Nowadays, it seems like the future is turning rounder, smoother and more NURBS-like (or Subdivision-surfaces-like) than before. Perhaps it’s that part of the cycle where everything becomes smoothed -which seems to be somewhere about every 10 years or so- but for some reason it seems like this time around is not just some fluctuation but instead is here to stay. So, where is the square future?

Most of the work being produced at the schools right now (Columbia, Pratt, DRL, etc) seems to be getting smoother – I’m trying not to use the word blobby in here – the result not only of the processes of generation which aren’t inherently smooth but typically default to 3rd degree surfaces.

I will continue building up with this post, right now this is a very incomplete rambling.

Where is the square future? Mies’ Glass Skyscraper unbuilt project was the future. Superstudio’s Continuous Monument was what the web is nowadays too, formally a grid, yet topologically a network, but it’s was in my mind, it’s hard edge-ness and the way it intersected -or swallowed- that which was existing what embodied the future (nevermind the discourse…). Le Corbusier of course jumps right in, with most of his masterplans and Ville Savoye.

Back in the 60′s, the Metabolists -among many others- were pushing for their organic architecture, the whole current seems to have died -from the academic mainstream- but since the late nineties and with the use of these new tools, with the simple click of a button (the smooth button) becomes ‘organic’ or rounded.

And is there a right one? Why do rounded edges make something look cool, and is cool a synonym of good?

Via [archinect]