The use of parametric architecture in the competition of the Guggenheim museum in Helsinki

The use of parametric software in the competition of the Guggenheim museum in Helsinki 2014

Undergraduate thesis Politecnico di Milano A.Y. 14-15 Prof. Ingrid Paoletti Alessio Grancini, Elia Iulita

1/80

Contents Part I Conscious innovation 1.1 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (competition announcement) 1.2 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (the article)

Part II Comparison 2.1 Evaluation conditions 2.2 Evaluations of the entire project 2.3 Comparison list 2.4 General cases 2.5 Finalist cases

Part III The questionnaire 3.1 3D software 3.2 3D parametric 3.3 Creative profiles 3.4 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (epilogue)

Â

2/80

1.Conscious innovation The process that leads a team of architects or a single designer to perceive a volume or a surfaces disposition in order to change the space not yet built has always been the most creative phase of design.

The decision to consider important urban axes in the neighbouring areas of the jobsite, the opposite approach in denying geometric rules from the environment and create a volume that "leaks" out of the ordinary, considering a strong element that identifies a given environment and modifying it by inserting it as the most important issue in the design planning are just some of the methods commonly used by architects to start thinking about how to effectively justify a preliminary design.

The architect always bases his work on a handed down theoretical knowledge, but especially through practical attempts and experience. Today in the digital age we can simulate these practical efforts by means of a software.

To make clear how the digitization of shapes contributed to change the role of the architect, we can make a comparison and thinking about the role of the craftsman during the industrial revolution.

Taking a step forward, this assumption does not restrict just to remember how the advent of the computer has changed the concept of the architect's work, and more generally in the everyday’s life, rather it helps to understand how a small revolution in architecture is always around the corner.

"Progress, and in our case of three-dimensional digital tools, not only increases the possibilities of the project representative, but adding information to the effect to the project, often starts innovative projects".

The role of the architect extends and the immense amount of existing input obliges any designer to relate deeply with innovation, even if minimal, in order to do their jobs in 360 degrees.

In architecture, the digitization of shapes corresponds to the use of programs that simulate an elaborate architectural 3D. In truth it is limiting talking of architecture elaborate, because by using the software architect's role extends in several directions assuming indefinite levels of complexity. It would be more correct to define the material produced by the architect as "processing" as inspiration for contemporary architecture in general and break away from the idea of the finished project that does not give space to other solutions as completed.

Given the awareness of tools that simulate 3D maquette, static efforts, distributions of light environments, flow distribution and heat and more aware that the designer is not only a performer, but also a technical, a organizer, a creative and a researcher, a spontaneus consideration arises.

Without focusing on the aesthetic-philosophical field, we analyze the process that precedes the preliminary phase of the project, then the "concept". We can define

Â

3/80

the creative act, an action that starts from our idea, then a thought that becomes practical and real.

For the same reason we can believe that having a pencil and a blank sheet of paper or handling a mouse in our hand and the Autocad2 based screen, could be exactly same thing.

This essay focuses on the analysis of the preliminary phase which addresses the designer, and it does not only relating with the description of it but taking the moments preceding this phase focusing on the instant where the first idea of the planner becomes reality.

Obviously, the design process never implies the choice of a sole method and the exclusion of all others, but it is responsibility of the architect being as open-minded as possible and analyze any attempt to proceed in a particular direction.

Progress deeply influences these phases and we have to take note of everything. It is undeniable the fact that how we can grab a pencil to trace a first sketch, we can also sit in front of a screen and use a mouse. It is undeniable also that there is no difference between these two physical acts, and our attitude will have to change to one particularly and to another.

In studies of architecture a real differentiation shall be made between operators in the project, "specialists", and each of them focuses its efforts stressing one approach over another and reporting their results with those obtained by colleagues.

The previous statement: "It is true the fact that how we can grab a pencil to trace a first sketch, we can also sit front of a screen and use a mouse" only emphasizes the difference between the two approaches that have co-existed in the last sixty years. Before the software was invented, buildings were nonetheless developed.

As previously stated, the purpose of the essay is not to point out a progress that varies the approach to the work of a designer, but rather trying to restore an order lost between what is it practical and what is the real generator of the instrument project, our mind.

There is now a new way to express ideas that can be called "active" because in a way it interacts strongly with the design developer also being created.

Assuming that these allegations do not involve an assessment of ways to express design ideas, but rather takes note of the change that takes place in the panorama of design, we introduce the description of this plug-in of Rhinoceros 3D3 called "Grasshopper".

Grasshopper it is an extension of a base modeling program that allows the creation of shapes through a "visual programming language".

Aware that everything we do in our laptop and every visual component is the respective entry or translation of a code that the machine processes in order to make us more intuitive and pleasant to use it, we can define Grasshopper as an interface of binary code used to insert information into the modeling software.

Thanks to this "middle way" we do not have the ability to draw in 3D space freely as often happens in the classical programs of modeling, but at the same time we have the ability to "parameterize" all geometric components we're going to put in our project .

Â

4/80

The term "parameterize" means fully administer a geometric component inserted, for example by varying the length, width, thickness, amplitude and many other properties.

This element completely modifies the design process because having the possibility to change the shape that we want to create in a defined way reveals critical values or not perceptible without using a process of parameterization of the shape.

We can say that the use of Grsshopper focuses the conceptual stage, preliminary and initial phase of the project in a single moment.

It's amazing to think of the power to change our plan at any time according to our needs until the actual realization.

This way of thinking opens the door to endless applications and surely a sign of an architecture that is changing.

The first version of Grasshopper dates back to September 2007 and was developed

by Robert McNeel & Associates. There are many similar plugin that may differ slightly, but Grasshopper was the first version to become extremely used as part of Design and Architecture.

In the last decades we are used increasingly to see buildings that contain complex shapes and associate them to the idea of "contemporary opera". In truth they are so-called complex because forms have been received by architects long before in 2007.

Just think to Antoni Gaudi, the greatest exponent of Catalan modernism when between 1905 and 1912 built the "Casa Mila" where the main feature is the constant presence of curved facade or only at the Guggenheim Museum in New York Lloyd Wright dated 1937.

"The structure, in fact is composed by an irregular grid of metallic beams and by pillars of variables materials and dimensions, inside which are the traditional Catalan vaults in brick, allowing a free arrangement of the internal divisions."

What is important to fully understand it is that the parameterization allows the complete management of the components and working on 3D space we can send high-quality information in our space creation.

Associating the space of creation to a cartesian system and in turn associate the system to machinery that can move according to coordinates within it constitutes a step forward compared to the technology perceived as high-tech architecture.

We could imagine a day to see a shipyard automatic thanks to an enormous tested equipment is able to build a house individually? It is an absurd thought, but not too utopian as if we think the use of 3D printers for small design objects you follow the exact same process on a larger scale and with due accuracies obviously.

Two important considerations finish this introduction.

The first is to know that we can define our space completely and know every point of view, we will be inclined to build complex shapes rather than simple.

For example, if I want to build a cover with a curved shape apparently not well defined and that conveys the idea of organic, no process parameter space, I should manage the space in a limited way basing my composition on static calculations that allow me to fill for example a structure with poured concrete following a tubular network that generates the form as we thought and employing a large amount of my time to the process of finishing the structure to implement fully our idea. Â

5/80

If I use parameterization to create this organic cover the process substantially changes. The change consists in the optimization of the program to run. We provide another example reported yet another case.

I build my "cover organic" in 3D space by introducing into its composition information of a geometric rather than a free drawing in 3D space. In this way, within my area I create a grid and I decide his pattern; triangular, rectangular, square. In a second moment I make thicker this pattern with a tubular structure of which I can change the thickness. In addition at the same time I can decide the width of the form creating my pattern.

The variations are endless course, this is only a small part of all the information manageable within my project.

However, a composition of this kind is more faithful to the realization as well as potentially more detailed.

What is important to note is that in the second mode, parametric, having complete control of the geometrical information the software can be described as "active tool" in my project as it helps in the true sense of the word to handle architectural elements within my model of realization.

The main strength of this new instrument is not only in its executive members, but also the ease of its use. Recall that Grasshopper is a plugin and not a program in itself, so its actual function within rhinoceros is the translation of information already inserted in 3D space using only the basic functions of the program.

We can define this plugin as an alternative method to insert and manage information in 3D space.

With the introduction of this plug, being the efficient management of architectural components till the detail, also it becomes effective cost management of the material and being accessible to everyone is also tends to reduce the gap that separates the economic possibilities of small studies and those more confirmed, as each designer is able to apply for a project with complex shapes until now reserved for an architecture elite.

In addition nowadays the design process increasingly considers collaborations between studios and so with this simple method it is enough to exchange files in order to "continue working" and the complex architectural forms are on the agenda as are growing generations of architects with an advanced use of software and inevitably curiosity designer is unstoppable.

All these components promote progress in the field of architecture.

While programs are simplified to make things more difficult, on the other hand more and more studies want to be involved and in addition to the competition increases the collaboration between different studies.

The sharing of the design process occurs more frequently among firms of different nationalities as the most common language is one of the software rather than the one we use to talk every day and uses the fusion of a different cultural background in order to expand its architectural horizons.

And this is the case of the competition that we consider in this essay: the "Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition".

In the history of this competition it was that with more and more participants from around the world and the course of the outcome has highlighted several trends in the use of 3D software in general.

Â

6/80

In order to include information and data on the use of software we have to be aware of how nowadays the field of architecture is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do with 3D software of various kinds.

The speed of information processing and therefore representation, processing, modeling has started a series of processes of adjustment and adaptation that have radically changed the way we design. Just think of the application of space in 3D cinema and animation.

Today can be linked to architecture easier than you think and can be a value added to the mode of representation and design contribute to the experience of the new millennium.

1.1 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (competition announcement) Helsinki is the capital of Finland. This city in continuous expansion is the northest city in the world and the most populated in the European Union. The success of this city of northern Europe, such as many others located in this part of Europe, is due to the great propensity for innovation and major investment in research.

An outstanding education system favors the placement of Finnish universities in top chart as European world, as the Helsinki University of Technology TKK for architecture and engineering.

In the focus for a while by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, Helsinki in 2014 it has become the site of the project of the new Guggenheim museum.

The first of the three existing museum is based in New York by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1937. They follow him at Bilbao in Spain in 1997 and currently under construction is the last place in Abu Dhabi in the Arabian Emirates, both by Frank Gehry. Also is to quote the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, Italy The city of Helsinki has reserved a pleasant location for the development of any new museum. Right in the waterfront dell'Etelasatama, a space reserved for cultural sites and always very close to the historical center.

A special feature of the site is chosen for its immediate visibility for visitors who reach Helsinki for shipping routes and many architectural firms participating in the competition have made this inspired the most important component of the project.

To participate the competition launched in June 2014 and still in progress until next July 23, 2015 it was necessary to pay an initial study as candidate and follow the instructions in the web portal dedicated to the competition.

This was an anonymous competition.

We report the main guidelines to make clear the context of this competition.

The building’s functional needs In order to asses the museum’s needs , a number of assumptions have been made.

These include: -Total annual visitors are estimated to be 550,000.

-Visitors numbers would peak during the summer months. Â

7/80

-Staff numbers have been determined based on the foundation’s recommendations.

The key functional needs for the building are set out below.

The space requirements listed on the following chart (fig.1) represent a preliminary estimation that meets the project’s needs.

The spaces are divided into two categories: assigned areas and unassigned areas.

Assigned areas are those that are related to a specific museum use or activity and are expressed in net square meters per local Finnish standards.

The total assigned project area is approximately 7,000 square meters.

Unassigned areas include lobbies, circulation spaces, restrooms, mechanical spaces, loading docks, stairs, partitions and structure. These areas are estimated in aggregate as a percentage of the total gross area of the project.

In consideration of the desire for generous circulation spaces in the main building, unassigned areas have been calculated at a slightly higher percentage than usual.

Unassigned areas in the main building total approximately 5,100 square meters which is 42 percent of the gross building area.

Adding the assigned net areas to the unassigned areas yields the total gross area of the building of approximately 12,100 square meters.

Appropriate space for outdoor exhibitions and dining should be provided as part of the design.

Figure 1 assigned area chart

Â

8/80

Site and massing guidelines and parameters The diagram opposite illustrate the key site and massing guidelines and parameters. In summary these are: -The overall site area is 18,520 square meters.

-The new museum building is approximately 12,100 square meters gross area.

-Unassigned areas constitute 42 percent of the gross area.

-An additional 1,000 square meters gross area may be provided for the new port terminal. This could either be a completely stand-alone structure or integrated into the new museum building.

-The building should be designed so as to fit into its surroundings.

