From Solid to Soft: The Rise of the Architextiles Revolution

The world of architecture is shedding its rigid skin. For centuries, we’ve defined building through firmitas—the Vitruvian ideal of permanence, hardness, and heavy structural systems. But a new movement is unraveling these old certainties.

Enter Architextiles: a meshwork where the fluid world of fabrics meets the structured world of buildings. This isn’t just about hanging curtains; it’s a radical shift toward an architecture that is interactive, flexible, and in a continuous state of "becoming."

The Four Dimensions of Architextiles

How does a building "become" a textile? This interference between fabric and form generally happens across four distinct dimensions:

1. Metaphorical Engagement: When architects use the language of textiles. You might hear a space described as "woven," "knitted," or "braided," applying the logic of fabric to traditional materials.
2. Morphological Mimicry: When a building takes on the form of a textile. Think of structures designed to look like veils, skirts, or draped curtains, creating a soft silhouette in a hard landscape.
3. Material Construction: The literal use of textiles, hybrids, or composites in the building’s skin or structure. This is where fabric becomes the "brick" of the modern age.
4. Theoretical Discourse: The exploration of textiles through fictional and theoretical writings, challenging how we think about space and shelter.

Why Now? The Drivers of Change

We are moving away from the "solid" and toward the "liquid." Postmodern spatial theories (from 1988 onwards) champion spaces that are event-based and process-oriented rather than static.

Textiles are the perfect medium for this new paradigm. They possess properties that traditional materials simply cannot match:

• Surface Continuity: Seamless flows of material.
• Fluid Dynamism: The ability to respond to environmental energy.
• Lightness & Thinness: Reducing the carbon footprint and physical weight of structures.

The "Supertextile" Revolution

The rise of architextiles isn't just a stylistic choice; it’s fueled by a quiet revolution in Materials Science. As seen in landmark exhibitions like Extreme Textiles, the boundary between "fabric" and "machine" is dissolving.

High-Performance Materials

We are no longer limited to cotton and wool. Modern architecture utilizes:

• Carbon and Glass Fibres: For extreme strength under tension.
• Aramids and Liquid Crystal Polymers: Capable of performing under intense force.
• Sustainability Hybrids: Textiles made from unexpected sources like bamboo, crab shells, nettles, and even charcoal.

Advanced Manufacturing

Today’s "supertextiles" are born from processes like ultrasonic welding, laser cutting, and 3D weaving. These methods produce smart, interactive materials—such as phase-change textiles—that can react to temperature or light, essentially giving the building a "nervous system."

"These materials are not just substitutes for older ones; they are delivering a new form of critical materiality… suggesting the animate and the organic."

The Future is Flexible

Architextiles are exploding our traditional notions of what a material even is. By dissolving the boundaries between the organic and the synthetic, architecture is moving toward a future that is smarter, lighter, and more responsive to the humans who inhabit it.

The building of tomorrow won't just stand there—it will breathe, drape, and evolve.

The Rise of Architextiles: Where Weaving Meets Welding

The Rise of Architextiles: Where Weaving Meets Welding

Have you ever considered that the "urban fabric" you walk through every day is more than just a metaphor? From the first tent pegged into the ground to the textile landing bags that cushioned NASA’s Pathfinder on the surface of Mars, the relationship between architecture and textiles is one of humanity’s oldest—and most futuristic—collaborations.

Today, we are seeing the emergence of a powerful hybrid field: Architextiles.

What are Architextiles?

The term "architextiles" describes a confluence of design, engineering, and art. It isn't just about putting a fabric roof on a stadium; it represents a "textile way of thinking" in architecture.

This field is witnessing a significant rise in interest from theorists, architects, engineers, textile designers, materials scientists, and artists. By merging these disciplines, architextiles allow for spaces that are:

• Dynamic and Flexible: Moving away from the "static" nature of traditional stone and steel.
• Interactive: Responding to environmental changes or consumer needs.
• Process-Based: Enabling the production of more fluid, event-based environments.

From Ancient Posts to Red Planets

The intersection of these two worlds is vast. According to art historian Kurt Forster, art and architecture first intersected when man learned to fasten a textile to a post. Fast forward to the late 1990s, and the first marks made by humans on the surface of Mars were the imprints of textile landing airbags deployed by NASA.

