Can open source culture offer credible alternatives to architectural conventions? by Henri Lacoste

Can open source culture offer credible alternatives to current conventions within architectural practice?

Architecture Dissertation MA (Hons) Architecture Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture 2015 Henri Lacoste

.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

.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

45 50

[Fig.1 - Incorporating Arduino in the design studio.]

.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.

.introduction

“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

This statement, by the late Italian

undertakings, at present, is the

database of open source designs,

architect, educator, writer and

WikiHouse project. Founded by

download the drawings for a

critic Giancarlo De Carlo is an

Alastair Parvin in 2011 the initia-

house, manipulate the design and,

appropriate initiation for this

tive aims to establish an online

inspired by Parvin’s statement of

project, bringing forward the issue

resource of architectural drawings

democratising production:

of the “present condition” that this

and documents that anyone is

dissertation aims to challenge.

free to download. The drawings

Although expressed over 40 years

for the building may then be mod-

ago, De Carlo’s concerns and

ified and cut (from plywood), using

ambitions for a higher degree of

a computer numerically controlled

participation, within architecture,

(C.N.C.) router and the parts are

are still relevant today.

then assembled without extensive machinery or training. WikiHouse’s

Open source architectural projects

goal is to empower the end user

are predicated upon this notion

and encourage participation

of participation. Indeed the term

in the design and construction

“open source” is founded upon

phases of architecture, through

a philosophy of collaboration,

simplification. A lecture given by

transparency and sharing and it is

Parvin from 2013, provoked me

through an understanding of the

to begin a project which would

term “open source” that a critique

enable a deeper understanding

of current social conventions

of Parvin’s objectives and further

within architectural practice may

my understanding of open source

be constructed.

culture; a framing exploration to consolidate my findings from this

One of the most publicly rec-

dissertation. My ambition was

ognised open source architectural

to access the WikiHouse online

“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.

4 Through my experiment I will

challenged existing proprietary

gives Free/Libre and Open Source

also have the opportunity to

methods. The success of projects

Software (FLOSS) communities

offer a first hand understanding

such as Linux, has triggered many

their structure is the practical

into each of the areas of inquiry

to question whether a migration

legislation that enables sharing

addressed herein: motivation,

of open source ideas may benefit

and maintains freedom, whilst

organisation and legislation

other fields beyond software

avoiding exploitation from

around the subject of open source.

development.

opportunists. Chapter 4 will

The dissertation is structured such

investigate the licenses and

that each area of inquiry includes

The following three chapters

intellectual property attitudes

research conducted through the

will serve to develop the readers’

that have come to define FLOSS

experiment, combined with an

understanding of how and why

culture.

insight into related Free/Libre

some open source projects

Open Source (FLOSS) methods

successful. An introduction

Chapters 1-4 display how FLOSS

and ideas. The areas of inquiry

into the history of open source

culture is able to subvert its

have been considered to prompt

software inevitably ignites

proprietary counterparts and

the idea that the architectural

conversation about the motivation

provokes reflection on how FLOSS

profession could benefit from an

that drives the thousands of

ideas could migrate beyond

uptake of open source methods.

volunteers, who offer their time

software development and in

for free. Chapter 2 recognises

to architectural practice. The

Beginning with a contextual

that it is necessary to appreciate

following chapters present case

section on the origins of the

the motivations of a hacker to

study reports exploring current

term open source and its free

involve themselves in open

open source architecture (herein

software ancestry, chapter 1

source projects so that we might

referred to as OSArc) projects.

will provoke the idea of open

offer parallels to the possible

Architecture for Humanity and

source software development

motivations of the open source

WikiHouse have been chosen since

as potentially analogous to

architect. Although large numbers

both adopt progressive attitudes

architectural practice. This section

of diverse, enthusiastic volunteers

towards licensing, networking

will introduce key characters in

may be an invaluable workforce

and collaboration, offering

the history of open source, such

and ensure the success of an

alternative means to conventional

as Richard Stallman and Linus

open source project, the nature

architectural practice.

Torvalds, whose contributions

of their global scattering extends

to its evolution will help build

considerable complexities to

an understanding of the moral

do with organisation. Chapter 3

and ethical flavour of the term.

will explore technical structures

Software development, in

that manage workload, as well

particular the development of

as the social structures which

free operating systems in the

manage disputes, opinions and

latter half of the 20th century,

newcomers and offer alternatives

demonstrated the power of an

to current architectural office

open, collaborative culture and

structure. A great deal of what

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

.a brief history of open source It is through a summary of the

the ability to legitimately access

computer operating system3.

key events, people and ideas by

the source code, allowing the

which the term “open source”,

user freedom to see how the

with regards to software, came

program works, learn from it and

about that we might begin an

manipulate it should they wish

Labs following its withdrawal.

exploration in to the opportunity

to do so. Without the source code

Missing the Multics environment4,

open source holds for architecture.

this is not possible. However,

he began work with fellow

There is no single person who

the term “open source” implies

hacker Dennis Ritchie on a new

represents the whole story, nor a

factors beyond source code

project. In the space of two years

specific beginning of open source1,

transparency to do with copyright,

Thompson and Ritchie created

rather an evolution.

intellectual property, community

a full programming language

and philosophical and political

named “C” and a complete

Typically when we run a computer

stance; subjects with which

operating system named UNIX

program we run the executable, a

the architectural discourse is

(formerly UNICS), a trivial pun

series of numbers that practically

intrinsically concerned.

on Multics5. What made UNIX

Computer scientist, and key

figure in the Multics project,

Ken Thompson returned to Bell

no human is able to make sense

unique and especially popular at

of, understood only by computers.

the time was that although the

The executable is compiled from

.multics unix gnu & linux

software was proprietary, licenses

a source code, an algebraic-like

were not free, the source code

code written by programmers,

was included in its distribution6.

which can be edited to change the

In 1968 Bell Labs decided to

By including the source code

function of the program2. At its

cut funding to the collaborative

many users manipulated the

most fundamental understanding,

project, led by MIT named Multics,

software, seizing the opportunity

open source software refers to

an early, influential time-sharing

to customise the operating system

6 to suit their needs and fix existing

grew more unsure. The derivatives

looked for an alternative to the

problems. Within the licensing

of UNIX emerging had been

now proprietary closed source

agreement users were forbidden

modified to such an extent, that

operating system.

to redistribute their modifications,

the question arose as to whether

however, they were able to

they were still UNIX10.

