Can you please define "synergy"?

I'll start, here are some terms I'd love to have definitions for, as they relate to architecture.


1) Consonance
2) Unity
3) Dialogue of opposites
4) Volume
5) Expression
6) Unresolved (or resolved)

ie. what does it mean when someone says a certain high rise tower has Unity? or Consonance? how about when they say it is Unresolved?

Thanks!

Sure.

Synergy - Is a situation, combination, or group in which the outcome is greater than the sum of it's parts.

An example would be pollution, in which one pollutant causes A damage, and a second pollutant causes B, damage, but the combined effect is greater than A + B. This is a synergistic effect.

A positive example would be two joists in a roof system acting in parallel with one another. An individual joist can have a certain load carrying capacity, but when combined with one or more partners, may exhibit additional capacity do to the combined systems ability to laterally brace itself and to redistribute it's own internal loads.

In Archinect terms, I chose the name because I (Being an Engineer) would like to think the combined efforts of an Engineer and an Architect working together is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

consonance:
accord or agreement.
OR, Music. a simultaneous combination of tones conventionally accepted as being in a state of repose. Compare dissonance.

unity:
(in literature and art) a relation of all the parts or elements of a work constituting a harmonious whole and producing a single general effect.

dialogue:
an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.

volume:
The amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object or region of space,
OR, the object itself.

expression:
indication of feeling, spirit, character, etc., as on the face, in the voice, or in artistic execution

unresolved:
not brought to a conclusion; subject to further thought; "an open question"; "our position on this bill is still undecided"; "our lawsuit is still undetermined"

all of these are from dictionary.com. some require a little interpretation because some architectural talk is metaphorical/analogical, but the meanings don't change significantly. i wouldn't try to read more meaning into 'architectural lingo' than is there. these are pretty straightforward.

Synergy - in terms of synergy you defined it as synergistic effects from a performance perspective.

What would be an example in terms of design? Is it when to buildings by happenstance create a surprisingly good urban space together. But not by intentional design? Or by intentional design?

i think that is a good question, and speaks to the point that I do tend to look at things from a performance perspective.

I believe the term is general enough, that it could be used to describe how two or more independent design elements combine to create a positive greater their sum. Like most things in design, this will be a bit more subjective than objective.

An example that comes to mind for me is S.R. Crown Hall. The building is cherished by many as a brilliant piece of architecture in it's own right. To the north of Crown Hall is an open field, that as of a few years ago (2000?), was landscaped to form a very large, rectangular recessed field, with a few simple stone benches on its perimeter. The design of this field is that, in the case of a very serious, 100 year rain storm, it would fill with water and serve as a sort of massive retention pond. In this event you will get a once in a lifetime opportunity to see S.R. Crown Hall reflected beautifully across the surface of this newly created rectilinear pond. In my opinion, considered by itself, the field is of little note, but in this rare event, it could have a synergistic effect with Crown Hall and create something truly spectacular.

Oops, didn't realize you'd started the thread, Synergy - here's what I just posted on TC:

I think it's a shorthand language architects employ sometimes successfully and sometimes just because they're being lazy.

A lazy critique would be "That looks unresolved."

A better critique would be "The massing relative to the window type looks unresolved."

A good critique would be "The massing relative to the window type looks unresolved - the ground floor has a thick wall with punched windows while the upper floor is supposed to read lighter but the similar punched openings recall the intended heaviness of the ground floor."

This is why I dislike one-line critiques (or movie recommendations) here - and why I wrote an op-ed on giving generous criticism - meaning putting a bit of time into explaining why a word like "unresolved" might spring to mind when viewing a project.

And also somewhat relative: I became a much more skilled critic of ceramic art when my husband introduced me to the term "stance" in critiquing a pot.

buffalo stance?

synergy, kungapa,, define performance

: Man's head, woman's breasts, "Architecture Sucks" t-shirt, courtesy of arhinect.com, and an elephant's head for a penis. Garwondler is a mythical creature, seen only on rare occasions.

It's a bit dated, yes, but it's important to make mention of in case any newbies stumble upon confusing old threads.

Nice work, DubK!

I was just thinking about the garwondler a few days ago, as is evidenced on that thread.

