Can open source culture offer credible alternatives to current

conventions within architectural practice?

Architecture DissertationMA (Hons) Architecture

Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture 2015

Henri Lacoste

i

ii

.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

iv

.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

2

3

5

11

17

21

25

29

33

37

43

45

50

1

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

2

.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.

This statement, by the late Italian

architect, educator, writer and

critic Giancarlo De Carlo is an

appropriate initiation for this

project, bringing forward the issue

of the “present condition” that this

dissertation aims to challenge.

Although expressed over 40 years

ago, De Carlo’s concerns and

ambitions for a higher degree of

participation, within architecture,

are still relevant today.

Open source architectural projects

are predicated upon this notion

of participation. Indeed the term

“open source” is founded upon

a philosophy of collaboration,

transparency and sharing and it is

through an understanding of the

term “open source” that a critique

of current social conventions

within architectural practice may

be constructed.

One of the most publicly rec-

ognised open source architectural

undertakings, at present, is the

WikiHouse project. Founded by

Alastair Parvin in 2011 the initia-

tive aims to establish an online

resource of architectural drawings

and documents that anyone is

free to download. The drawings

for the building may then be mod-

ified and cut (from plywood), using

a computer numerically controlled

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

then assembled without extensive

machinery or training. WikiHouse’s

goal is to empower the end user

and encourage participation

in the design and construction

phases of architecture, through

simplification. A lecture given by

Parvin from 2013, provoked me

to begin a project which would

enable a deeper understanding

of Parvin’s objectives and further

my understanding of open source

culture; a framing exploration to

consolidate my findings from this

dissertation. My ambition was

to access the WikiHouse online

database of open source designs,

download the drawings for a

house, manipulate the design and,

inspired by Parvin’s statement of

democratising production:

“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.

“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

.introduction3

Through my experiment I will

also have the opportunity to

offer a first hand understanding

into each of the areas of inquiry

addressed herein: motivation,

organisation and legislation

around the subject of open source.

The dissertation is structured such

that each area of inquiry includes

research conducted through the

experiment, combined with an

insight into related Free/Libre

Open Source (FLOSS) methods

and ideas. The areas of inquiry

have been considered to prompt

the idea that the architectural

profession could benefit from an

uptake of open source methods.

Beginning with a contextual

section on the origins of the

term open source and its free

software ancestry, chapter 1

will provoke the idea of open

source software development

as potentially analogous to

architectural practice. This section

will introduce key characters in

the history of open source, such

as Richard Stallman and Linus

Torvalds, whose contributions

to its evolution will help build

an understanding of the moral

and ethical flavour of the term.

Software development, in

particular the development of

free operating systems in the

latter half of the 20th century,

demonstrated the power of an

open, collaborative culture and

challenged existing proprietary

methods. The success of projects

such as Linux, has triggered many

to question whether a migration

of open source ideas may benefit

other fields beyond software

development.

The following three chapters

will serve to develop the readers’

understanding of how and why

some open source projects

successful. An introduction

into the history of open source

software inevitably ignites

conversation about the motivation

that drives the thousands of

volunteers, who offer their time

for free. Chapter 2 recognises

that it is necessary to appreciate

the motivations of a hacker to

involve themselves in open

source projects so that we might

offer parallels to the possible

motivations of the open source

architect. Although large numbers

of diverse, enthusiastic volunteers

may be an invaluable workforce

and ensure the success of an

open source project, the nature

of their global scattering extends

considerable complexities to

do with organisation. Chapter 3

will explore technical structures

that manage workload, as well

as the social structures which

manage disputes, opinions and

newcomers and offer alternatives

to current architectural office

structure. A great deal of what

gives Free/Libre and Open Source

Software (FLOSS) communities

their structure is the practical

legislation that enables sharing

and maintains freedom, whilst

avoiding exploitation from

opportunists. Chapter 4 will

investigate the licenses and

intellectual property attitudes

that have come to define FLOSS

culture.

Chapters 1-4 display how FLOSS

culture is able to subvert its

proprietary counterparts and

provokes reflection on how FLOSS

ideas could migrate beyond

software development and in

to architectural practice. The

following chapters present case

study reports exploring current

open source architecture (herein

referred to as OSArc) projects.

Architecture for Humanity and

WikiHouse have been chosen since

both adopt progressive attitudes

towards licensing, networking

and collaboration, offering

alternative means to conventional

architectural practice.

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

4

.a brief history of open source

5

It is through a summary of the

key events, people and ideas by

which the term “open source”,

with regards to software, came

about that we might begin an

exploration in to the opportunity

open source holds for architecture.

There is no single person who

represents the whole story, nor a

specific beginning of open source1,

rather an evolution.

Typically when we run a computer

program we run the executable, a

series of numbers that practically

no human is able to make sense

of, understood only by computers.

The executable is compiled from

a source code, an algebraic-like

code written by programmers,

which can be edited to change the

function of the program2. At its

most fundamental understanding,

open source software refers to

the ability to legitimately access

the source code, allowing the

user freedom to see how the

program works, learn from it and

manipulate it should they wish

to do so. Without the source code

this is not possible. However,

the term “open source” implies

factors beyond source code

transparency to do with copyright,

intellectual property, community

and philosophical and political

stance; subjects with which

the architectural discourse is

intrinsically concerned.

.multics unix gnu & linux

In 1968 Bell Labs decided to

cut funding to the collaborative

project, led by MIT named Multics,

an early, influential time-sharing

computer operating system3.

Computer scientist, and key

figure in the Multics project,

Ken Thompson returned to Bell

Labs following its withdrawal.

Missing the Multics environment4,

he began work with fellow

hacker Dennis Ritchie on a new

project. In the space of two years

Thompson and Ritchie created

a full programming language

named “C” and a complete

operating system named UNIX

(formerly UNICS), a trivial pun

on Multics5. What made UNIX

unique and especially popular at

the time was that although the

software was proprietary, licenses

were not free, the source code

was included in its distribution6.

