software, seizing the opportunity
to customise the operating system
1
6
to suit their needs and fix existing
problems. Within the licensing
agreement users were forbidden
to redistribute their modifications,
however, they were able to
contribute their improvements to
Thompson and Ritchie7.
Around UNIX formed a global
community of computer scientists
and programmers who contributed
to this collective project out of
enthusiasm; motivated by their
interest in maintaining and
improving the UNIX operating
system. Throughout the latter
half of the 1970s the spread of
UNIX was remarkable; considering
the absence of conventional
distribution and support from
Bell Labs (its legal proprietor)8.
Contributions submitted to
Thompson and Ritchie by the
growing UNIX community
resulted in many frequent
redistributions of the operating
system, engendering Thompson’s
notion of a “continuum”, an
alternative model to the less
frequent “productised” commercial
releases, made by corporations
like Microsoft (98, XP, Vista
etc.)9. The “continuum” model of
redistributing versions of UNIX,
with improvements by authors not
employed by Bell Labs, advanced
the quality of the software beyond
the scope of conventional means.
However, as the technical stability
of UNIX improved, its legal status
grew more unsure. The derivatives
of UNIX emerging had been
modified to such an extent, that
the question arose as to whether
they were still UNIX10.
In 1979 AT&T (parent company
of Bell Labs) released version 7 of
the UNIX operating system. AT&T
management had begun to realise
UNIX’s commercial value and as
such restricted the distribution
of the source code, a decision
that caused many universities
to drop UNIX as a pedagogical
tool11. AT&T had been a
restricted monopoly, prohibiting
the marketing of UNIX beyond
academia, up until a pivotal legal
battle between it and the United
States in 1982. The battle resulted
in the fragmentation of AT&T, with
Bell Labs becoming autonomous
and the creation of a new division
named UNIX Systems Laboratory12.
Where previously AT&T had been
prohibited from commercially
licensing UNIX, it could now
compete in a free market
economy. This development
meant a phenomenal surge in
licensing fees to $100,000 by
198813. UNIX had shown, in its
infancy, how valuable open source
development could be. However,
its extortionate licensing fees
negated its use by universities
and researchers, a community of
would-be contributors who now
looked for an alternative to the
now proprietary closed source
operating system.
The growth of proprietary
software in the 1980s saw
many talented programmers
and computer scientists from
universities, such as those at MIT,
hired away into lucrative closed
source software corporations.
This soured MIT’s intellectual
culture, which had been focused
around collaboration, openness
and sharing14. The university
began insisting researchers
sign non-disclosure agreements
in order to access information
previously freely shared. Richard
Stallman joined MIT’s artificial
intelligence lab in 1971 and
would go on to found the Free
Software Foundation in 1984.
He believed that traditional
intellectual property rights,
applied to software development,
forbade the ethical agenda
of a decent society, since the
purpose of software was to
solve problems together for the
common good15. To Stallman
software was not simply a tool,
rather a demonstration of human
innovation and expression16,
that should have freedom at the
forefront of its discourse. Since
his work at MIT contradicted his
philosophy he resigned from
his position in 1984 to dedicate
himself to free software and his
7
newly founded Free Software
Foundation (FSF)17.
The first project of the FSF was
simple; to write a free operating
system, free meaning freedom
not price, “libre not gratis”18.
Stallman believed this project
would enable the collaborative
culture that he had observed
around UNIX to continue, now
that UNIX was proprietary. Since
Stallman’s background was in
progressing the UNIX OS, his new
project would undoubtedly be like
it, however to ensure he was not
infringing copyright law, he would
have to write his new OS from
scratch, and as such named his
project GNU, a recursive acronym;
“GNU’s not UNIX”19. Central to
the project and the FSF were
Stallman’s four freedoms:
These freedoms where manifest
in the GNU General Public License
(GPL), known also as the copyleft
license, first released in 198921,
allowing software published
under this license to remain free
and revive hope for continuing
collaborative endeavours22.
Through employing the GPL,
developers can ensure that their
work will not be taken and made
proprietary by another user,
instead the copyleft technique
ensures that wherever the
software goes, so do the four
freedoms; thus “it becomes an
inalienable right to cooperate
with other people and form a
community”23. What separated
the GPL from other permissive
free software licenses (like the
Berkley Software Distribution
or MIT licenses) is that it was
written from the standpoint of the
community, rather than written to
protect the interests of a company
or individual24.
Work on the GNU project
continued, with everything
needed for a complete operating
system in place by 1991, except
a kernel; the most essential
piece of software needed to
run a computer. The same year,
Finnish student Linus Torvalds
released the Linux kernel version
0.1 openly on the internet, under
the GNU GPL, which he had been
developing independently in an
0: The freedom to run the program
for any purpose
1: The freedom to study how the
program works and to modify it to
suit your needs
2: The freedom to redistribute
copies, either gratis or for a
monetary fee
3: The Freedom to change and
improve the program and to
redistribute modified versions
of the program to the public so
others can benefit from your
improvements20
[Fig.2 - Richard Stallman.]
[Fig.3 - GNU Logo.]
[Fig.4 - Linus Torvalds.]
[Fig.5 - Linux Logo.]
8
“A recursive public is a public that is vitally concerned with the material and practical maintenance of its own existence as a public; it is a collective independent of other forms of constituted power and is capable of speaking to existing forms of power through the production of actually existing alternatives.”27
The undeniable success of this
decentralised, open, inclusive
mode of production went directly
against conventional means of
software development, provoking
important thinking and writing
that would challenge the term
“Free Software”. Eric Raymond
is a software engineer who has
been involved in free software
development for over thirty years,
contributing to UNIX and being
one of the first to contribute to
the GNU project. He also began
his involvement with Linux in
199328. Though Raymond was
an advocate of the collaborative
culture that had occurred around
UNIX and now Linux, he believed
a more centralised approach
was required for initial complex
software development such as
designing operating systems29.
His first hand experience of
Linux’s success contested this
line of thought and motivated his
authorship of The Cathedral and
the Bazaar. The paper explores
Raymond’s experiments with
free software (the bazaar model),
and discusses the differences
in methodology employed by
the industry (the cathedral
model)30. He identifies closed
source industry as operating in
an authoritarian manner, with
strong hierarchical management
structures and stringent
objectives, drawing obvious
parallels with the arrangement
of religious institutions. The
Free Software model in contrast
is heavily focused around a
decentralised peer-to-peer review
strategy, in which feedback is
directly offered from people
formally outside of the project31.
The analogy sees Linux’s
development as a “great babbling
bazaar of differing agendas”32,
which somehow rather than
collapsing under its own weight,
managed to take Linux “from
strength to strength at a speed
barely imaginable to cathedral
builders”33.
A common misconception by
many when first introduced to
the ideas of free software and
open source, is that they are the
same and that the terms may
be used indiscriminately. This is
understandable since the two
terms represent identical methods,
attempt to create a workstation
at home similar to the one he
used at university. Linus’ kernel,
combined with the programs
written for the GNU project,
formed a complete, free, open
operating system, commonly
and controversially referred to
simply as Linux (Stallman insists
GNU/Linux). The proliferation of
Linux was astonishing. Similarly
to UNIX a global community of
contributors formed around the
software, however, Linux was
truly non-proprietary and as
such accessibility was granted
to the public, not just the
academic realm to which UNIX’s
development had been restricted.
In the years 1992 to 1999,
releases V0.01 to V2.2, Linux’s
user base grew from 1,000 to 12
million users25; many of whom
contributed to the maintenance
and development of the software.
The community of programmers
produced innovative applications
that progressed Linux to become
an attractive option to big
business, during the mass-market
commoditisation of the Internet
and web based commerce26. This
global population of users is an
example of what Christopher
Kelty; author of The Cultural
Significance of Free Software has
coined the term “recursive public”
for.
9
tools, licenses and organisations34.
However, their similarities diverge
at ideology. Those who advocated
a move to using the term open
source believed that free software
was poor marketing, since venture
capitalists and business people
may associate “free” with a
cheap and poor quality product,
despite it referring to liberty.
The open source community saw
Stallman’s ethical dogmatism
detrimental to those wanting to
build businesses, as he allowed
no negotiation. Open source
appealed to a market-orientated
environment, since it offered more
flexibility; choosing to separate
business from ethics35. Open
source was accused of diluting
the philosophical essence of
free software and selling out
to capitalism, while Stallman
and the FSF were charged with
being communist and dogmatic,
restraining businesses from
successfully harnessing open
source36.
1998 was significant in the history
of open source. Eric Raymond
revised his paper “The Cathedral
and the Bazaar” replacing the
words free software with open
source37, and in collaboration
with Bruce Perens composed the
Open Source Definition which
would form the manifesto of
their cofounded Open Source
Initiative. That same year Linux’s
business potential gained
mainstream attention with Linus
Torvalds’ picture printed on
the front of Forbes magazine.
The investment potential of
Linux was service-centric with
several companies, most notably
Red Hat and VA Linux, founded
to assist businesses that had
chosen to adopt the Linux OS.
Red Hat offered tailor-made
software solutions and training
for businesses running Linux and
VA Linux sold computers with
the software preinstalled. When
VA Linux went public on the
stock market in 1998 its share
price rose 700% in one day;
making it the largest initial public
offering of its time38. The success
of Linux and the companies
founded around it, put to rest
many preconceptions that money
could not be made from open
source. The accomplishments of
the method have brought cases
forward “to suggest that software
is not the only place where
the open source process could
flourish.”39
[Fig.6 - Linus Torvalds on the cover of Forbes, August 1998.]