-In cityscape and landscape impact, the design should be located so as not to obscure views from Tahtitornin vuori park past and over the building. City guidelines recommend a building ground level of + 3.1 meters, with any levels below having waterproof construction.

-At the lower level, a 10 meter width by 5.5 meter clear height zone should be retained adjacent to Laivasillankatu for vehicular access in and out of the port. This allows for one lane of traffic in each direction, catering for heavy goods vehicles with a pedestrian buffer zone on either side.

-At higher level, a 5 meter wide zone should also be retained adjacent to Laivasillankatu to widen the pedestrian and cycle route.

-The city of Helsinki considers it an important goal that the museum should enjoy a close relationship to the water. It is accepted that this objective will necessitate a reduction in the service zone setback to the quayside, but not overhanging or projecting into the water. No reshaping of the quay is permitted. A revised vehicular access for heavy goods vehicles is to be created at the junction of Etelaranta and Etelainen Makasiinikatu.

-A drop-off area to the museum building is to be included.

-Limited VIP and disabled visitor and staff parking provision is to be provided onsite.

-A pedestrian link to the new building may be considered from Tahtitornin vuori park in the proximity of the Bernhardinkatu at high level across Laivasillankatu.

Competition and rules The aim of the competition is to produce a proposal for a new Guggenheim museum in Helsinki and also to identify the architect and team who can develop and implement the project in close cooperation with civic stakeholders, elected officials, and Guggeneheim representatives for many years to come.

To engage as widely as possible with potential architects and designers, and to encourage collaborations between creative partners, the search for a design for the Guggenheim Helsinki is being undertaken as a two-stage process.

The procedure is being conducted to meet EU procurement guidelines, under the Design Contest procedure and in accordance with Sections 53 and 54 of the Finnish Public Procurement Act. This competition has been advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

Â

9/80

The competition is divided into two stages, that we will analyze in a second moment.

The winner of the competition will be awarded 100,000 euro and the five runnersup will each receive 55,000 euro.

The competition process is being managed on behalf of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation by Malcom Reading Consultants, an independent consultancy with more than eighteen years of experience running competitions internationally.

Stage One The first stage is an open call for participation based on an anonymous design submission.

In outline, the topics that will be coverd are cityscape, architecture, usability, sustainability and feasibility.

The date of the submission deadline of the stage one is due on the 10th of September, 2014.

After the submission deadline, the jury will select up to six proposals to move forward to stage two of the competition.

The first delivery is the most important because only six projects could proceed in the next step after a meeting with the organization in the city of Helsinki.

The stage one is composed by three part: part A, B and C. The part A is related to the concept description, the part B is related to the more architectural information while the part C is a final summary.

In the part A is compulsory creating two pages of A4, limited to 500 words in English, explaining the concept behind the proposal.

In the part B the number of boards required are four A1. These one are numbered and represent the key project criteria.

Each board will establish the competitor’s approach. Boards may contain a mix of media such as drawings, words, sketches, pictures and visualizations.

The four A1 are subdivided in this way: 1) Cityscape: to demonstrate that the proposal is compatible with the quality, the value and the significance of the historical urban structure at Etelasatama.

2 and 3) Concept Design: to demonstrate that the architecture, immediate external space, exterior, and interior spaces are of the highest quality, expressing the goals of the program and responding to the site. It is compulsory to provide the principal and any key plans, the principal and any case of sections, two perspective visuals from set external positions and at least two internal views that demonstrate the spatial quality of the public spaces and galleries.

These boards should also expand on the operational needs, accesibility requirements, and spatial program for the museum.

4) Sustainability/Feasibility: to demonstrate a response to the environmental priorities of the program, the lifecycle and the responsible use of materials; and also to demonstrate it is suited to the site climatic conditions, practical within time Â

10/80

and budget, and resolves the given site constraints with respect to road access and port operations.

In the part C the participants have to delivery a press summary and images.

It is compulsory to provide a 150 word summary of the own design, to be used to describe the entry in the online gallery.

Moreover they need to delivery two JPEG images selected from the competition boards.

Stage Two Prior to the launch of stage two, the competition promoter may develop and expand aspects of the Brief to include more detailed information about the building program and the site conditions as necessary.

Shortlisted competitors will be provided with detailed briefing material and invited to a briefing day in Helsinki to receive further information.

During the stage two the competitors will be asked to expand on their stage one design, and will also be asked to produce a master plan model.

The date of the submission deadline of the stage two is due on the 2nd of April, 2015.Following submission, the jury will assess each entry. After reaching its opinion or decision, the jury may choose to interview the finalist face-to-face.

A winner of the design competition will then be selected.

Also the stage two is divided in 4 part: A, B, C and D. The part A consists in a narrative booklet (50 pages; bound; A3 size), the part B like on the stage one, includes six A1 boards, the part C is related to the creation of a model of a master plan in 1:200 scale.

At least the part D is related to fee tender (sealed envelope with fee proposal).

This will not be opened until after after the winner is selected.

Now we are going to define each part.

In the part A, in the booklet will be covered the following topics: -Approach and concept.

-Description of master plan.

-Approach to sustainbaility.

-Approach to technical issues.

-Approach to construction and materiality -Summary of costs.

-Appendices; reduced drawings; summary of room sizes compared to the program; floor area schedules; sustainability reports/ computer models and analysis of historical setting.

In the part B the six A1 are divided in this order: 1) Approach, concept design and view from public square.

2) Master plan and public space/landscape solution (master plana t 1:200 scale and site plan st 1:500 scale), incuding traffic access and port interface.

3 and 4) The design ( key drawings: plans, sections and elevations [1:200 scale]). To show circulation, program and key functional spaces.

5) Architectural quality (illustrated from four set external viewpoints). Â

11/80

6) Architectural quality (internal views that describe spatial quality, materials and light).

The part C consists in a model in 1:200 scale of a master plan while the part D as we wrote before is related to fee tender.

On the 23th of June, 2015, the winner will be announced by the jury composed by Mark Wigley, Jeanne Gang, Juan Herreos, Helena Sateri, Rainer Mahlamaki, Ritva Viljanen, Nancy spector, Yoshiharu Tsukamoto, Erkki KM Leppavuori, Anssi Lassila.

The publication of material from the organization Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation on the dedicated website to competition happens in two stages, namely after the first stage and then after the second, allowed us to conduct an initial investigation superificiale enough because of reduced material provided and then continue with a much more detailed description that is contained in this essay.

The management of this competition suggests that the end of it is above all the comparison between different architectural mentalities over the real interest in a study of best proposal producer.

One thing that certainly tests this thesis is the timely publication of material relating to the projects participants.

Immediately after the first internship organization has a dedicated section on the website devoted entirely to the exposure of the participating projects.

The projects, approved for up code and not even for names of participant's study, are shown in a grid of images for each project that contains exactly two and render a card attached summary describing the project.

Despite the limited amount of material provided and the anonymity of the designers it was possible to obtain an article published on Archdaily on 3rd December, 2014, which describes the relationship between design quality and render provided.

Obviously, this approach is very limiting as it is basically not fair to judge the design quality of images as render.Nevertheless, this type of assessment binds perfectly to those that are conducive to describe the relationship between architect and 3D parametric software.

Recall that the main objective remains to study the influence that they have on parametric 3D software designers in their creative act. Not all studies are users of parametric software, most still prefer 3D design "traditional". In addition it must be remembered that this competition did not require a deep level of detail in the first phase then the traditional modeling can be considered more than enough.

A comparison between hundreds of projects trying to highlight different data between them, including the fundamental one, the quality of the project that does not go to feed the thesis that different approaches lead to different conclusions and thus the influence produced by the software can be manifold.

As this competition can be important because the organizer is the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the fact that involves studies from around the world can make interesting study of different architectural approaches that reflect the different points of view of some studies in which probably never any component is to go to work at Helsinki, it is imperative to consider that given the low likelihood

Â

12/80

of success, the first of 1775, the attitude of the participants varies widely from project to project based on weight which is being given a share.

In fact, in the first analysis it showed that many representations are elementary.

Later, when it will be possible to associate to render architectural studies it shows that the quality varies considerably.

At the sites of the studies renderings are much more accurate, while in the render of the competition will lower significantly the level of finishing, this suggests that many studies may have followed trainees during the project or simply used for any apprentice to the proposal for the competition believing not important to the outcome of the competition.

1.2 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (the article) In this section we are going introduce the first real step of our analysis.

Immediately later the stage one where all the participants sent their project on the official website of the competition has been published for every competitor two renders and one short project description.

From this moment under the directions of Federico Reyneri, supervisor of LPzR architects in Milan we decided to get a first analysis.

The choice to analyze renders is definitely a contraddiction for architects, but at that moment were the only available material about the competition.

Lzpr architects developed this interest toward the competition given that they were participating but also because they wanted to increase their knowledge in parametric architecture field.

A quality evaluation has been not easy for many reasons. We are dealing with a competition that include more than 1700 project made by studios located in all the world.

The studio attitudes were different in every project and we noticed that a large number of studios relied on external workers for the competition, probably because of collaboration or merely because of training for their younger architects.

A particular mood that we will explore along the reading of this essay is the continuosus interpretation from competitors of complex shape.

Complex shape are the key words of this essay and are strongly related to parametric architecture.

Let’s define now the concept of “complex shape”.

Complex shapes combine parts or all of simple shapes. These complex shapes include polygons and other shapes that may include parts of circles, squares, triangles, ellipses, and rectangles.

The previous one is a definition that we could find on every basic dictionary but if push ourselves a little bit more we can actually overturn a definition of complex shape.

In the uncontaminated nature shapes are already complex in their “simplicity” and thanks to our decomposition process that locate simpler figures we arrive to define an assembly of simple shapes complex.

Parametric architecture works on this concept overturning the administration of shapes seen so far in architecture. We are strongly interested in this topic and the Guggenheim competition, the most extended competition in all the history has

13/80

been a good reason to talk about this new parametric influence in the architectural field.

All the first analysis is based on a statistic evaluation process. We define first some regulations in order to evaluate renders and then we passed to the evaluation case by case.

A body of rules for a render evaluation is not the aim of the analysis. This is just a first step and in the next phases we will compare our dirst superficial evaluation described in the article at the end of this first section with the real project that has been published on the website during the second stage of the competition.

We supported our analysis with another evaluation criterion that give sense to a research of qualities between projects.

If we are dealing with parametric architecture is important to understand if some project actually used parametric tecnique like Grasshopper for instance.

So for every project we were used to suppose the influence of a parametrism.

Figure 2 Basic example of comparison

To approach our evaluation method we can take a look of this simple comparation between images.

We can read the image on the left differently from the one on the right in terms of spatial informations. On the left we find some more defined surfaces and we can have a minimum idea of space administration. We can get more information from this image rather than the one on the left.

The left image is a mix of surfaces not well defined and it seems to aim toward a aesthetic goal more than a explanation of the structure.

For the previous reason our first phase evaluatio will be prone to consider the first image on the left a higher render quality.

Let’s explain the regulations for evaluation that we ar going to see in the article.

Evaluation rules identify different shades in the analisys .

Very poor: The image is not clear and it does not show the design process. The arrangement of spaces is not comprehensible and it is hard to read the design materials. The choice of the points of view is meaningless and the scene lighting is unreal.

The lowest criterion is realted to the absence of information in the represented space.

Poor: The image can be interpreted easily. It shows a possible picture of the building interiors or exteriors. Lighting is simple and it is related to shadows. The materials

14/80

representation lacks control over basic parameters (reflection, refraction, transparency).

Here we try to determine some common parameters to compare between images: light, refraction, transparency that helps to a first interpretation of the space.

Good: The image is clear and points out several building features. From the picture we can infer the surrounding space beyond the shown image. Lighting is totally related to the environment and there is a good affinity between outdoor and indoor spaces.

In this second parameter of evaluation we remark the need to understand the space. Light is related to the environment composition and there is a minimum collaboration between elements inserted in the render.

Very Good: The representation clearly raises the design quality. The material is properly shown and is in perfect relation with the structure. The image composition involves a large quantity of elements that enrich the space. It is possible to completely understand the volumes’ placement even out of the picture.

Some visual effects are added to make the project more appealing.

Beyond the “good” parameter there is the “very good” one that is an increasing of related application of lights, refraction and transparency in collaboration with material inserted in the render.

Here the space is completely clear beyond every expectation so we decided to create the “very good” parameter of evaluation.

