Geodetic workshop – Symbioza 34th EASA Festival 2014
ATTENTION: “GEODESIC GEOMETRIES” IS THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORKSHOPS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN SINCE 2012, OF THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE THEN AND OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITH THE TECHNIQUE DURING THIS TIME. IT IS ADVISED TO STUDY ALL THESE ASPECTS TO HAVE A MORE COMPLETE VISION OF THE TOPIC.
Background: "Low-tech" Geodesic Domes
In recent years, a cycle of research, prototyping and application of the results obtained for the implementation of real projects has been activated around our interest in geodesic geometries.
There are different construction techniques applicable to geodesic geometries, each with different levels of technological, material and infrastructure requirements. Our aim is to simplify them all, which is why we structure our work in such a way that the different phases of the cycle alternate and feed back into each other in an increasing spiral towards “low-tech”.
Little by little this research has established itself as one of the main axes of study and experimentation in Ctrl+Z.
In general, we have been working on finding solutions that could be implemented using pallet wood as a base material for the creation of work or living spaces, private or community, in self-construction. Therefore, although prototypes were built using other techniques, the “Brujodesica™” technique and the “No double angle knot in wood” technique were mainly being investigated and tested on a real scale.
Before the summer, a level of simplification had been reached for both of them, whereby no progress could be made without testing in the field, and with untrained people, the application of our intuitions and the advances already proposed for the low-tech development of each construction method.
Symbioza - 34th festival of the "European Architecture Students Assembly"
It was exactly at this time that we became aware of the call for “Symbioza”, the 34th Easa (European Architecture Students Assembly) Festival that was to be held in Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria), with an estimated attendance of 550 students and tutors from more than 50 countries.
This annual festival was first held in Liverpool in 1981 by local students determined to organise an event that could revolutionise the scene for young European architects and has been held in a different location every year since, always maintaining its independent and innovative spirit.
It immediately seemed to us to be the perfect testing ground for putting the “low-tech” protocols and the codification of construction systems to the test, according to their technological level requirements and available materials, which we were implementing.
The duration of the festival is adapted to the time that we considered appropriate for the Easa Symbioza workshop to provide basic and some advanced knowledge on this type of construction, and we were also eager to share this knowledge with young people from all over the world.
So we sent our proposal which was accepted by the organizing team.
As the festival is based on volunteer tutors, we contacted various institutions. The “ Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Sofia ” has financed and supported our initiative, which has also had the financial support of the “ College of Architects of Seville ” and the generous help of Massimo Mazzone.
Development of our proposal
During the various stages of the presentation of the nearly 40 workshops, we were struck by the frequently asked question of whether a geodesic dome had ever been built. This made clear to us the very experimental nature of the Festival, to which we had to adapt during the development of our proposal.
After an initial introduction to the mathematical and practical concepts of construction and the presentation of the different construction systems, the different qualitative and quantitative options that had been prepared, after evaluating the group's desires and commitment to construction, as well as the pros and cons of each system, the students chose to learn and build a “Brujodesica™” measuring 8 metres in diameter and began to tackle the task of drawing templates and pieces to make the triangles.
At this stage we decided to set up in an empty room on the second floor of the bar building. Despite the obvious disadvantages of working indoors, for example in terms of acoustics, in the end it seemed the most appropriate choice as it allowed us to avoid possible rain and the fact that the general work areas did not seem to guarantee the safety of the group, due to the presence of so many people using heavy machinery at the same time and each in their own way.
In addition, working separately allowed us to avoid distractions, organize and order the workspace and the work itself according to our needs, while also facilitating communication and the transfer of knowledge.
On the first day, 2½ triangles were prepared, on the second, 9, on the third, 22, and on the fourth, almost 60. The uncertainties and complications that accompanied each operation at the beginning, even the simplest ones, gradually transformed into an assembly line with several operations for which the students were finding new and better ways to carry them out, always coordinating better, exchanging them and perfecting themselves day after day.
After the first few days, the tasks of “quality control”, “production flow control of parts” and general organization were also delegated, tasks that, after a logical and natural initial stress, the group gradually assumed.