10
.chapter endnotes
1. Andrew Leonard in, The Code. DVD. Directed by Hannu Puttonen (Strasbourg: Arte, 2001) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMm0HsmOTFI > accessed 29.03.20152. Richard Stallman in, The Code.3. Christopher M. Kelty. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2008), 125.4. Raymond, Cathedral, 14.5. Kelty, Two Bits, 126.6. Ibid., 127.7. Ibid., 128.8. Kelty, Two Bits, 128.9. Ibid., 130.10. Ibid., 131.11. Steven Weber. The Success of Open Source (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2004), 38.12. Ibid., 39.13. Ibid., 39.14. Ibid., 46.15. Ibid., 47.16. Ibid., 47.17. Ibid., 47.18. Richard Stallman in, The Code.19. Ibid.20. Stallman, Richard. The GNU Project <https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html> accessed 16.02.2015.21. Kelty, Two Bits, 206.22. Ibid., 104.23. Richard Stallman in, Revolution OS. DVD. Directed by J.T.S. Moore (Wonderview Productions, 2002) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8K460vx1c > accessed 29.03.201524. Bruce Perens in, Revolution OS.25. Lisa DiCarlo. Linux Not Just For Geeks Anymore (Forbes Magazine, 2002) <http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/15/0715linux.html> accessed 05.04.2015.26. Eric S. Raymond in, Revolution OS.27. Kelty, Two Bits, 3.28. Raymond, Cathedral, 29.29. Ibid., 29.30. Kelty, Two Bits, 109.31. Eric Raymond in, Revolution OS.32. Raymond, Cathedral, 30.33. Ibid., 30.34. Kelty, Two Bits, 116.35. Ibid., 116.36. Ibid., 116.37. Eric S. Raymond. Revision history of The Cathedral and the Bazaar. <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/> accessed 18.02.2015 38. Kelty, Two Bits, 112.39. Weber, Success, 225.
11 2.motivation
Raymond’s above quote suggests
that the overarching stimulus
for a work of software is
pragmatic and essentially self
centred. Although this maybe
a valid reason for conceiving
a project, it does not go far
enough to explain the countless
unpaid hours that thousands
of voluntary contributors will
spend on the development and
maintenance of open source
software. Whilst contemplating
the alternatives to payment we
will consider the notion of the
information given (namely the
source code and analogously
architectural drawings) as a gift,
nuances involved with gift-
giving and especially how the
nature of information affects its
operation as a gift. The intention
of this chapter is to provide
an appreciation of a hacker’s
incentive to involve themselves
in open source projects, which
will undoubtedly offer parallels to
possible motivations of the open
source architect.
Steven Webber in “The Success of
Open Source” discusses the topic
of motivation and sets out six
alternatives to remuneration. He
admits however, that the scheme
is imperfect, with crossovers
amongst categories, since it
is difficult to define human
motivation. His categories are:
“Art and beauty” refers to the
simple pleasure of solving
complicated problems. Though not
only in a technical sense of right
or wrong, in an aesthetic, elegant
way too. It is true that a piece of
code may either be rejected or
accepted by the compiler3, but
inevitably there are many ways
to solve the same problem, one
more beautiful than another, with
developers taking enjoyment in
this challenge. This creative drive
for clever simple code aligns with
Stallman’s assertion that software
design is more than a tool, it
is a demonstration of human
expression4.
“Job as vocation” is the experience
of creating good code which
empowers the programmer. Often
programmers will be involved
in open source projects as an
extension of their professional,
commercial lives. Sharing the
code that has empowered them
adds primarily to ones feeling of
efficacy5 and is not necessarily
a demonstration of ones moral
agenda.
“Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.”1
Eric Raymond - The Cathedral & The Bazaar
- Art and beauty
- Job as vocation
- The joint enemy
- Ego boosting
- Reputation
- Identity and belief system2
12
Microsoft is the undisputed
“joint enemy”, but essentially
acts as the embodiment of an
array of proprietary companies.
Weber suggests that proprietary
software is not necessarily the
ideological enemy of open source,
rather a technical and business
practice one. Pragmatically code
should be open because open
source development yields better
software6, so should be pursued.
Comments made this year (April
2015) by top Microsoft engineer
Mark Russinovich suggest that
the proprietary company may
not always be the “joint enemy”.
Russinovich stated at ChefConf
that an open source Microsoft “is
definitely possible”7, confirming
that open source is a legitimate
development method. This
category links closely with
“identity and belief system” since
the “joint enemy” strengthens open
source’s sense of community, as
hackers universally disassociate
themselves with proprietary
alternatives.
“Ego boosting” is an important mo-
tivation and source of satisfaction.
A developer’s work will be publicly
received and praised if appropri-
ate, however, the norm is not to
self promote. The work should
speak for itself and not require
bragging from its author.
Since information is circulated
among open source communities,
those involved who receive the
information may offer peer-to-
peer review of the work that
has been shared. Motivation to
create a high quality gift may be
gained from seeking the approval
of ones peers, thus growing the
author’s “reputation” and inevitably
producing a more superior
product. “Reputation” gained in
open source communities may
also translate to improved job
prospects in a commercial context.
.motivation d.i.y. c.n.c.
From the outset I intended to publish the design for my printer online, along with instructions; so that others may learn from or be inspired by the work. The decision to share
my work though is multifaceted and my reasoning has strengthened as a result of writing this dissertation. Firstly, my project was inspired by the work of other makers who had
shared their work online and acting by example, I believed that I should do the same.
continues on p.14
[Fig.7 - D.I.Y. C.N.C.]
Shared “identity and belief systems”
are essential to the strength of
FLOSS culture. American journalist
Steven Levy documented the
following key characteristics of
shared FLOSS beliefs in his book
Hackers in 1984 which remain true
today8:
These beliefs, whether associated
with open source or free software,
challenge existing social and
economic systems to do with
production; the consequences of
which Weber suggests could affect
“how people relate to each other
beyond the realm of computer
software.”10
.the gift
Richard Coyne, in his book The
Cornucopia Limited, questions the
true nature of gifting information,
be it software, digital media
or architectural drawings. It is
possible, in the digital age, to
both give away information and
yet still retain it unaffected11.
What differentiates information
from many other commodities is
its immaterially and as such the
cost of its dissemination via the
Internet is near zero. The ability to
reproduce information endlessly
results in a distorted economy12,
one which becomes saturated and
thus prices diminish significantly.
In Homesteading the Noosphere
Eric Raymond explains how this
distorted economy works in the
open source context, from an
anthropological and economic
perspective. He points out that as
human beings we are inherently
driven to gain social status, and
where survival goods are “scarce”, the people in control of goods are
the individuals of high status13.
Our economic model today is
principally an exchange economy,
an advanced adjustment to
scarcity. Cooperation and trade
facilitates the decentralised
allocation of resources, and
social status is determined by
the resources or services one
controls14.
If information can be reproduced
and distributed at little or no
cost, exchange relationships
become redundant and social
status is instead determined
on what you give away, rather
than what you control15. This
abundance of resources lays the
foundations for a gift culture
and incentivises openly sharing
source code among developers.
The act of ‘gift giving’ inevitably
initiates relationships between
developers and with reference to
Marcel Mauss, Coyne discusses
the nuanced implications of these
interactions. By giving a gift, a
difference in status, age, wealth,
ability etcetera is highlighted
between giver and receiver16.
Moreover in receiving a gift one
may feel obliged to reciprocate.
An area where OSArc is being
more actively pursued is within
the humanitarian context, since
invariably remuneration is
not expected and motivation
to engage with pro bono
projects is typically granted
by the knowledge that one
is contributing to a good
cause. OSArc initiatives such
as Architecture for Humanity,
discussed further in chapter 5,
facilitate the sharing of valuable
architectural documentation and
services with some of world’s
most in need. Beyond charitable
applications, the motivation to
“open source” ones architectural
work may be understood
with reference to Weber’s
aforementioned alternatives to
payment.
Through discussing gift culture
and the act of ‘gift giving’, ideas
of relationships, social status and
peer review have been extended.
How open source communities
manage these social themes
among a diverse collection of
contributors and how work is
delegated to those globally
dispersed volunteers, poses
significant questions to do with
both social and organisational
infrastructures and form the basis
of the discussion in the following
chapter.
13
- Access to computers should be unlimited- Information should be free- Mistrust authority and promote decentralisation - Judge people on merit not credentials- People can create art on computers- Computers can change human life for the better9
14
The website Instructables is an online community of makers, hackers, DIY enthusiasts and artists, and is where I found inspiration and advice as to how I would realise my C.N.C. project. This online community and many others like it depend on members openly sharing their innovations publicly, and being constructively critical about each others work, through comments and online forum debates. I felt that since I had found invaluable information on Instructables that I should contribute my own findings back, and help maintain this thriving creative community. Obligation however was not my only motivation.
As a user of Instructables you are assigned a public profile to which you share basic personal information and upload projects you wish to share with other users. Much like other social networking sites users can follow each other; one might follow another user with
similar interests or who publishes projects of high quality for example. Users are free to comment on another’s project and “like” them if they think the project is of merit. Weber’s understanding of motivation through “ego boosting” is very relevant in the instance of one’s project being liked. Since sharing my project on Instructables I have had 500 likes and 21 users have begun following me, my project was also featured by the administrators of the website. This recognition feels great especially coming from a community of creative people for whom I have a great deal of respect and this acknowledgment will definitely help motivate future work.
A result of making my project freely available to the Instructables community is that many skilled users will take time to look over my work and make comments on where they believe the project could be improved, or achieved differently. My project has received
several comments from users suggesting modifications to my design which would increase its functionality and with little effort [Fig.9]. Instructables’ employment of peer-to-peer review, through the ability to make comments, is a direct incarnation of the “babbling bazaar” model, which Raymond so enthusiastically advocates and has enabled the rapid improvement of my design.