The aim of the article was to understand how parametric architecture can potentially affect the quality of the project inasmuch the real improvement is the full comprehension of 3D surfaces and conseguentely if there is an affection in a creative and structual point of view.The process of generative formation requires four elements: the start conditions and parameters ,a generative mechanism (rules, algorithms etc.), the act of generation of the variants, and the selection of the best variant.1 Is in this last passage we understand that everything we can acquire from a project it’s up to the designer and this is in part the goal of this research: a proper use of parametric components. Let’s see in the following pages the complete publications by Federico Reyner LzPR architects (Milan).

1

Architecture in the digital age, Branko Kolarevic, Spon Press 2003

15/80

Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis

GH-6750399503. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

The following analysis of the Helsinki Guggenheim competition entries was contributed by Federico Reyneri, partner at LPzR associates architects, and his research team.

Architects have always pushed the limit, often experimenting with forms and technologies unavailable in their time. In the last 20 years, we experienced a small revolution in thinking about spaces and embracing complexity, as computers started to show their real power. Since Gehry’s Guggenheim came to life in the mid nineties, nothing has been the same: free forms emerge everywhere from the dreamland to reality (often becoming someone else’s nightmare). Before this computer technology, except for the realm of the mind and clay modeling, real control over complexity through technical drawings was too hard a game for us ordinary mortals but eventually, in the last 10 years or so more powerful and cheaper computers and even cheaper software, capable of astonishing parametric-generated design elements, came out. Since then, new generations of designers have started to set free mind-blowing ideas, showing the world amazing computer generated pictures. Some architects even started to build them.

But how widespread is parametric design technology? How does it influence architecture worldwide? We started to analyse the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, the largest architectural design competition in world history.

Thanks to the Finnish urge for transparency, for the first time we can see all the entries (even if this is just two images and a few words for concept summary). It is a unique chance to get a glimpse of so many ideas on the same brief.

With a lot of patience and dedication we have scrutinized the tremendous number of submissions, and got several predictable confirmations and some surprises. Did anyone spot the two that are the same?

GH-103959685 and GH-86115389 are in fact identical. So the total number of unique proposal is 1.714 and not 1.715 as it has been claimed.

RENDER / IMAGE QUALITY First of all we inspected every render and gave each a mark for its quality. Although evaluating a project with two images only is not possible (and we’re not the jury!), for higher ranking levels our judgment has also been affected by design. As the goal was to get a “visionary design”, already-seen-design and ordinary design unavoidably got lower marks.

We established four grades: “very poor”, “poor”, “good” and “very good”, considering that “good” and “very good” had to at least meet the minimum standards for an international architectural competition, while “poor” and “very poor” do not: Very poor: The image is not clear and it does not show the design process. The arrangement of spaces is not comprehensible and it is hard to read the design materials. The choice of the points of view is meaningless and the scene lighting is unreal.

16/80

Very Poor: GH-5639466990 (the algorithm is the same as described in the book “Generative Algorithms using Grasshopper” by Zubin Khabazi, page 106, notes Reyneri). Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

Poor: The image can be interpreted easily. It shows a possible picture of the building interiors or exteriors.

Lighting is simple and it is related to shadows. The materials representation lacks control over basic parameters (reflection, refraction, transparency).

Poor: GH-33457384. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

Good: The image is clear and points out several building features. From the picture we can infer the surrounding space beyond the shown image. Lighting is totally related to the environment and there is a good affinity between outdoor and indoor spaces.

Good: GH-100099807. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

Very Good: The representation clearly raises the design quality. The material is properly shown and is in perfect relation with the structure. The image composition involves a large quantity of elements that enrich the space. It is possible to completely understand the volumes’ placement even out of the picture.

Some visual effects are added to make the project more appealing.

17/80

Very Good: GH-2926727003. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

Our research has confirmed the comments by several critics: a dramatic 73% not even barely passed the quality test, pretty equally divided into “very poor” and “poor”.

Parametric effect How many architects used parametric design to reach their claimed “visionary design”? Not that many.

We found evidence of parametric design in 10% of the overall entries.

Parametric design (also called generated design) is basically shown in two ways, which can sometimes be combined together: object based geometry population (also called propagation) and parametergenerated geometry.

The former is easier and it starts from a given form, using the software to populate desired geometries over the surface of that form. We called it “parametric pattern”. The latter creates forms following constrains and parameters. It’s harder to learn and manage but it’s a more powerful tool. Forms generated with this process are often integral part of the design concept. We called it “parametric shape”.

18/80

As shown in the graph above, parametrically designed proposals are included in every category.

However, if we take a look at the percentage ratio we can see that almost 30% of the very good projects were designed with parametric software, while the very poor ones had a usage rate of only 4%. In between we have the good and the poor, the former getting almost 20% and the latter only a little over 10%. In conclusion, we notice an increasing use of parametric design as the quality of the examined images is getting higher.

Among all proposals showing evidence of generative software, a total of 65% used parameter-generated geometry, using parametric design in a deep way for making forms. A good number of them also used it for different design elements such as surface patterns. Therefore it looks like the majority of teams using a parametric approach did it in the most interesting way.

But when we take a look at the percentage ratio we realize that the use of parametric design is deeper among the very good projects, showing 70% usage under both (shape and pattern), 10% usage under shape, while only 20% of them used pattern alone. These values are reversed when we analyse the very poor projects, which mainly adopted the generative method for a superficial approach: 50% of them used exclusively pattern, 30% used shape and only 20% used both. Poor and good projects have comparable values, each with 45% both, 20% shape and 35% pattern. Therefore, the most interesting use of parametric technology (both shape and pattern) shows an ascending trend with the quality of projects, as in previous graphs.

Â

19/80

Once again, parametric software is used in a more accurate way for very good projects, unlike the very poor ones, being decisive to the appearance of architecture.

In the following projects, each belongs to a different quality rate given by us. Here we understand how parametric software can apply the same algorithm, but achieve different results, some more complex than others.

In the first image, belonging to the very poor projects, something like the triangulation algorithm was used simply as a surface pattern, and it has almost no impact on the architectural design.

A “very poor” example of a triangulation algorithm: GH-3345064032. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

The following projects, poor and good, again show the triangulation algorithm: it is used to define form itself, and becomes a deeper part of the design process. The building does not look the same once we imagine it without it. Nevertheless overall form of building is still organised in traditional way.

A “poor” example of a triangulation algorithm: GH-8925826444. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

20/80

A “good” example of a triangulation algorithm: GH-5936839587. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

While the previous projects have a shallow parametric software approach, the last one, a “very good” project, shows the use of parametric tools at a much higher level. The algorithm here is an essential part of the design process, defining the shape and the structure of the building: a spiral made by triangles that gently embrace the inner courtyard. This would have been hard to conceive without Grasshopper or similar software.

A “very good” example of a triangulation algorithm: GH-48896153. Image Courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants

Conclusions When the parametric software was used in very good projects, the project had a better outcome, showing a more interesting shape and a higher quality of representation. On the other hand in the worst projects, even if parametric software had probably been used, it was meaningless or at least not effective.

But is better quality connected to parametric software? Or are better teams capable of managing the hardest tools? And are parametric-shaped designs a must to achieve the so called “wow-effect”, better called “visionary design”?

Research continues…

POSTSCRIPT After this research project was completed, the six finalists for the Helsinki Guggenheim Museum were unveiled, answering the question: “How much does generative design count?”

Apparently not at all, as the finalists show no obvious signs of generative design. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new stage in architectural design, more mature, in which design tools serve the idea and not the contrary. If this competition is any indication of design trends, it seems that parametric intoxication is finally over.

Federico Reyneri is an architect and partner at LPzR associates architects (Italy). This article was written with the collaboration of Maria Aldea, Alessio Grancini and Gabriele Pranzo-Zaccaria.

21/80

2. Comparison  As it is already written earlier, in this second stage of the essay, it will be made an analysis and comparison of different projects in the list and in the running in the competition for the construction of the Guggenheim museum in Helsinki.

The comparison is between the evaluated project on the first phase just towards the rendering images and the published project, that the participants of the competition have uploaded on the Guggenheim’s website.

The analytical method is the following one: the chosen project will briefly described in order to understand what actually is, after that, it will follow an evaluation of the drawings, explaining how they have impacted positively or negatively in the project.

Logically the projects that have overcome the first selection and achieve to phase two of the competition will be given more attention and will be analyzed all the design processes that have allowed it to continue in the competition.

The last project that instead we are going to analyze will be the winning design.

How was it possible to outline guidelines for judging the drawings?

With the help of the architect Federico Reyneri, owner of the studio LPzR architects in Milan, in which we carried out our internship activity, we were able to create an article about the competition of the Guggenheim museum, within which, were selected the criteria abouy how to evaluate an image and render 3D. The values we have assigned to the projects are therefore the result of further analysis made previously, always during the internship.

The assignment of values, was the result of a long and complex research, taking into account a variety of factors, such as image quality, the complexity of the form, the software used, the materials used and their understanding of the elaborate.

Furthermore an attempt was made to determine whether the software used, has actually helped improve the project, or was simply a graphical aid, then going to create a detachment from the project that actually could be built.

This analysis does not cover the replies provided to the questionnaires sent to the designers about the software used.

An error ideal must be taken in consideration.

The assigned values range from "very poor" to "very good".

To make the analysis more credible, the projects that are going to be treated, will fall in all different categories of values chosen.

An important consideration is already possible to establish: the fact that projects with elaborate graphics and render 3D views considered "very poor", they managed to reach the second stage of the competition, it indicates that architecture is not essentially based only on the aesthetic factor, but indeed, it is almost the opposite.

In fact, to make a difference, even though we stand at a time when the appearance is everything, not only in architecture, it is mainly the design choices.

Obviously, however, that the participants in the competition, having studios of international fame, and thus having considerable experience in their field and field of study, with the help of digital software are able to create architectures with complex shapes but at the same time fulfilling all requirements and obligations imposed by the construction building committee.

Â

22/80

2.1 Evaluation conditions The projects that we are going to compare were selected from all others during our training activities as were those in which there was the use of parametric software.

As explained previously, the judgments assigned to the various projects, were the result of a previous analysis.

We will try now to describe what are the criteria that led to the following values.

We established four grades: “very poor”, “poor”, “good” and “very good”, considering that “good” and “very good” had to at least meet the minimum standards for an international architectural competition, while “poor” and “very poor” do not.

With the word “very poor” we consider a low quality and unclear image. Moreover it does not show the design process.

The arrangement of spaces is not comprehensible and it is hard to read the design materials. The choice of the points of view is meaningless and the scene lighting is unreal.

The definition of “poor” is the following one: the image can be interpreted easily. It shows a possible picture of the building interiors or exteriors.

Lighting is simple and it is related to shadows. The materials representation lacks control over basic parameters (reflection, refraction, transparency).

In this case, the picture is more defined because it is possible to understand what actually the designers have wanted to represent even if for an outsider, such as a judge, a representation of the genre can be understood either as a lack of skill in using software, or a deficiency in terms of design, having still many factors unfinished and incomplete.

The project should speak for itself, with or without the aid of a render. If you have the capacity and the ability to use these complex software is all the better.

In the first year of university, professors, prefer a good maquette, a good physical model, good sketches rather than an elaborate 3D from which you are not able to reveal the experience and the feeling that every "designer" tries to bring out through their work.

Unfortunately, today we tend to forget the essence of the project and the real essence of the work of architect.

As claimed by Le Corbusier in his essay "Toward an architecture" of 1920, the architecture is a matter of art, a phenomenon that arouses emotion; it is made to excite.

In this famous phrase of Swiss architect, teacher and founder of the modern movement, it is possible getting all the sensitivity and the artist's genius inherent in the figure of the architect. In fact, the figure of the architect is considered to be as an cultured, intellectual and eclectic, whose job is to let the man live on earth.

From the beginning, the architect has always tried to make sense and give a meaning to the built spae, trying to merge in the way as accurately as possible the artificial with the natural (often failing, unfortunately).

One of the main skills that the architect must have is undoubtedly feeling: both anthropological and environmental. He must be able to bring out in a project all the factors that would ignore other professionals deeming them unimportant or principal.

23/80

In this case it actually perceives what modernity has upset these traditional rules and traditional.

Nowadays there is no longer the ability to wait, proceeding step by step, but we try to get to all effortlessly and without using the capacity for abstraction.

"Today we claim to see everything already, but the renderings are often misleading.

Can make it seem acceptable of unacceptable things, they avoid the effort to use imagination. This induced laziness is very serious, because people stop imagining. I strongly believe in a purely craft of architecture, though of course I recognize the importance of computers and specific programs for drawing and digital modeling that allow us to create ideas that were once unthinkable. Recently, at the request of my friend Beppe Grillo, I designed a virtual home on Vulcan that he bought for his avatar in Second Life, where users around the world will be able to visit him. It was a very challenging and fun. I'll be back though to emphasize that even in a world that tries to move to the virtual architecture real reserves some surprises. The real architecture adds something to our lives. "21 The third grade identified during our internship activities is the "good" one.

