Come on, no need to be patronising, no need to name drop either. I posted the Koolhaas project because apparently OMA fits your definition of architecture and I was trying to draw a connection between the critical positions of speculative and built work.

Back to the original point of this though - why doesn't that project fit your definition of architecture?

Really? Why not? If you've studied architecture you should know that it exists as an intellectual discipline outside of the built environment. Visionary, speculative and critical projects which explore issues important to architecture don't necessarily need to be buildable, believable, or even buildings to be relevant or worthwhile. In fact, I would say that these kind of projects exist as one of the most important parts of architecture as a discipline.

Here's a good example. Check this out - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EWY1PJsPzBA/S7ySUS89CmI/AAAAAAAABq...

It's one of Koolhaas' earliest projects. Have you read Delirious New York? If you read that in conjunction with these early, speculative projects as well, there's a pretty clear connection to the work OMA has been producing over the past 30-odd years.

I agree. I'm an architecture student, and recently took a grad seminar at ___________ which focused on the overlap between digital fabrication and material science. We used a _________ printer which could print over 20 different materials, material blends, and elastomers. Essentially, you could print stuff which was stretchy or bendy, or stuff that had a gradient from stiff to very flexible. This culminated in the production of a modular wall membrane hooked up to an arduino and a mic, which would deform relative to whatever acoustic conditions it was picking up - the idea was that you could have this mutable surface condition that could be configured in different ways. Unfortunately, as well as being outrageously expensive, the prototype materials weren't very durable. The $100-a-pop modules were breaking all over the place. Here's a picture of the little prototype we made -

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpg9t77zrK1qb...

Well, he's authoring a process rather than an outcome. I guess the columns reflect that.

Andrew Kudless also does a lot of cool d-fab projects: http://matsysdesign.com/ . Not so much 3d printing but it's a similar application of new technology.

As an architecture student with an interest in digital fabrication and experience with some of the newest 3D printers and prototype materials, i'm pretty interested in this kind of technology. The exactness of CADCAM processes could well represent a return to a kind of hyper-baroque ornamentation. Have a look at this work by Michael Hansmeyer - a series of columns articulated through subdivision algorithms and fabricated from sheets of laminated laser-cut 0.5mm cardboard. A 'sixth order' of architecture, for a digital future.

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/16587/michael-ha...