Along with instructions on how to build my project, I have included original raw files for key components of the project so that other users may download and replicate parts exactly. Making these files available for free relates the project to the notion of a gift as discussed by Coyne. It has not cost me anything to make them available and no matter how many people choose to download them that will remain true. This display of cheap internet altruism may be understood to be motivated in a
continued from p.12
[Fig.8 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. profile on Instructables.]
number of ways. Raymond’s social status theory would argue that since I did not stand to make money from the files anyway, I might as well offer the information for free and in return gain status from other users. Whereas Weber’s view of “job as vocation” would see the author of a project sharing their work because they believe it would benefit someone else and incur a feeling of self-efficacy. However, I believe I was motivated by the idea that other users might find merit enough in my work to download and use the material and agree with author and architect David Garcia’s sentiment
15
[Fig.9 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. with cutting modification, suggestion made by Instructables user “Raitis” .]
that the open source movement has its origins in use, not ownership17.
This project has enabled me to become part of the Instructables community, strengthened my identity as a designer and fortified my belief that open source is a valid development method. This exercise has gone far in understanding key ways in which designers might decide that participating in open source and contributing their work to a commons is a legitimate idea, both pragmatically and ideologically.
16
.chapter endnotes
1. Raymond, Cathedral, 32.2. Weber, Success, 135-136.3. A “compiler” translates source code into binary readable by the computer.4. Weber, Success, 38.5. Ibid., 137.6. Ibid., 139.7. Cade Metz. Microsoft: An Open Source Windows Is ‘Definitely Possible’ (Wired Magazine, April 2015) <http://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitelypossible/> accessed 11.04.20158. Weber, Success, 144.9. Steven Levy. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (California: O’Reilly Media, 2010), 27-34.10. Weber, Success, 145.11. Richard Coyne. Cornucopia Limited: Design and Dissent on the Internet (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2005), 101.12. Ibid., 101.13. Raymond, Eric. S. Homesteading the Noosphere (2000), 11. <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ > accessed 07.03.201514. Ibid., 11.15. Ibid., 11.16. Coyne, Cornucopia, 102.17. David Garcia. Kopieer dit (Metropolis Magazine, no. 5, 2002), 37. <http://metropolism.com/archive/search?author=4007> accessed 03.03.2015
17 3.organisation
Numbers of geographically
dispersed enthusiastic volunteers,
who are willing to give their
time to an open source project,
whatever their motivation, extend
considerable complexities to
do with organisation. The open
source context is particularly
challenging. Since open source is
primarily comprised of volunteers,
it would be inappropriate for
projects to adopt organisational
structures based on hierarchy, like
their authoritarian proprietary
counterparts. This makes the
effective delegation of work and
decision-making responsibilities
problematic. We will enhance our
understanding of the complex
nature of open source through
an exploration into the technical
structures that manage workload,
and the social structures that
manage disputes, opinions and
new comers; gaining an insight
into open source’s strategy for
harnessing the creativity and
power of a diverse community of
contributors. Similarly these issues
will necessitate consideration
in establishing OSArc projects,
where networks of contributing
architects need to be managed
both socially and technically.
This chapter aims to shed light
on how individuals synchronise
their contributions of expertise to
a common goal, in a context free
from both authoritative control
and (in a gift culture) the price
mechanism1?
The gift culture that open source
has engendered, as previously
mentioned, is itself a mechanism
for establishing a proportion of
social structure and thus informal
organisation. The relationships
that form through gift exchanges
construct social norms through
which sets of rules to do with
ownership, responsibility, seniority
and authority arise.
Typically the person who initiates
the project is regarded the owner,
and as such is granted the right
to distribute the project. Founding
the project however is not the
only way to acquire ownership,
one may be explicitly and publicly
handed ownership of a project
by a previous owner or should
a project have been abandoned,
one can assume control. In
small groups the leadership and
decision-making responsibility
rests ultimately with the owner,
however, in bigger projects the
norm is more subtle. In larger
operations programmers who
contribute more to a project will
in turn gain more responsibility,
and since open source functions
predominantly as a meritocracy2,
18
those involved are not concerned
with formal qualifications.
Seniority and decision making
authority is earned based on
ability. Open source projects are
voluntarily and in a very real
sense the leader is dependent
on their followers3, should the
followers strongly disagree with a
project’s leadership, technically or
socially, they may decide to either
leave or fork4 the project.
Despite the internet’s evident
ability to reduce the costs of
worldwide collaboration, the
Internet alone cannot mitigate
complications such as “human
emotion, decision making
[and] resolution of technical
difficulties.”5 To cope with such
complexities in a conventional
setting formal hierarchical
organisation is employed, however,
in the open source context this
would be inappropriate. Ways in
which open source attempts to
solve these complexities include
considerations in the way work
is technically designed, methods
by which malicious users are
sanctioned, and the use of legal
documentation to implement
structure.
Observing the technical design
norms of an open source project
is key in understanding how these
operations are organised. The
complexity of a project may be
managed more efficiently if it is
broken down in to manageable,
modular pieces. It is also
imperative that interdependencies
between modules are limited,
so that altering one module
does not cause a ripple effect
throughout the whole project.
This need to manage complexity
in architectural practice may
be combated with building
information modelling (BIM). BIM
is a networked technique which
is often employed to manage
large scale architectural projects
where industry professionals from
different sectors need to work
simultaneously on the design
of a project. This synchronised
work can all be achieved without
the involved parties necessarily
being in direct contact or close
proximity of each other. In the
same way contributors to open
source software projects may be
great distances apart.
In proprietary software companies
and conventional architectural
practice appropriate behaviour
is maintained by the threat of
loosing ones job and thus ones
income. Additionally, once fired,
access to work to which one has
contributed is disallowed, since
.organisation d.i.y. c.n.c.
Instructables is owned by the proprietary software company Autodesk who acquired Instructables in 201112. Originally founded as a side project of MIT engineering graduates Eric Wilhelm and Saul Griffith, Instructables has managed to maintain its identity as a community of makers, despite the acquisition. Wilhelm, on announcing Autodesk’s investment, stated “everyone here at Instructables HQ
is absolutely thrilled”13, reassuring the community that Instructables would benefit from financial backing and improved resourcing from the software giant, without compromising its values of open design.
A result of Autodesk’s presence is that the organisational structure of Instructables is predominantly conventional but has core open
source values, which are reflected in its arrangement. There are staff employed to moderate users’ contributions to the website and ensure that comments made by users are civil and criticism is constructive. Although rigorous in their approach, moderators appear liberal in their attitude towards what contributions are accepted, with regards the quality of work. This attitude engenders a rich
continues on p.20
19
the employer is the legal owner6.
Without these threats looming
in the background how can open
source projects, unable to fire or
restrict access to open design
or code, protect against anti
social behaviour which might
compromise the sustainability of
the project?
There are two methods by which
open source communities may
sanction users who violate the
social norms of the community.
Firstly a user can be flamed.
Flaming is the act of publicly
denouncing the actions of an
individual in mailing lists or
through public forums. These
public displays are archived and
serve as a useful educational
tool for those entering the open
source community wanting to
familiarise themselves with open
source etiquette. The public
nature of flaming also facilitates
a wider debate around what
the acceptable or unacceptable
behaviours among the community
are, ensuring relevant and
up to date governing norms.
Shunning is the other method
by which sanctioning may take
place. Shunning is perhaps more
successful, since it excludes the
offending party from the greatest
value in open source; cooperation.
Although the user will not be
excluded from accessing source
code, they will be excluded from
the support of the community
which is a considerable penalty7.
A significant benefit of the
willingness to cooperate and
share among open source
communities is that work need
never be duplicated. Beyond the
organisation of open source’s
contributors, it is necessary
for the contributed work to be
organised such that one can
“be lazy like a fox”8 as Torvalds
remarks. A commons acts as
a host for material offered by
open source contributors which
others may take from without
the requirement of expressed
permission from someone else.
Anyone is free to “take and
use, and build upon to make
something better, or better
fitted to the particular needs of
a particular context”9 material
taken from the commons. The
commons is vital to OSArc
projects such as WikiHouse
and Architecture for Humanity
through which drawings and
documentation are distributed.
In both instances users are
encouraged to take existing
designs and manipulate them to
their specific requirements, and for
the sustainability of the commons
to be maintained, it is hoped
that derivates are shared with
the community, by redistributing
them once again through the
commons. However, there is
also the opportunity to take and
copy a proposal exactly. In either
instance it is important that
knowledge gained, either through
the customisation or direct
translation of a design, is shared
with the community as without
this dialogue the user may be
considered a free rider10, and be
in violation of the accepted social
norms.
In the absence of an authoritarian
organisational method, it can be
challenging to state what the
accepted norms of a community
are. Licenses such as the GNU
GPL have become key statements
of social structure that define
FLOSS culture, with Weber
going as far to suggest that the
license maybe considered a “de
facto constitution”11. By stating
explicitly in a license what the
accepted behaviours and norms
of a FLOSS community are, it
is possible to manage certain
social complexities. Essentially
permissive and copyleft licenses
strive for fairness, and since many
FLOSS developers will at times
be licensor and at times licensee,
the legal terms remain relatively
balanced. A more comprehensive
discussion into licensing specifics
will be constructed in the
following chapter.