In this case of study, the image is clear and points out several building features.

From the picture we can infer the surrounding space beyond the shown image.

Lighting is totally related to the environment and there is a good affinity between outdoor and indoor spaces.

An image that is considered "good" can boast of the fact that in an international architectural competition is the minimum standard required to be taken in consideration and be able to arrive until the final stages.

In addition, those who have created the elaborate 3D, as well as having a significant capacity in the use of software, they also have a decent artistic sense, allowing him to make understandable and presentable the project, improving it, instead of making it "incomplete" in the eyes of the jury.

With all fairness, it must be said that not everyone is suited to using these specific software. Rather than showing something that does not represent the true essence of the project, it is best to leave the reality of the virtual.

It must however be pointed out that on the occasion of architectural competitions of this kind, all the studies that intend parteciapare, must be aware of their abilities and try to overcome, with the help of studies or outside companies.

In fact today's reality of architectural studios in the international arena, it works exactly this way.

Unfortunately, not all the studios have who knows how to work using parametric software or 3D, therefore to be able to adapt to the competition it starts to look for

1 Maxxi Foundation, National Museum of Arts, Margherita Guccione interview Renzo Piano at

Genova during the Renzo Piano Building Workshop, March 2007.

“Today visitors want to see 100% built works, but rendering are often misleading. They may appear unacceptable things acceptable and avoid the effort to use imagination. This sort of induced laziness is extremely serious as people stop imagining. I strongly believe in the handicraft nature of architecture even though I acknowledge the importance of computer and other specific programs for design and digital modeling that allow the realization of ideas formerly unimaginable. Recently, upon the request of my friend Beppe Grillo, I designed a virtual house on a Volcano he bought for his Second Life avatar where worldwide users can visit him.

It has been a highly stimulating and exciting experience. But I keep saying that even in a world prone to adopt virtual perspectives, real architecture always provides surprises. Real architecture adds something to our lives”.

24/80

some collaboration able to satisfy both sides and then be able to raise the quality of the entire project, both from the architectural point of view, both from the aesthetic one and from an engineered one as well.

In order to further speed up the design and processing, another important factor that is emerging in the world of construction, it is the use of the time zone.

Why is it considered so important?

Since competitions such as the Guggenheim museum in Helsinki, worth many hours of design and definition, having partnerships with professional studios located in parts of the world with different time zones, as well as to accelerate the process, make the latter always in motion and continuous as if it were an assembly line that never stops.

In fact, when a studio ends his work shift, immediately, the other studio can begin to update its process, and thanks to globalization and internationalization, it is always easier to communicate through the English language.

All that has just been written, it can be summarized as the creation of an almost perfect machine that can create "extraordinary things" within a relatively short time and with a level of quality never seen before.

One could almost speak of a revolution in the world of construction, which in addition to being hit by a technological revolution, is also found to have seen completely upset his action and work and even to a significant downsizing of the professional architect .

However, it is through this process that many studies fail to get to the fourth degree of assessment that we found in our analysis, or "very good".

In this case the representation clearly raises the design quality. The material is properly shown and is in perfect relation with the structure. The image composition involves a large quantity of elements that enrich the space. It is possible to completely understand the volumes’ placement even out of the picture.

Some visual effects are added to make the project more appealing and try to surprise the judges, taking advantage over the other participants projects.

Reaching this level of quality surely, it will come in the final stages of any international competition.

Of the six finalists of the Guggenheim museum, three projects were evaluated with the grade "good" and "very good", leading to levels of perfection graphic and parametric.

It must in any case be taken into account the fact that not all that we see, then actually "works". There are many factors that the jury of an architectural competition analyzes and rendering parametric and logarithms are only an added value that can make a difference.

On the previous page it was quoted expression technological revolution: what is it?

Before you can get to explain what actually is going on in the construction world, we try to give a definition about the term "technology".

The term "technology" is given a wide field of research, composed of different disciplines, which has as its object the application and use of technical tools in a broad sense, that everything can be applied to the solution of practical problems, optimization of procedures, decision-making, the choice of strategies aimed at specific targets. Furthermore, the same noun refers to the optimal use, also and above all from a economic point of view, the set of techniques and different Â

25/80

procedures used in a given sector, and the technical-scientific knowledge more advanced and, more generally, to a set of theoretical and systematic, globally applicable in the planning and rationalization intervention productive.32 Being of future architects, we can not help but notice (positively or negatively) the strong impact that architecture has suffered through technological innovation.

Traditionally, technology plays an important role in the act of design, because it serves as a mediator between different knowledge that allow to find answers to the functional and performance requirements of buildings, contributing to the enhancement of widespread quality.43 Today with the help of digital and information technology, technological innovation has the ability to make strides but unfortunately at the level of research and testing, the field of architecture and construction remains seriously affected due to the high cost of materials and the difficulty on the part of manufacturers of materials, to back up and face the various works project attempted by studies bravest.

These types of projects in fact, still having a very high level of investment, assume the damping of technological innovation as the logic of "cultural promotion".

However as history shows, is the time the judge unchallenged, which usually selects quite naturally innovative solutions, supporting those that are well adapted to a particular need and burying others.

Talking of technology in architecture, in addition to new physical characteristics of the materials and to the new components that can be prepared, a significant proportion of the innovation acquires the digital world and with it the creation of new software work.

These new software mentioned above have been developed for the design and 3D modeling and in many countries worldwide, we are experiencing the true potential and real help during both design and execution.

The creators of these programs, have been able to improve its performance, managing to create plug-ins (add-on) can improve the graphic quality, the structural aspect, the aspect of energy and environmentally friendly.

With these new digital aids, in the field of architecture and engineering it has been able to get to the realization of complex shapes, never even think in previous decades because it was considered impossible.

However, as history teaches man, there is no limit difficult to reach and exceed.

"Because limits like fears, are often just illusions."54 If untill 10 years ago, the computer was considered a taboo for the architectural world, today is unimaginable to think of power without it.

It should however take into account the handling of these programs.

If a software setting 2D, was always the designer, to bring the design as it had thought, or redesigning a computer, in the case of 3D programs the issue becomes much more complex and difficult to manage.

2 Treccani Dictionary, New Edition 3 Conscious innovation, Anna Mangiarotti, 2011 4 Hall of Fame, Michael Jeffrey Jordan, 2009

26/80

Many of these programs, work on multiple levels (such as Photoshop for example), using a command generating surfaces and not more simple lines.

Other software instead are motivated and work with parametric cells (input or output) that are created by the computer writing.

So the student who wants to become an architect as well as learn all the theoretical and creative design, now has to deal with the learning of these complex programs, and all in a self-study or by attending many expensive courses.

This phenomenon makes us understand how the economy is still the cornerstone of the whole world of work.

It is not only technological innovation, but also to create new professionals, who do not marry more with the creative world and an elite architecture.

This is still a criticism against the capitalist system, can damage the values handed down for centuries. "... The engineer's tasks: compliance with the laws of physics, strength of materials (material limits, calculations, economic man, security ...). Tasks of the architect: human knowledge, creative imagination, beauty, freedom of choices (spiritual man). "65 So the figure of the architect, besides being a good thinker, as Le Corbusier wrote, in our days must also be a good computer technician able to range between different fields of engineering and construction and also be informed about the new technical standards to be respected in the new building rules.

Returning to the subject of the management of complex shapes, you can find new players designated to reconcile the latter with the necessary technology to achieve them, where, unfortunately, the role of the architect is no longer that of undisputed but a collaborator.

Interfacing both the designer with specialists and construction industry in a profitable way.

In fact as regards the projects of complex shapes, they are often developed by independent agents that operate in a nonlinear way, adapting and evolving towards a form of organization that allows the system to acquire collective properties that are not own of the individual agents.

These projects will be in the near future less and less linked to a single figure, the designer, but more and more to a team composed of the designers and people specialized in different areas.

The practice of the design team, that aggregation in teams of designers and specialists, is in fact to be the most effective solution to deal with the project in all its parts.

The contributions therefore increase, ranging from consultants generic specialists in various skills, with knowledge related to static, the physical environment to the heat engineering and many other fields.

5 Toward an architecture, Le Corbusier, 1920-21

27/80

2.2 Evaluations of the entire project Previously we described some criteria related to render images in a first phase.

Currently we are going focus on a new moethod of evaluation that mainteains the same crieria name but actually change the description of them going a step forward in this Guggenheim museum in Helsinki.

Even in this case the range involves four different criteria from “very poor” to “very good” but what is changing from the previous situation?

Fundamentally there is a shift of evaluation going from the render to the real project. Let’s go to analyse them one by one.

When we speak about “Very poor”, we mean that the project is not represented in the proper way for this kind of competition and there are some massive lacks and missing information from a aesthetic point of view but expecially sctructural missings.

Moreover, relations between the building concept and his project development are not well defined.

The second degree of evaluation is “poor”.

Through “poor” , external personalities like the jury are able to interpret easily the project, nonetheless the design idea is not enough clear to be fully understood.

There are some lacks in the structural representation.

In both cases described in the previous paragraphs we are prone to infer that the parametric component is not developed in a correct way to allow at least just a slight connection between structure and parametric generative shapes.

Beyond this factors, there are no many elements useful to use in order to understand generally the main linesof the project.

In the following passage we will analyze and describe some of the project belonging to the Guggenheim competition, we will notic that the evaluation of the first phase and that ones of the second phases will be different, but we will be able to get some significant conclusions.

Let’s continue with a third degree of evaluation defined like “good”.

With “good” we declare that the project is pretty well represented in all the boards without any dinstinction. Technic boards and concept ones are well definied.

We find a pronciple of complementarity between rendering immages and real design project. Parametric components are used properly and when it is not so clear at leats there’s a strong relation between the initial process and the final results. The project satisfy in the same moemnt jury requirements and our requests for a parametric evaluation.

At the end of our new criteria we found “very good” evaluation.

In this last case the project is represented in a good way and there’s a optimum approach in every board. Strcutures are coherent with concept and aesthetic components are well represented and they are balanced with all the main structural programs. There is a good and generative approach from a parametric point of view.

28/80

2.3 Comparison list These are all the projects that we will analyze in this comparison. ⎯ GH–4758981811 from “poor” to “good”

Figure 1 GH-4758981811 render

⎯ GH–43597154 from “very poor” to “very poor”

Figure 2 GH-43597154 render

⎯ GH–122041092 from “good” to “very good”

Figure 3 GH-122041092 render

29/80

⎯ GH–1160212008 from “good” to “good”

Figure 4 GH-1160212008 render

⎯ GH–1631734234 from “good” to “very good”

Figure 5 GH-1631734234 render

⎯ GH–3133358211 from “good” to “very good”

Figure 6 GH-3133358211 render

⎯ GH–3545812892 from “poor” to “poor”

Figure 7 GH-3545812892 render

30/80

⎯ GH–6527683199 from “poor” to “good”

Figure 8 GH-6527683199 render

⎯ GH–6048807305 from “very good” to “very good”

Figure 9 GH-6048807305 render

⎯ GH–7156614398 from “very good” to “very good”

Figure 10 GH-7156614398 render

⎯ GH–4624438100 from “good” to “very good”

Figure 11 GH-4624438100 render

31/80

⎯ GH–76091181 – FINALIST from “good” to “very good”

Figure 12 GH-76091181 render

⎯ GH–5631681770 – FINALIST from “poor” to “poor”

Figure 13 GH-5631681770 render

⎯ GH–5059206475 – FINALIST from “very poor” to “poor”

Figure 14 GH-5059206475 render

⎯ GH–121371443 – FINALIST from “very good” to “good”

Figure 15 GH-121371443 render

32/80

⎯ GH–1128435973 – FINALIST from “poor” to “good”

Figure 16 GH-1128435973 render

⎯ GH–04380895 – WINNER from “good” to “good”

Figure 17 GH-04380895 render

33/80

2.4 General cases After this brief and clear introduction related to the method that we used to achieve the grades to assign to the projects, and how the virtual world influences the modern international architectural competition, it is time to start with our comparison.

Figure 18 GH-4758981811 renders

GH-4758981811 This is our first case and we have identified it in the primary comparison, just seeing the rendering images, as a “poor”.

At the first impact and look, the shape is immediately recognisible and easily comprehensible. It looks like a seagull and as a concept it could work because Helsinki being a seaside city, has a lot of these kind of birds along his shores and streets. But as we known this is an international competition and a concept like that is not really strong in order to achieve the final phase.