Between these two extremes lies a long and largely uncharted history of "cross-fertilization." In recent years, this "consilience" has intensified with iconic structures such as:

• The Millennium Dome, London (1999): Richard Rogers' massive tensioned fabric structure.
• National Space Centre Rocket Tower (2001): Nicholas Grimshaw’s innovative use of ETFE pillows.
• Bangkok International Airport (2006): Murphy Jahn’s sophisticated integration of light and membrane.

The Language of Making

The link between building and weaving is sewn directly into our vocabulary. If you look at the etymology, the connection becomes undeniable. The word "textile" and the word "architecture" both share the Proto-Indo-European root *tek*.

A Two-Way Street: Architecturalisation vs. Textilisation

Architextiles isn't just one discipline borrowing from another; it is a "meshing" of two distinct flows of ideas:

1. The Architecturalisation of Textiles: Applying structural logic, scale, and permanent spatial thinking to textile design.
2. The Textilisation of Architecture: Bringing the softness, tactile quality, and "woven" logic of fabrics into the way we build skyscrapers and public squares.

By blurring these lines, designers are better equipped to respond to our fast-changing cultural demands. We are no longer just building shelters; we are weaving environments.

"Architextiles is a hybrid mode of design better able to respond to society’s fast-changing cultural and consumer demands."

 Visionary Drawing Building // Book reference : Intervention Architecture: Building for Change

ANTILIA MEETING NOTES CONTAINING DESERT COPY-CAT-CAROM, STRACEY ARCHIVE
Sara Stracey

Sara Stracey

 DOOMSDAY DOMES by Eva Diaz

Book - Intervention Architecture: Building for Change

IN THE SPRING OF 1949 a course by architect Buckminster Fuller presented students at the Institute of Design in Chicago with the problem of apocalypse homework assignment: “The city is to be evacuated. All residential and industrial concentrations of 50,000 persons or more are in immediate danger of annihilation. Consumable goods now directed toward these areas will be diverted to smaller decentralized communities. Seven days are allowed in which to gather all living mechanics necessary to maintain a high standard of living for a family of six—two adults, two children, two guests. Everything not decentralized will be destroyed.”

In the first decades of the twenty-first century, many artists seem galvanized by Fuller’s charge, and often the works they produce appropriate Fuller’s own iconic geodesic dome designs as prototypes for catastrophe shelters. Is this resurgence of domes the dawn of a new age of “outlaw design,” as fans of Fuller predicted when estimating his future influence on alternative architecture in a 1997 book?

At first, I thought that in recent Fuller-inspired art projects a marked shift had taken place in twenty-first-century quotations of the geodesic dome, distinguishing them from many 1960s and ’70s incarnations. The difference between then and now: gone was the frontiersman logic of Arcadian, back-to-the-land, drop-off-the-grid, atomized micro-environmentalism; gone, too, was the technological euphoria about the consumption of appropriate tools. In contrast to popular dome-building practices of the 1960s and ’70s reception of Fuller, a new set of concerns seemed to come to the fore, sometimes in direct opposition to the ambitions of that earlier generation. What emerged instead was a return to issues that had been explored by politically radical collectives such as Ant Farm and Archigram, which were bent on politicizing the technocratic, libertarian logic of Fuller’s theories so often rehearsed by his acolytes: sculptural structures as temporary interventions in urban sites, as kiosk production, or as shelter/information-display hybrids.

• Shift in Fuller-inspired art projects: 
•   - Distinction from 1960s and '70s incarnations
•   - Absence of frontiersman logic and technological euphoria
• Emergence of new concerns:
•   - Departure from drop-off-the-grid, atomized micro-environmentalism
•   - Contrast with popular dome-building practices of the past
• Return to politically radical collective concerns:
•   - Emphasis on politicizing technocratic, libertarian logic
•   - Focus on sculptural structures as temporary urban interventions
•   - Utilization for kiosk production or shelter/information-display hybrids

Domes were and continue to be important to artists as a form of improvised construction using recycled materials, and for their multifunctionality as pavilions and gathering places for culture and communication. At the axis of alternative architecture and of political art, artists working in this vein today speculate and experiment with a complex and often parallel set of issues: how to historicize the utopian imagination of the 1960s, and how to prototype ecological sustainability in sculptural form. These approaches concern access to shelter in a wider sociopolitical sense and question the social responsibility of the artist for connecting art in public places to matters of civic concern.