By including the source code

many users manipulated the

software, seizing the opportunity

to customise the operating system

1

6

to suit their needs and fix existing

problems. Within the licensing

agreement users were forbidden

to redistribute their modifications,

however, they were able to

contribute their improvements to

Thompson and Ritchie7.

Around UNIX formed a global

community of computer scientists

and programmers who contributed

to this collective project out of

enthusiasm; motivated by their

interest in maintaining and

improving the UNIX operating

system. Throughout the latter

half of the 1970s the spread of

UNIX was remarkable; considering

the absence of conventional

distribution and support from

Bell Labs (its legal proprietor)8.

Contributions submitted to

Thompson and Ritchie by the

growing UNIX community

resulted in many frequent

redistributions of the operating

system, engendering Thompson’s

notion of a “continuum”, an

alternative model to the less

frequent “productised” commercial

releases, made by corporations

like Microsoft (98, XP, Vista

etc.)9. The “continuum” model of

redistributing versions of UNIX,

with improvements by authors not

employed by Bell Labs, advanced

the quality of the software beyond

the scope of conventional means.

However, as the technical stability

of UNIX improved, its legal status

grew more unsure. The derivatives

of UNIX emerging had been

modified to such an extent, that

the question arose as to whether

they were still UNIX10.

In 1979 AT&T (parent company

of Bell Labs) released version 7 of

the UNIX operating system. AT&T

management had begun to realise

UNIX’s commercial value and as

such restricted the distribution

of the source code, a decision

that caused many universities

to drop UNIX as a pedagogical

tool11. AT&T had been a

restricted monopoly, prohibiting

the marketing of UNIX beyond

academia, up until a pivotal legal

battle between it and the United

States in 1982. The battle resulted

in the fragmentation of AT&T, with

Bell Labs becoming autonomous

and the creation of a new division

named UNIX Systems Laboratory12.

Where previously AT&T had been

prohibited from commercially

licensing UNIX, it could now

compete in a free market

economy. This development

meant a phenomenal surge in

licensing fees to $100,000 by

198813. UNIX had shown, in its

infancy, how valuable open source

development could be. However,

its extortionate licensing fees

negated its use by universities

and researchers, a community of

would-be contributors who now

looked for an alternative to the

now proprietary closed source

operating system.

The growth of proprietary

software in the 1980s saw

many talented programmers

and computer scientists from

universities, such as those at MIT,

hired away into lucrative closed

source software corporations.

This soured MIT’s intellectual

culture, which had been focused

around collaboration, openness

and sharing14. The university

began insisting researchers

sign non-disclosure agreements

in order to access information

previously freely shared. Richard

Stallman joined MIT’s artificial

intelligence lab in 1971 and

would go on to found the Free

Software Foundation in 1984.

He believed that traditional

intellectual property rights,

applied to software development,

forbade the ethical agenda

of a decent society, since the

purpose of software was to

solve problems together for the

common good15. To Stallman

software was not simply a tool,

rather a demonstration of human

innovation and expression16,

that should have freedom at the

forefront of its discourse. Since

his work at MIT contradicted his

philosophy he resigned from

his position in 1984 to dedicate

himself to free software and his

7

newly founded Free Software

Foundation (FSF)17.

The first project of the FSF was

simple; to write a free operating

system, free meaning freedom

not price, “libre not gratis”18.

Stallman believed this project

would enable the collaborative

culture that he had observed

around UNIX to continue, now

that UNIX was proprietary. Since

Stallman’s background was in

progressing the UNIX OS, his new

project would undoubtedly be like

it, however to ensure he was not

infringing copyright law, he would

have to write his new OS from

scratch, and as such named his

project GNU, a recursive acronym;

“GNU’s not UNIX”19. Central to

the project and the FSF were

Stallman’s four freedoms:

These freedoms where manifest

in the GNU General Public License

(GPL), known also as the copyleft

license, first released in 198921,

allowing software published

under this license to remain free

and revive hope for continuing

collaborative endeavours22.

Through employing the GPL,

developers can ensure that their

work will not be taken and made

proprietary by another user,

instead the copyleft technique

ensures that wherever the

software goes, so do the four

freedoms; thus “it becomes an

inalienable right to cooperate

with other people and form a

community”23. What separated

the GPL from other permissive

free software licenses (like the

Berkley Software Distribution

or MIT licenses) is that it was

written from the standpoint of the

community, rather than written to

protect the interests of a company

or individual24.

Work on the GNU project

continued, with everything

needed for a complete operating

system in place by 1991, except

a kernel; the most essential

piece of software needed to

run a computer. The same year,

Finnish student Linus Torvalds

released the Linux kernel version

0.1 openly on the internet, under

the GNU GPL, which he had been

developing independently in an

0: The freedom to run the program

for any purpose

1: The freedom to study how the

program works and to modify it to

suit your needs

2: The freedom to redistribute

copies, either gratis or for a

monetary fee

3: The Freedom to change and

improve the program and to

redistribute modified versions

of the program to the public so

others can benefit from your

improvements20

[Fig.2 - Richard Stallman.]

[Fig.3 - GNU Logo.]

[Fig.4 - Linus Torvalds.]

[Fig.5 - Linux Logo.]

8

“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

The undeniable success of this

decentralised, open, inclusive

mode of production went directly

against conventional means of

software development, provoking

important thinking and writing

that would challenge the term

“Free Software”. Eric Raymond

is a software engineer who has

been involved in free software

development for over thirty years,

contributing to UNIX and being

one of the first to contribute to

the GNU project. He also began

his involvement with Linux in

199328. Though Raymond was

an advocate of the collaborative

culture that had occurred around

UNIX and now Linux, he believed

a more centralised approach

was required for initial complex

software development such as

designing operating systems29.