The growth of proprietary

contribute their improvements to

software in the 1980s saw

Thompson and Ritchie7.

many talented programmers In 1979 AT&T (parent company

and computer scientists from

Around UNIX formed a global

of Bell Labs) released version 7 of

universities, such as those at MIT,

community of computer scientists

the UNIX operating system. AT&T

hired away into lucrative closed

and programmers who contributed

management had begun to realise

source software corporations.

to this collective project out of

UNIX’s commercial value and as

This soured MIT’s intellectual

enthusiasm; motivated by their

such restricted the distribution

culture, which had been focused

interest in maintaining and

of the source code, a decision

around collaboration, openness

improving the UNIX operating

that caused many universities

and sharing14. The university

system. Throughout the latter

to drop UNIX as a pedagogical

began insisting researchers

half of the 1970s the spread of

tool11. AT&T had been a

sign non-disclosure agreements

UNIX was remarkable; considering

restricted monopoly, prohibiting

in order to access information

the absence of conventional

the marketing of UNIX beyond

previously freely shared. Richard

distribution and support from

academia, up until a pivotal legal

Stallman joined MIT’s artificial

Bell Labs (its legal proprietor)8.

battle between it and the United

intelligence lab in 1971 and

Contributions submitted to

States in 1982. The battle resulted

would go on to found the Free

Thompson and Ritchie by the

in the fragmentation of AT&T, with

Software Foundation in 1984.

growing UNIX community

Bell Labs becoming autonomous

He believed that traditional

resulted in many frequent

and the creation of a new division

intellectual property rights,

redistributions of the operating

named UNIX Systems Laboratory12.

applied to software development,

system, engendering Thompson’s

Where previously AT&T had been

forbade the ethical agenda

notion of a “continuum”, an

prohibited from commercially

of a decent society, since the

alternative model to the less

licensing UNIX, it could now

purpose of software was to

frequent “productised” commercial

compete in a free market

solve problems together for the

releases, made by corporations

economy. This development

common good15. To Stallman

like Microsoft (98, XP, Vista

meant a phenomenal surge in

software was not simply a tool,

etc.)9. The “continuum” model of

licensing fees to $100,000 by

rather a demonstration of human

redistributing versions of UNIX,

198813. UNIX had shown, in its

innovation and expression16,

with improvements by authors not

infancy, how valuable open source

that should have freedom at the

employed by Bell Labs, advanced

development could be. However,

forefront of its discourse. Since

the quality of the software beyond

its extortionate licensing fees

his work at MIT contradicted his

the scope of conventional means.

negated its use by universities

philosophy he resigned from

However, as the technical stability

and researchers, a community of

his position in 1984 to dedicate

of UNIX improved, its legal status

would-be contributors who now

himself to free software and his

7 newly founded Free Software

These freedoms where manifest

Foundation (FSF)17.

in the GNU General Public License (GPL), known also as the copyleft

The first project of the FSF was

license, first released in 198921,

simple; to write a free operating

allowing software published

system, free meaning freedom

under this license to remain free

not price, “libre not gratis”18.

and revive hope for continuing

Stallman believed this project

collaborative endeavours22.

would enable the collaborative

[Fig.2 - Richard Stallman.]

Through employing the GPL,

culture that he had observed

developers can ensure that their

around UNIX to continue, now

work will not be taken and made

that UNIX was proprietary. Since

proprietary by another user,

Stallman’s background was in

instead the copyleft technique

progressing the UNIX OS, his new

ensures that wherever the

project would undoubtedly be like

software goes, so do the four

it, however to ensure he was not

freedoms; thus “it becomes an

infringing copyright law, he would

inalienable right to cooperate

have to write his new OS from scratch, and as such named his

[Fig.3 - GNU Logo.]

with other people and form a community”23. What separated

project GNU, a recursive acronym;

the GPL from other permissive

“GNU’s not UNIX”19. Central to

free software licenses (like the

the project and the FSF were

Berkley Software Distribution

Stallman’s four freedoms:

or MIT licenses) is that it was written from the standpoint of the community, rather than written to

0: The freedom to run the program

protect the interests of a company

for any purpose

or individual24.

1: The freedom to study how the program works and to modify it to

[Fig.4 - Linus Torvalds.]

Work on the GNU project continued, with everything

suit your needs

needed for a complete operating 2: The freedom to redistribute

system in place by 1991, except

copies, either gratis or for a

a kernel; the most essential

monetary fee

piece of software needed to run a computer. The same year,

3: The Freedom to change and

Finnish student Linus Torvalds

improve the program and to redistribute

modified

released the Linux kernel version

versions

0.1 openly on the internet, under

of the program to the public so others can benefit from your improvements20

the GNU GPL, which he had been [Fig.5 - Linux Logo.]

developing independently in an

8 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

“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

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

software, however, Linux was

objectives, drawing obvious

truly non-proprietary and as

parallels with the arrangement

such accessibility was granted

The undeniable success of this

of religious institutions. The

to the public, not just the

decentralised, open, inclusive

Free Software model in contrast

academic realm to which UNIX’s

mode of production went directly

is heavily focused around a

development had been restricted.

against conventional means of

decentralised peer-to-peer review

In the years 1992 to 1999,

software development, provoking

strategy, in which feedback is

releases V0.01 to V2.2, Linux’s

important thinking and writing

directly offered from people

user base grew from 1,000 to 12

that would challenge the term

formally outside of the project31.

