Blob Tectonics, or why Tectonics is square and topology is groovy… Greg Lynn

Most important points and reflections:

Blobs have had a hard way merging with the tectonic nature of architectural expression, because of there innate nature of being ‘simultaneously alien and detached, however capable of melding with their contexts.’

The organization and conception of blobs has always fascinated me, and Lynn expresses in detail the different ways to begin to think about blob formation.

Ideal of blobs being so contextually intensive and dependant on external conditions for their internal organization.

Hollywood movie advent of blobs and their properties…they stick to things that are then slowly incorporated through their surface, they depend on contextual restraints or containment for their form, ability to absorb objects as if they were liquefied.

A blob is neither a single thing or a multiple of things, but is networked and can become multiplied and distributed…

Then this idea of Meta-balls or blob models and isomorphic polysurfaces arises. Their basic ideas include:
-objects defined in relation to other objects…
-field forces define and alter surfaces which are the controlling factors of these meta-balls

Preconceived notion since the beginning of time that buildings should stand ‘upright’ like the humans that inhabit them, and this has been a hard vision and idea to overcome in architectural design. This is a very interesting idea that I can imagine inadvertently directs our thinking and design methodology, which is fairly obvious by the ‘normal’ architecture being produced around the world. ‘Normal’ as in perpendicular to the surface of the earth.

Opposing analogy of the body more akin to a single cell blob than a symmetrically articulated upright man. This of course leads to a sort of methodology with which to begin to think about blobs.

Currently in architecture blobs have tended to be built strictly as alterations on roof surfaces. Lynn asks us to look to other way to incorporate these ideas elsewhere.

We can start looking at architecture requiring long spans that can lead to instinctively tectonic expressions of roof structure. This usually leads to expression or at least a way of thinking that tends to correlate structure with design. This can be applied to designs for blobs as well, but Lynn suggests has not been approached with much success as of yet.

Another way to look at blobs has been to install slight variation in systematic structural systems that eventually lead to undulating forms. This step towards blobular architecture has been undertaken many times and has been explored very successfully, especially with the use of ‘frames’ in architectural design. We can easily manipulate these frames, whether parametrically or just methodically, to organize obscure sites or create unique and flowing designs that imply movement or otherwise dramatic architecture. I still think of Grimshaw’s Waterloo terminal in London.