His first hand experience of

Linux’s success contested this

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

objectives, drawing obvious

parallels with the arrangement

of religious institutions. The

Free Software model in contrast

is heavily focused around a

decentralised peer-to-peer review

strategy, in which feedback is

directly offered from people

formally outside of the project31.

The analogy sees Linux’s

development as a “great babbling

bazaar of differing agendas”32,

which somehow rather than

collapsing under its own weight,

managed to take Linux “from

strength to strength at a speed

barely imaginable to cathedral

builders”33.

A common misconception by

many when first introduced to

the ideas of free software and

open source, is that they are the

same and that the terms may

be used indiscriminately. This is

understandable since the two

terms represent identical methods,

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

software, however, Linux was

truly non-proprietary and as

such accessibility was granted

to the public, not just the

academic realm to which UNIX’s

development had been restricted.

In the years 1992 to 1999,

releases V0.01 to V2.2, Linux’s

user base grew from 1,000 to 12

million users25; many of whom

contributed to the maintenance

and development of the software.

The community of programmers

produced innovative applications

that progressed Linux to become

an attractive option to big

business, during the mass-market

commoditisation of the Internet

and web based commerce26. This

global population of users is an

example of what Christopher

Kelty; author of The Cultural

Significance of Free Software has

coined the term “recursive public”

for.

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

and the FSF were charged with

being communist and dogmatic,

restraining businesses from

successfully harnessing open

source36.

1998 was significant in the history

of open source. Eric Raymond

revised his paper “The Cathedral

and the Bazaar” replacing the

words free software with open

source37, and in collaboration

with Bruce Perens composed the

Open Source Definition which

would form the manifesto of

their cofounded Open Source

Initiative. That same year Linux’s

business potential gained

mainstream attention with Linus

Torvalds’ picture printed on

the front of Forbes magazine.

The investment potential of

Linux was service-centric with

several companies, most notably

Red Hat and VA Linux, founded

to assist businesses that had

chosen to adopt the Linux OS.

Red Hat offered tailor-made

software solutions and training

for businesses running Linux and

VA Linux sold computers with

the software preinstalled. When

VA Linux went public on the

stock market in 1998 its share

price rose 700% in one day;

making it the largest initial public

offering of its time38. The success

of Linux and the companies

founded around it, put to rest

many preconceptions that money

could not be made from open

source. The accomplishments of

the method have brought cases

forward “to suggest that software

is not the only place where

the open source process could

flourish.”39

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

10

.chapter endnotes

1. Andrew Leonard in, The Code. DVD. Directed by Hannu Puttonen (Strasbourg: Arte, 2001) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMm0HsmOTFI > accessed 29.03.20152. 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 29.03.201524. 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.

11 2.motivation

Raymond’s above quote suggests

that the overarching stimulus

for a work of software is

pragmatic and essentially self

centred. Although this maybe

a valid reason for conceiving

a project, it does not go far

enough to explain the countless

unpaid hours that thousands

of voluntary contributors will

spend on the development and

maintenance of open source

software. Whilst contemplating

the alternatives to payment we

will consider the notion of the

information given (namely the

source code and analogously

architectural drawings) as a gift,

nuances involved with gift-

giving and especially how the

nature of information affects its

operation as a gift. The intention

of this chapter is to provide

an appreciation of a hacker’s

incentive to involve themselves

in open source projects, which

will undoubtedly offer parallels to

possible motivations of the open

source architect.

Steven Webber in “The Success of

Open Source” discusses the topic

of motivation and sets out six

alternatives to remuneration. He

admits however, that the scheme

is imperfect, with crossovers

amongst categories, since it

is difficult to define human

motivation. His categories are:

“Art and beauty” refers to the

simple pleasure of solving

complicated problems. Though not

only in a technical sense of right

or wrong, in an aesthetic, elegant

way too. It is true that a piece of

code may either be rejected or

accepted by the compiler3, but

inevitably there are many ways

to solve the same problem, one

more beautiful than another, with

developers taking enjoyment in

this challenge. This creative drive

for clever simple code aligns with

Stallman’s assertion that software

design is more than a tool, it

is a demonstration of human

expression4.

“Job as vocation” is the experience

of creating good code which

empowers the programmer. Often

programmers will be involved

in open source projects as an

extension of their professional,

commercial lives. Sharing the

code that has empowered them

adds primarily to ones feeling of

efficacy5 and is not necessarily

a demonstration of ones moral

agenda.

“Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.”1

Eric Raymond - The Cathedral & The Bazaar

- Art and beauty

- Job as vocation

- The joint enemy

- Ego boosting

- Reputation

- Identity and belief system2

12

Microsoft is the undisputed

“joint enemy”, but essentially

acts as the embodiment of an

array of proprietary companies.

Weber suggests that proprietary

software is not necessarily the

ideological enemy of open source,

rather a technical and business

practice one. Pragmatically code

should be open because open

source development yields better

software6, so should be pursued.

Comments made this year (April

2015) by top Microsoft engineer

Mark Russinovich suggest that

the proprietary company may

not always be the “joint enemy”.

Russinovich stated at ChefConf

that an open source Microsoft “is

definitely possible”7, confirming

that open source is a legitimate

development method. This

category links closely with

“identity and belief system” since

the “joint enemy” strengthens open

source’s sense of community, as

hackers universally disassociate

themselves with proprietary

alternatives.

“Ego boosting” is an important mo-

tivation and source of satisfaction.

A developer’s work will be publicly

received and praised if appropri-

ate, however, the norm is not to

self promote. The work should

speak for itself and not require

bragging from its author.

Since information is circulated

among open source communities,

those involved who receive the

information may offer peer-to-

peer review of the work that

has been shared. Motivation to

create a high quality gift may be

gained from seeking the approval

of ones peers, thus growing the

author’s “reputation” and inevitably

producing a more superior

product. “Reputation” gained in

open source communities may

also translate to improved job

prospects in a commercial context.