million users25; many of whom

“Free Software”. Eric Raymond

The analogy sees Linux’s

contributed to the maintenance

is a software engineer who has

development as a “great babbling

and development of the software.

been involved in free software

bazaar of differing agendas”32,

The community of programmers

development for over thirty years,

which somehow rather than

produced innovative applications

contributing to UNIX and being

collapsing under its own weight,

that progressed Linux to become

one of the first to contribute to

managed to take Linux “from

an attractive option to big

the GNU project. He also began

strength to strength at a speed

business, during the mass-market

his involvement with Linux in

barely imaginable to cathedral

commoditisation of the Internet

199328. Though Raymond was

builders”33.

and web based commerce26. This

an advocate of the collaborative

global population of users is an

culture that had occurred around

A common misconception by

example of what Christopher

UNIX and now Linux, he believed

many when first introduced to

Kelty; author of The Cultural

a more centralised approach

the ideas of free software and

Significance of Free Software has

was required for initial complex

open source, is that they are the

coined the term “recursive public”

software development such as

same and that the terms may

for.

designing operating systems29.

be used indiscriminately. This is

His first hand experience of

understandable since the two

Linux’s success contested this

terms represent identical methods,

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

[Fig.6 - Linus Torvalds on the cover of Forbes, August 1998.]

and the FSF were charged with being communist and dogmatic,

Initiative. That same year Linux’s

VA Linux went public on the

restraining businesses from

business potential gained

stock market in 1998 its share

successfully harnessing open

mainstream attention with Linus

price rose 700% in one day;

source36.

Torvalds’ picture printed on

making it the largest initial public

the front of Forbes magazine.

offering of its time38. The success

The investment potential of

of Linux and the companies

1998 was significant in the history

Linux was service-centric with

founded around it, put to rest

of open source. Eric Raymond

several companies, most notably

many preconceptions that money

revised his paper “The Cathedral

Red Hat and VA Linux, founded

could not be made from open

and the Bazaar” replacing the

to assist businesses that had

source. The accomplishments of

words free software with open

chosen to adopt the Linux OS.

the method have brought cases

source37, and in collaboration

Red Hat offered tailor-made

forward “to suggest that software

with Bruce Perens composed the

software solutions and training

is not the only place where

Open Source Definition which

for businesses running Linux and

the open source process could

would form the manifesto of

VA Linux sold computers with

flourish.”39

their cofounded Open Source

the software preinstalled. When

.chapter endnotes 1. Andrew Leonard in, The Code. DVD. Directed by Hannu Puttonen (Strasbourg: Arte, 2001) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMm0HsmOTFI > accessed 29.03.2015 2. 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 29.03.2015 24. 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.

.motivation

“Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.”1 Eric Raymond - The Cathedral & The Bazaar

Raymond’s above quote suggests

will undoubtedly offer parallels to

code may either be rejected or

that the overarching stimulus

possible motivations of the open

accepted by the compiler3, but

for a work of software is

source architect.

inevitably there are many ways

pragmatic and essentially self

to solve the same problem, one

centred. Although this maybe

Steven Webber in “The Success of

more beautiful than another, with

a valid reason for conceiving

Open Source” discusses the topic

developers taking enjoyment in

a project, it does not go far

of motivation and sets out six

this challenge. This creative drive

enough to explain the countless

alternatives to remuneration. He

for clever simple code aligns with

unpaid hours that thousands

admits however, that the scheme

Stallman’s assertion that software

of voluntary contributors will

is imperfect, with crossovers

design is more than a tool, it

spend on the development and

amongst categories, since it

is a demonstration of human

maintenance of open source

is difficult to define human

expression4.

software. Whilst contemplating

motivation. His categories are:

the alternatives to payment we

- Art and beauty

“Job as vocation” is the experience

will consider the notion of the

- Job as vocation

of creating good code which

information given (namely the

- The joint enemy

empowers the programmer. Often

source code and analogously

- Ego boosting

programmers will be involved

architectural drawings) as a gift,

- Reputation

in open source projects as an

nuances involved with gift-

- Identity and belief system2

extension of their professional,

giving and especially how the

commercial lives. Sharing the

nature of information affects its

“Art and beauty” refers to the

code that has empowered them

operation as a gift. The intention

simple pleasure of solving

adds primarily to ones feeling of

of this chapter is to provide

complicated problems. Though not

efficacy5 and is not necessarily

an appreciation of a hacker’s

only in a technical sense of right

a demonstration of ones moral

incentive to involve themselves

or wrong, in an aesthetic, elegant

agenda.

in open source projects, which

way too. It is true that a piece of

[Fig.7 - D.I.Y. C.N.C.]

.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

Microsoft is the undisputed

that an open source Microsoft “is

speak for itself and not require

“joint enemy”, but essentially

definitely possible” , confirming

bragging from its author.

acts as the embodiment of an

that open source is a legitimate

array of proprietary companies.

development method. This

Since information is circulated

Weber suggests that proprietary

category links closely with

among open source communities,

software is not necessarily the

“identity and belief system” since

those involved who receive the

ideological enemy of open source,

the “joint enemy” strengthens open

information may offer peer-to-

rather a technical and business

source’s sense of community, as

peer review of the work that

practice one. Pragmatically code

hackers universally disassociate

has been shared. Motivation to

should be open because open

themselves with proprietary

create a high quality gift may be

source development yields better

alternatives.

gained from seeking the approval

software6, so should be pursued.

of ones peers, thus growing the

Comments made this year (April

“Ego boosting” is an important mo-

author’s “reputation” and inevitably

2015) by top Microsoft engineer

tivation and source of satisfaction.

producing a more superior

Mark Russinovich suggest that

A developer’s work will be publicly

product. “Reputation” gained in

the proprietary company may

received and praised if appropri-

open source communities may

not always be the “joint enemy”.

ate, however, the norm is not to

also translate to improved job

Russinovich stated at ChefConf

self promote. The work should

prospects in a commercial context.