• Importance of domes to artists:
•   - Utilization as improvised construction with recycled materials
•   - Multifunctionality as pavilions and gathering places for culture and communication
• Intersection of alternative architecture and political art:
•   - Speculation and experimentation with a complex set of issues
•   - Historicizing the utopian imagination of the 1960s
•   - Prototyping ecological sustainability in sculptural form
• Sociopolitical concerns and social responsibility:
•   - Access to shelter in a wider sense
•   - Questioning the artist's role in connecting art in public places to civic concerns

This shift in practice represents an ideological battle to uncouple Fuller from his reputation as a technocrat obsessed with recognizing universal patterns and preoccupied by the apolitical post-scarcity logic that positioned inequality as an outcome of inefficiency rather than a result of a capitalist logic of endless growth. Instead, contemporary artists seem interested in Fuller in order to highlight his advocacy of equitable resource distribution and his paradigm of architecture as information display.

Many contemporary artists and designers have used obvious references to homelessness and the unequal distribution of basic resources to the underprivileged in their work as a part of an argument against eroding the public functions of the city street, and for reinforcing public spaces as multivalenced sites in the face of neoliberalism’s tendency to privatize and limit public exchange. In Fuller’s case, the kind of information housed by the dome connects various historical struggles concerning the distribution of resources. (The propaganda poster by Marjetica Potr, appearing on page six, reads: “We are doers! The thinkers of the 60s were dreaming about us.”)

• Use of obvious references to homelessness and unequal resource distribution:
•   - Part of an argument against eroding public functions of city streets
•   - Reinforcing public spaces as multivalenced sites
•   - Counteracting neoliberalism's tendency to privatize and limit public exchange
• Connection to historical struggles concerning resource distribution:
•   - Information housed by the dome connects to various historical struggles
•   - Acknowledgment of societal challenges and inequalities
• Example of propaganda poster by Marjetica Potr:
•   - Quote: "We are doers! The thinkers of the 60s were dreaming about us."
•   - Illustrates the continuation of historical ideals and struggles in contemporary activism and art

Jill Newman, REFORMERS AND NEIGHBORS, detail.

The retreat from popular dome building in the 1980s had represented (yet another) rollback from the high-water mark of late 1960s utopianism, though perhaps only because this form of idealism (do-your-own-thing libertarianism) was itself a departure from the radical social justice demands of the New Left. Lloyd Kahn, one of the editors of the Fuller-inspired Whole Earth Catalog and the author of the influential “how-to” Domebooks series, had by 1989 repudiated the euphoric claims about domes he had once espoused. “Inspired by Buckminster Fuller to work on solving ‘mankind’s’ housing problems,” Kahn wrote, he had once proselytized for domes. But by the late 1980s he mournfully concluded, “They don’t work … Domes weren’t practical, economical, or aesthetically tolerable.” He hoped that in revising his previous position he could help others illuminate the continuing fascination with domes by presenting future readers with “the results of an experimental voyage … the bitter and the sweet.”

• Retreat from popular dome building in the 1980s:
•   - Represented a rollback from the late 1960s utopianism
•   - Departure from radical social justice demands of the New Left
• Lloyd Kahn's disillusionment with domes:
•   - Editor of Fuller-inspired Whole Earth Catalog and author of Domebooks series
•   - Initially inspired by Fuller to work on solving housing problems
•   - Once proselytized for domes but repudiated claims by late 1980s
•   - Concluded that domes weren't practical, economical, or aesthetically tolerable
• Revision of position to illuminate continuing fascination with domes:
•   - Hoped to present future readers with the results of an experimental voyage
•   - Acknowledged both the bitter and the sweet aspects of the dome-building experience

But in following Fuller’s call for architecture responsive to catastrophe, are we seeing a “bitter” side of the 1960s returning to art practices today? Originally, Fuller had argued his project of dome construction was a utopian one: his articulation of “total thinking”—what he termed “comprehensive, anticipatory design science” that tests traditional artistic and architectural forms in order to teleologically progress toward a Utopia of efficiently managed resources. Probing the influence of Fuller on art practice today and understanding how his ideas of equitable resource management and holistic planning—what he termed “comprehensive design”—are received in the present will always be mediated by his reception in the 1960s and ’70s. The geodesic dome was one of the rare grass-roots, DIY forms of the twentieth century: in its close-to-two-decade heyday from the 1960s to the early ’80s, it was appropriated as an easy-to-build, cheap modern alternative to traditional values, both social and architectural.