.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

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

Shared “identity and belief systems”

are essential to the strength of

FLOSS culture. American journalist

Steven Levy documented the

following key characteristics of

shared FLOSS beliefs in his book

Hackers in 1984 which remain true

today8:

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

.the gift

Richard Coyne, in his book The

Cornucopia Limited, questions the

true nature of gifting information,

be it software, digital media

or architectural drawings. It is

possible, in the digital age, to

both give away information and

yet still retain it unaffected11.

What differentiates information

from many other commodities is

its immaterially and as such the

cost of its dissemination via the

Internet is near zero. The ability to

reproduce information endlessly

results in a distorted economy12,

one which becomes saturated and

thus prices diminish significantly.

In Homesteading the Noosphere

Eric Raymond explains how this

distorted economy works in the

open source context, from an

anthropological and economic

perspective. He points out that as

human beings we are inherently

driven to gain social status, and

where survival goods are “scarce”, the people in control of goods are

the individuals of high status13.

Our economic model today is

principally an exchange economy,

an advanced adjustment to

scarcity. Cooperation and trade

facilitates the decentralised

allocation of resources, and

social status is determined by

the resources or services one

controls14.

If information can be reproduced

and distributed at little or no

cost, exchange relationships

become redundant and social

status is instead determined

on what you give away, rather

than what you control15. This

abundance of resources lays the

foundations for a gift culture

and incentivises openly sharing

source code among developers.

The act of ‘gift giving’ inevitably

initiates relationships between

developers and with reference to

Marcel Mauss, Coyne discusses

the nuanced implications of these

interactions. By giving a gift, a

difference in status, age, wealth,

ability etcetera is highlighted

between giver and receiver16.

Moreover in receiving a gift one

may feel obliged to reciprocate.

An area where OSArc is being

more actively pursued is within

the humanitarian context, since

invariably remuneration is

not expected and motivation

to engage with pro bono

projects is typically granted

by the knowledge that one

is contributing to a good

cause. OSArc initiatives such

as Architecture for Humanity,

discussed further in chapter 5,

facilitate the sharing of valuable

architectural documentation and

services with some of world’s

most in need. Beyond charitable

applications, the motivation to

“open source” ones architectural

work may be understood

with reference to Weber’s

aforementioned alternatives to

payment.

Through discussing gift culture

and the act of ‘gift giving’, ideas

of relationships, social status and

peer review have been extended.

How open source communities

manage these social themes

among a diverse collection of

contributors and how work is

delegated to those globally

dispersed volunteers, poses

significant questions to do with

both social and organisational

infrastructures and form the basis

of the discussion in the following

chapter.

13

- 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- Computers can change human life for the better9

14

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.

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

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.

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

continued from p.12

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

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

15

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

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.

16

.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 11.04.20158. 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 07.03.201514. 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

17 3.organisation

Numbers of geographically

dispersed enthusiastic volunteers,

who are willing to give their

time to an open source project,

whatever their motivation, extend

considerable complexities to

do with organisation. The open

source context is particularly

challenging. Since open source is

primarily comprised of volunteers,

it would be inappropriate for

projects to adopt organisational

structures based on hierarchy, like

their authoritarian proprietary

counterparts. This makes the

effective delegation of work and

decision-making responsibilities

problematic. We will enhance our

understanding of the complex

nature of open source through

an exploration into the technical

structures that manage workload,

and the social structures that

manage disputes, opinions and

new comers; gaining an insight

into open source’s strategy for

harnessing the creativity and

power of a diverse community of

contributors. Similarly these issues

will necessitate consideration

in establishing OSArc projects,

where networks of contributing

architects need to be managed

both socially and technically.

This chapter aims to shed light

on how individuals synchronise

their contributions of expertise to

a common goal, in a context free

from both authoritative control

and (in a gift culture) the price

mechanism1?

The gift culture that open source

has engendered, as previously

mentioned, is itself a mechanism

for establishing a proportion of

social structure and thus informal

organisation. The relationships

that form through gift exchanges

construct social norms through

which sets of rules to do with

ownership, responsibility, seniority

and authority arise.

Typically the person who initiates

the project is regarded the owner,

and as such is granted the right

to distribute the project. Founding

the project however is not the

only way to acquire ownership,

one may be explicitly and publicly

handed ownership of a project

by a previous owner or should

a project have been abandoned,

one can assume control. In

small groups the leadership and

decision-making responsibility

rests ultimately with the owner,

however, in bigger projects the

norm is more subtle. In larger

operations programmers who

contribute more to a project will

in turn gain more responsibility,

and since open source functions

predominantly as a meritocracy2,

18

those involved are not concerned

with formal qualifications.

Seniority and decision making

authority is earned based on

ability. Open source projects are

voluntarily and in a very real

sense the leader is dependent

on their followers3, should the

followers strongly disagree with a

project’s leadership, technically or

socially, they may decide to either

leave or fork4 the project.

Despite the internet’s evident

ability to reduce the costs of

worldwide collaboration, the

Internet alone cannot mitigate

complications such as “human

emotion, decision making

[and] resolution of technical

difficulties.”5 To cope with such

complexities in a conventional

setting formal hierarchical

organisation is employed, however,

in the open source context this

would be inappropriate. Ways in

which open source attempts to

solve these complexities include

considerations in the way work

is technically designed, methods

by which malicious users are

sanctioned, and the use of legal

documentation to implement

structure.

Observing the technical design

norms of an open source project

is key in understanding how these

operations are organised. The

complexity of a project may be

managed more efficiently if it is

broken down in to manageable,

modular pieces. It is also

imperative that interdependencies

between modules are limited,

so that altering one module

does not cause a ripple effect

throughout the whole project.