13 Shared “identity and belief systems”

results in a distorted economy12,

ability etcetera is highlighted

are essential to the strength of

one which becomes saturated and

between giver and receiver16.

FLOSS culture. American journalist

thus prices diminish significantly.

Moreover in receiving a gift one

Steven Levy documented the

may feel obliged to reciprocate.

following key characteristics of

In Homesteading the Noosphere

shared FLOSS beliefs in his book

Eric Raymond explains how this

An area where OSArc is being

Hackers in 1984 which remain true

distorted economy works in the

more actively pursued is within

today :

open source context, from an

the humanitarian context, since

- 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

anthropological and economic

invariably remuneration is

perspective. He points out that as

not expected and motivation

human beings we are inherently

to engage with pro bono

driven to gain social status, and

projects is typically granted

where survival goods are “scarce”,

by the knowledge that one

the people in control of goods are

is contributing to a good

the individuals of high status .

cause. OSArc initiatives such

Our economic model today is

as Architecture for Humanity,

principally an exchange economy,

discussed further in chapter 5,

an advanced adjustment to

facilitate the sharing of valuable

scarcity. Cooperation and trade

architectural documentation and

facilitates the decentralised

services with some of world’s

allocation of resources, and

most in need. Beyond charitable

social status is determined by

applications, the motivation to

the resources or services one

“open source” ones architectural

controls .

work may be understood

- Computers can change human life for the better9 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

with reference to Weber’s If information can be reproduced

aforementioned alternatives to

and distributed at little or no

payment.

cost, exchange relationships

.the gift

become redundant and social

Through discussing gift culture

Richard Coyne, in his book The

status is instead determined

and the act of ‘gift giving’, ideas

Cornucopia Limited, questions the

on what you give away, rather

of relationships, social status and

true nature of gifting information,

than what you control . This

peer review have been extended.

be it software, digital media

abundance of resources lays the

How open source communities

or architectural drawings. It is

foundations for a gift culture

manage these social themes

possible, in the digital age, to

and incentivises openly sharing

among a diverse collection of

both give away information and

source code among developers.

contributors and how work is

yet still retain it unaffected .

The act of ‘gift giving’ inevitably

delegated to those globally

What differentiates information

initiates relationships between

dispersed volunteers, poses

from many other commodities is

developers and with reference to

significant questions to do with

its immaterially and as such the

Marcel Mauss, Coyne discusses

both social and organisational

cost of its dissemination via the

the nuanced implications of these

infrastructures and form the basis

Internet is near zero. The ability to

interactions. By giving a gift, a

of the discussion in the following

reproduce information endlessly

difference in status, age, wealth,

chapter.

[Fig.8 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. profile on Instructables.]

continued from p.12 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.

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.

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

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

15 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

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.

[Fig.9 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. with cutting modification, suggestion made by Instructables user “Raitis” .]

.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 11.04.2015 8. 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 07.03.2015 14. 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

.organisation Numbers of geographically

into open sourceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy for

which sets of rules to do with

dispersed enthusiastic volunteers,

harnessing the creativity and

ownership, responsibility, seniority

who are willing to give their

power of a diverse community of

and authority arise.

time to an open source project,

contributors. Similarly these issues

whatever their motivation, extend

will necessitate consideration

Typically the person who initiates

considerable complexities to

in establishing OSArc projects,

the project is regarded the owner,

do with organisation. The open

where networks of contributing

and as such is granted the right

source context is particularly

architects need to be managed

to distribute the project. Founding

challenging. Since open source is

both socially and technically.

the project however is not the

primarily comprised of volunteers,

This chapter aims to shed light

only way to acquire ownership,

it would be inappropriate for

on how individuals synchronise

one may be explicitly and publicly

projects to adopt organisational

their contributions of expertise to

handed ownership of a project

structures based on hierarchy, like

a common goal, in a context free

by a previous owner or should

their authoritarian proprietary

from both authoritative control

a project have been abandoned,

counterparts. This makes the

and (in a gift culture) the price

one can assume control. In

effective delegation of work and

mechanism ?

small groups the leadership and

decision-making responsibilities

decision-making responsibility

problematic. We will enhance our

The gift culture that open source

rests ultimately with the owner,

understanding of the complex

has engendered, as previously

however, in bigger projects the

nature of open source through

mentioned, is itself a mechanism

norm is more subtle. In larger

an exploration into the technical

for establishing a proportion of

operations programmers who

structures that manage workload,

social structure and thus informal

contribute more to a project will

and the social structures that

organisation. The relationships

in turn gain more responsibility,

manage disputes, opinions and

that form through gift exchanges

and since open source functions

new comers; gaining an insight

construct social norms through

predominantly as a meritocracy2,

18 .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

those involved are not concerned

would be inappropriate. Ways in

be combated with building

with formal qualifications.

which open source attempts to

information modelling (BIM). BIM

Seniority and decision making

solve these complexities include

is a networked technique which

authority is earned based on

considerations in the way work

is often employed to manage

ability. Open source projects are

is technically designed, methods

large scale architectural projects

voluntarily and in a very real

by which malicious users are

where industry professionals from

sense the leader is dependent

sanctioned, and the use of legal

different sectors need to work

on their followers , should the

documentation to implement

simultaneously on the design

followers strongly disagree with a

structure.

of a project. This synchronised

project’s leadership, technically or

work can all be achieved without

socially, they may decide to either

Observing the technical design

the involved parties necessarily

leave or fork the project.

norms of an open source project

being in direct contact or close

is key in understanding how these

proximity of each other. In the

Despite the internet’s evident

operations are organised. The

same way contributors to open

ability to reduce the costs of

complexity of a project may be

source software projects may be

worldwide collaboration, the

managed more efficiently if it is

great distances apart.