Why have we consider these pictures “poor”?

Because as we said before just with the picture everybody could understand the type of building, but the quality of the rendering is not acceptable for high level competitions like this one.

Is not really easy to understand which materials the designers have used as the represenation is really blurry.

All materials are in grey’s scale both for the external part and for the interiors.

This is the impression that we got just with the interpretation of the pictures.

If we take in consideration the whole project with the structural part, the parametric algorithm employed in the creation of the frames and the technical parts into the project, it is possible to establishe that the “poor” grade given previously does not reflect the hard work made to reach the cover and the frame.

Moreover in the figure 19 the concept of the shape is followed by an interesting wind system with the technical elements designed with accurancy and attention, althogh in the primary phase of the competition.

Figure 19 technical part

34/80

GH–43597154 This is a typical and clear example of our evaluation corresponding to the “very poor” grade. We decided to get this comparison not for judging the designers and the studios that have partecipated at the Helsinki museum competition but just to understand how much can influenced a good rendering or not. Here as everybody can see, in our opinion cannot overcome the preliminary phase because is seems like an exercitation and not an international submission.

The image has a low quality and it is not so clear the shape.

Moreover it does not show the design process.

The arrangement of spaces is not comprehensible and it is hard to read the design materials. The choice of the points of view is meaningless and the scene lighting is unreal.

How did the designers get that shape?

There is not even a picture or a board where is possible to understand the structure and frame of the building.

Furthermore in several pictures the additional part elements like the people and Figure 20 GH-43597154 rendering views cars are not in the right scale.

How is it possible? In this case the designers didn’t took enough care about the details and this is the result. We don’t want judge just aesthetically speaking, but there is not sufficient and adequate material to review.

Let’s take into account the figure 21.

What is the meaning of that one? There is not the presence of the perspective and also is not clear the edge between the sea and the platfom.

The only positive thing that we could get from this project is the intention and the effort to use an parametric software.

Certainly the software utilised was Grasshopper inasmuch the shape of the building is a creation made by the command “sweep” or “merge surface”.

These are the basic command in order to introduce you into the Grasshopper world.

At least is really incomprehensible the materials Figure 21 GH-43597154 external view used for the coverge, while for the interiors is all unknown due to the absence of materials. And this is really strange because in the competition’s bid the interior views were required.

35/80

GH–122041092 Just with this pictures, we could easily suppose that this is one of the finalist projects of the competition.

It is not one of them but in our opinion it went really close to the final phase.

In this case, just with a fast glance, it is understood that the designers have used a Figure 22 GH-122041092 render parametric software.

We gave to this project, obviously just looking at the pictures the value “good”.

In this case of study, the image is clear and points out several building features.

From the picture we can infer the surrounding space beyond the shown image.

Lighting is totally related to the environment and there is a good affinity between outdoor and indoor spaces.

Of course we could assume that this project is finished. The detailed on the frame are awesome. The materials also are shown in a proper way. The shadows correspond properly to each surface.

As we see also in this case the Grasshopper plug-in was used. How can we say that?

It is a easy question: all the shapes was modeled by a rotation around the x axis and the surface that the designers found, they created a further wood frame into that one. Speaking all the process could seem fast and easy but trust of us, it does not.

In this case the parametric software has helped a lot the designers and also the engineers to study the buildings because every step is made by a cell inserted into the algorithm. Furthermore, when someone has good skills in parametric software, after the rendering process is an easy game.

As is possible to see in the figure 23, the interiors are gorgeous and amazing. The experiences and the feelings looking at these rendering are superb.

All the details were drawn and the choice of the materials are well connected with the entire building.

This is the best example on how the rendering pictures should be made.

This is the perfection. So it is really strange that a project like that have failed the stage one.

As it was written in the chapter one, the bid and the jury were indeed hard and just the best architects of the world were able to pass.

Figure 23 GH-122041092 interior renders

36/80

Figure 24 GH-1160212008 renders

GH–1160212008 Also this project has been labeled as "good". Unlike to the previous project, it has excellent drawings and render, but the image quality is not such as that case.

The use of parametric is easy to read, because for the realization of the cover, similar to the volcanoes, the method absolute fastest, both from the construction point of view, both from the point of view of the technical components used is precisely the algorithm.

As we explained earlier, thanks to Grasshopper, each part of the design, and then the project can be followed in more detail.

There are many structures similar to this project.

For example, the new Centre Pompidou located in Metz, France. It, too, is on a huge building area, and uses this truncated cone on the roof in order to incorporate the external light and direct it inward (perform the same function of the skylight).

Also on the roof of the Centre Pompidou, they were installed photovoltaic panels to transform the irradiation light in clean and sustainable energy, making use of small current through the power line.

This project eventually developing the same concept of the Centre Pompidou, will work almost certainly in the same way.

Also in this case, despite being a very good project, the fact that it was not included in the second phase implies that many technical aspects or are not met or quite simply were not suitable to the city of Helsinki.

We must therefore consider that the Finnish climate in much of the year is an enemy to both the population and above all for the buildings that are facing the difficult task to withstand the weather and the climate dry and cold.

Figure 25 GH-1160212008 night render

Â

37/80

GH–1631734234 From Figure 9 it is easy to use parametric algorithm. This is one of the most "easy" from the point of view of use of the software, since it is only necessary to define the area of the surface and then through input made especially for the division into triangles, rectangles and other shapes, in a very short time you can define a space that until recently had to be decided first, and especially not losing hours drawing each polygon.

Once the pattern of use can proceed at a time of the supporting structure. Usually to define the structure you try to use the comande "pipe" that thanks to other Figure 26 GH-1631734234 renders commands called "slider" go to define the quantity of the pipes in the surface, the diameter of them and the distance between them.

Many projects especially in eco-sostainable footprint is similar to this. In fact, the intention of the designer in this case was certainly the same.

This project was rated as "good" only by the vision of the render.

We can safely say that was one of the most comprehensive projects, as well as having the plan, section, the conceptual analysis and rendering, there are also tables on the technical elements.

In this case the designer, or designers, have worked taking into account every aspect, both aesthetic and structural.

Figure 27 GH-1631734234 technical elements

Â

38/80

Figure 28 GH-3133358211 renders

GH–3133358211 This project has been labelled as “good”. In fact, if we just take into account the redering,this project is easily readable and offers all the necessary information for the analysis of every design detail, whether constructional, structural or technological.

The rendering shown above are of good quality standards which implies a great knowledge of the 3D and paramteric world.

For these types of constructions, the parametric component is key for the definition of all design phases.

Also, should the project go beyond the first phase and come to its final stage, thanks to the parametric algorithm we may have had a potential winner.

On what grounds can we affirm that?

Because some key factors taken into account by judges where the quickness and efficiency regarding construction times. Accordingly, thanks to a well-conceived and eveloped parametric component, should any problem have arisen during the preliminary or executive phase, the software could have optimized and enhanced them.

As it emerged from the questionnaire analysis we will be vetting in the end of this dissertation, parametric softwares are not only used for experiencing new and more complex shapes but also because they make the executive process and the work itself handier.

Thanks to the software, any design phase can be taken under control from the largest beam to a single screw.

This is one of the maon reasons why these cutting-edge softwares are increasingly demanded for design purposes.

Logically, design choices play an important role as well on every single planning stage. Everythign has to be specifically thought.

Architects who presented this project to the competition took into consideration whatever has been previosuly stated and it is a pity they did not manage to access to the final stages.

Unfortunatelt, the world of architecture means this as well: a practical project is not necessarily considered appropriate.

In this case, we may assume tha either the concept or the type of shape that has been employed did not contribute to its success.

39/80

In fact, as we will be focusing in the following pages where finalists projects will be shown, the chosen buildings look rather sober and compliant with the Scandinavian style.

The place of competition is another key which shall be carefully considered.

In regards to essays and their quality, it has to be noted how the choice of materials and lights had a remarkable impact on the sudden understanding of the project.

Inoltre la scelta della disposizione della fotocamera per le viste dei rendering è stata decisiva. As can be seen in pictures 28 e 29 it is possible to infer the surrounding space beyond the shown Figure 29 GH-3133358211 internal view image. Lighting is totally related to the environment and there is a good affinity between outdoor and indoor spaces.

Even pictures 1, have been clearly thought and developed by using the 3D parametric software to recreate them without using 2D softwares thatwould have modified the building structure.

Figure 30 GH-3133358211 sections and elevations

GH–3545812892 The project we are going to analyze has been classified as“poor” even though a first glance may suggest a better evaluation.

First of all, the idea was that besides having quality, rendering images had to convey a clear demonstration of how the building is constructed and how it is internally built.

In this case, apart from having rendering images of the external side Figure 31 GH-3545812892 render with aerial views, comparison and analysis material was not enough.

What is being written shall be taken into consideration based on rendered images.

The judgement and evaluation of the entire project slightly varias as the structural concept blends the port context of Helsinki.

Unfortunately, little material has ben supplied for an in-depth analysis with internal views, sections and elevations. Also, it is not clear how the entire building has been structurally developed.

40/80

This case can be considered as a well-rendered project but, because of some designers and builders’ choices, has not been adequately presented for a competion like that of Guggenheim museum of Helsinki.

This factor has noticeably affected the final judgement and choice to promote this project to the next design phase.

Architecturally speaking, it is nonetheless a good project.

The building shape harmoniously blends with the city skyline and accesses were thought to connect main roads, re-qualify the public green areas located behind the museum.

Figure 32 GH-3545812892 aerial views

GH–6527683199 Compared to the previous project, here it is possible to notice the difference between a project labelled as “good” and “poor” one.

Thanks to image 16 it is easy to understand our evaluation.

The structure created through a paramteric algorhitm has been nevertheless presented with an undesirable style.

Style and materials used are clearly the result of a low-quality graphic work and this leads us to the conclusion made through rendering that this project can be defined as “poor”.

If we are to analyze the project itself, we can definitely say that the project has been throught before being designed. As for the concept, it seems to be ather simplistic.

The external areas has been minimally designed even if this might reflect a minimalist choice to focus all

Figure 33 GH-6527683199 render

41/80

the attentions on the building which remains the undisputable subject and protagonist of the competition. Needless to say, the designer’s project is to consider both internal and external spaces without underrating them as they both voncur to enhance a project.

An in-depth analysis leads us to conclude that the bearing structure as well as the type of coverage indicate that this project is definitely a very ambitious one.

The museum covering is entirely made in transparent and semi-transparent material topped by beams and curved pillars which represent a composition of various sections having a different shape.

Just by analyzing these components it Figure 34 Centre Georges Pompidou is possible to affirm that, besides being an ambitious project, it is fairly costly as it entails the use of materials such as glass (with specific features and physical properties to handle Finalnd’s harsh climate) and customized components that remarkably production and execution costs.

For what concerns the internal layout and vertical elevation systems, this project reminds of Georges Pompidou Figure 35 GH-6527683199 internal render Centre of Parigi.

For what concerns inner spaces, materials are still undefined as it is still the prelimianry phase of the competition while the use of natural light is immediately identifiable as it makes the space bright and eco-friendly.

As there is no table regarding technical components, it is not possible to define which technological systems will be employed.

GH–6048807305 This case it has been labeled as “very good”.

In this case the representation clearly raises the design quality. The material is properly shown and is in perfect relation with the structure. The image composition involves a large quantity of elements that enrich the space. It is possible to completely understand the volumes’ placement even out of the picture.

Some visual effects are added to make the project more appealing and try to surprise the judges, taking advantage over the other participants projects.

In this case, the rendering quality is really high and performing.

Architectural speaking, the designers discovered that the skyline of the Guggenheim Helsinki Museum emerges as a sequence of soft golden waves undulating in the harbor.

42/80

Figure 36 GH-6048807305 renders

To the north the volumes are low, to avoid shading the public realm and not to overlook the Palace Hotel; then they rise rapidly and decrease in the center of the building; towards the park the waves rise again and fall to the south, where they find a perfect balance with the harbor’s public realm. There’s a central slope between north and south so that the volume does not interfere with the main views from the park Tähtitornin Vuori, the Helsinki Cathedral and the Uspenski Cathedral.

The sculptural, organic shapes are designed to provide a new and clear landmark in the harbor; at the same time, they link up with the urban context and seamlessly connect the exhibition spaces and the waterfront, according to concepts of openness and accessibility.

The project proposal is based on the key concept of connection: a fluid landscape design combines the waterfront and the city center through the new museum, while the promenade becomes a covered passage between the harbor and the urban fabric.

The main entrance is in the north part of the area, where an organically shaped square welcomes the visitors.