This need to manage complexity

in architectural practice may

be combated with building

information modelling (BIM). BIM

is a networked technique which

is often employed to manage

large scale architectural projects

where industry professionals from

different sectors need to work

simultaneously on the design

of a project. This synchronised

work can all be achieved without

the involved parties necessarily

being in direct contact or close

proximity of each other. In the

same way contributors to open

source software projects may be

great distances apart.

In proprietary software companies

and conventional architectural

practice appropriate behaviour

is maintained by the threat of

loosing ones job and thus ones

income. Additionally, once fired,

access to work to which one has

contributed is disallowed, since

.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

19

the employer is the legal owner6.

Without these threats looming

in the background how can open

source projects, unable to fire or

restrict access to open design

or code, protect against anti

social behaviour which might

compromise the sustainability of

the project?

There are two methods by which

open source communities may

sanction users who violate the

social norms of the community.

Firstly a user can be flamed.

Flaming is the act of publicly

denouncing the actions of an

individual in mailing lists or

through public forums. These

public displays are archived and

serve as a useful educational

tool for those entering the open

source community wanting to

familiarise themselves with open

source etiquette. The public

nature of flaming also facilitates

a wider debate around what

the acceptable or unacceptable

behaviours among the community

are, ensuring relevant and

up to date governing norms.

Shunning is the other method

by which sanctioning may take

place. Shunning is perhaps more

successful, since it excludes the

offending party from the greatest

value in open source; cooperation.

Although the user will not be

excluded from accessing source

code, they will be excluded from

the support of the community

which is a considerable penalty7.

A significant benefit of the

willingness to cooperate and

share among open source

communities is that work need

never be duplicated. Beyond the

organisation of open source’s

contributors, it is necessary

for the contributed work to be

organised such that one can

“be lazy like a fox”8 as Torvalds

remarks. A commons acts as

a host for material offered by

open source contributors which

others may take from without

the requirement of expressed

permission from someone else.

Anyone is free to “take and

use, and build upon to make

something better, or better

fitted to the particular needs of

a particular context”9 material

taken from the commons. The

commons is vital to OSArc

projects such as WikiHouse

and Architecture for Humanity

through which drawings and

documentation are distributed.

In both instances users are

encouraged to take existing

designs and manipulate them to

their specific requirements, and for

the sustainability of the commons

to be maintained, it is hoped

that derivates are shared with

the community, by redistributing

them once again through the

commons. However, there is

also the opportunity to take and

copy a proposal exactly. In either

instance it is important that

knowledge gained, either through

the customisation or direct

translation of a design, is shared

with the community as without

this dialogue the user may be

considered a free rider10, and be

in violation of the accepted social

norms.

In the absence of an authoritarian

organisational method, it can be

challenging to state what the

accepted norms of a community

are. Licenses such as the GNU

GPL have become key statements

of social structure that define

FLOSS culture, with Weber

going as far to suggest that the

license maybe considered a “de

facto constitution”11. By stating

explicitly in a license what the

accepted behaviours and norms

of a FLOSS community are, it

is possible to manage certain

social complexities. Essentially

permissive and copyleft licenses

strive for fairness, and since many

FLOSS developers will at times

be licensor and at times licensee,

the legal terms remain relatively

balanced. A more comprehensive

discussion into licensing specifics

will be constructed in the

following chapter.

20

.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 07.03.201510. 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-acquires- instructables-what-it- means-for-makers/ > accessed 29.03.201513. Robin Wauters. Autodesk Acquires DIY Community Instructables (TechCrunch, August 2011) < http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/autodesk-acquires-diy-community- instructables/> accessed 10.04.2015

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

continued from p.18

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

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”.

21 4.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

engendered by open source,

Thomas Jefferson’s compelling

analogy appears only logical.

With regards knowledge, why

not share if it is to cost you

nothing, if you will retain that

knowledge unaffected? In 1813

Jefferson wrote to innovator Isaac

McPherson rejecting “the notion

that inventors have a natural

property right in their inventions”2.

The letter is often cited by anti-

intellectual property campaigners

such as Lawrence Lessig, founder

of Creative Commons3, to argue

with historical authority, that

founding Americans did not

subscribe to the idea that one

should be entitled to patent

protection4. Lessig has been

pivotal in engendering a culture

among a range of creative fields,

including architecture, which

promotes free exchange of

knowledge by offering an array

of simple licenses through the

Creative Commons organisation.

This achievement is testament to

the power and necessity of novel

licensing within open source, to

both facilitate and maintain its

operations. This chapter presents

licensing within open source, with

the central ambition of achieving

the democratic dissemination of

knowledge and power; licenses

that are employed not to exclude,

but encourage users to participate

in the improvement of FLOSS and

beyond.

A great deal of what gives FLOSS

communities their structure is

the practical legislation that

underpins them; enabling

sharing and maintaining freedom,

whilst avoiding exploitation

from opportunists. The issue

of licensing and intellectual

property forms the basis of the

Open Source Definition, written by

Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond,

the joint founders of the Open

Source Initiative (OSI). It is the

prerogative of the OSI to endorse

licenses, deciding whether or not

a license is congruent with their

agenda and truly open source.

One of the first licenses to be

advocated by the OSI and possibly

Stallman’s greatest contribution

to the FLOSS movement, was

the GNU General Public License

(GPL). The GPL allows material to

be shared openly but safeguards

22

it from being taken and made

proprietary, thus the work

remains in the public realm and

“it becomes an inalienable right

to cooperate with other people

and form a community”5. Whilst

the GPL is heavily reliant on

copyright law, the way copyright

law is used for licenses that

protect proprietary software

differs fundamentally. The GPL’s

employment of copyright shifts

the emphasis from a right to

maintain control of the material

to, an emphasis concerned with

the right to share it and ensures

its continued accessibility

to all; Stallman coined the

term “copyleft” for this novel

application of copyright law.