Internet alone cannot mitigate

broken down in to manageable,

complications such as “human

modular pieces. It is also

In proprietary software companies

emotion, decision making

imperative that interdependencies

and conventional architectural

[and] resolution of technical

between modules are limited,

practice appropriate behaviour

difficulties.”5 To cope with such

so that altering one module

is maintained by the threat of

complexities in a conventional

does not cause a ripple effect

loosing ones job and thus ones

setting formal hierarchical

throughout the whole project.

income. Additionally, once fired,

organisation is employed, however,

This need to manage complexity

access to work to which one has

in the open source context this

in architectural practice may

contributed is disallowed, since

19 the employer is the legal owner6.

the support of the community

also the opportunity to take and

Without these threats looming

which is a considerable penalty7.

copy a proposal exactly. In either

in the background how can open

instance it is important that

source projects, unable to fire or

A significant benefit of the

knowledge gained, either through

restrict access to open design

willingness to cooperate and

the customisation or direct

or code, protect against anti

share among open source

translation of a design, is shared

social behaviour which might

communities is that work need

with the community as without

compromise the sustainability of

never be duplicated. Beyond the

this dialogue the user may be

the project?

organisation of open source’s

considered a free rider10, and be

contributors, it is necessary

in violation of the accepted social

There are two methods by which

for the contributed work to be

norms.

open source communities may

organised such that one can

sanction users who violate the

“be lazy like a fox”8 as Torvalds

In the absence of an authoritarian

social norms of the community.

remarks. A commons acts as

organisational method, it can be

Firstly a user can be flamed.

a host for material offered by

challenging to state what the

Flaming is the act of publicly

open source contributors which

accepted norms of a community

denouncing the actions of an

others may take from without

are. Licenses such as the GNU

individual in mailing lists or

the requirement of expressed

GPL have become key statements

through public forums. These

permission from someone else.

of social structure that define

public displays are archived and

Anyone is free to “take and

FLOSS culture, with Weber

serve as a useful educational

use, and build upon to make

going as far to suggest that the

tool for those entering the open

something better, or better

license maybe considered a “de

source community wanting to

fitted to the particular needs of

facto constitution”11. By stating

familiarise themselves with open

a particular context”9 material

explicitly in a license what the

source etiquette. The public

taken from the commons. The

accepted behaviours and norms

nature of flaming also facilitates

commons is vital to OSArc

of a FLOSS community are, it

a wider debate around what

projects such as WikiHouse

is possible to manage certain

the acceptable or unacceptable

and Architecture for Humanity

social complexities. Essentially

behaviours among the community

through which drawings and

permissive and copyleft licenses

are, ensuring relevant and

documentation are distributed.

strive for fairness, and since many

up to date governing norms.

In both instances users are

FLOSS developers will at times

Shunning is the other method

encouraged to take existing

be licensor and at times licensee,

by which sanctioning may take

designs and manipulate them to

the legal terms remain relatively

place. Shunning is perhaps more

their specific requirements, and for

balanced. A more comprehensive

successful, since it excludes the

the sustainability of the commons

discussion into licensing specifics

offending party from the greatest

to be maintained, it is hoped

will be constructed in the

value in open source; cooperation.

that derivates are shared with

following chapter.

Although the user will not be

the community, by redistributing

excluded from accessing source

them once again through the

code, they will be excluded from

commons. However, there is

20 continued from p.18 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

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”.

[Fig.10 - D.I.Y. C.N.C.]

.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 07.03.2015 10. 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-acquiresinstructables-what-it- means-for-makers/ > accessed 29.03.2015 13. Robin Wauters. Autodesk Acquires DIY Community Instructables (TechCrunch, August 2011) < http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/autodesk-acquires-diy-communityinstructables/> accessed 10.04.2015

.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

among a range of creative fields,

the practical legislation that

engendered by open source,

including architecture, which

underpins them; enabling

Thomas Jefferson’s compelling

promotes free exchange of

sharing and maintaining freedom,

analogy appears only logical.

knowledge by offering an array

whilst avoiding exploitation

With regards knowledge, why

of simple licenses through the

from opportunists. The issue

not share if it is to cost you

Creative Commons organisation.

of licensing and intellectual

nothing, if you will retain that

This achievement is testament to

property forms the basis of the

knowledge unaffected? In 1813

the power and necessity of novel

Open Source Definition, written by

Jefferson wrote to innovator Isaac

licensing within open source, to

Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond,

McPherson rejecting “the notion

both facilitate and maintain its

the joint founders of the Open

that inventors have a natural

operations. This chapter presents

Source Initiative (OSI). It is the

property right in their inventions”2.

licensing within open source, with

prerogative of the OSI to endorse

The letter is often cited by anti-

the central ambition of achieving

licenses, deciding whether or not

intellectual property campaigners

the democratic dissemination of

a license is congruent with their

such as Lawrence Lessig, founder

knowledge and power; licenses

agenda and truly open source.

of Creative Commons3, to argue

that are employed not to exclude,

One of the first licenses to be

with historical authority, that

but encourage users to participate

advocated by the OSI and possibly

founding Americans did not

in the improvement of FLOSS and

Stallman’s greatest contribution

subscribe to the idea that one

beyond.

to the FLOSS movement, was

should be entitled to patent

the GNU General Public License

protection4. Lessig has been

A great deal of what gives FLOSS

(GPL). The GPL allows material to

pivotal in engendering a culture

communities their structure is

be shared openly but safeguards

22 .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.

it from being taken and made

to all; Stallman coined the

higher degree of pragmatism but

proprietary, thus the work

term “copyleft” for this novel

a compromised attitude towards

remains in the public realm and

application of copyright law.