The tour flows naturally through an artistic promenade that crosses the Figure 37 GH-6048807305 renders whole building. The promenade is an urban place where one can have a sneak peek of the latest exhibition or just an excuse to walk under the voluptuous vaults. The promenade is a covered space warm in winter and pleasantly fresh in summer: it is an ideal place where one can stop for a break and spend some quality time. It is always open and independently of the exhibition space, it connects a bar with a multi-purpose zone and performance halls. It is place for all seasons, continuously changing.

Entrances, distribution and paths provide maximum flexibility of use: the inner spaces can be divided or combined according to different requirements, in order to allow facility operations in all seasons and over the full day.

The interiors are characterized by complex curved geometries which are enhanced by the use of Finnish wood, giving it a unique expressive emphasis.

Construction and environmental sustainability is achieved through a careful use of

Figure 38 GH-6048807305 technology system

43/80

materials, considered in their whole lifecycle but, above all, it is inherent in the morphology of the building itself: the inner promenade is a flexible space, a buffer zone open to passively create environmental comfort for visitors and workers all over the year. There are essential benefits from the range of temperatures at different heights (levels). Thanks to the atrium “stack effect”, the temperature is hotter on the height floors where permanent activities are settled.

The design aims also at digital technology integration; the atrium, owing to its particular function and location, is the key point for digital art and performance.

The project for the new Guggenheim offers a strong and fluid design: it is a new landmark for Helsinki and a suitable museum for an international audience as well as local public.

GH-7156614398 This is another example of “very good” project.

What about the project?

The environment present in the city is the cityscape that creates the characteristic of the town. It is a form of elevation that our eye can capture. It may be an expression of our needs to survive in the town. Furthermore, it would generate emotional and sentimental effusion by creating a memory out of it. The environment of the city has been related to the Baltic Sea throughout its history. Its climate, culture, business and life are related to this urban fabric.

The design site is located right inbetween the Baltic sea and Tahititornin park. Its characteristics to render into this city context will be very much excited. By its fine location, the distinctive seasonal change becomes Figure 39 GH-7156614398 render much dramatic elements to bring to the site as a form of architecture.

In every season, there is respective own beauty.

Especially, the strongest impression tends to happen when there is a dramatic change. When the spring season is near to arrive, frozen ice on the Baltic sea begins to melt away.

The Tahititornin park will be preparing its transformation with its Figure 40 GH-7156614398 site plan new clothes. The landscape covered the city will change its form. In this regard, the intention is to propose a new building on the site to continue to bring this excitement. It is intended the form naturally to be generated from melting ice on the sea as structure elements.

The elevation lines that has been drawn by trees on the park becomes an architectural enclosure. It was imagined planting a native seed on the site. It will grow and become a fine medium to connect the sea and the park.

44/80

About the connection, it is possible to affirm that the park bridge connection has been taken in consideration in order to have further development.

The proposed form of roof top will bring public from the existing park to the new opened restaurant at the north of the museum as well as it will provide the view to the sea to the public.

Another important factor that the designers have thought was the problem related to the wind coming from the Baltic Sea. In order to provide comfortable and less interrupted open space at the plaza, the form of the building is situated along side the site from the south to the north. In this way people will have less disturbance or discomfort to use of common space outside.

Figure 41 GH-7156614398 interior render

The main material used for interior walls and floorsin addition to the panels of surface walls is the Finnish wood. The use of it is for acoustic of interior space to absorb sounds from the interior since it is split into pieces not to reflect the sound coming from interior space. Thus, it gives visitors feeling walking into a forest.

Another important factor took ina consideration by designers was the Helsinki winter and its heavy snowfall.

For this reason the roof design is enough inclined.

GH–46244381100 This is a “good” case evaluated just by the rendering.

Let’s see now the project.

In order to celebrate Nordic ideals such as openness and accessibility, and to emphasize the strong connection between the museum , the historic city and the harbor, the form and organization of the building are inspired by the mathematical model of the Klein Bottle, a non-orientable, single sided, boundary-free surface where the inner and outer faces are seamlessly interconnected – exterior becomes interior and vice versa. In other words, a container that can contain itself.

In a 3-dimensional space the Klein Bottle can be achieved by stretching the neck of a bottle through its side and joining its end to a hole in the base.

This causes it to have one handle and one hole, also known as the nexus.

The bottle shaped envelope of the building runs parallel to the city fabric on the west side, while the neck bends to form a handle that lines up with the edge of the harbor on the east side of Figure 42 GH-4624438100 renders the plot. The handle defines the perimeter of the exhibition court

45/80

whereas the point where the base of the bottle -which is directly facing the Market square – joins the neck, marks the main entran­ce of the building.

The form of the building induces a strong emotional impact on the visitors, generating a sense of deep attraction, curiosity, wonder. The distinctive implodedlike funnel shape form of the façade will draw visitors towards the building, curious to see how it continues inside.

As visitors move inside, the traditional Cartesian and Euclidean space is negated by the continuity between floor, walls and ceiling -all conceived as one. The exhibition path is a loop that emphasizes the “endless” nature of the form.

The continuity between the outer and inner surface is particularly emphasized by the use of local timber inside and outside the building.

The structure is an exposed gridshell exoskeleton formed by a double layer of curved laminated timber beams joint together by a series of steel cross beams. The longitudinal arrangement generates a very dynamic linear pattern that emphasizes the geometry and fluidity of the space. Furthermore, the expression of the timber beams convey a “Finnish touch” to the design, celebrating the use of this Figure 43 GH-4624438100 main frame material and linking back to the work of Alvar Aalto and modern Finnish design.

The building enclosure is set behind the external beams, adequately detached to allow drainage, while the internal cladding and flooring are set flush between the internal beam edges. Service elements are contained within the double-layer Figure 44 GH-4624438100 interior views enclosure allowing maximum reach and flexibility in all direction.

Diffused sunlight fills the space through a series of central skylights, illuminating the assessment of exhibits below and creating a soft and light – almost cocoon-like environment.

46/80

2.5 Finalists cases

Figure 45 GH-5631681770 renders

GH-5631681770 We should remark before to start with the comparisons that our aim during the first phase was not to judge projects but the reasearch of information comprehensible in representation trying to understand if a parametric component was used. The evaluation of this project was the minimum in the renge presented in the previous chapter, nonetheless this project is one of the six finalists.

Undoubtely there’s a great atmosphere in renders that make clear some features of the project program.

Infact the studio in this render took care of some guidelines of the competitions.

The most important is the lack of connection between the city and the harbour that implies poor street life in a beautiful urban waterfront.

They proposed a unique space that trascends traditional exhibition space called from them “interior urban street”. A extra space for the city of Helsinki.

Indeed the only thing i can notice in this renders, probably more on the one located on the top right, is the idea of space.

This “new urban experience” seems ro be really define in the boards that was published at the end of the competition.

Looking at “fig. 46”, one of the project boards, sections define the project entirely. A 2D approach is declared and a really deep urban analysis let us think that also plans have contributed to the structural shapes.

A traditional creative methods with some nasty renders has been a good recipe to bring this project Figure 46 GH-5631681770 boards between the finalists. During this essay we are not gonna chase parametric component into project trying to legitimize a superiority in parametric approach. We will define new common lines to start a creative process with a parametric method searching inspirations around participants.

47/80

More than once will be true parametric approach rather than inspirations, unfortunately we have to assume that studios with a total parametric approach is just a little percentage on the total one of the competition.

Figure 47 GH-121371443 renders

GH-121371443 The next case from a parametric point of view is more interesting. These renders were hard to evaluate because of their ambiguity in shapes.

We opted for a “very good” parameter. Indeed space and light are collaboating perfectly in these images and we can also say something more about parametric.

The composition let us guess a prametric generative process.

Certainly our attitude is forced, but looking at the project boards we have little confirmations.

A greater “risk” of parametrization is the presence of complex shapes to fill with inhabitable spaces. What about a rounded surface ? How we can live in a envoironment where fornitures can not be leant to the wall. It is possibile if we simultaneously add a great loss of spaces.

This is the example of “Casa da Musica” (Porto, Portugal) by ARUP and Rem Koolhas. This area is about 20200 square meters and the diamond building shape i totally evocative. Actually the real used space inside of it it’s poor.

The loss of dimensions make sense just in the concert hall, the main environment.

Also transition space has enormous dimension due to the inhuman shape of the building and from the behind get the idea that the inside of the building is planned not to be lived at all but to make the external part alive and “bizarre”.

Even if the concept of this project as big space in which are defined smaller boundary inside of it is well defined this let us remember a tipical square subdivision of space given a complex shape. Actually this isnot a complex shape because the waves seems to be only a aesthetic effect that in the boards is giustified like glazing panel.

Finally we can describe this project from a parametric point of view adressed toward aesthetic value. In this case this aesthetic value completely works from a graphical point of view, it deserves a further development to make it stronger from a structural point of view in the Figure 48 GH-121371443 plan global context.

48/80

GH-76091181 This render is a good deal between space representation and suggestion. It mirror completely plans and if we see it we have not different expectation from detailed boards.

Here we are completely facing complex shape.

There are not geometrical rules in the “tower composition”.

Figure 49 GH-76091181renders

The studio describe in the following way the project.

In contrast to the open character of the central atrium the galleries are housed in a series of introverted timber cabinets. This are stacked within the towers.

Bridges between the towers offer the visitor valuable respite along the main processional route with a sequence of new viewing points.

They also define timber towers like “dynamic addition to the city skyline”.

Let’s analyse this last statement for a while.

It resume a bit one of the latest trends in architecture to overtake the urban context phase with a standing out volume with made with recognizable shapes, usually modern. Even in this case we risk to bump into the previous example of “Casa da Musica” by Koolash.

The Casa da Musica (in Porto) is often described as being like a meteor that has collided with the city, but that's not what we intended, we designed it as a real part of the existing city, a challenging and a provocative player.76 In relationship with parametric process we could presume a parametric beginning in the research of shapes and a following fusion with other techniques.

What is noticeable in the render on the left if the presence of a frame on the foreground that seems to let us understand that this building it’s actually possible to make in spite of its hard shape to comprehend in the image.

Casa da musica is not the only one example adopting this “astonishment” effect, typical of modern architectures.

By the way we commit a mistake if we consider astonishment architecture a granted composition given that it seems that since always in our history recurring.

Las vegas is an example of astonishment architecture that gather every “episteme” (influence) of our story in a confined location, from the piramids to the Louvre.

6 The guardian newspaper, section architecture, Jonathan Glancey interview Rem Koolhaas, Monday 27 August 2007

49/80

Figure 50 GH 1128435973renders

GH 1128435973 This museum was for us a good sample. It’s a good representation and a good project too as simple as brilliant.

Shortly the museum is divided in two parts. A bottom one in the groundfloor for common exhibition and public forum and another one more specific for arts in the upper floor. Greater than the sum of its parts, the museum generates multiple relations among people, architecture, and the arts. With this, the Guggenheim Helsinki can engage a broad constituency of stakeholders, benefiting not only the arts, but the public at large.

From the structural point of view this project is totally squared and aims more on the subdivision of spaces than shapes. There is no room for a parametric analysis and we can associate it to the next case.

GH 5059206475 In fig.7 we see a case really closer in its analysis to the previous one just analyzed.

Described from competitors “47 rooms” because of its 47 different ambience.

47 Rooms extends the logic through which Helsinki’s population already tempers their more intimate public spaces. Imitating the logic of the Sauna, each room’s final climatic conditions include certain degree of negotiation between the institution and its visitors.

An interesting reflection that we didn’t treat so fare is the one on the substainable architecture and parametric design. We will develop some theories in the third part of the essay. Our evaluation to this project was “good” and it’s a real good project

Figure 51 GH-5059206475 renders

50/80

Figure 52 GH 04380895 renders

Figure 53 GH 04380895 renders

51/80

Figure 54 GH 04380895 renders

Figure 55 GH 04380895 renders

52/80

GH 04380895 We re going to rest more on this last project given that it belongs to the winners trying to analyse it also through a parametric point of view.

The museum skyline is composed by independent volumes, highlighted by a higher tower. These fragmented art exhibition spaces allow strong integration with outdoor display and events, while the lighthouse offers a new perspective over the city. This new museum concept together with the charred timber façade echoes the process of regeneration that occurs when forests burn and then grow back stronger.

Our evaluation was “low” and this still once remarks that our goal has nothing to do with the real jury evaluation.

The evaluation was one of the lower ones because at that moment to us was available just the dark skylight from a spatial point of view information was insufficient.

Nonetheless In this case we clearly perceive the presence of complex shapes in the fragmented structure. We will take advantage of this composition to introduce a possible parametric application in Grasshopper.