“The two political camps in the

free software community are the

free software movement and

open source”6. A project may be

identifiable to one or the other

through an understanding of

the type of license it employs. At

a basic level one can separate

FLOSS licenses in to two

general categories, copyleft and

permissive. The decision to choose

a permissive over a copyleft

license displays the authors

higher degree of pragmatism but

a compromised attitude towards

freedom, considered unacceptable

by Stallman and the Free Software

movement. Permissive licenses,

such as the MIT License are

more pragmatic, since they do

not inhibit derivatives of the

work from being combined with

proprietary software, so long as a

copy of the MIT license is included

in its redistribution. The GPL does

not allow such an accommodation.

A context in which OSArc could

flourish would undoubtedly see

a well considered set of licences

.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.

[Fig.11 - Licenses offered by Instructables]

.chapter endnotes

1. Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Isaac McPherson (August 13 1813) < http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > accessed 11.04.152. Adam Mossoff. Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about patents? Reevaluating the patent “Privilege” in historical context. (Cornell Law Review Vol. 92:953) 964. < https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/CRN502Mossoff.pdf > accessed 22.03.20153. See appendix4. 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 09.03.20157. 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

23

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.

24

In the preceding chapters architectural practice has been discussed

abstractly, whilst the focus has been placed on FLOSS development

and it’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

manifesto’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

.bridging statement

.architecture for humanity

25 5Architecture for Humanity (AfH) is

a non-profit organisation, which

enables architects, designers

and builders to get involved in

improving the living standards

of those most in need across

the globe. Founded in 1999 by

Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr,

AfH had, as of 2011, completed

2250 projects in 25 countries2

driven by their core belief that

“everyone deserves access to the

benefits of good design”3.

Each year the organisation TED

awards a prize to an individual

with a bold, creative idea that

has the potential to cause

global positive change. With

an investment of $1 million

and TED’s network of resources

that idea is helped to become a

reality4, and in 2006, Sinclair was

awarded the prize. His wish was

to create the Open Architecture

Network (OAN), “an open source,

collaborative project management

website that would empower

building professionals with

design solutions to improve life”5.

The OAN would help relive the

growing demand for help from

AfH, by enabling local connections

between those willing to offer

help and those most in need.

The OAN has grown to have

over 50,000 members, who

have contributed more than

40,000 proposals and 166

pro bono projects6 have since

been completed. The OAN is

an astonishing example of a

commons with a high calibre

of work, submitted by industry

professionals as well as

students and amateurs. Working

with Lawrence Lessig, the

founder of Creative Commons,

Sinclair developed a “some

rights reserved” license for

use on buildings to protect

the contents of the OAN’s

commons7. The license allows

free use of a building’s plans and

documentation for non profit

activity, but the designer must be

paid if the use were commercial8.

Architecture for Humanity has,

over the past 15 years, responded

to natural disasters around the

globe, in countries including

“Design like you give a damn.”1

Cameron Sinclair - 2011

26

Haiti, Japan, the Philippines and

in 2005 began its involvement

with the efforts to rebuild after

Hurricane Katrina devastated the

Gulf Coast of the United States.

As part of their contribution AfH

established the Biloxi Model

Home Program to help residents

of Biloxi, Mississippi approach

the challenges of rebuilding, in

the wake of such a destructive

event. Those displaced by the

storm were concerned that new

structural and environmental

regulations to safeguard future

homes from similar flood and

storm threats would dramatically

increase the cost of construction9.

In a community where the

household income of many is

close to the federal poverty line,

this inflated cost of construction

would pose significant challenges

to the residents and their efforts

to rebuild10. The Biloxi Model

Home Program achieved 7 pilot

homes, which would serve as

prototypes to be replicated

by others rebuilding in Biloxi

and indeed anywhere at risk

of flooding. All the necessary

information needed to build

these homes is comprehensively

catalogued and available for free

on the OAN under the Creative

Commons BY-NC-SA license.

One of the more compelling

designs to emerge from the

Biloxi prototypes was the

PorchDog model, designed by

Marlon Blackwell Architects.

The design responds with great

efficacy to both the practical

and social complications of a

site which requires extensive

protection from storm conditions,

whilst maintaining a sensitivity

to the norms of the Gulf Coast

streetscape and affiliated “porch

culture”11. Although there is

sufficient information available

online and in AfH’s publications

to explain the design rationale

of the PorchDog prototype, I

was eager to understand how

and why such an accomplished

architect became involved in

the Biloxi Model Home Program

and open source architecture. I

was fortunate enough to speak

briefly with Marlon to discuss his

experience of working with AfH

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

27

and his motivation to share full

documentation of the PorchDog

design for free via the OAN.

[A full transcript of the phone call

may be found in appendix a]

It became clear early on in our

conversation that Blackwell’s

decision to submit a proposal

for the Biloxi Model Home

Program wasn’t incentivised by

money or free publicity. In fact,

it was AfH who had approached

him. Initially Blackwell had not

been interested in the efforts to

rebuild post Katrina, due to the

dominant presence of the new

urbanists and their “antiquated

approach to architecture”12 and

master planning. However, since

Biloxi, unlike other towns along

the Mississippi Gulf Coast, were

to develop their own model, in

conjunction with AfH and with the

security of legitimate sponsors,

Blackwell was keen to participate

and submitted several proposals.

Blackwell, a distinguished

professor at the university of

Arkansas and Fellow of the

American Institute of Architects,

saw early on what was being built

post Katrina and the effects that

the new FEMA regulations were

having on the urban fabric. The

regulations demanded that new

structures be raised above street

level by at least 11 feet and in

most cases this created a residual

zone below those buildings.

Designing the PorchDog prototype

was an opportunity to offer an

alternative to the “new urbanist’s

gingerbread houses on stilts”13,

which Blackwell believed did not

engage with the problem.