freedom, considered unacceptable

“it becomes an inalienable right

[Fig.11 - Licenses offered by Instructables]

by Stallman and the Free Software

to cooperate with other people

“The two political camps in the

movement. Permissive licenses,

and form a community”5. Whilst

free software community are the

such as the MIT License are

the GPL is heavily reliant on

free software movement and

more pragmatic, since they do

open source”6. A project may be

not inhibit derivatives of the

law is used for licenses that

identifiable to one or the other

work from being combined with

protect proprietary software

through an understanding of

proprietary software, so long as a

differs fundamentally. The GPL’s

the type of license it employs. At

copy of the MIT license is included

employment of copyright shifts

a basic level one can separate

in its redistribution. The GPL does

the emphasis from a right to

FLOSS licenses in to two

not allow such an accommodation.

maintain control of the material

general categories, copyleft and

to, an emphasis concerned with

permissive. The decision to choose

A context in which OSArc could

the right to share it and ensures

a permissive over a copyleft

flourish would undoubtedly see

its continued accessibility

license displays the authors

a well considered set of licences

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.

.chapter endnotes 1. Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Isaac McPherson (August 13 1813) < http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > accessed 11.04.15 2. Adam Mossoff. Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about patents? Reevaluating the patent â&#x20AC;&#x153;Privilegeâ&#x20AC;? in historical context. (Cornell Law Review Vol. 92:953) 964. < https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/CRN502Mossoff.pdf > accessed 22.03.2015 3. See appendix 4. 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 09.03.2015 7. 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

.bridging statement

In the preceding chapters architectural practice has been discussed abstractly, whilst the focus has been placed on FLOSS development and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 manifestoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

.architecture for humanity “Design like you give a damn.”1 Cameron Sinclair - 2011

Architecture for Humanity (AfH) is

that idea is helped to become a

an astonishing example of a

a non-profit organisation, which

reality4, and in 2006, Sinclair was

commons with a high calibre

enables architects, designers

awarded the prize. His wish was

of work, submitted by industry

and builders to get involved in

to create the Open Architecture

professionals as well as

improving the living standards

Network (OAN), “an open source,

students and amateurs. Working

of those most in need across

collaborative project management

with Lawrence Lessig, the

the globe. Founded in 1999 by

website that would empower

founder of Creative Commons,

Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr,

building professionals with

Sinclair developed a “some

AfH had, as of 2011, completed

design solutions to improve life”5.

rights reserved” license for

2250 projects in 25 countries2

The OAN would help relive the

use on buildings to protect

driven by their core belief that

growing demand for help from

the contents of the OAN’s

“everyone deserves access to the

AfH, by enabling local connections

commons7. The license allows

benefits of good design”3.

between those willing to offer

free use of a building’s plans and

help and those most in need.

documentation for non profit

Each year the organisation TED

activity, but the designer must be

awards a prize to an individual

The OAN has grown to have

paid if the use were commercial8.

with a bold, creative idea that

over 50,000 members, who

has the potential to cause

have contributed more than

Architecture for Humanity has,

global positive change. With

40,000 proposals and 166

over the past 15 years, responded

an investment of $1 million

pro bono projects6 have since

to natural disasters around the

and TED’s network of resources

been completed. The OAN is

globe, in countries including

[Fig.12 - Blackwell’s PorchDog prototype.]

Haiti, Japan, the Philippines and

this inflated cost of construction

The design responds with great

in 2005 began its involvement

would pose significant challenges

efficacy to both the practical

with the efforts to rebuild after

to the residents and their efforts

and social complications of a

Hurricane Katrina devastated the

to rebuild10. The Biloxi Model

site which requires extensive

Gulf Coast of the United States.

Home Program achieved 7 pilot

protection from storm conditions,

As part of their contribution AfH

homes, which would serve as

whilst maintaining a sensitivity

established the Biloxi Model

prototypes to be replicated

to the norms of the Gulf Coast

Home Program to help residents

by others rebuilding in Biloxi

streetscape and affiliated “porch

of Biloxi, Mississippi approach

and indeed anywhere at risk

culture”11. Although there is

the challenges of rebuilding, in

of flooding. All the necessary

sufficient information available

the wake of such a destructive

information needed to build

online and in AfH’s publications

event. Those displaced by the

these homes is comprehensively

to explain the design rationale

storm were concerned that new

catalogued and available for free

of the PorchDog prototype, I

structural and environmental

on the OAN under the Creative

was eager to understand how

regulations to safeguard future

Commons BY-NC-SA license.

and why such an accomplished

homes from similar flood and

architect became involved in

storm threats would dramatically

One of the more compelling

the Biloxi Model Home Program

increase the cost of construction9.

designs to emerge from the

and open source architecture. I

In a community where the

Biloxi prototypes was the

was fortunate enough to speak

household income of many is

PorchDog model, designed by

briefly with Marlon to discuss his

close to the federal poverty line,

Marlon Blackwell Architects.

experience of working with AfH

27 and his motivation to share full

most cases this created a residual

the commons that Blackwell was

documentation of the PorchDog

zone below those buildings.

happy to make.

design for free via the OAN.

Designing the PorchDog prototype was an opportunity to offer an

In 2013 Sinclair stepped down as

[A full transcript of the phone call

alternative to the “new urbanist’s

AfH’s executive director with the

may be found in appendix a]

gingerbread houses on stilts”13,

rationale that “if this [Architecture

which Blackwell believed did not

for Humanity] is a truly sustainable

engage with the problem.

