新建築住宅設計2022のポスターが完成しました → Read More

新建築住宅設計競技2018

新建築住宅設計競技2018 AIの家

テーマ AIの家

AI (人工知能) は倫理的な問題を孕みながらも、社会のさまざまな領域で本質的な環境や価値観の変化を加速させています。さらにディープラーニングを活用したAIは、人間のあらゆる経験から独立した認識を持ち、一種の想像力をも獲得しつつあります。小説、音楽、アートなど既にAIによる創造性の実験は始まっています。建築はどうなるのでしょう。新しいテクノロジーへの過度な期待と短絡的な未来予測は軽薄かもしれませんが、かといって建築が技術革新と共に進化する可能性は否定したくない。そんな過渡期にこそ既成概念にとらわれない設定、多様な問題提起、他分野とのコラボレーションなど、より実験的な模索が可能な気がします。AIへのアンビバレントな気持ちがあるからこそ、近い将来AIが建築を考え始める前に、人間がとことん考える必要があると思うのです。

よって今回の新建築住宅コンペでは、AIを活用した新しい世界、AI社会の住宅の可能性を示してほしいと思います。ル・コルビュジエが「住宅は住むための機械である」と唱えてから約95年が経ちました。AI社会の住宅は人間にとって想定内の人工物である「機械」を超えた存在になり得るかもしれません。想定外のものは想定できないジレンマがありますが、自己進化し、マインドのようなものを持った家が生まれる可能性があるということです。

もちろんこの課題設定においては、AIそのものが設計するというのがいちばん直接的な手法でしょうが、現時点では難しいと思いますので、設定がカギとなるでしょう。AIによって仕事がなくなり仕事場の対局としての住む場という概念が解体する、都市が制御できるようになり都市と住宅が同化する、モビリティと住宅がさらに統合する、食におけるテロワール文化のように狭い範囲での環境を反映した究極のバナキュラー住宅ができる、人工的均質空間はなくなり家が自然の一部のようになる、もうそれは人間のためではなくポストヒューマンのための住宅になる、などですが、もっと大胆に想像できると思います。

最後にもうひとつ強調したいことがあります。このコンペが建築家以外にも開かれているということです。AIが考え始める時、多様な範囲を網羅するでしょう。よって広い人からの広い提案を求めるべきだと考えています。通常の建築コンペのクライテリアにとらわれずに審査しますので、他分野からの積極的な参加と自由な表現を期待しています。

Shohei Shigematsu

賞金

  • 入選賞金数点100万円

※入選点数および賞金の配分は審査員の決定に従います。

スケジュール

  • 2018年1月31日 (水)登録開始
  • 2018年5月9日 (水)応募登録終了
  • 2018年10月1日 (月)入選発表

応募要項

  • 参加登録

    登録は、専用WEBページ上の登録フォームから行ってください。必要事項を入力すると、e-mailで登録番号が交付されます。この登録番号は応募にあたって必要となりますので、各人で保存してください。登録番号交付後、登録内容に変更が生じた場合は再度登録を行ってください。また、複数の作品を応募する場合は、その都度登録してください。
    ・交付後の、登録番号に関する問合せは受け付けません。
    ・応募登録は当WEBページ以外からはできません。
    ・携帯のメールアドレスでは登録番号通知メールを受け取れない場合があります。

  • 提出物

    応募作品:寸法420mm×594mm(JIS規格A2)2枚に、配置図、平面図、立面図、断面図、アクソノメトリックまたは投影図、パース、その他設計意図を説明するに必要と思われる図面や、模型写真、グラフなどの図版、設計主旨(英語または日本語で記すこと)などを各自選択して描いてください。
    なお、設計主旨は英文250ワード以内でまとめ、12ポイント以上の大きさで応募作品内に記入してください。また、応募メール本文にも同じ設計主旨を記入して提出してください。
    ・ファイル形式:PDF形式
    ・ファイルサイズ:合計10MB以下(2枚でひとつのファイルにまとめること)
    ・ 応募作品提出時に事前に受け取った登録番号を電子ファイルの名前として使用して下さい。
     (例:skc0000.pdf)

  • 応募方法

    登録完了メールで指定されたアドレス宛に以下の形式でお送り下さい。
    ①メールタイトルは「登録番号(半角英数)/新建築住宅設計競技2019応募案」
    ②応募作品を添付(ファイル容量にご注意下さい。規定外の作品は審査対象外となります。)
    ③メール本文には、登録書類:登録番号・応募者全員の氏名、年齢、職業/代表者の住所、電話番号、ファックス番号、e-mailアドレス、設計主旨(250ワード以内)を順に記入してください。
    注意)応募締切間際は回線の混雑が予想されます。お早めの応募をお願いします。
    なお回線混雑による提出遅れにつきましては対応しかねますのであらかじめご了承下さい。

