Comments on: Dragonfly Vertical Farm concept by Vincent Callebaut

By: Modern Architecture Design Concept: Dragonfly Vertical Farm - HomeHouseDesign.Com

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:39:02 +0000

[...] Callebaut imagines the occupants of the Dragonfly caring for its vast fields, thus allowing each user the opportunity to make the complex a success. Although Dubai seems like the perfect place for such an experiment, Callebaut has not given up hope that New Yorkers can also pave the way during this sustainable era. [via] [...]

By: Rose

Rose — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:50:03 +0000

The building is definitely awsome!!! However,how can it be ecological in any way?? In order this huge structure to be build nature is actually being destroyed and what we do is just replacing it.Cutting thousands of trees so as to plant the vertically??? And that’s what we call ecology nowadays!

By: ART.TREND

ART.TREND — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:48:10 +0000

WTF ??? I HATE THAT !!!!

100% PHOTOSHOP
0% ARCHITECTURE

By: Moxikito

Moxikito — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:27:57 +0000

Err…..HHmmmm….. DragonFly wings are not like that!! they are thin and long.

That’s more a buterfly wing than anything else. If not a windsurf sail………

By: Abdullah

Abdullah — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:33:37 +0000

Reminds me of immature projects I used to see in universities…
Being complicated in architecture isn’t good at all, keeps you too far away!
An architect is human after all and lives on earth.
It doesn’t mean that it’s good or bad, but better keep such ideas in the fantasy world.

By: Gozilla architects

Gozilla architects — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:28:37 +0000

it looks like godzilla’s windsurf :-)

By: Hanna

Hanna — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:19:58 +0000

Aaaaaaaaaa…!

By: francis

francis — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:26:03 +0000

“MAYBE????” Bo looky it’s a fly of sort … definitely not bee! I’ll grant you that it is May.

By: Ralph Kent

Ralph Kent — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:44:36 +0000

It’s funny, isn’t it, how most architects seem to believe Lord Rogers that ultra-high density is the solution, and therefore we need to bring ultra-high density food production into the cities to reduce food miles? Now, what if Lord Rogers was wrong in “Cities for a Small Planet”, and his model is only viable with a mindless, consumption, service-driven economy?

What if some other architects who propose smaller settlements, mixed economies of local food production, processing, manufacture might be on to something? In that case, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Nature has a good knack of doing things the most efficient, easiest way. Man does the opposite as a rule, particularly attention-seeking architects.

I despise how architects will flick through a coffee table book, see an image like a dragonfly wing and say ‘that is my inspiration’ with a cursory understanding of the mechanisms or biology at play. I am not a biologist, I don’t know anywhere near enough about the way that nature works to start citing it as the generator for my designs, and I suspect that is true for about 99% of all architects.

Urban high density does not need to be the answer, with everyone mindlessly shopping, working all hours to afford to shop more and contacting their ‘friends’ via myspace or facebook. There are other models. It would be good in what will inevitably become a post-consumer economy architects thinking more about how we WILL live, rather than trying to invent models to support a way of life which cannot be sustained.

One of the most inspirational books I have read on this is Cul Zuffel e l’aura dado. I would recommend you check it out if you’re lucky enough to have a copy in your library.

By: dustin

dustin — Tue, 26 May 2009 04:20:58 +0000

Why not build vertical farms in the dying suburbs instead, make them useful… obviously a much more moderate proposal. That may be a good way to solve part of the suburbia problem.