20
.chapter endnotes
1. Weber, Success, 172.2. Ibid., 180.3. Ibid., 167.4. To “fork” is to take source code from one software project and develop it idependently. 5. Weber, Success, 172.6. Ibid., 175.7. Ibid., 177.8. Raymond, Cathedral, 6.9. Laurence Lessig. Open Code & Open Societies (2000), 13. < http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/opensocd1.pdf > accessed 07.03.201510. A “free rider” is someone who takes source code without contributing to commons.11. Weber, Success, 172.12. Phillipe Torrone. Autodesk Acquires Instructables: What It Means for Makers (Make Magazine, August 2011) < http://makezine.com/2011/08/05/autodesk-acquires- instructables-what-it- means-for-makers/ > accessed 29.03.201513. Robin Wauters. Autodesk Acquires DIY Community Instructables (TechCrunch, August 2011) < http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/autodesk-acquires-diy-community- instructables/> accessed 10.04.2015
commons covering diverse fields of interest, albeit with the presence of some poor quality entries. When displaying search results from the commons, one may sort results according to the popularity of the community, thus avoid viewing poor quality entries. As such, users with higher quality entries receive more traffic and gain a better reputation. As with open source development Instructables operates as a meritocracy, with formal training and qualification carrying no weight; Instructables celebrates the amateur and the novice.
Socially, Instructables is organised using devices similar to those found in open source development. Public forums are employed to host discussions, and email newsletters are a means to keep users with shared interests informed. These devices similarly operate as tools to publicly demonstrate accepted social and behavioural norms of the community and educate new comers in the conventions of the Instructables environment. The site
continued from p.18
[Fig.10 - D.I.Y. C.N.C.]
acts as a creative and social hub for users with common interests to network and co-create. This in turn has established a well organised database of valuable “how-tos” with a community of enthusiasts passionate about maintaining their own existence, engendering Kelty’s notion of a “recursive public”.
21 4.legislation“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”1
Thomas Jefferson - 1813
In a gift culture, like that
engendered by open source,
Thomas Jefferson’s compelling
analogy appears only logical.
With regards knowledge, why
not share if it is to cost you
nothing, if you will retain that
knowledge unaffected? In 1813
Jefferson wrote to innovator Isaac
McPherson rejecting “the notion
that inventors have a natural
property right in their inventions”2.
The letter is often cited by anti-
intellectual property campaigners
such as Lawrence Lessig, founder
of Creative Commons3, to argue
with historical authority, that
founding Americans did not
subscribe to the idea that one
should be entitled to patent
protection4. Lessig has been
pivotal in engendering a culture
among a range of creative fields,
including architecture, which
promotes free exchange of
knowledge by offering an array
of simple licenses through the
Creative Commons organisation.
This achievement is testament to
the power and necessity of novel
licensing within open source, to
both facilitate and maintain its
operations. This chapter presents
licensing within open source, with
the central ambition of achieving
the democratic dissemination of
knowledge and power; licenses
that are employed not to exclude,
but encourage users to participate
in the improvement of FLOSS and
beyond.
A great deal of what gives FLOSS
communities their structure is
the practical legislation that
underpins them; enabling
sharing and maintaining freedom,
whilst avoiding exploitation
from opportunists. The issue
of licensing and intellectual
property forms the basis of the
Open Source Definition, written by
Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond,
the joint founders of the Open
Source Initiative (OSI). It is the
prerogative of the OSI to endorse
licenses, deciding whether or not
a license is congruent with their
agenda and truly open source.
One of the first licenses to be
advocated by the OSI and possibly
Stallman’s greatest contribution
to the FLOSS movement, was
the GNU General Public License
(GPL). The GPL allows material to
be shared openly but safeguards
22
it from being taken and made
proprietary, thus the work
remains in the public realm and
“it becomes an inalienable right
to cooperate with other people
and form a community”5. Whilst
the GPL is heavily reliant on
copyright law, the way copyright
law is used for licenses that
protect proprietary software
differs fundamentally. The GPL’s
employment of copyright shifts
the emphasis from a right to
maintain control of the material
to, an emphasis concerned with
the right to share it and ensures
its continued accessibility
to all; Stallman coined the
term “copyleft” for this novel
application of copyright law.
“The two political camps in the
free software community are the
free software movement and
open source”6. A project may be
identifiable to one or the other
through an understanding of
the type of license it employs. At
a basic level one can separate
FLOSS licenses in to two
general categories, copyleft and
permissive. The decision to choose
a permissive over a copyleft
license displays the authors
higher degree of pragmatism but
a compromised attitude towards
freedom, considered unacceptable
by Stallman and the Free Software
movement. Permissive licenses,
such as the MIT License are
more pragmatic, since they do
not inhibit derivatives of the
work from being combined with
proprietary software, so long as a
copy of the MIT license is included
in its redistribution. The GPL does
not allow such an accommodation.
A context in which OSArc could
flourish would undoubtedly see
a well considered set of licences
.legislation d.i.y. c.n.c.
What made my project possible was the prevalence of a particular attitude towards intellectual property, which valued openness over ownership. Many of the projects I took inspiration from are licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike” (BY-NC-SA) license, so too is my D.I.Y. C.N.C. Simple licensing, such as that offered by Creative Commons, is essential to online communities like Instructables and an array of both permissive and copyleft licenses, including the GNU GPL, are available to choose from when a user comes to publish their Instructables project.
Open source licensing though is ubiquitous among all aspects of the project, not just in its dissemination. From the Arduino board that controls the printer to the software Inkscape used to convert the line drawing into code readable by the printer, at all stages of the project permissive and copyleft licenses were encountered. Transparency of information and freedom from legal red tape allows motivated designers to concentrate on innovation rather than litigation, facilitating a more productive, open and creative environment.
[Fig.11 - Licenses offered by Instructables]
.chapter endnotes
1. Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Isaac McPherson (August 13 1813) < http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > accessed 11.04.152. Adam Mossoff. Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about patents? Reevaluating the patent “Privilege” in historical context. (Cornell Law Review Vol. 92:953) 964. < https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/CRN502Mossoff.pdf > accessed 22.03.20153. See appendix4. Mossoff, Jefferson, 964.5. Richard Stallman in, Revolution OS.6. Richard Stallman. FLOSS and FOSS <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html> accessed 09.03.20157. Cameron Sinclair. My wish: A call for open-source architecture (TED: 2006) <http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture?language=en> accessed 07.03.2015
23
on offer, able to enforce the
particular wishes of the author
i.e. architect. Decisions regarding
attribution, application of material
(commercial or personal), location
of application (developed or
developing nations) and affiliation
with non OSArc would all need
to be considered and a selection
of licenses tailored accordingly
to allow maximum flexibility
would be necessary. In the
following chapters two OSArc
case studies will be presented,
both of which employ licenses
pioneered by Lessig and in the
case of Architecture for Humanity,
pioneered the first building to
be licensed under a Creative
Commons license7.
24
In the preceding chapters architectural practice has been discussed
abstractly, whilst the focus has been placed on FLOSS development
and it’s principles, so that we might better understand the relevance
of open source culture to the following OSArc case studies. OSArc is
an evolving paradigm, of which the key principles may be associated
with FLOSS. As stated in the OSArc manifesto, OSArc describes new
methods for the inception, construction and operation of architecture,
cities and infrastructure, advocating inclusive design through network
culture1. Although established in theory, OSArc is, at present, absent from
mainstream architectural practice and found more readily in experimental,
emergency and humanitarian projects. The topic has been undergoing
significant progress recently with the OSArc manifesto being published
and presented at the Istanbul Design Biennial in 2012 and Carlo Ratti, the
manifesto’s lead author, set to release his book Open Source Architecture in
April this year (2015). With OSArc gaining momentum it is important for
us to consider its relevance within architectural practice and whether it
could provoke significant questions about how architects approach ideas
of openness, participation and collaboration.
1. Carlo Ratti. et al. Open Source Architecture Manifesto (Domus #948, 2011) <http://senseable.mit.edu/osarc/2011_Ratti_et_al_OSArc_DOMUS.pdf> accessed 07.03.2015
.bridging statement
.architecture for humanity
25 5Architecture for Humanity (AfH) is
a non-profit organisation, which
enables architects, designers
and builders to get involved in
improving the living standards
of those most in need across
the globe. Founded in 1999 by
Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr,
AfH had, as of 2011, completed
2250 projects in 25 countries2
driven by their core belief that
“everyone deserves access to the
benefits of good design”3.
Each year the organisation TED
awards a prize to an individual
with a bold, creative idea that
has the potential to cause
global positive change. With
an investment of $1 million
and TED’s network of resources
that idea is helped to become a
reality4, and in 2006, Sinclair was
awarded the prize. His wish was
to create the Open Architecture
Network (OAN), “an open source,
collaborative project management
website that would empower
building professionals with
design solutions to improve life”5.
The OAN would help relive the
growing demand for help from
AfH, by enabling local connections
between those willing to offer
help and those most in need.
The OAN has grown to have
over 50,000 members, who
have contributed more than
40,000 proposals and 166
pro bono projects6 have since
been completed. The OAN is
an astonishing example of a
commons with a high calibre
of work, submitted by industry
professionals as well as
students and amateurs. Working
with Lawrence Lessig, the
founder of Creative Commons,
Sinclair developed a “some
rights reserved” license for
use on buildings to protect
the contents of the OAN’s
commons7. The license allows
free use of a building’s plans and
documentation for non profit
activity, but the designer must be
paid if the use were commercial8.
Architecture for Humanity has,
over the past 15 years, responded
to natural disasters around the
globe, in countries including
“Design like you give a damn.”1
Cameron Sinclair - 2011
26
Haiti, Japan, the Philippines and
in 2005 began its involvement
with the efforts to rebuild after
Hurricane Katrina devastated the
Gulf Coast of the United States.
As part of their contribution AfH
established the Biloxi Model
Home Program to help residents
of Biloxi, Mississippi approach
the challenges of rebuilding, in
the wake of such a destructive
event. Those displaced by the
storm were concerned that new
structural and environmental
regulations to safeguard future
homes from similar flood and
storm threats would dramatically
increase the cost of construction9.