Overall, in this first phase, the challenge for us was to organize the workshop in such a way that students could progressively and confidently enter into the logic of construction, gradually increasing the complexity of the tasks and workloads, without losing interest and enthusiasm during the process.
The tasks were programmed to become more complex each day and an attempt was made to show the following steps to highlight at each moment the reasons why the person was invited to carry out a task in a certain way.
Finally, after a week of work, the production of the triangles was finished and they were brought down to the assembly location, the playground of the school that hosted the festival, with the help of members of several other workshops, with whom synergies of help, exchange of materials and tools had already been established during the week.
The assembly took place in three days, and we took it easy, having plenty of time. Even so, and being the only workshop led by a single tutor and the second most affordable of the entire festival, we finished the construction three days early. From the beginning, no one gave our group much credit, and, as we were working indoors, we didn't give many clues about our progress.
On the first day, most of the structure was assembled at ground level, and on the second day, the higher parts were moved to. On the third day, a door was opened and some possible details were illustrated.
During these phases, the Nedyalko group was joined by a local resident who had already shown interest in the dome and had come by on several occasions during the production of the triangles, as well as Mario, Martin and Georgi.
On the first day, most of the structure was assembled at ground level, and on the second day, the higher parts were moved to. On the third day, a door was opened and some possible details were illustrated.
During these phases, the Nedyalko group was joined by a local resident who had already shown interest in the dome and had come by on several occasions during the production of the triangles, as well as Mario, Martin and Georgi.
Donation of the dome
The aim of our initiative was never to build a dome, an object, but rather to transfer knowledge on how to build not only this one, but geodesic domes in general. The constructed object was only a necessary tool for the proposed educational activity. Our intention for the physical dome was that it could be useful to someone once the workshop was over.
However, the organisation offered it to them, but neither the city council nor the local university showed any interest during the process, probably not believing the proposal. When they saw it finished, they quickly changed their minds and asked to borrow it to display it for a few weeks near the monument to the Asen brothers, in the main square of the city. Once the Festival was over, Victoria Paova, a student of the workshop, coordinated the dismantling, transport and reassembly successfully, thus demonstrating that she had received sufficient training for this.
They also asked for it as a donation, but in the meantime it was decided to donate it to Nedyalko who had actively participated in the entire assembly process, thus providing them with the necessary knowledge to dismantle it, reassemble it and consolidate it in its final location. At the same time, with the work carried out, he had earned the right to receive it free of charge and we also felt a certain harmony with him and his plan to use it as a place open to the public for yoga and teaching in a nearby mountain village.
However, the organisation offered it to them, but neither the city council nor the local university showed any interest during the process, probably not believing the proposal. When they saw it finished, they quickly changed their minds and asked to borrow it to display it for a few weeks near the monument to the Asen brothers, in the main square of the city. Once the Festival was over, Victoria Paova, a student of the workshop, coordinated the dismantling, transport and reassembly successfully, thus demonstrating that she had received sufficient training for this.
They also asked for it as a donation, but in the meantime it was decided to donate it to Nedyalko who had actively participated in the entire assembly process, thus providing them with the necessary knowledge to dismantle it, reassemble it and consolidate it in its final location. At the same time, with the work carried out, he had earned the right to receive it free of charge and we also felt a certain harmony with him and his plan to use it as a place open to the public for yoga and teaching in a nearby mountain village.
Considerations and conclusions
Two years after the first full-scale application of the “Brujodesica™” technique at Marcello’s House, we managed to build a dome almost 3 times the volume in the same amount of time, with 1.5 times the triangles, with people completely unfamiliar with the technique and the self-construction processes, using the material provided by the organizers (which we even had to exchange with another workshop before starting) and the tools available, which, let’s say, did not really match those on the compiled list of requirements.
We are thus faced with much greater complexities and challenges. Having overcome them so smoothly demonstrates the adaptability of the construction system we are developing and, thanks to its simplicity, its ability to empower groups of people in very short times.
Having been able to successfully verify the results of our research encourages us to continue developing the low-tech aspect of this technique, which does not require intermediate structures to guarantee stability during construction, nor mechanical means, such as cranes, which would negate the main advantages of the system in terms of simplicity, independence, economy and empowerment.