organisation, it should survive

It became clear early on in our conversation that Blackwell’s

without its founders”16. However,

decision to submit a proposal

For Blackwell, and his office,

earlier this year (January 2015)

for the Biloxi Model Home

the primary goal was that the

AfH filed for bankruptcy17 and

Program wasn’t incentivised by

prototype should “be a tangible

closed its headquarters in San

money or free publicity. In fact,

outcome of the program”14, it was

Fransisco. Despite this news, the

it was AfH who had approached

imperative that it was built. As

end of AfH and the OAN is not

him. Initially Blackwell had not

such the key motivation for this

likely. The very purpose of AfH

been interested in the efforts to

project is ultimately pragmatic;

was to connect local designers

rebuild post Katrina, due to the

Blackwell rejected what was

with local problems and as such

dominant presence of the new

being proposed, believing he

has dictated its organisational

urbanists and their “antiquated

could deign something more

structure; it consists of

approach to architecture”12 and

effective. Unfortunately neither

60 independent chapters

master planning. However, since

the PorchDog nor the other

worldwide18. Although these

Biloxi, unlike other towns along

prototypes designed for the

chapters share the AfH trademark

the Mississippi Gulf Coast, were

program have been replicated

they are financially independent

to develop their own model, in

elsewhere, although Blackwell

and many will continue to operate

conjunction with AfH and with the

did receive several enquiries

as usual, despite the bankruptcy

security of legitimate sponsors,

from New Orleans that did

of their parent charity, in the

Blackwell was keen to participate

not materialise. He maintains

same way a new software project

and submitted several proposals.

he was never convinced that

may fork from its failing parent

anyone would literally copy the

project. The OAN remains online,

Blackwell, a distinguished

design and that this would not

hosting and distributing valuable

professor at the university of

be entirely appropriate since

information and will continue to

Arkansas and Fellow of the

there are changes that he would

do so regardless of the unsure

American Institute of Architects,

make to future iterations, which

future of its backers.

saw early on what was being built

would improve the design both in

post Katrina and the effects that

terms of cost and performance15.

the new FEMA regulations were

The PorchDog is a legitimate

having on the urban fabric. The

design solution though, and the

regulations demanded that new

necessary documentation to

structures be raised above street

build it is available free via the

level by at least 11 feet and in

OAN, a valuable contribution to

[Fig.13 - AfH London Facebook page.]

.chapter endnotes 1. Cameron Sinclair. Lessons Learnedâ&#x20AC;Ś 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 13.03.2015 4. TED. TED Prize < https://www.ted.com/participate/ted-prize> accessed 07.04.2015 5. Sinclair, Lessons Learned, 25. 6. The Open Architecture Network. Home Page <http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/> accessed 13.03.2015 7. 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 05.04.2015 12. 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-insocially-conscious-architecture-is-closing-amid-financial-woes.html?_r=2> accessed 05.04.2015 17. Architecture for Humanity. Home Page (22.01.2015) <http://architectureforhumanity.org/> accessed 05.04.2015 18. Architecture for Humanity Chapter Network. Home Page. <chapters.architectureforhumanity.org/chapters> accessed 05.04.2015

.wikihouse

[Fig.14 - WikiHouse construction set process.]

The WikiHouse project offers

cut from plywood using a C.N.C.

in its organisation as an online

an open source alternative

router. The WikiHouse project

community which facilitates

to conventional architectural

fulfils the two criteria set out

contribution and collaboration

processes, allowing unskilled

by Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Mahony and West, authors

among individuals, and as such

end users to directly participate

of What makes a project open

may be considered a development

in the design and construction

source? Migrating from organic to

platform1.

of their own home. The

synthetic communities required

dissemination of WikiHouse

for a project to be considered

Through engaging with

projects is facilitated by an online

open source development. Firstly,

Architecture for Humanity and

commons, which hosts the files

in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employment of Creative

the WikiHouse project it became

and documentation needed to

Commons licensing, thus making

apparent that OSArc was not so

construct a building of which

its content openly available for

much a concept of the future as

the majority of elements are

others to take and use. Secondly,

I had first imagined, blueprints

and manuals are online now,

The ambition of my D.I.Y. C.N.C.

ambition will not be easily

ready for experimentation. The

was to go further and evaluate

achieved. Despite WikiHouseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

ambition of this dissertation has

how successful the WikiHouse

operations providing a platform

been to present how open source

project has been in its ambition

for collaboration and cooperation

culture is able to challenge linear

to encourage a more participatory

to happen, so too does it allow

processes relating to design,

approach to architecture.

free riding. My involvement with

manufacture and ultimately

WikiHouse was purely one way, I

architecture. Open source

My most immediate conclusion

took from the commons without

initiatives such as the WikiHouse

to draw from the D.I.Y. C.N.C.

giving back and as such opted

project offer alternatives and

experiment is that although

out of participation, rendering my

thus challenge us to rethink

WikiHouse aims to encourage

engagement unsustainable. The

our understanding of the way

participation in the practice

opportunity to contribute to the

we approach making buildings.

of making architecture, this

Wikihouse commons is severely

limited since all contributions

including instructions on how to

making” for the method whereby

must adhere to the format of parts

build the printer, as well as how to

projects such as the D.I.Y. C.N.C.

cut from plywood sheet stock. My

take drawings from the Wikihouse

“can be employed to develop

decision to refrain from adding

commons and manipulate them.

a critical perspective on the

to the commons was also due to

I was able to easily add to the

current institutions, practices

WikiHouse’s rigorous approach

Instructables commons and

and norms of society”2. By

to regulating contributions, a

give back to the open design

making information more widely

user must first apply to join the

community. The action of

available and supporting open

commons and subsequently apply

sharing my experiences and the

source design, we extend greater

to begin a project and submit

knowledge I amassed throughout

opportunities to engage in critical

drawings; all steps of which must

the project contributed a quality

making which in turn “heralds

be approved by a moderator. Of

of participation to my project

new possibilities for artists,

course this approach ensures that

which was otherwise lacking,

scholars and interested citizens

only a high calibre of coherent

despite replicating an OSArc

to engage in a simultaneously

work is included in the commons

project.

conceptual and material critique

and where failure of the design

of technologies and information

may have fatal consequences, this

Throughout this text the D.I.Y.

systems in society”3. Although

level of mediation should perhaps

C.N.C. project has been used as

the result of critical making is

be welcomed.

a device to assist discussions

often an alternative to an existing

around open source and form

system, it is not the intention that

Instructables, although similarly

critical appraisals of initiatives

these alternatives will become

employs moderators, has a more

such as the WikiHouse project

replacements. The value of critical

liberal approach to accepting

and indirectly, architectural

making lies not in its end results

contributions with a far richer

practice. Matt Ratto, a professor

but in the development of unique

commons as a result. I was

in the faculty of information

understandings by the makers,

therefore able to make available

at the University of Toronto,

who in turn curate and share their

full documentation of my project,

has coined the term “critical

findings with others4.