For Blackwell, and his office,

the primary goal was that the

prototype should “be a tangible

outcome of the program”14, it was

imperative that it was built. As

such the key motivation for this

project is ultimately pragmatic;

Blackwell rejected what was

being proposed, believing he

could deign something more

effective. Unfortunately neither

the PorchDog nor the other

prototypes designed for the

program have been replicated

elsewhere, although Blackwell

did receive several enquiries

from New Orleans that did

not materialise. He maintains

he was never convinced that

anyone would literally copy the

design and that this would not

be entirely appropriate since

there are changes that he would

make to future iterations, which

would improve the design both in

terms of cost and performance15.

The PorchDog is a legitimate

design solution though, and the

necessary documentation to

build it is available free via the

OAN, a valuable contribution to

the commons that Blackwell was

happy to make.

In 2013 Sinclair stepped down as

AfH’s executive director with the

rationale that “if this [Architecture

for Humanity] is a truly sustainable

organisation, it should survive

without its founders”16. However,

earlier this year (January 2015)

AfH filed for bankruptcy17 and

closed its headquarters in San

Fransisco. Despite this news, the

end of AfH and the OAN is not

likely. The very purpose of AfH

was to connect local designers

with local problems and as such

has dictated its organisational

structure; it consists of

60 independent chapters

worldwide18. Although these

chapters share the AfH trademark

they are financially independent

and many will continue to operate

as usual, despite the bankruptcy

of their parent charity, in the

same way a new software project

may fork from its failing parent

project. The OAN remains online,

hosting and distributing valuable

information and will continue to

do so regardless of the unsure

future of its backers.

28

.chapter endnotes

1. Cameron Sinclair. Lessons Learned… 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 13.03.20154. TED. TED Prize < https://www.ted.com/participate/ted-prize> accessed 07.04.20155. Sinclair, Lessons Learned, 25.6. The Open Architecture Network. Home Page <http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/> accessed 13.03.20157. 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 05.04.201512. 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-in- socially-conscious-architecture-is-closing-amid-financial-woes.html?_r=2> accessed 05.04.201517. Architecture for Humanity. Home Page (22.01.2015) <http://architectureforhumanity.org/> accessed 05.04.201518. Architecture for Humanity Chapter Network. Home Page. <chapters.architectureforhumanity.org/chapters> accessed 05.04.2015

[Fig.13 - AfH London Facebook page.]

.wikihouse

29

The WikiHouse project offers

an open source alternative

to conventional architectural

processes, allowing unskilled

end users to directly participate

in the design and construction

of their own home. The

dissemination of WikiHouse

projects is facilitated by an online

commons, which hosts the files

and documentation needed to

construct a building of which

the majority of elements are

cut from plywood using a C.N.C.

router. The WikiHouse project

fulfils the two criteria set out

by O’Mahony and West, authors

of What makes a project open

source? Migrating from organic to

synthetic communities required

for a project to be considered

open source development. Firstly,

in it’s employment of Creative

Commons licensing, thus making

its content openly available for

others to take and use. Secondly,

in its organisation as an online

community which facilitates

contribution and collaboration

among individuals, and as such

may be considered a development

platform1.

Through engaging with

Architecture for Humanity and

the WikiHouse project it became

apparent that OSArc was not so

much a concept of the future as

I had first imagined, blueprints

6[Fig.14 - WikiHouse construction set process.]

30

and manuals are online now,

ready for experimentation. The

ambition of this dissertation has

been to present how open source

culture is able to challenge linear

processes relating to design,

manufacture and ultimately

architecture. Open source

initiatives such as the WikiHouse

project offer alternatives and

thus challenge us to rethink

our understanding of the way

we approach making buildings.

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

was to go further and evaluate

how successful the WikiHouse

project has been in its ambition

to encourage a more participatory

approach to architecture.

My most immediate conclusion

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

experiment is that although

WikiHouse aims to encourage

participation in the practice

of making architecture, this

ambition will not be easily

achieved. Despite WikiHouse’s

operations providing a platform

for collaboration and cooperation

to happen, so too does it allow

free riding. My involvement with

WikiHouse was purely one way, I

took from the commons without

giving back and as such opted

out of participation, rendering my

engagement unsustainable. The

opportunity to contribute to the

Wikihouse commons is severely

31

limited since all contributions

must adhere to the format of parts

cut from plywood sheet stock. My

decision to refrain from adding

to the commons was also due to

WikiHouse’s rigorous approach

to regulating contributions, a

user must first apply to join the

commons and subsequently apply

to begin a project and submit

drawings; all steps of which must

be approved by a moderator. Of

course this approach ensures that

only a high calibre of coherent

work is included in the commons

and where failure of the design

may have fatal consequences, this

level of mediation should perhaps

be welcomed.

Instructables, although similarly

employs moderators, has a more

liberal approach to accepting

contributions with a far richer

commons as a result. I was

therefore able to make available

full documentation of my project,

including instructions on how to

build the printer, as well as how to

take drawings from the Wikihouse

commons and manipulate them.

I was able to easily add to the

Instructables commons and

give back to the open design

community. The action of

sharing my experiences and the

knowledge I amassed throughout

the project contributed a quality

of participation to my project

which was otherwise lacking,

despite replicating an OSArc

project.

Throughout this text the D.I.Y.

C.N.C. project has been used as

a device to assist discussions

around open source and form

critical appraisals of initiatives

such as the WikiHouse project

and indirectly, architectural

practice. Matt Ratto, a professor

in the faculty of information

at the University of Toronto,

has coined the term “critical

making” for the method whereby

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

“can be employed to develop

a critical perspective on the

current institutions, practices

and norms of society”2. By

making information more widely

available and supporting open

source design, we extend greater

opportunities to engage in critical

making which in turn “heralds

new possibilities for artists,

scholars and interested citizens

to engage in a simultaneously

conceptual and material critique

of technologies and information

systems in society”3. Although

the result of critical making is

often an alternative to an existing

system, it is not the intention that

these alternatives will become

replacements. The value of critical

making lies not in its end results

but in the development of unique

understandings by the makers,

who in turn curate and share their

findings with others4.