Now, as geodesic domes are once again returned to public consciousness, this time almost exclusively in the work of contemporary artists, it seems crucial to ask why. For in recent years there is a sense of the dome as an exemplar of a new art of utopian public sculpture that uses the dome more neutrally as an architecture of gathering places. Recent works seem to consider the political implications of shelter design as a topic of critical importance for artists by proposing nearly functional, yet ultimately quite farcical, prototypes of rolling domes or clumsy walking shelters, for example.

•  Geodesic domes returning to public consciousness through contemporary art
•  Questioning the reasons behind this resurgence
•  Dome used as a symbol of utopian public sculpture
•  Recent works exploring dome's political implications in shelter design
•   Proposing experimental and often impractical dome prototypes

Yet disquieting elements of the recent works by contemporary artists color a too-rosy interpretation of contemporary dome works as a new form of idealistic political art and urban intervention. Artists now return to Fuller for his Cassandra-like call to ecological responsibility. Domes are seen as dystopian architecture, spaces to begin society anew under threats of being rent by conflict and scarcity, and as a means to rescue the planet from bad stewardship, over-consumption, and waste. Not to imply a causal relationship, but several factors seem important in considering this shift to a more pessimistic reception of Fuller. They include the calamitous political and infrastructural failure in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the ongoing housing crisis in the New Orleans region; the related problem of the increasing scientific evidence for and ineffective legislative response to global warming; and the near-total privatization of once collectively owned natural resources that further troubles the feasibility of post-scarcity arguments.

• Disquieting elements in recent works by contemporary artists:
•   - Challenge a too-rosy interpretation of contemporary dome works
•   - Return to Fuller for his call to ecological responsibility
•   - View domes as dystopian architecture and symbols of societal renewal
•   - Aim to address threats such as conflict, scarcity, and environmental degradation
• Factors contributing to the shift towards a more pessimistic reception of Fuller:
•   - Calamitous political and infrastructural failure post-Hurricane Katrina
•   - Ongoing housing crisis in the New Orleans region
•   - Increasing scientific evidence and inadequate legislative response to global warming
•   - Near-total privatization of once collectively owned natural resources

Another side of Fuller has crept in: an urgency about nomadism in which improvised, off-the-grid shelters may become unavoidable features of a coming post-apocalyptic world. (This was evident even in Fuller and Shoji Sadao’s 1960 proposal to skin midtown Manhattan with a plastic dome, ostensibly to provide a controlled climate to economize snow-removal costs, but with an unavoidable implication that the dome could provide protection from nuclear fallout.) A sense of ecological catastrophe, both regional and global, permeates artists’ works today, as though the construction of alternative architectural forms such as domes becomes a prototyping technique for generating forms of emergency shelter.

Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zürich, Switzerland 

New paradigms of the automatic Robotic timber construction in architecture

Advancements in robotic fabrication technology combined with the utilization of sustainable materials, particularly wood, offer a glimpse into a future characterized by innovative construction methods that prioritize renewable and potentially locally-sourced resources. 

This integration of cutting-edge technology with eco-friendly materials not only holds promise for revolutionizing the aesthetic and structural possibilities of architectural design but also underscores a commitment to environmentally conscious building practices. In their groundbreaking research, Jan Willmann, Fabio Gramazio, and Matthias Kohler of Gramazio Kohler Research at ETH Zürich introduce pioneering interdisciplinary approaches aimed at enhancing the flexibility and sustainability of timber constructions. 