This project is based on urban fragmentation and take completely literally the necessity included in the competition announcement.

The lack of connection between urban distribution of the city and the waterfront it’s a reason to fragment volumes and create a partially altered grid with volumes of different shapes.

Since some years Grasshopper interested also the urban planning and here we show how two applications could evolve or merely be included in the analyzed project.

In Fig.56 we see a typical screenshot from Cheetah, a plugin for analyzing and designing urban configurations.

This plug in works in a creative context as Grasshoper is used to provide.

It could be really sueful to project that starts from a urban configuration plan. Moreover further plug in can be added to it giving Figure 56 GH 04380895 renders some

“complex effect” that we are used to see for many reasons. We notice the intention from the architect joining this last team presented to make some irregular canopy on slanting plans. This process can be practiced in a free 3D model through traditional technique but also calibrated according some “mooring points” in a parametric approach.

Included in the composition there is a tower that represent a symbolic lighthouse in the proximity of the harbour.

53/80

The fragmental art exhibition spaces together with vertical sky galleries in the symbolic tower allow natural and efficient flow and strong intergration with outdoor display and event spaces. From the tower, people can enjoy the view over the city of Helsinki and the iconic roof scape of the Giggenheim museum.

The flexible and generous exhibition galleries accomodate both large and intimately scaled spaces. The general organization is dictated by the necessity to assure the efficient use maintaining quality of the musuem and civic realm for the visitors, the staff and the citizens.87 Let’s see now an interesting application interesting “mooring points” in comparison with the museum.

In Fig.57 there is a comparison between a general mooring points application and the analyzed cases.

Two supposed streams of thoughts that are both equivalent from an architectural point of view.

-mooring points it’s a limit for our expectation in the administration of volumes.

-moring points are useful during the creative phase and give us the right sensation of proportion between framentation and heights of the building.

Probably in this project has not been used a parametric component in the realization of the model.

In all the likelihood we are looking at simple extrusion procedures and manual creation of oblique surfaces.

Nonetheless the first model of the project seems to be simpler, being aware of the process behind it that is not probably parametric we can state that in building procedures paradoxically is easier to compose the second example case of mooring points. This previous assertation is based to the fact that in a parametric process shapes remains alterable until the end in every geometrical property.

Figure 57 comparison between museum render and mooring points general application

7 GH 04380895 one stage papers

54/80

3.The questionnaire

Figure 1 Questionnaire diagram composition

In this section, differently from the previous ones we are going to approach directly involved studio offices.

From the beginning this analysis has been based on suppositions. For this reason we decided to “meet” directly the main characters that made our analysis possible ; architects.

An international competition get interesting first of all for the gathering of different approaches and we thought that a step forward beyond a basic supposition was necessary.

The answers are all anonimous for one reason in particular.

In the competition studio , competitors were about 1715 and we had to select a smaller number of cases as information sample. Our survey include 30 participants.

If we revealed all the cases taken in consideration would have been an unfair comparison. Moreover it wasn’t necessary to do it given that our goal aims to a global description of software utilisation during the competition rather than a studio offices skills evaluation.

During this section we will start perusing answers until express global consideration about 3D software and 3D parametric ones.

Actually, we could restart from the end of the article “Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis “ where we forcedly presumed that a parametric utilization could be potentially a strong value added in a project if apllied properly.

The algorithmic design it’s not merely a computer utilization in a project environment. Algorithms allow to architects to overtake limits that are existing in traditional software and going toward a high level of complexity keeping a strong control that should be not manually possible.91 As we stated in the previous sections, the algorithm composition is possible thanks to a “knot diagram” . This process required specialized workers in an architecture offices and given that this technology is completely affable from everyone just since the last decade, it’s interesting to understand how offices handle it but also

1

Arturotedeschi.com,AAD Grasshopper Workshop series introduction,Edizioni le Penseur 2015

55/80

the different points of view about this technology that is not appreciated from every architect.

After all, as the architecture is it, every analysis related with it is a description of a process changing continuously. So our effort is none other than a collect some opinion and intrepret them in order to understand some “guarantees” in the utilization of parametric architecture.

Let’s probe the composition of the actual questionnaire where we need to explain the reasons of the questions order and marginal question that become vital if justaposed to other main questions.

We will follow the opposite process used to show information from offices.

Before we will schematize the questionnaire composition and than we will concern about the contents getting different profiles related to the project approach.

3.1 3D software

In the fig.1 we briefly understand the involved questions typology. It’s clear a gradual addressing toward the parametric utilisation.

The questionnaire users will be prone to accomplish the questions given that the first half of them are related to a simple software utilization that nowadays we can almost take for granted.

Let’s see step by step the first part.

The opening of the research is reserved to the wish to understand what is it the used software from the participant. Even if these are the first two questions over the total fifteen they are meaningful because being aware of the basic 3D software we can also have an idea on the approach to the project.

On 30 architecture studios the 94,7 % is a 3D software users. Undoubtedly from the results arise that the first choice is Rhinoceros.

The proportion of the Rhino users is 19/30 and between them there is someone that specifies the contemporary use of Rhino and others software.

Just one of them immediately declares the use of Grasshopper with Rhinoceros.

These data let us know how the use of parametric architecture requires specialized operators and there are a lot of reality “not ready” to receive this update, by choice or by lack of operators.

We knewn Rhinoceros and Grasshopper in the first chapter of this essay. Let’s meet now the other alternatives that are included in answers to the second question in order to understand the different approach from offices.

We mention the less significant cases.

56/80

-Revit, 3D Studio Max -Maya, V-Ray -Sketchup, Blender -Autocad, Photoshop We wil start by making a few clarifications to the argument. Every method in the list can not be judged because the representation of the project is totally affected by the meaning of the project itself so here we will just obtain some “profile of approach” without the associated project.

Come to light the association between basic 3D software and some other one usually related to the animation rather than architecture.

Maya, 3D Studio Max and Blender, the first two ones developed from Autodesk and the third one by Blender foundation are strongly related with animation, compositing and 3D render.

Being aware of the sample of 30 architecture studios rather than 1715 and finding some cases like these in the previous lists repeated make us thing that more studios invest enormous ammount of time in a surreal post production, above all during competitions.

The importance of the graphic composition is almost the main resource nowadays, we can say that plug in like Grasshopper mix this essential appeal with the real substance that actually make the project. This is a reason why this plug-in should be applied to make a well done post production that takes care of about look and not about architectural shapes as often occurs.

We saw two question respectively about the effective utilisation and the software typology, let see now the third question about the purpose of the declared way to represent and perceive the project.

Understand the purpose of the analysis is the next step in order to pursue our research. Currently, the architect is a multitasking figure from two different point of view. When the project has to start and when it’s underway.

In fact, there is an “internal” interdependance linked excluvisely to the technologycal dynamic i.e. to their structural complexity, and an “external” interdependance increased by the interaction between a variety of innovative factors, among other needs, requirements and variable conditions of each context(Bettiol, Micelli 2005). […]

57/80

The designer is thus the first innovation engine, with regard to the choice of the technologies as well as the modalities to introduce them into the project.102 This reflection underlines how the architect has to know in a executive phase more factors of different nature. Proportionally in a “premature” phase the designer should master the properties of many software in order to adapt them to the personal case of study and being able to communicate his or her idea.

The purpose of the advanced tool utilisation identifies our needs in terms of sofware performance.

The top purposes are “make a realistic representation that could make more plausible some solutions of the project” and “visualize ideas and make choices to pursue a design process” with 73,3% for both answers . Immediately later we surprisingly find “an aesthetic element” with 47,4 %.

The other options, maybe the more interesting from a point of view considering a parametric utilization are about to be omitted.

It’ easy to infer that the utilisation of 3D software remains a “physical utilization” that is useful to display ideas rather than immediately decode them.

Next two questions deal with a personal opinion about the influence of the 3D modeling approach in the project.

In this first part of the questionnaire we’re still out from from the parametric field and we take in consideration directly the participants opinion about the 3D technology.

In the first one we reconnect the thesis that we are going to verify in a parametric field, indeed this question as many others will be repeated during the second part of the interview.

The second one is the maybe the most challenging because it compares two architect generations with a terse yes or not.

We get some important data from the comparisons question.

The 52.6 % "on average” thinks that 3D Modeling approach influences preliminary condition phase, 42.1% “high” and 5,3% “low”.

The most relevant data is provided from the second question about the comparisons between old architecture and modern one.

2

Ingrid Paoletti, “Costruire le forme complesse” ,Maggioli Editore 2010

58/80

We see that the debate on traditional and modern method is more than brighted.

One architecture studio over three thinks that 3D modeling can’t completely replace 2D design and moquettes, the remaining is certain that 3D Modeling is going to replace totally old methods.

This previous assertation mirrors the behaviour of the next designer generations and this is another reason more to invest time in the architecture education system increasing the research on the utilisation on 3D software, tasting also new horizons as the parametric architecture is it.

Here it is the question about the complex shape without specifing if we are in the parametric field or not.

It’s made it on purpose because it’s obvious that a 3D composition perceived by a “passive” method as the 3D space is it, hardly involves a further study because often it derives from a 2D drawing already planned.

However the greatest percentage 57.9% opted for “high” , followed from a 42.1% for “low” . This is a strong signal that makes clear the influence of the 3D software during the creative process.

This topic in a free 3D space is widely understimated. The previous statement could be easily misinterpreted, infact a 3D doesn’t need guideline to perceive the shape but should at least record our steps. Record our steps doesn’t mean press “editback” button but it’s the translation of the shape in parameter with whom we can entirely manage the shape.

This is the last question of the first part and it aims to discuss the quality subject.

For once again like in the “tit for tat” that was included in the question comparing old and modern methods with a “yes or not” possibility to reply, we see a clear division between who relies totally itself on 3D software and who doesn’t believe in them at all. By the way, one more time the 3D modeling approach wins with a 70% including 40% “on average” and 30% “high”.

59/80

3.2 3D parametric Let’s analyse now the second part of the questionnaire that we can consider like the most important one because of the information related to parametric architecture.

Here we brought the users in the questionnaire core, in order to let him or her continue to participate we preferred leave the second part dedicated to parametric components to get more significant feedback.

Unavoidably here we observe one clean decreasing of answers due to the limitated use of parametric components applied to programs.

Nonetheless we’re still able to get important results. Infact 21.1 % “yes” against 78.9 “no” tell us that some effort is made by more architecture studios but it is still pretty sproadic.

Grasshopper is the only one that satisfy our definition for parametric architecture between the quoted plug in by the particpants.

Revit has functions of “parametrization” but it acts differently from grasshopper avoiding a “knot diagrams” with algorithm, but dealing directly with the 3D space.

To be more precise we can say that Revit treats the parametrization process as archicad treats properties of material with the BIM (Building Information Modeling) technology.

That’s not a case that in this related question Grasshopper is quoted several times, in spite of the presence also of Revit.

Let’s make a different between parametrization and the word coined by Patrick Schumacher113 in 2008 “parametricism”.

Parametricism is considering the project like an adventure in a wide database. The term “adventure” underlines the possibilty to leave the immagination and the term “database” points out the possibility for shapes created to be administrated geometrically and mathematically.124

3

Patrick Schumacher , Dr.-Phil., Dipl.-Ing., Architect, RIBA, ARB. Partner at Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) Co-director AA Design Research Lab (AADRL) 4 Parametric Semiology,The Design of Information Rich Environments Patrik Schumacher, London 2012 Published in: Architecture In Formation – On the Nature of Information in Digital Architecture, edited

by Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa and Aaron Sprecher, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, New York, 2013

60/80

This is the same question of the first section, but in a parametric field of interest.We can make a comparison even if before the answers were slightly different.

The top purposes in the first half of the questionnaire were “make a realistic representation that could make more plausible some solutions of the project” and “visualize ideas and make choices to pursue a design process” with 73,3% for both answers . Immediately later we found “an aesthetic element” with 47,4 %.

Now we have with 57,1% the following ones : ”an aesthetic element”, “control completely the model”, “get a complex shape easily” and the other ones with lower percentages.

A significant fact is the consideration that if we are talking about parametric we are thinking in terms of aesthetic.

Let’s dispel this myth with some consideration.

Parametricism offers a credible, sustainable answer to the crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching.

Post-modernism and deconstructivism were mere transitional episodes, similar to art nouveau and expressionism as transitions from historicism to modernism. The distinction of epochal styles from transitional styles is important. In a period of transition there might emerge a rapid succession of styles, or even a plurality of simultaneous, competing styles.135 This quotation of P.Schumacher it’s a confirmation that parametric architecture it is not just a necessity but a stylistic tendency.

