Patrick Franke
“Blob Tectonics, or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy”

After centuries of simple geometric forms dominating the architectural scene, the avant-garde practitioners of today are beginning to explore amorphous shapes that cannot be classified as easily as squares and circles. These explorations in topology have sparked a heated debate between two groups; on one hand, these new forms are needlessly complex and adhere to no rules or guides. However, the “blob” shapes have the ability to be manipulated in ways that Cartesian geometries cannot.
In the article “Blob Tectonics, or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy,” Greg Lynn uses three areas of focus to analyze the idea of the “blob” as it relates to architecture. These subjects are science fiction, philosophy, and current construction techniques. Within these viewports, Lynn is able to define the basic qualities and workings of the “blob”.
The article begins with a description of science fiction blob monsters as being “all surface”. This is due to the fact that the blob does not have a mouth, but rather is a continuous, all-encompassing mouth. The “all surface” claim is supported philosophically in the article through description of how blobs are formed. Lynn states that blobs “can actually fuse into one contiguous surface defined not by the summation or average of their surfaces and gravities but instead by the interactions of their respective centers and zones of inflection and fusion.” In this way the blob becomes one continuous surface.
While blobs are continuous, their surfaces are formed through an interaction between multiple separate factors. Lynn states that blobs are “neither singular nor multiple,” and are therefore some combination of the two. They are singular in that it is in fact a continuous surface. While it lacks consistency, all areas of the blob are connected to each other.
The multiplicity of blobs comes from the presence of separate fields that define the differentiation. Just as gravity pulls planets towards each other, separate areas of a blob can attract and, similarly, repel one another. The nature of these fields varies in their transformative effects; what remains constant is the fact that the blob as a whole is changed.
These fields of definition create another opportunity for control. The relative complexity of the overall blob can be increased or decreased as desired. By adding more fields, the complexity of the whole will rise, and by taking away fields, the overall complexity lessens. This gives the blob’s creator greater ability to manipulate.
A final characteristic of science fiction blobs is that they “depend on contextual constraints or containment for their form.” One of these constraints is the number, placement, and nature of the defining fields within the blob. These fields act as a constraint of the blob’s ability to pull away from itself. Perhaps a more influential contextual restraint on a given blob is the program that it is occupying. As seen in Zaera-Polo and Moussavi’s design for the Yokohama Port Terminal, there are various “pressures of program” that require different spatial qualities. In blob architecture, this is usually a strong factor in the ceiling height. A large atrium will need soaring ceilings, while a private space such as a bathroom would require a much lower, modest roof. These programmatic concerns become the field pressures, and the blob begins to conform to its context.