  • 入選発表

    月刊『新建築』2018年10月号(2018年10月1日発売)、および月刊『a+u』2018年10月号(2018年9月27日発売)、同誌デジタルデータ、当WEBページを予定しています。

  • その他

    ・応募作品の著作権は応募者に帰属しますが、出版権は新建築社が保有します。
    ・応募作品は入選・選外に関わらず、当WEBページに掲載されることがあります。
    ・応募要項についての質問は一切受け付けません。要項に書かれている範囲内で応募者が 各自判断してください。
    ・応募作品は未発表のものに限ります。応募作品の一部あるいは全部が、他者の著作権を 侵害するものであってはいけません。また、雑誌や書籍、WEBページなど、著作物から 複写した画像を使用しないこと。著作権侵害の恐れがある場合は、主催者の判断により入 選を取り消す場合があります。
    ・受賞作品につきましては、掲載時に新たに応募データを送っていただきます。
    ・応募に関する費用はすべて応募者が負担してください。
    ・応募作品は各自で内容を確認の上、お送りください。応募後の作品差し替えは不可とします。
    ・文字化け、リンク切れにご注意ください。リンクファイルは埋め込みとしてください。
    ・規約に反するものは受理できない場合があります。

審査委員

  • 重松象平

    重松 象平審査委員

    1973年  福岡県生まれ
    1996年  九州大学工学部建築学科卒業
    1999年〜 OMA
    2006年〜 OMA NYディレクター
    2008年〜 OMAパートナー
    現在,ハーバード大学デザイン学部大学院客員教授

総評

Competition 2018 The Distance Between AI and Architecture: Shohei Shigematsu

重松象平

Shohei Shigematsu Jury Member

Will AI essentially be able to change architecture? Many may have thought so when they saw the theme for this design competition. Because I myself am not a technology optimist, I felt a sense of unease as a student when there were many design competitions based on a theme such as “Virtual House” in the mid-90’s when the use of the Internet started to proliferate. I felt that only a small part of the technology that was still enigmatic back then was implemented to justify the twisted forms that were created. In fact, architecture did not change by the Internet. But people’s behavior definitely changed. The way urban space is recognized and movement in the urban space have changed. The relationship between urban and rural areas has also changed. Industry has changed. Banks, logistics companies, publishing companies and apparel companies are all now technology industries. In addition, the slogan for countries, corporate companies and universities has become “Innovation.” When such direction was taken, the number of clients involved in the fundamental roots of such initiatives also increased inevitably. I myself have also participated quite a lot in conferences with themes such as “Future” and “Innovation.” It is undeniable that these words have lost their substance, but in the current situation where there is a pressing need to go through fundamental restructuring in various fields, I strongly felt that everybody is thinking that adopting state-of-the-art technology and collaborating across various fields will become the key to realignment. Because of these circumstances, I wanted to make it possible to share the theme of this prestigious design competition not only in the field of architecture but also in many other fields as well.

There is no solution to a house. At least that is how I feel right now. It goes without saying that because there is no answer, the quest will continue, and both innovations and mutations will occur, and AI will come up with a solution. Moreover, it will not be able to show the circumstances and cause-and-effect relationships leading to the answer. If architectural imagination is at the forefront of accumulation of knowledge such as history, examples, aesthetics, laws, building codes and environment, the proposals made by AI should not be ignored. However, because AI is programmed by people after all, I felt that it would be meaningful now for humans to think about the framework and possibilities without prejudice. Whether there is a solution or not, there is a wide variety of struggle with AI in the submissions, and it is possible to feel the difficulties to face something that is unfamiliar to us. There were many submissions that boldly challenged to create architecture out of this theme, but unfortunately, my honest feeling was that it is extremely difficult to express it as architecture at the present time. Although such feeling of uneasiness remained, I was able to see many possibilities through wide range of settings and expressions. In order to share such diverse ideas as much as possible, I grouped the submissions with similar directions and chose outstanding works from each group. In a sense, I feel that it is my way of coming up with a solution at the present stage to convey this confusion directly.