[Fig.15 - D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse Print at 1:100 scale.]

.chapter endnotes

1. Duncan Bain. Open Source Architecture Wiki (2015) < http://www.duncanbain.com/research/dissertation/index.php?title=Main_ Page> accessed 05.04.2015 2. 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.

.conclusion This dissertation has asked if

away, they will surely be less

(Fig. 15) and able to challenge the

principles commonplace in open

inclined to participate. However,

role of the professional designer

source software development

as demonstrated with the D.I.Y.

or architect.

might serve as credible

C.N.C., the rapid reduction in

alternatives for conventions

cost and increased accessibility

Liberating the client from the

within architectural practice.

to these machines, signals that

need of an architect however

Although the design stages of

perhaps we are moving towards

will not be one of open

software and architecture are

a future where locale is a lesser

source culture’s contributions

analogous, there are fundamental

concern.

to architecture. Just as open

differences between the construction of the two that present considerable challenges for the realisation of OSArc.

source and proprietary software

“Share global, print local” Alastair Parvin, WikiHouse.

Architecture’s materiality and

coexist, so too will OSArc and architectural practice as we know it today. Instead, there are attitudes and approaches that

requirement of costly resources

An OSArc project may be the

have the potential to make a

reduces its accessibility and is

product of global co-creation

lasting impact on the profession.

OSArc’s most significant obstacle.

but its physical construction will

It is imperative however that open

Since architecture is inherently

be local. It was the intention of

source methods applied outside

material, unlike software, it is

my D.I.Y. C.N.C. project that this

the realm of software production

geographically placed which

concern be addressed, showing

are not considered “pixie dust

presents further challenges

that the consumer is now capable

to be sprinkled on random

regarding motivation. If an

of taking control of manufacturing

processes”1. Rather than assuming

OSArc contributor cannot reap

and subverting the linear mode of

that open source is largely

the benefits of their own work

production, of

applicable beyond software

because it is thousands of miles

designer -> factory -> consumer

we should regard it as broadly

34 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.

[Fig.16 - Thomas Lomée, Multidirectional Dialogue]

.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., 483 3. 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

[Fig.17 - Scan of D.I.Y. C.N.C. WikiHouse print]

.bibliography

.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.

38 .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.

.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

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 historical 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/ >

Edited transcript from conversation with Marlon Blackwell 06.04.2015 19:00 (BST) 13:00 (CST) duration 00:14:18

.appendix a [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 secure 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 seriously 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 prototype 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 necessary 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 evolutionary? 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.

[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 modest 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 organisation 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 proposing 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 question 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 actually 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.

.appendix b Food

Living

Outside

Play

Technology

Workshop

X-Y Plotter

by Henri.Lacoste on February 15, 2015 Table of Contents X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intro: X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 1: X-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 2: Z-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 3: X-Axis fixed to base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 4: X-Axis motor driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 5: Y-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 6: Y-Axis Moving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 7: Laser Cut Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 8: Pen Holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 9: Grbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 10: Test Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 11: Creating your own g-code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Step 12: Wikihouse Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related Instructables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intro: X-Y Plotter Hi,

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 year architecture 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… designʼs great 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 customised open 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 pen plotter 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 pen could 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, GCode 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 please use the material with caution and check measurements yourself before cutting your precious materials.

http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

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 and troubleshooting 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 it may serve as a valuable point of research for those interested.

Step 1: X-Axis

So 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 and liked 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 plastic caddy 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 leave these 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 you see 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 off the bracket where I would later suspend the bracket over the rest of the plotter.

Full Instructables tutorial with video may be found at: http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

Image Notes 1. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket 2. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket 3. Idle gear 4. Stepper motor

Step 2: Z-Axis

This 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 have mounted 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 of the 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 180Âş and with the worm gear this allowed very little movement up and down (although probably enough 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 the code to work with a servo.

Step 3: X-Axis fixed to base

The 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 and underneath 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 8mm threaded rods that are fixed to a 12mm MDF base. Threaded rods are really useful in this context since they allow for essential adjustment.

http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

Step 4: X-Axis motor driven

Next 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. Brian Schmalz'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-Axis

The 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 to it which would run along two 8mmĂ¸ 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 method but again good to show the plotter's evolution.

http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

Image Notes 1. Rail over which linear bearings will run 2. Y-Axis idle gear 3. Y-Axis Stepper motor 4. Rail over which linear bearings will run 5. Mount to suspend the rail 6. Mount to suspend the rail

Step 6: Y-Axis Moving

Just 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 the components 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 more before 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 remake many 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 Base

Back 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 guides down 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 know how 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 the breadboard and Arduino. The majority of the holes are 6mmĂ¸ 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 that are 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

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 Holder

Earlier 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 with one 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 the paper. 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 would recommend 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 to edit 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: Grbl

So 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 explanation provided. 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 a jogging 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 Print

Ok 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 the X-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 no movement 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 too large 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']

http://www.instructables.com/id/X-Y-Plotter-1/

49 Step 11: Creating your own g-code

With 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, gcodetools. 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 and then 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 .dxf files imported directly to inkscape to be processed by g-codetools. You may have better luck.

Step 12: Wikihouse Print

So 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 would really 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-axis Mini Lazer Paper-Cutter by kokpat

XY-Plotter by bdeakyne

C贸mo hacer un robot que dibuje con Makeblock by antonio.aranes