In a community where the
household income of many is
close to the federal poverty line,
this inflated cost of construction
would pose significant challenges
to the residents and their efforts
to rebuild10. The Biloxi Model
Home Program achieved 7 pilot
homes, which would serve as
prototypes to be replicated
by others rebuilding in Biloxi
and indeed anywhere at risk
of flooding. All the necessary
information needed to build
these homes is comprehensively
catalogued and available for free
on the OAN under the Creative
Commons BY-NC-SA license.
One of the more compelling
designs to emerge from the
Biloxi prototypes was the
PorchDog model, designed by
Marlon Blackwell Architects.
The design responds with great
efficacy to both the practical
and social complications of a
site which requires extensive
protection from storm conditions,
whilst maintaining a sensitivity
to the norms of the Gulf Coast
streetscape and affiliated “porch
culture”11. Although there is
sufficient information available
online and in AfH’s publications
to explain the design rationale
of the PorchDog prototype, I
was eager to understand how
and why such an accomplished
architect became involved in
the Biloxi Model Home Program
and open source architecture. I
was fortunate enough to speak
briefly with Marlon to discuss his
experience of working with AfH
[Fig.12 - Blackwell’s PorchDog prototype.]
27
and his motivation to share full
documentation of the PorchDog
design for free via the OAN.
[A full transcript of the phone call
may be found in appendix a]
It became clear early on in our
conversation that Blackwell’s
decision to submit a proposal
for the Biloxi Model Home
Program wasn’t incentivised by
money or free publicity. In fact,
it was AfH who had approached
him. Initially Blackwell had not
been interested in the efforts to
rebuild post Katrina, due to the
dominant presence of the new
urbanists and their “antiquated
approach to architecture”12 and
master planning. However, since
Biloxi, unlike other towns along
the Mississippi Gulf Coast, were
to develop their own model, in
conjunction with AfH and with the
security of legitimate sponsors,
Blackwell was keen to participate
and submitted several proposals.
Blackwell, a distinguished
professor at the university of
Arkansas and Fellow of the
American Institute of Architects,
saw early on what was being built
post Katrina and the effects that
the new FEMA regulations were
having on the urban fabric. The
regulations demanded that new
structures be raised above street
level by at least 11 feet and in
most cases this created a residual
zone below those buildings.
Designing the PorchDog prototype
was an opportunity to offer an
alternative to the “new urbanist’s
gingerbread houses on stilts”13,
which Blackwell believed did not
engage with the problem.
For Blackwell, and his office,
the primary goal was that the
prototype should “be a tangible
outcome of the program”14, it was
imperative that it was built. As
such the key motivation for this
project is ultimately pragmatic;
Blackwell rejected what was
being proposed, believing he
could deign something more
effective. Unfortunately neither
the PorchDog nor the other
prototypes designed for the
program have been replicated
elsewhere, although Blackwell
did receive several enquiries
from New Orleans that did
not materialise. He maintains
he was never convinced that
anyone would literally copy the
design and that this would not
be entirely appropriate since
there are changes that he would
make to future iterations, which
would improve the design both in
terms of cost and performance15.
The PorchDog is a legitimate
design solution though, and the
necessary documentation to
build it is available free via the
OAN, a valuable contribution to
the commons that Blackwell was
happy to make.
In 2013 Sinclair stepped down as
AfH’s executive director with the
rationale that “if this [Architecture
for Humanity] is a truly sustainable
organisation, it should survive
without its founders”16. However,
earlier this year (January 2015)
AfH filed for bankruptcy17 and
closed its headquarters in San
Fransisco. Despite this news, the
end of AfH and the OAN is not
likely. The very purpose of AfH
was to connect local designers
with local problems and as such
has dictated its organisational
structure; it consists of
60 independent chapters
worldwide18. Although these
chapters share the AfH trademark
they are financially independent
and many will continue to operate
as usual, despite the bankruptcy
of their parent charity, in the
same way a new software project
may fork from its failing parent
project. The OAN remains online,
hosting and distributing valuable
information and will continue to
do so regardless of the unsure
future of its backers.
28
.chapter endnotes
1. Cameron Sinclair. Lessons Learned… from Design Like You Give a Damn [2]: Building Change from the Ground Up (New York: ABRAMS, 2012)2. Ibid., 11.3. Architecture for Humanity. What We Do. <http://architectureforhumanity.org/about/what-we-do> accessed 13.03.20154. TED. TED Prize < https://www.ted.com/participate/ted-prize> accessed 07.04.20155. Sinclair, Lessons Learned, 25.6. The Open Architecture Network. Home Page <http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/> accessed 13.03.20157. Sinclair, Lessons Learned, 25.8. Ibid., 25.9. Ibid., 109.10. Ibid., 109.11. Marlon Blackwell Architects. Porchdog House Prototype (2009) <http://www.marlonblackwell.com/work_residential_porchdog-house-prototype.html> accessed 05.04.201512. Marlon Blackwell. Interview by author. Phone call. Edinburgh Arkansas (06.04.2015)13. Ibid.14. Ibid.15. Ibid.16. Robin Pogrebin. A Leader in Socially Conscious Architecture Is Closing Amid Financial Woes (The New York Times, 17.01.2015) <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/arts/design/a-leader-in- socially-conscious-architecture-is-closing-amid-financial-woes.html?_r=2> accessed 05.04.201517. Architecture for Humanity. Home Page (22.01.2015) <http://architectureforhumanity.org/> accessed 05.04.201518. Architecture for Humanity Chapter Network. Home Page. <chapters.architectureforhumanity.org/chapters> accessed 05.04.2015
[Fig.13 - AfH London Facebook page.]
.wikihouse
29
The WikiHouse project offers
an open source alternative
to conventional architectural
processes, allowing unskilled
end users to directly participate
in the design and construction
of their own home. The
dissemination of WikiHouse
projects is facilitated by an online
commons, which hosts the files
and documentation needed to
construct a building of which
the majority of elements are
cut from plywood using a C.N.C.
router. The WikiHouse project
fulfils the two criteria set out
by O’Mahony and West, authors
of What makes a project open
source? Migrating from organic to
synthetic communities required
for a project to be considered
open source development. Firstly,
in it’s employment of Creative
Commons licensing, thus making
its content openly available for
others to take and use. Secondly,
in its organisation as an online
community which facilitates
contribution and collaboration
among individuals, and as such
may be considered a development
platform1.
Through engaging with
Architecture for Humanity and
the WikiHouse project it became
apparent that OSArc was not so
much a concept of the future as
I had first imagined, blueprints
6[Fig.14 - WikiHouse construction set process.]
30
and manuals are online now,
ready for experimentation. The
ambition of this dissertation has
been to present how open source
culture is able to challenge linear
processes relating to design,
manufacture and ultimately
architecture. Open source
initiatives such as the WikiHouse
project offer alternatives and
thus challenge us to rethink
our understanding of the way
we approach making buildings.
The ambition of my D.I.Y. C.N.C.
was to go further and evaluate
how successful the WikiHouse
project has been in its ambition
to encourage a more participatory
approach to architecture.
My most immediate conclusion
to draw from the D.I.Y. C.N.C.
experiment is that although
WikiHouse aims to encourage
participation in the practice
of making architecture, this
ambition will not be easily
achieved. Despite WikiHouse’s
operations providing a platform
for collaboration and cooperation
to happen, so too does it allow
free riding. My involvement with
WikiHouse was purely one way, I
took from the commons without
giving back and as such opted
out of participation, rendering my
engagement unsustainable. The
opportunity to contribute to the
Wikihouse commons is severely
31
limited since all contributions
must adhere to the format of parts
cut from plywood sheet stock. My
decision to refrain from adding
to the commons was also due to
WikiHouse’s rigorous approach
to regulating contributions, a
user must first apply to join the
commons and subsequently apply
to begin a project and submit
drawings; all steps of which must
be approved by a moderator. Of
course this approach ensures that
only a high calibre of coherent
work is included in the commons
and where failure of the design
may have fatal consequences, this
level of mediation should perhaps
be welcomed.
Instructables, although similarly
employs moderators, has a more
liberal approach to accepting
contributions with a far richer
commons as a result. I was
therefore able to make available
full documentation of my project,
including instructions on how to
build the printer, as well as how to
take drawings from the Wikihouse
commons and manipulate them.
I was able to easily add to the
Instructables commons and
give back to the open design
community. The action of
sharing my experiences and the
knowledge I amassed throughout
the project contributed a quality
of participation to my project
which was otherwise lacking,
despite replicating an OSArc
project.
Throughout this text the D.I.Y.
C.N.C. project has been used as
a device to assist discussions
around open source and form
critical appraisals of initiatives
such as the WikiHouse project
and indirectly, architectural
practice. Matt Ratto, a professor
in the faculty of information
at the University of Toronto,
has coined the term “critical
making” for the method whereby
projects such as the D.I.Y. C.N.C.
“can be employed to develop
a critical perspective on the
current institutions, practices
and norms of society”2. By
making information more widely
available and supporting open
source design, we extend greater
opportunities to engage in critical
making which in turn “heralds
new possibilities for artists,
scholars and interested citizens
to engage in a simultaneously
conceptual and material critique
of technologies and information
systems in society”3. Although
the result of critical making is
often an alternative to an existing
system, it is not the intention that
these alternatives will become
replacements. The value of critical
making lies not in its end results
but in the development of unique
understandings by the makers,
who in turn curate and share their
findings with others4.
