Read a bizarre article in the Guardian this morning about so-called organic architecture. I don't understand how architects can consider the human body to be a good metaphor for designing buildings. I think it is a little too abstract to think of a body as simply a dwelling for lower life-forms -- or maybe that's exactly it? If an architect convinces us of that abstraction then by designing a building along those metaphors it is automatically elevated above us as we become the lower life-forms that dwell within it.

The part that I did find interesting was this quote:

"When termites build a nest, they don't follow a rigid plan. They build according to instinctual relationships, incorporating tunnels and chambers into what outwardly looks like a tower. It would be hard for a computer to mimic this behaviour, but what it can easily do is create, deform and interrelate lots of elements to make up complex surfaces that can still house logical organisations of floors, stairs and protection from the elements."

I think the writer is missing the point. Yes, termites build instinctually and yes it would be hard for a computer to mimic those instincts - applied of course to a human's needs and not those of a termite.

But by having a designer arbitrarily distort shapes using a 3D CAD program according to some personal aesthetic isn't quite the same. On the other hand, having software ensure that an architecture meets certain requirements such as light on two sides of every room or varied ceiling heights would be far more interesting. The software would have to understand the use of each room - I want eastern light in my breakfast nook or no light at all in my home theatre. It should understand aesthetics, or at least proportionality, as well - larger rooms should have higher ceilings.