32

.chapter endnotes

1. Duncan Bain. Open Source Architecture Wiki (2015) < http://www.duncanbain.com/research/dissertation/index.php?title=Main_ Page> accessed 05.04.20152. 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.

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

33 7.conclusion

This dissertation has asked if

principles commonplace in open

source software development

might serve as credible

alternatives for conventions

within architectural practice.

Although the design stages of

software and architecture are

analogous, there are fundamental

differences between the

construction of the two that

present considerable challenges

for the realisation of OSArc.

Architecture’s materiality and

requirement of costly resources

reduces its accessibility and is

OSArc’s most significant obstacle.

Since architecture is inherently

material, unlike software, it is

geographically placed which

presents further challenges

regarding motivation. If an

OSArc contributor cannot reap

the benefits of their own work

because it is thousands of miles

away, they will surely be less

inclined to participate. However,

as demonstrated with the D.I.Y.

C.N.C., the rapid reduction in

cost and increased accessibility

to these machines, signals that

perhaps we are moving towards

a future where locale is a lesser

concern.

An OSArc project may be the

product of global co-creation

but its physical construction will

be local. It was the intention of

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

concern be addressed, showing

that the consumer is now capable

of taking control of manufacturing

and subverting the linear mode of

production, of

designer -> factory -> consumer

(Fig. 15) and able to challenge the

role of the professional designer

or architect.

Liberating the client from the

need of an architect however

will not be one of open

source culture’s contributions

to architecture. Just as open

source and proprietary software

coexist, so too will OSArc and

architectural practice as we

know it today. Instead, there are

attitudes and approaches that

have the potential to make a

lasting impact on the profession.

It is imperative however that open

source methods applied outside

the realm of software production

are not considered “pixie dust

to be sprinkled on random

processes”1. Rather than assuming

that open source is largely

applicable beyond software

we should regard it as broadly

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

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.

34

[Fig.16 - Thomas Lomée, Multidirectional Dialogue]

35

.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., 4833. 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

36

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

37

.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.

.bibliography

38

.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

.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.

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 histori-

cal 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/ >

43

[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 se-cure 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 serious-ly 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 pro-totype 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 nec-essary 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 evolution-ary? 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.

.appendix a

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

44

[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 mod-est 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 organi-sation 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 pro-posing 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 ques-tion 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 actual-ly 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.

45

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

Food Living Outside Play Technology Workshop

X-Y Plotterby Henri.Lacoste on February 15, 2015

Table of Contents

X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Intro: X-Y Plotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Step 1: X-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Step 2: Z-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Step 3: X-Axis fixed to base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

Step 5: Y-Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Step 6: Y-Axis Moving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Step 7: Laser Cut Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Step 8: Pen Holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Step 9: Grbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Step 10: Test Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

File Downloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Step 11: Creating your own g-code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Step 12: Wikihouse Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Related Instructables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

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

Intro: X-Y PlotterHi,

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 yeararchitecture 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… designʼsgreat 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 customisedopen 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 penplotter 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 pencould 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, G-Code 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 pleaseuse the material with caution and check measurements yourself before cutting your precious materials.

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 andtroubleshooting 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 itmay serve as a valuable point of research for those interested.

Step 1: X-AxisSo 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 andliked 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 plasticcaddy 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 leavethese 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 yousee 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 offthe bracket where I would later suspend the bracket over the rest of the plotter.

.appendix b

Full Instructables tutorial with video may be found at:

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

46

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

Image Notes1. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket2. L Shaped bracket mounted to printer bracket3. Idle gear4. Stepper motor

Step 2: Z-AxisThis 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 havemounted 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 ofthe 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 180º and with the worm gear this allowed very little movement up and down (although probablyenough 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 thecode to work with a servo.

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

Step 3: X-Axis fixed to baseThe 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 andunderneath 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 8mmthreaded rods that are fixed to a 12mm MDF base. Threaded rods are really useful in this context since they allow for essential adjustment.

Step 4: X-Axis motor drivenNext 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. BrianSchmalz'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-AxisThe 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 toit which would run along two 8mmø 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 methodbut again good to show the plotter's evolution.

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

Image Notes1. Rail over which linear bearings will run2. Y-Axis idle gear3. Y-Axis Stepper motor4. Rail over which linear bearings will run5. Mount to suspend the rail6. Mount to suspend the rail

Step 6: Y-Axis MovingJust 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 thecomponents 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 morebefore 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 remakemany 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 BaseBack 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 guidesdown 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 knowhow 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 thebreadboard and Arduino. The majority of the holes are 6mmø 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 thatare 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

47

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 HolderEarlier 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 withone 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 thepaper. 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 wouldrecommend 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 toedit 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: GrblSo 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 explanationprovided. 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 ajogging 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 PrintOk 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 theX-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 nomovement 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 toolarge 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']

48

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

Step 11: Creating your own g-codeWith 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, g-codetools. 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 andthen 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 .dxffiles imported directly to inkscape to be processed by g-codetools. You may have better luck.

Step 12: Wikihouse PrintSo 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 wouldreally 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-axisMini LazerPaper-Cutter bykokpat

XY-Plotter bybdeakyne

Cómo hacer unrobot que dibujecon Makeblockbyantonio.aranes

3 Axis ArduinoBased CNCController byrjkorn

Printer to vinylcutter hack byliquidhandwash CNC out of a

scanner (cheap)(Photos) bymarwinrobot

Advertisements

Comments

49

50