32
.chapter endnotes
1. Duncan Bain. Open Source Architecture Wiki (2015) < http://www.duncanbain.com/research/dissertation/index.php?title=Main_ Page> accessed 05.04.20152. Matt Ratto. Critical Making from Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. (Netherlands: BIS Publishers, 2011), 203.3. Ratto, Critical Making, 204.4. Ibid., 204.
[Fig.15 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse Print at 1:100 scale.]
33 7.conclusion
This dissertation has asked if
principles commonplace in open
source software development
might serve as credible
alternatives for conventions
within architectural practice.
Although the design stages of
software and architecture are
analogous, there are fundamental
differences between the
construction of the two that
present considerable challenges
for the realisation of OSArc.
Architecture’s materiality and
requirement of costly resources
reduces its accessibility and is
OSArc’s most significant obstacle.
Since architecture is inherently
material, unlike software, it is
geographically placed which
presents further challenges
regarding motivation. If an
OSArc contributor cannot reap
the benefits of their own work
because it is thousands of miles
away, they will surely be less
inclined to participate. However,
as demonstrated with the D.I.Y.
C.N.C., the rapid reduction in
cost and increased accessibility
to these machines, signals that
perhaps we are moving towards
a future where locale is a lesser
concern.
An OSArc project may be the
product of global co-creation
but its physical construction will
be local. It was the intention of
my D.I.Y. C.N.C. project that this
concern be addressed, showing
that the consumer is now capable
of taking control of manufacturing
and subverting the linear mode of
production, of
designer -> factory -> consumer
(Fig. 15) and able to challenge the
role of the professional designer
or architect.
Liberating the client from the
need of an architect however
will not be one of open
source culture’s contributions
to architecture. Just as open
source and proprietary software
coexist, so too will OSArc and
architectural practice as we
know it today. Instead, there are
attitudes and approaches that
have the potential to make a
lasting impact on the profession.
It is imperative however that open
source methods applied outside
the realm of software production
are not considered “pixie dust
to be sprinkled on random
processes”1. Rather than assuming
that open source is largely
applicable beyond software
we should regard it as broadly
“Share global, print local” Alastair Parvin, WikiHouse.
7
inapplicable, but so rewarding
that it is worth changing our
behaviour to adopt the methods,
tools and techniques that have
proved so successful2.
A revision of the way architects
perceive intellectual property
will be open source’s primary
contribution. This change will
allow architects to observe that
when ideas are openly shared,
“multidirectional dialogue”
will occur, which pragmatically
produces higher quality results.
This dynamism in end result
was demonstrated through the
sharing of my D.I.Y. C.N.C. project,
where improvements were made
because of suggestions from the
Instructables community [Fig.9].
OSArc is able to deliver that same
dynamism, offering an alternative
that can “transcend production
structures of the industrial era”3.
I believe that OSArc, once widely
experienced, has the capacity to
begin a focused discussion about
how we approach designing and
making buildings. Open source
has the potential to incite a
more democratic and inclusive
architectural process. Although
OSArc does not necessarily offer
a complete alternative to the
present condition, it is a valuable
device through which we may
challenge and critique our current
motives and processes.
34
[Fig.16 - Thomas Lomée, Multidirectional Dialogue]
35
.chapter endnotes
1. Shirky, Clay. Epilogue: Open Source outside the Domain of Software from: Feller, Joseph., et al., eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007), 483.2. Ibid., 4833. Kaspori, Dennis. A Communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source practice (Archis Magazine #3, 2003) <http://www.rixc.lv/ram/en/public02.html> accessed 10.04.2015
36
[Fig.17 - Scan of D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse print]
37
.books
Abel, Bas van. et al., Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. Netherlands: BIS Publishers, 2011.
Architecture for Humanity., ed. Design Like You Give a Damn [2]: Building Change from the Ground Up. New York:
ABRAMS, 2012.
Brooks Jr, Fredrick P. The Mythical Man-Month. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1995.
Coyne, Richard. Cornucopia Limited: Design and Dissent on the Internet. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2005.
Feller, Joseph., et al., eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007.
Jones, Paul. The Sociology of Architecture: Constructing Identities. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011.
Kelty, Christopher M. Two Bits: The cultural significance of Free Software. North Carolina: Duke University Press,
2008.
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity.
New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.
Levy, Steven. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. California: O’Reilly Media, 2010.
Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. New York: Random House, 1995.
Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. California: O’Reilly Media, 2001.
Rifkin, Jeremy. The Age of Access: The new culture of hypercapitalism where all of life is a paid-for experience. New
York: Penguin, 2001.
Schumpeter, Joseph, A. Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy. London: Routledge, 1943.
Shamiyeh, Michael. What People Want: Popularism in Architecture and Design. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2005.
Shepard, Michael, ed. Sentient City: Ubiquitous computing, architecture, and the future of urban space. Massachusetts:
The MIT Press, 2011.
Weber, Steven. The Success of Open Source. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Zucchini, Benedict. Giancarlo De Carlo. Oxford: Reed International, 1992.
.bibliography
38
.online sources
Angry Architect, The. End of an Era: Architecture For Humanity Closes Its Doors. Architizer, Jan 2015.
< http://architizer.com/blog/end-of-an-era/ > accessed 07.03.2015
Bain, Duncan. Open Source Architecture Wiki. 2015.
< http://www.duncanbain.com/research/dissertation/index.php?title=Main_Page > accessed 29.03.2015
Blackwell Architects, Marlon. Porchdog House Prototype. 2009.
< http://www.marlonblackwell.com/work_residential_porchdog-house-prototype.html > accessed 05.04.2015
DiCarlo., Lisa. Linux Not Just For Geeks Anymore. Forbes Magazine, 2002.
<http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/15/0715linux.html>, accessed 05.04.2015
Ferro, Shaunacy. What’s Next For Architecture For Humanity? Fastcodesign, Jan 2015.
< http://www.fastcodesign.com/3041234/whats-next-for-architecture-for-humanity#comments > accessed 07.03.2015
Garcia, David. ‘Kopieer dit’. Metropolis Magazine, no. 5, 2002.
< http://metropolism.com/archive/search?author=4007>, accessed 05.03.2015
Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Isaac McPherson. Aug 13 1813.
< http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > accessed 11.04.2015
Kaspori, Dennis. A Communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source practice. Archis Magazine #3, 2003.
<http://www.rixc.lv/ram/en/public02.html > accessed 27.01.2015
Lessig, Lawrence. Open Code and Open Societies. 2000.
< http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/opensocd1.pdf > accessed 07.03.2015
.journal articles
Bergquist, Magnus & Ljungberg, Jan. The power of gifts: organising social relationships in open source communities,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11 (2001): Issue 4, p305–320.
De Carlo, Giancarlo. L’Architettura Della Partecipazione : The Architecture of Participation, The Yale Architectural
Journal, Prespecta 17 (1980), p65-82.
Ghapanchi, Amir H. Investigating the Interrelationships among Success Measures of Open Source Software Projects,
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 25 (2015): Issue 1, p28-46
O’Mahony, Siobhán & Ferraro, Fabrizio. The Emergen Of Governance in an Open Source Community, Academy of
Management Journal Vol. 50 (2007): Issue 5, p1079-1106.
39
Metz, Cade. Microsoft: An Open Source Windows Is ‘Definitely Possible’ . Wired Magazine, Apr 3 2015.
< http://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/ > accessed 11.04.2015
Mossoff, Adam. Who care what Thomas Jefferson thought about patents? Reevaluating the patent “Privilege” in histori-
cal context. Cornell Law Review Vol. 92:953.
< https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/CRN502Mossoff.pdf > accessed 22.03.2015
O’Mahony, Siobhán & West, Joel. What makes a project open source? Migrating from organic to synthetic communities.
Jan 10 2005.
< http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/OpenSource/Research/OMahonyWest_AOM_2005.pdf > accessed 05.04.2015
Pogrebin, Robin. A Leader in Socially Conscious Architecture Is Closing Amid Financial Woes. The New York Times, Jan
17 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/arts/design/a-leader-in-socially-conscious-architecture-is-closing-amid-financial-woes.
html?_r=2> accessed 05.04.2015
Ratti, Carlo. et al. Open Source Architecture Manifesto. Domus Magazine #948, 2011.
< http://senseable.mit.edu/osarc/2011_Ratti_et_al_OSArc_DOMUS.pdf > accessed 07.03.2015
Raymond, Eric. S. A Brief History of Hackerdom. 2000.
< http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/hacker-history/ > accessed 07.03.2015
Raymond, Eric. S. Homesteading the Noosphere. 2000.
<http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ > accessed 07.03.2015
Royal Institute of British Architects. Explaining an architect’s services. RIBA, Jun 2008.
< http://www.architecture.com/files/ribaprofessionalservices/professionalconduct/disputeresolution/practicalmatters/explainingser
vices pdf > accessed 21.03.2015
Suzor, Nicolas. What motivates free software developers to choose between copyleft and permissive licences? 2013.
< https://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing > accessed 06.03.2015
Torrone, Phillipe. Autodesk Acquires Instructables: What It Means for Makers. Make Magazine, Aug 2011.
< http://makezine.com/2011/08/05/autodesk-acquires-instructables-what-it-means-for-makers/ > accessed 29.03.2015
.student thesis
Gardner, Alec J. “The Architecture of Mass Collaboration: How Open Source Communing Will Change Everything”.
MArch Thesis., University of Cincinnati, 2013.
Vardouli, Theodora. “Design-for-Empowerment-for-Design: Computational Structures for Design Democratization”. MSc Thesis., Massachusetts Institue of Technology, 2012.