What fun we all have had here!

"A lazy critique would be "That looks unresolved."

It's a polite way of saying that you spent no time at all figuring it out and it shows.

The not-so-polite way? ;-)

Fays.panda,

In this context, I believe Kungapa and I were using "Performance" to refer to specific, measurable qualities of a building as opposed to more subjective concerns. For example, through proper recording and analysis, it is possible to determine the energy consumption of a building and its occupants, this can be compared with other similar projects to compare their relative performance with one another. You could also compare factors such as construction costs, capacity, or even structural performance in extreme storms etc. etc.

i sort of agree with make re: 'unresolved'.

sure it may be lazy, but i've been guilty of using this criticism. not often, but... well, as make suggests, in some instances it's a polite and abbreviated way of saying 'why should i expend the effort developing salient critique if the meager amount of thought and work you put into developing the project doesn't merit the effort?'

I can see make and Steven's point, but if a student truly hasn't put in the effort then perhaps the best critique is "why should i expend the effort developing salient critique if the meager amount of thought and work you put into developing the project doesn't merit the effort? Next student, please."

SW, I agree on all of the definitions except the one given for Dialogue. I don't think the metaphor/analogy is as straight forward there.

From my experience, this "dialogue" is kind of an unquantifiable synergy (lame pun kind of intended). It doesn't necessarily have to be between opposites - and in fact may be even more profound by having subtle but noticeable differences between two or more distinct elements within one design or juxtaposed context element(s). It may or may not be intentional and therefore does not necessarily have to be for resolving a certain point or come to some kind of resolution.

My addition to this 'unresolved' discussion - it is a like a book in that the final form (designed or built) may have loose ends. Architecture isn't a linear and tightly controlled expression so I argue that it isn't always a "bad" thing and is possible that it is unavoidable or at least unforseeable. I'm guilty of designing something with an element that is intentionally unresolved. Sometimes it is quantifiable and sometimes it is more of a gut feeling thing which may drive an engineer mad. I agree that saying the whole design is unresolved is lazy, but I think it is perfectly OK to say a certain aspect of the design is unresolved.

While this isn't really architect lingo, I would like to know the engineer's view of "architectural column." In textbooks, I learned that it is a column that has structural qualities and has an aesthetic finish that allows it to be without some kind of wrap and isn't hidden inside a wall or such. In common use (and even in commercial use), they use it to mean a column that has no structural qualities whatsoever or the column wrap itself. This bothers me as this is somewhat indicative of some views of what architecture is - making engineering pretty or at least palatable.

Whenever I have encountered "architectural column" it is used to indicate a faux column or element, in the sense that isn't utilized in the structural system. This faux column may be made of the same material as the other "structural columns" or it may actually be made of a dummy material. As far as I have seen they are simply used for aesthetic and/or functional (partitioning/delineating of space) reasons.

I wouldn't automatically take the term as a slight. I find it to be just a reasonable means to distinguish between the two.

LB

Your comment "I can see make and Steven's point, but if a student truly hasn't put in the effort then perhaps the best critique is "why should i expend the effort developing salient critique if the meager amount of thought and work you put into developing the project doesn't merit the effort? Next student, please."

A lot of licensed professionals do work like that deserves the your and my comments. It isn't just students.

That's a whole new professional community mess, make, but of course I totally agree with you.

Sadly, the one time I tried to tell a colleague - politely - that his large built project looked like crap he just got all huffy and walked away. It's a tough battle.

i'm sure i didn't get huffy.




[j/k]

;-) Steven it wasn't you as you well know I love your work - it was someone from the firm our mutual friend here in Naptown used to work at.

LB,

It's hard. We all fight for our money and I spoke with an Architect tonight and I was blown away by the difference in our ambition. He speaks about being offered a project in Dubai with an initial fee larger than the construction cost of my largest project which is $1 million. So there's a big world out there. I am lucky to bill $15k for a project and it can take months to collect.

Perhaps we should introduce the of mindset, ambition or comfort zone. It's interesting how it grows and/or shrinks with time and the economy.

Where's your mindset these days?

Where's your comfort zone?

Where's your place?

I think everyone needs to define these things as architects for themselves as we are all different.