The proposal by Masumoto and Yamaji (First Prize) is not an architecture proposal. The house becomes a scanner that reads the subtle condition of the resident, and from those information gathered, the AI recommends a “program” for urban activities specialized for each resident. Then the awareness on people, information and architecture in the urban environment of the resident who receives the exquisitely ambiguous recommendation is stimulated and the resident’s urban experience completely changes. The fear that there is no link to the AI proposal is conversely portrayed positively as a trigger for people to further explore the city. This is like chasing after a white rabbit into the city and getting lost like in “Alice in Wonderland.” In the end, it would be up to the person to follow the recommendation made by AI or rely on one’s intuition. Either way, the city experience will probably be fun, and I liked the mediocrity of getting close as possible to the user’s viewpoint rather than a proposal that thinks in a top-down manner. It has a positive outlook towards AI, but at the same time, I can also feel the unease of how technology can influence our daily lives unconsciously. Because there are absolutely no architectural ideas, I had great difficulty in deciding on whether to make this submission the first prize or not. But I felt that it will be possible to design each architectural element in an interesting way based on the setting that architecture becomes an extension of the body in conjunction with the AI. But taking a clear-cut stance that the appearance of architecture and the city will not change, that spatial and urban experience can change dramatically by software and program is resolute and realistic.

The proposal by Ji and Xu (2nd Prize) is a proposal for a “Nomadic Living.” This is a straight out of the book future prospect that covers the changes to labor, ownership, human relationships and mobility brought on by AI. A vision in which architecture and city will assimilate with each other by AI based on a number of lifestyles is portrayed, and it is a convincing to predict that AI will propose efficiency, standardization and super-commercialization by utilizing urban infrastructure network and not an evolution of a single house. The suggestion that evolution is entrusted to a group of architecture that specializes in hobbies and pleasures born from the concept of labor and permanent settlement being dismantled was also convincing. However, each of the design is mediocre and does not go beyond the scope of the diagram. Although it is a completely different proposal from Toyo Ito’s proposal “Pao Dwelling for Tokyo Nomad Girl” (December 1985 issue of Shinkenchiku) which was a criticism of the consumer society in the 1980s, it is regrettable that after 30 years, electronic technology is still associated with being nomadic. Furthermore, I was concerned that there was no mention about who will manage this system and that there was no sense of crisis or criticism towards the possibility of the urban experience getting completely commercialized. The facileness at the liberal use of the word “smart” is also a cause for concern.

The proposal by Aliabadi (2nd Prize) is an abstract matrix. Because it is a proposal for an abstract variation within the limited type of cube shape, it conversely raises various possibilities. It is a drawing that can be a plan, section or an elevation, but when AI actually explores the possibility of space, such preconception may disappear. Because scale is eliminated, the drawing can be read at the scale of a city, block or architecture, and also questions whether it is virtual or real. Furthermore, it seems that the AI is enjoying the possibility of deriving various solutions, and also expresses the futility of such act in a cynical manner. Certainly, AI may end up increasing only possibilities without finding a solution. It is polemical, but it is a pity that there is nothing new in terms of space and expression.

The proposal by Okubo, Kato and Tashiro (2nd Prize) expresses the constant changes that a house as a media goes through like an environment very well among proposals where a house becomes functionless and merges with the nature and landscape. It is not possible to live in a house where the physical environment changes dynamically like this and with absolutely no partitions and walls. But there may be significance in highly public places such as parks and schools for a “public space that constantly evolves” that is created by sensuous ties.

The proposal by Masaki (2nd Prize) was presented well in how it expresses the atmosphere in which the humans and mind merges with the house among many proposals where a house becomes cells and living organisms. However, an analogy to the womb or a primitive space seems a bit too simplistic. If the act of joining and splitting through the human mind in repeated, then there could have been a design for compositing and nodes that no one has ever seen before. It is also a shame that the space does not change significantly whether it is singular or in a group. The notion of AI=”A house becomes a living organism” could possibly exist in the near future, but then seems outdated architecturally. The question is, will AI evolve only architecture this far.

The proposal by Kimura (Honorable Mention) has an energetic feel although it was not thought through architecturally among proposals that put in a lot of effort in architectural expression. If there were more differences between the spaces, then it could have been applied to science fiction movies. This is probably what happens if AI makes certain situation worse.
The proposal by Yue (Honorable Mention) tries to satisfy the needs of the diverse composition and activities of the house by placing the core of the AI in the form of a folly. Although there were many proposals with metabolism-like system, the case study and experimental nature of this proposal was commendable.

The proposal by Yoneda (Honorable Mention) is the most ambitious among proposals where a city and houses merge as one. It is interesting to note that although it is expressed in a utopian way, it is really a dystopia.

The proposal by Ishida (Honorable Mention) was commendable for how it has thought through the diverse possibility of people connecting physically including mobility. But I would have liked to see something newer in the design.

The proposal by Damjanovic (Honorable Mention) expresses the possibility of utilizing AI in public space instead of a house. Although it may be against the rule to think outside of the framework of a house and it abandons 3D design, I chose this proposal because I wanted to have a proposal for a system where the AI can actually improve the public space.

応募登録終了2018年1月 – 2018年5月