40
.film and video
Chef Conference. Panel Discussion: Have Your Bets on Open Paid Off? (Apr 2 2015)
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZnbGNtcyMc&feature=youtu.be> accessed 09.04.2015
Moore, J.T.S. Dir, Revolution OS. DVD (Wonderview Productions, 2002)
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8K460vx1c > accessed 29.03.2015
Parvin, Alastair. Architecture for the people by the people (TED: 2013)
< http://www.ted.com/alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people/transcript?language=en > accessed 07.03.2015
Puttonen, Hannu. Dir, The Code. DVD (Strasbourg: Arte, 2001)
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMm0HsmOTFI > accessed 29.03.2015
Shirky, Clay. How social media can make history (TED: 2009)
< http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history?language=end > accessed 07.03.2015
Shirky, Clay. Institutions Vs Collaboration (TED: 2005)
< http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration?language=en > accessed 07.03.2015
Sinclair, Cameron. My wish: A call for open-source architecture (TED: 2006)
< http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture?language=en > accessed 07.03.2015
.websites
Architecture for Humanity
<http://architectureforhumanity.org/> accessed 05.04.2015
Architecture for Humanity Chapter Network
<http://chapters.architectureforhumanity.org/chapters> accessed 05.04.2015
Arduino
<http://www.arduino.cc/> accessed 05.04.2015
Instructables
< http://www.instructables.com/> accessed 05.04.2015
Open Architecture Network
<http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/> accessed 05.04.2015
TED
< https://www.ted.com/ > accessed 05.04.2015
41
.images
Fig. 1 Incorporating Arduino in the design studio.
Author’s image.
Fig. 2 Richard Stallman.
<http://greatpreneurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/richard_stallman.jpg> accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 3 GNU Logo.
< https://www.gnu.org/graphics/empowered-by-gnu.svg > accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 4 Linus Torvalds.
< https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Y_ESIDYRHpk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAQtI/4Ztq84zsJuU/photo.jpg >
accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 5 Linux Logo.
< http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Tux.svg/2000px-Tux.svg.png > accessed
11.04.2015
Fig. 6 Linus Torvalds on the cover of Forbes, 1998.
< https://tanyarezaervani.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/0forbes.jpg > accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 7 D.I.Y. C.N.C.
Author’s image.
Fig. 8 D.I.Y. C.N.C. Instructables profile.
< http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/ > accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 9 D.I.Y. C.N.C. with cutting modification, suggestion made by Instructables user “Raitis”
Author’s image.
Fig. 10 D.I.Y. C.N.C.
Author’s image.
Fig. 11 Licenses offered by Instructables.
< http://www.instructables.com/editInstructable/publish/EUFBUUNI66CSTQ6 > accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 12 Marlon Blackwell’s ProchDog prototype.
< http://archrecord.construction.com/residential/hotm/2010/09/porchdog-1_exterior.jpg > accessed 12.04.2015
Fig. 13 Architecture for Humanity Facebook page.
< https://www.facebook.com/AfHLondon?ref=br_rs > accessed 11.04.2015
Fig. 14 WikiHouse construction set processes.
< http://cdn.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Wikihouse-6.jpg > accessed 11.04.2015
42
Fig. 15 D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse print at 1:100 scale.
Author’s image.
Fig. 16 Thomas Lommée, multidirectional dialogue.
< https://iheartcommunications.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/thomas-lommee-bmp.jpg > accessed 12.04.2015
Fig. 17 Scan of D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse print.
Author’s resource.
Resources in appendix b all belong to author, images are hosted by Instructables.
< http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/ >
43
[HL] Could you tell me about how you came to be involved with Architecture for Humanity and the East Biloxi model homes program?
[MB] We were approached by Architecture for Humanity to submit a prototype design for the new model home program. We hadn’t initially been that interested in what was going on post Katrina because the rebuilding was all being coopted by the new urbanists with their kind of antiquated approach to architecture. We discovered that Biloxi was the only town on the Mississippi Gulf Coast that didn’t want to use the new urbanist’s plan and they wanted to develop their own model program in conjunction with Architecture for Humanity. Biloxi had managed to se-cure sponsors so it looked like it would really happen, Oprah’s Angel Network and Autodesk were major sponsors so that added legitimacy. We submitted a couple of projects because we had done a few before for Architecture for Humanity with the Ogden museum in New Orleans but nothing came out of it and so we had already been thinking about it. We generated a couple of prototypes that would serious-ly deal with the new FEMA regulations demanding that all houses or structures within the city limits have to be raised 6 to 11 feet above the street level. For us that had lots of implications on the urban character and fabric because it creates a residual zone down below which was already looking pretty evident in some of the first buildings that were going up. We saw this as an opportunity to ask the question How might it be otherwise? Then we decided that it was best to have the porch that was this social interface between the private world of the house and the public world of the street. The house would remain on the street and then we would create a more concise footprint for the house and really only then as a pro-totype it can be repeated because it would be a market rate house priced anywhere from $115-130 a square foot. That was the challenge and the opportunity that got us involved. The PorchDog model home was intended as a prototype that could be repeated across the Gulf Coast and indeed anywhere else affected by flooding. All the nec-essary information to copy the building is available through the Open Architecture Network. Have you heard of anyone reproducing the scheme?No it has not been reproduced as far as I know although we had several inquiries from New Orleans about it but no one followed it up. But it is there on the OAN and it is certainly a legitimate strategy, it seems to be more of a hybrid than the other model homes that came out of the program.
[HL] Have you considered a similarly open approach to the other work that you produce at your practice?
[MB] Well we are very interested in prototypes and projects that are in effect in search of a site. How we responded to what we saw was a more kind of darwinian moment. How do you demonstrate that typologies can be adaptive and evolution-ary? That was our interest and we were happy to share it and share our thinking and allow it to be available to others should they decided to repeat it. Its a much more public open ended sort of proposition and basically it is the sharing of ideas. I don’t know how convinced we were that someone would literally take it and reproduce it, we thought if anything they would alter it or try and make it their own, we thought if they were serious about reproducing it they would contact us directly. Also there are things that we would have done differently and things that we learned that we think if included in the next iterations would improve it both in terms of performance and in terms of cost.
.appendix a
Edited transcript from conversation with Marlon Blackwell 06.04.2015 19:00 (BST) 13:00 (CST) duration 00:14:18
44
[HL] In terms of your motivation to work with Architecture for Humanity and to give away the information on how to replicate the PorchDog for free, did you consider the publicity benefits or was your motivation purely philanthropic?
[MB] It became more philanthropic thats for sure. I mean I don’t fundraise for it but I actually sent guys there from my office to help put on the sliding shutters and help with some of the other things that were outstanding and that needed to be completed. We saw it as important to be built and to be a tangible outcome of the program so that was what was most important, it wasn’t a money making venture. We never imagined there was money to be made, I think we were paid a very mod-est sum which basically paid mostly only for us to travel down there [Arkansas to Biloxi] a few times. I think it was more an opportunity to serve and say here, here’s what you can do other than a Katrina cottage. The new urbanists were proposing all these ginger bread houses on stilts, up three feet in the air. We just thought that wasn’t really engaging the problem.
[HL] Architecture for Humanity filed for bankruptcy in January this year, did the organisation appear to be sustainable when you were involved with them?
[MB] I can’t explain all of it but I just know that when Cameron and Kate stepped away they were in a lot of debt, they had a lot of momentum and good new organi-sation but I think these things are often fleeting.
[HL] I suppose then they did well to keep it going for more than fifteen years.
[MB] Yeah and I think it was an issue to do with the transition of leadership. I think it was a lack of will on the organisation’s part to figure out how to resolve all of their financial problems and I think they just decided to shut it down. The new president of the organisation was actually at our university a few years ago pro-posing to develop these new regional think tanks, getting universities to buy in and then to obviously sponsor these think tanks across the country. It was a good idea and our dean and our school was certainly interested, but in the end it felt like they didn’t continue to pursue the model.
[HL] Did you enjoy being involved with Architecture for Humanity?
[MB] Yes it was a great experience, it was very frustrating at times, trying to get something built from afar and built correctly, which was a real challenge, but I know the people who got their house were very pleased, although then the ques-tion that follows is that of budgeting, maintenance and up keep which is a whole other set of questions and issues.
[HL] Yes I understand you also provided financial as well as design services.
[MB] We tried to do everything we could to get in their budget, we were actual-ly about $25,000 higher than most of the other schemes because we opted to use some steel we opted to use a more vertical strategy because we thought it was more appropriate urbanistically, in terms of stacking the program so it was structurally more challenging but we went out and found the rest to make up the difference because we were very much involved in the project. It was made more manageable because in the end we had done something similar with the Ogden museum in New Orleans and nothing came of that, not even the plans that they had us draw, there were lots of great ideas that went nowhere. In the end it was a happy ending and it all worked out.
45
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Food Living Outside Play Technology Workshop
X-Y Plotterby Henri.Lacoste on February 15, 2015
Table of Contents
X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Intro: X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Step 1: X-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Step 2: Z-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Step 3: X-Axis fixed to base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Step 4: X-Axis motor driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Step 5: Y-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Step 6: Y-Axis Moving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Step 7: Laser Cut Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Step 8: Pen Holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Step 9: Grbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Step 10: Test Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Step 11: Creating your own g-code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Step 12: Wikihouse Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Related Instructables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Intro: X-Y PlotterHi,
Thank you for taking the time to check out my instructable for an Arduino based X-Y plotter. I decided to build this as an accompanying piece of work for my 4th yeararchitecture dissertation at the University of Edinburgh the topic of which is open source architecture and the challenges it poses for the architectural profession.
Inspired by Wikihouse founder, Alastair Parvin, and his proposition that “if designʼs great project of the 20th century was the democratisation of consumption… designʼsgreat project in the 21st century is the democratisation of production” I set about the task of building a machine that would be capable of printing my own customisedopen source Wikihouse from the commons at a 1:100 scale.