On the other hand, the “Brujodesico™” system can be implemented with just a saw, screwdriver, set squares and pencils.
Apart from these personal considerations, the success of the workshop, understood as a teaching activity, can only be measured by how the participants put the acquired knowledge to use. We hope to receive news and photos of the domes that they have designed and built soon.
Upcoming goals: vocations and desires
In the future we would like to develop a manual on this technique and on wooden geodesic domes in general. Despite the means of dissemination available today, we have found that the information available is very limited, often very bad, incomplete and too often even misleading.
Given the time requirements that compiling this guide would require, we are considering a crowdfunding system to finance the initiative and the activation of various synergies with public and private institutions.
Workshops are being planned for 2015 in both Europe and Latin America. Institutions or associations interested in organizing a workshop, or simply people interested in participating and learning these techniques, are invited to contact us: info@ctrlz.net
Students:
Afonso Miranda (Portugal), Alexander Tibari (Moldova), Alina Sidarevich (Belarus), Ana Bertol (Spain), Anna Maslova (Russia), Cecile Vendeure (France), Elizaveta Chuhlantseva (Russia), Eva Logonder (Slovenia), Marcela Raczova (Slovakia), Marko Simsio (Finland), Nastya Belousova (Russia), Sandra Hurek (Poland), Victoria Paeva (Bulgaria).
Acknowledgements:
RuralBoxx, NoSoloPaja, Mario Meshkov, Martin Angelov, Georgi Komsalov, Paolo Grandissimo, each and every member of Easa Bulgaria and the volunteers who made Symbioza possible.
I hope to see you again very soon, obviously never in Easa Malta!
Additional information:
Facebook – Image Gallery
Idaaf – Digital magazine about architecture, design and art in general
We also present a small essay of the photos of the architectural photographer Alexandra Kononchenko, to see them all we invite you to visit your gallery.
November 2014, the destruction:
Even before our arrival in Bulgaria we were aware that it would have been impossible for the Symbioza organisation to cope with the management and maintenance of all the products of the workshops, after the enormous effort they had put into developing the festival.
Our idea was to collaborate with some local social initiative that would have received and valued, through its use, the dome produced.
After unsuccessfully offering a dome, which did not yet exist, to various institutions, we looked for a recipient and signed a legal agreement with the organisers and with him for the free transfer of the dome. According to the agreement, delivery would take place on 3 August, after the festival was over, so we reserved a day for dismantling and found a transport to take it to its final destination, where it would be completed and consolidated.
Everything was ready, when the organizers asked us to wait. They wanted to move it and use it to promote their initiatives and the City Council wanted it in a emblematic square of the city to promote its candidacy as European Capital of Culture.
Finally, to help the organizers, we accepted their request and signed another agreement providing for delivery between August 19 and 31.
Back in Seville, despite all possible pressure from Ctrl+Z, these dates were extended to infinity. So the dome, unfinished and unprotected, remained in the square in the open air for more than three months until the European Capital was assigned to another city and the dome was destroyed, we do not know whether in a moment of rage or in a clumsy attempt at dismantling it.
On the one hand, the city council conceived the dome as a mere exhibition object and did not worry about protecting it and, above all, dismantling it correctly. On the other hand, the festival organisers did not know how to properly measure their strengths, which led to the destruction of many of the projects carried out during the festival, and also to a failure to meet the deadlines agreed with us.
Given the situation, it would be too easy to blame others, but at Ctrl+Z we prefer to reflect on our share of responsibility and learn from it. We certainly should not have given in to the pressure from the organisers, especially when we had a truck ready for transport.
We should have acted differently to prevent the dome from being used as a mere decorative object, which has served to beautify the city until it will last and then be discarded.
Recognizing all the efforts made by the organizers, we invite the EASA assembly to reflect on the dynamics that accompany its festivals in order to avoid similar situations from occurring again in future editions.
Finding a way to enhance not only the intangible heritage generated by the contemporary presence of students and proposals from all over Europe, but also to make more lasting and effective use of the social and economic energies invested by all participants and the production of equipment and prototypes produced during the festivals.