Through a series of empirical experiments, they explore the transformative potential of automated robotic assembly methods, unlocking new avenues for large-scale digital timber construction. By employing a locally differentiated aggregation of materials, their work not only enhances structural efficiency but also promotes the development of integrative computational design methodologies and techniques, paving the way for a more sustainable and technologically advanced future in architecture and construction.

Automated assembly processes

‘The Sequential Wall’ was one of the first projects to investigate the architectural and constructive potential of additive robotic

(The image above - The Stacked Pavilion’ represents a further stage of development and is conceived as a temporary spatial structure and consists of 16 elements made from 372 wooden battens. The)

The integration of robotics into the assembly of complex timber structures at the building scale represents a promising yet nascent development, posing numerous challenges to the field of architecture. Addressing these challenges, the Gramazio Kohler Research group at ETH Zürich embarked on a series of investigations in 2008 focused on robotic assembly techniques for intricate timber structures. 

These endeavors mark a departure from conventional construction practices reliant on standardized elements like bricks, instead embracing the potential of non-standard timber components. Through minimal customization of individual components, both aesthetic and functional possibilities are unleashed, as articulated by Gramazio and Kohler in 2008. By employing robotic machining and assembly, these structures amalgamate the flexibility of bespoke fabrication with the efficiencies of mass production, obviating the need for repetitive processes while ensuring consistent quality and affordability.

Central to this approach is not merely the streamlining of fabrication processes but the exploration of innovative timber constructions and their intrinsic relationship with design flexibility, structural integrity, and robotic assembly methodologies. Initially focused on layer-based systems, wherein customized timber members are robotically added to non-standard walls and structures, the research has evolved over the years to encompass the free aggregation of elements in space. This advanced technique enables precise placement of materials according to digital blueprints, eliminating the necessity for repetitive or standardized construction routines characteristic of traditional manual methods. Consequently, this approach not only minimizes material wastage but also fosters additional savings by obviating the need for auxiliary scaffolding or external building references. In essence, the research conducted by the Gramazio Kohler Research group represents a significant stride towards unlocking the full potential of robotic timber construction, paving the way for sustainable, cost-effective, and architecturally innovative building practices.

• Integration of robotics into assembly of complex timber structures at building scale is a nascent development.
• Challenges include theoretical, practical, and methodological aspects for architecture.
• Gramazio Kohler Research group at ETH Zürich initiated investigations into robotic timber assembly in 2008.
• Departure from standard building elements to non-standard timber components for aesthetic and functional liberation.
• Customization of individual components enables flexibility while maintaining advantages of mass production.
• Focus on exploration of novel timber constructions and their relation to design freedom, structural performance, and robotic assembly.
• Research initially focused on layer-based systems, gradually expanding to robotic aggregation of elements in space.
• Precise placement of materials according to digital blueprints eliminates need for repetitive construction routines.
• Approach minimizes material wastage and reduces reliance on scaffolding or external building references.
• Represents significant progress towards sustainable, cost-effective, and architecturally innovative building practices.

The Sequential Structure

This unique approach to spatial timber assemblies has been extensively investigated within the framework of the SNSF NRP 66 'Resource Wood' research program, leading to the development of pioneering experimental demonstrations. These demonstrations, showcased in the initial phase of the research, highlight the innovative methodologies and technologies devised to explore the potential of timber as a versatile and sustainable building material.

Following these experimental endeavors, the focus shifted towards industrial implementation, culminating in notable projects such as the 'Sequential Roof'. This large-scale demonstration exemplifies the practical application of the research outcomes, requiring the development of novel computational design and construction processes seamlessly integrated with automated fabrication procedures. 

The successful realization of such projects underscores the transformative impact of comprehensively automated assembly processes on the design, performance, and expression of architecture at the building scale. This research trajectory signifies a significant paradigm shift in timber assembly practices, with implications for future sustainable construction endeavors.

• Spatial timber assemblies explored within SNSF NRP 66 'Resource Wood' research program
• Development of experimental demonstrations showcasing innovative methodologies and technologies
• Transition to industrial implementation phase, exemplified by projects like the 'Sequential Roof'
• Novel computational design and construction processes developed
• Seamless integration with automated fabrication procedures
• Successful realization of projects indicating transformative impact on architecture at building scale
• Paradigm shift in timber assembly practices towards sustainability and efficiency