For the real Wikihouse project you would use a CNC router and 18mm plywood, but due to time constraints I opted to build a smaller more manageable desktop penplotter which would still plot accurate CAD drawings.
The plotter is comprised of 3 stepper motors each powered by a V4.4 EasyDriver and runs off a 12V DC supply. Since all three axes are running a stepper motor the pencould be replaced with a router and become a CNC milling machine (in theory).
I use grbl with the Arduino to send G-Code to the printer and a really great way to create G-Code is with the totally free software Inkscape, which has a built-in feature, G-Code tools. Inkscape will convert your drawings to G-Code which grbl will interpret and send instructions to the plotter.
With that brief introduction out of the way I will show you how I went about building the plotter, I will provide drawings like the .dwg for the laser cut base however pleaseuse the material with caution and check measurements yourself before cutting your precious materials.
This instructable is intended as a resource for people who are thinking about building a similar CNC machine, or have already started and are looking for answers andtroubleshooting problems. I would not suggest that people copy this design completely as it was only my second project of this nature as as such has its limitations, but itmay serve as a valuable point of research for those interested.
Step 1: X-AxisSo I began by taking apart an old printer that had stopped working as I had seen a few examples of plotters that use running gear from obsolete or broken hardware andliked the idea of using parts that would otherwise go to land fill. I took the bracket that the ink cartridges originally were fixed to and cut away pieces of the black plasticcaddy you see in the video until i had a nice clean surface where I would later attach a pen.
Originally there was a motor at one end of the bracket and an idle at the other with a belt in between, had the motor been a stepper motor l would have been able to leavethese in place, however I instead removed both and after a fair bit of manipulation I mounted an idle gear at one end and a stepper at the other (these are the gears yousee in the video).
The belt would then run between the motor and idle and attached to the black plastic caddy will pull my pen along the x axis. I mounted a couple of L shaped brackets offthe bracket where I would later suspend the bracket over the rest of the plotter.
.appendix b
Full Instructables tutorial with video may be found at:
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
46
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Image Notes1. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket2. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket3. Idle gear4. Stepper motor
Step 2: Z-AxisThis is not how I ended up doing the Z Axis exactly but I thought it would be good to show alternatives and reasoning as to why it wasn't done this way finally. Here I havemounted a servo off the plastic ink cartridge caddy. I also mounted an old floppy disk component from my mum's computer (please do consult whoever is the owner ofthe floppy disk drive, chances are they won't need it though) off the caddy and tensioned a belt between the servo and worm gear of the floppy drive.
I didn't end up doing it this way for two reasons. 1: Servos only turn 180º and with the worm gear this allowed very little movement up and down (although probablyenough to raise a pen) 2: Later on when we are configuring grbl it is much easier to use all stepper motors rather than servos as well, that said you can manipulate thecode to work with a servo.
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Step 3: X-Axis fixed to baseThe basic design of this plotter is such that the X-Axis is suspended over the bed on which the drawing will be made. The Y-Axis pulls the bed perpendicular andunderneath the X-Axis. The video here shows the X-Axis mounted to a length of aluminium angle that i picked up from B&Q, this angle then spans between two 8mmthreaded rods that are fixed to a 12mm MDF base. Threaded rods are really useful in this context since they allow for essential adjustment.
Step 4: X-Axis motor drivenNext I decided to run some tests and see if I could send some instructions to the stepper motor via an Arduino to get the caddy to move up and down the X-Axis. BrianSchmalz's page on example stepper motor code is really helpful if you haven't got experience of using EasyDrivers and stepper motors with the Arduino platform.
Step 5: Y-AxisThe way I decided to set up the Y-Axis was with a stepper motor that would pull the middle of the bed back and forth. The bed would have two linear bearings mounted toit which would run along two 8mmø rails I picked up from B&Q (note I am intending on swapping these aluminium rails out for stronger linear shaft rods)
The rails would need to be lifted from the base so that the bed would run over the top of the motor and the idle. The mounts shown in this picture are not the final methodbut again good to show the plotter's evolution.
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Image Notes1. Rail over which linear bearings will run2. Y-Axis idle gear3. Y-Axis Stepper motor4. Rail over which linear bearings will run5. Mount to suspend the rail6. Mount to suspend the rail
Step 6: Y-Axis MovingJust as with the X-Axis I decided to test the motor and the way I had setup the running gear. This is where I began to realise the problems with making all of thecomponents thus far by hand. Very minor inaccuracies cause problems and as such you can see in the video that the bed vibrates and shakes, it was shaking morebefore I put the jockey wheels in that you can see under the bed.
What has been covered up to this step was all done in the limbo between Christmas and New Year at home, in January I would return to Uni and I had plans to remakemany of the components with the University's laser cutter 3D printer etc.
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Step 7: Laser Cut BaseBack at Uni I drew up a base and bed in AutoCAD to cut on the laser cutter so that I could make my whole setup more accurate. I decided also to place some guidesdown the side of the base which would ensure the bed could not rotate off course as it had been doing previously. These guides would cause a lot of friction but I knowhow strong the Y-Axis' stepper is and as such I wasn't worried. The stepper motor linked will fit in the recess that is cut out in the .dwg I have uploaded.
The assembly of the base is very simple, the 6mm MDF boards go one on top of the other, the top one has a recess for the stepper cut out of it as well as a recess for thebreadboard and Arduino. The majority of the holes are 6mmø for bolts to go through to hold up things like the mounts for the rails.
The MDF discs are to be wood glued together to form feet for the base so that you don't need to counter sink the bolts (three to a corner, don't throw away the ones thatare from the main base)
Use plastic weld to fix the rail mounts together (the toothed pieces below the acrylic bed)
The other acrylic pieces below the bed are to fit over the stepper motor and hold it down
File Downloads
47
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Base.dwg (52 KB)[NOTE: When saving, if you see .tmp as the file ext, rename it to 'Base.dwg']Step 8: Pen HolderEarlier I showed how the X-Axis was arranged, I swapped out the servo for a little stepper motor. I have linked to the one I bought, a "5V 28BYJ-48". Do not bother withone like this, they are so so slow and as a result printing takes much longer, you have to wait at least two seconds for the stepper to raise the pen by 1mm clear of thepaper. This is down to the fact that I have an interesting gear ratio going on with my floppy driver worm gear as much as the stepper motor but anyway, I wouldrecommend using a superior stepper motor or just redesign the way I have set the Z-Axis up.
Anyway, the penholder. I designed a pen holder in Rhinoceros 5 that I 3D printed and glued to the floppy drive component, I have included a .3dm file should you wish toedit the design in Rhino or another software of your choice and I have also included a .stl file ready for 3D printing.
File Downloads
Pen Holder.3dm (3 MB)[NOTE: When saving, if you see .tmp as the file ext, rename it to 'Pen Holder.3dm']
Pen Holder.stl (8 MB)[NOTE: When saving, if you see .tmp as the file ext, rename it to 'Pen Holder.stl']Step 9: GrblSo now that we have all our axes working the next thing to do is get started with grbl. The best thing to do follow this link and just follow the comprehensive explanationprovided. It does seem daunting at first however the information available through their website is great and makes a lot of sense.
Follow the wiring diagram I have uploaded from grbl and get Universal g-code Sender. Universal g-code Sender makes using grbl easier since it allows features such ajogging each axis and visualising the g-code you are sending to your printer.
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Step 10: Test PrintOk so now that we have grbl configured it is time to send some g-code. At this point i didn't actually have my Z-Axis finished so I used a bulldog clip to fix the pen to theX-Axis. My first print was the outline of a gecko, don't ask me why a gecko, it just was. Because I didn't have the X-Axis finished the included piece of g-code has nomovement in the Z direction, it is a continuous line.
The first print was painfully slow, this is because I hadn't understood how to properly configure grbl. Playing about with the settings and fine tuning is necessary.
Be wary that if you use the included g-code, your settings for mm/step need to be correct, the gecko is about 12cm long, if your mm/step are incorrect the size maybe toolarge for the print area you have and unless you have enabled soft limits in grbl you may damage your machine.
File Downloads
Gecko_Success.ngc (11 KB)[NOTE: When saving, if you see .tmp as the file ext, rename it to 'Gecko_Success.ngc']
48
http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/
Step 11: Creating your own g-codeWith everything in place you are now ready to make your own g-code. The best way I have found to do this is to use inkscape, it is free and has a built in feature, g-codetools. I found this tutorial really helpful to understand how to use g-codetools.
If you are, like me, wanting to print drawings you made in AutoCAD (.dwg/.dxf) then I found a good free way is to download Apache Open Office, open up you .dxf andthen save them as .svg files. These files are then easier to work with in inkscape and can be simply converted to paths which work with g-codetools. I could not get .dxffiles imported directly to inkscape to be processed by g-codetools. You may have better luck.
Step 12: Wikihouse PrintSo if you set out with the same intentions as me you might like to access the Wikihouse Commons, download a project manipulate it, and print it on your new DIY plotter.
I hope you have found this instructable to be of some use, maybe not all of it will be, but it is hoped that you might take parts, change them and make them better. I wouldreally love to know if you found it helpful or have tried bits out, changed them etc.
Thank you for taking the time to read my first ever instructable.
All the best,
Henri.
Related Instructables
Arduino 3-axisMini LazerPaper-Cutter bykokpat
XY-Plotter bybdeakyne
Cómo hacer unrobot que dibujecon Makeblockbyantonio.aranes
3 Axis ArduinoBased CNCController byrjkorn
Printer to vinylcutter hack byliquidhandwash CNC out of a
scanner (cheap)(Photos) bymarwinrobot
Advertisements
Comments
49
50