We have a kind of verification in the last analyzed question. In the largest part there are architects that consider parametric architecture as tool to make an aesthetic element that qualify the architecture as contemporary.

For this reason we need to describe parametric architecture also like a dangerous tool if used in the wrong way. A complex surface without any structural meaning doesn’t make sense in an architectural context even if could be innoticed to a generic user. We found many cases described in the previous chapter about this improper application.

During the first phase where all the renders of participants where analysed it has been clear how in spite of different approaches is existing a common tendency toward complex shape whether primary structure or secondary ones.

Inevitably parametric plug in are affecting every well financed modern project getting always more status symbol of the new century architecture.

5 architectjurnals.com Patrik Schumacher on parametricism - 'Let the style wars begin',6 May, 2010 ,By Patrik Schumacher

61/80

Like we are carry on saying this, this question of the second part do not anything but transpose the same question of the first part in a new interpretation.

So let’s compare again the affection for 3D software generally speaking and 3D parametric component.

The 52.6 % thought that 3D Modeling approach influences preliminary condition “on average” and almost the total remaining part hazarded to say “high” meanwhile here we find 57 % convinced about an affection “on average” and the remaining half divided from who believes in a low affection and who believes in a high one.

More or less there is the same value that underline how is not recognized a great distinction between the two kind of approach.

We also thought to understand the global level of awarness in the offices.

Parametric architecture gets almost useless when we deal with traditional architecture not involving complex shape, above all if we consider offices specialized in residential building since they are existing.

However we found some encouraging data.

The 17.6% of the architecture offices has at least one operator specialized in parametric composition.

At a later stage we believed interesting to know their behavior if in the office noone was able to use this kind of tools.

This question is justified from our comparison between project sent for the competition of some studio and actual project on their website.

For the most part of the cases we notice a total different style and approach, so we assume a possible assignment to an external actor from the studio.

Widening the number of specialized field orbiting around architecture, also the best architect will need someone to accomplish a significant project.

During these international competitions is recurring a collaboration between studios.

62/80

Approximately all the participants choose the second option “every time we adopt a different method according the situation” and this bring us to the conclusion that they prefer rely on specialized figures in special case rather that invest on new generation of architects.

Probably because they don’t deal frequently with complex shape as we specified in the previous paragraph.

Parametric design tecniques offer obvious advantages for engineering and manufacturing processes, now architects emerge to apply these methodsin their creation of design suggesting solutions at an earlier stage of the process.

There can be, however a gap between skills training and the application of knowledge within the studio context. At the final phase of the work, architects may not be able to identify how they arrived to their solution and what were the indivdual contrubutors that inform about the design.146 This contribution by M.A.Schnael points out how the learning process is not going to be so immediate for parametric architecture. Continuously there are updates for this kind of plug in and should be a duty for studios go at the same pace.

Parametricism is the only credible candidate to become the epochal style of the 21st century, the first global style for architecture, urbanism and the design disciplines since the crisis and demise of Modernism 35 years ago. Postmodernism and Deconstructivism were transitional styles, each leading the discipline for about a decade.157 Patrick Schumacher is definitely sure of this radical changing in architecture and he hypotizes a new architectural era that will be remembered in the futureas we are used to study ghotic style, neoclassical and so on.

6 Marc Aurel Schnael, Parameters in design studios, Univeristy of Sydney Australia, 2007 7 Interview: On Parametricism Patrik Schumacher in conversation with Georgina Day,2012

63/80

Our competitors has his same attitude about the furture but we need to specify two different positions. There is someone that will increase the utilisation of advanced tool in order to improve their knowledge and another faction believe in advanced tools but they don’t think that their studios could allow a design process based on complex shapes exclusively.

This second consideration take in advantage another topic that we have never consider so far, costs.

As fresh technology parametric architecture brings advantage if built in a large scale and not in a small context. It will deserves time to be consolidated for a residential use, the most recurring occupation for studios.

During the last part of the questionnaire we left participants freely express their opinion about everything deals with their experience on parametric design in the competition.

We are going to examine some remarcable comments and compare them adding some precious information.

Stating beforehand that different opinion originate from alternative architectural office specialization , it’s really interesting understand the dinamic that brings someone to have that determinate opinion.

Infact we don’t know the user of the questionnaire but we can be aware of his or her sequence of answers.

Thanks to this we are able to get some “creative profiles” that will follow the comment analysis.

Final comments of course are strongly related with the experience that we tasted with all the previous questions.

Comment A We think that BIM is a great opportunity for design but actual softwares are still limited in development. Then BIM is good, parametric no! And they are not the same. We used Allplan since 2004 but since two years we leave Allplan for sketchup. In many cases parametric software put limits to design process.

Pure modelling softwares as sketchup or formZ, for its simplicity and immediacy don't constrain your mind to think how to draw a thing but leave you design as you have objects in your hands. Then in many cases you don't need all infos that parametric software needs.

64/80

Comment B Our design method is strongly based on maquettes, hand-drawing and sketches. We use 3D softweres to verify formal solutions and individuate the best one, but also to provide suggestions for people who judge our work or for clients. We are convinced that the menagement of the project trhough drawing, as a traditional method, can't be repleaced by new parametric tools. So, for us, the 2D drawing is focal in our design process.

Comment C We think that parametric software are very useful when it is used to represent an idea from a drawing, model or any type of physical studies. It's not our goal to use the parametric to create a very complex form, on the contrary parametric must be used to decomplexify the shape and simplify it's way to built. In this competition the risk is to create a parametric shape just for it's aesthetic, especially when it's a program where the form can take an enormous place in the design.

Comment D We have used Grasshopper from the early phase of design. And it was very useful to set up different design approach.

Comment E Software utilization means a step to the future and general improvement. We all need to project toward innovation in order to refine tecnique and increase our job opportunities.

Reading comments let us be clear that once an architect ends his or her education path is going to prefer some method rather than others. This comments seem to be written by personalities don’t mincing one words.

In every project a preliminary phase describes the preparation and initiation activities required to prepare to meet the operational directive for a new architecture, including the definition of an organization-specific architecture framework and the definition of principles.

A step forward there’s architecture vision care that describes the initial phase of an architecture development cycle. It includes information about defining the scope, identifying the stakeholders, creating the architecture vision, and obtaining approvals.168 Mainly in the last 50 years, representation in architecture changed meaning.

The reason is included in the last sentence of the previous paragraph “creating the architecture vision, and obtaining approvals”.

This competition we are closely studying mirrors these changing. The existing drama is the loss of information that we provide to stockholders throught 3D representation.

Let’s open our mind and try to overtake the diffeence between technical representation and not technical. What if we can obtain in the same moment the same informations?

To make a comparison that maybe could help us to understand we can refer to a

8 Mitre.org, Cycle building Blocks Approaches to architecture development, september 2013

65/80

behavior that shaked up the architecture field, the perception of section even before of plans. Merely we can think about Mies Van der Rohe in many of their project where the experience in the volumes is the result of a clear assembly process of surface.

What about a complex shape?

We are now dealing with shapes that are hard to manage and the conception of volumes disappears.

Maybe parametric architecture will be not the solution, but surely is a first step toward a cohesion between representation and information.

So, let’s see how some participants of the Guggenheim museum in Helsinki handle software so as to appraise their ideas.

Comment A The users of the first comment make a strong distinction between a BIM technology and parametric technology as for instance Grasshopper is it.

We already found during this chapter an occasion to deepen this argument, here we are going to mainly clarify.

BIM means Building Information Modeling, and BIMs are files which can be exchanged or networked to support decision-making about a place.

He implies Allplan, a program developed by Nemetscheck Company supporting the BIM technology. BIM technology modifies parameters of structures inserted in 3D space but works differently from Grasshopper.

Grasshopper take advantage of a “knot diagrams” in a different windows from the 3D space one.

In fig.2 we see the general “workbench” for Grasshopper. On the right there is the free 3D space belonging to Rhinoceros. On the left there is the window belonging to the plug in. Differently from Allplan we didn’t insert objects and than we administrate their parameters, we immediately built a free shape throught parameters. Paradoxically Figure 2 Grasshopper standard monitor we can describe them like the same technolgy but applied with opposite processes. So the only one reason that can justify thee point of view held by the competitors in the first comment is the purpose of his or her 3D software utilisation. Actually we can not even compare these two method until the day in which Grasshopper will be used to represent a residential use rather than a geometrical pattern surface. Moreover the writer of the comment alludes to the uselessness of parametrization process in general because of the kind of project in which the studio is specialized. “Pure modelling softwares as sketchup or formZ, for its simplicity and immediacy don't constrain your mind to think how to draw a thing but leave you design as you have objects in your hands”. What if in this last part of the comment is supported the same thesis we are supporting for parametric architecture but referred to a total opposite approach in 3D software?

66/80

That’s a interesting chaos that underlines different conclusions. In fig.3 we see a screenshot from Allplan and what we notice immediately is the reasearch of shapes in the 3D space totally different. In all these reflection spontaneously arise a remark on Patrick Schumacker parametricism Figure 3 Allplan standard monitor theory. He asserts that the new era of architecture will be parametricism rather than a transition between styles.

In the real truth we can’t deny that this kind of architecture, even if brings many advantages during the preliminary phase and the next ones in a parametric field it’s still premature in the exectuve phase.

Unfortunately in the building construction the knowledge of some means it’s not proper and sometimes decisons are made with a occasional approach without any design instructions and acting thanks to experience, without direct connection between workers and planners.17 9 In this way we can conclude that this comment is representative of the average situation for architcture offices that reject parametric architecture because useless during their tasks.

Comment B The architectural studio in the second comment belong to the supporters of old methods. They state that in every case a 2D approach can’t be replaced from a process where are used 3D software exclusively.

This comment has something in common with the first one that is the scepticism in a process involving the only 3D parametric creation.

They implies that 3D representation it’s just the last step of their “crative chain” and they make it,above all to appeal stockholders.

Differently from the proevious comment they approve the dea that a unique process is not existing. Every project deserve different approach and methods, but 2D drawings and moquettes are a constant in this process.

It is not clear what kind of commissions this office is used to make, but one thing is sure it seems pretty sure that an involvement of parametric architecture can occur like other methods on the same plan.

Comment C “In this competition the risk is to create a parametric shape just for it's aesthetic, especially when it's a program where the form can take an enormous place in the design”. We report this statement belonging to the third comment to make clear how much our supposition can be share between studios joining the competition.

In the question “If you used it, why you have decided to use a parametric approach ?” include in the second part of the questionnaire we found a great percentage oriented on the idea that aesthetic purpose is one of the most recurring.

9 Ingrid Paoletti, “Costruire le forme complesse” ,Maggioli Editore 2010

67/80

As it is reported in the comment, there is a great risk to create a “trend shape” and not a true parametric one.

We should aslo remember that in the regulation of the competition, described in the first part of the essay, in a first moment , the jury need a strongconcept rather than a well-done project generally.

Parametric architecture is still right here to remember us that is possible the connection between concept and structure without any “trend mask” if used in a proper way.

Let’s reflect on this next comparison between two anonimous renders of random competitors. In these two images are contained totally different graphical information.

In fig. 4 we see a covering frame that is not plain at all. In fig.5 the render purpose is pretty the same but with an emphasized effect of dynamism. Even if it’s clear that we are comparing two different models and concept, we can argue about the way to represent information. Let’s suppose that both the realization are made with a good basement of Rhinoceros and Grasshopper. In fig. A the framework is Figure 4 render not so far from a real structure that implies that kind of geometries. All the square are about the same dimension and all are connected to the wall in the same point letting us presume that in the used model there’s a proper distibution of shape in surfaces. Fig.5 shows immediately the complexity of the project as it was the main feature.

Figure 5 render All the squares belonging to the covering framework are different and also the pillar that hypotetically should hold the superior frame. This previous reflection doesnt’t mean that if we are making complex shape we shouldn’t be too complex in our research, instead it discusses the way of representation that in the second case it is not correct.

Build a complex shape in a 3D software is not hard, but what architect should think is an effective connection between the drawings and a real structure. In the second example the decodification process is almost impossible.

This different behaviour let us think about a volountary use of parametric shapes in order to shock who is looking at the image.

Let’s introduce here the concept of “optimization”.Evolutionary structural optimization and extended evolutionary structural optimization, based on the removal of superfluous substance for an assigned geometry made by a determined constraints system.1810

10 Form finding strategies [workshop], Arturo Tedeschi, Milano 2015

68/80

Briefly, the optimization process allow us to work out some structural problems that we would probably find if we don’t investigate enough on our preliminary drawings. Optimization is a step forward after the concept. Fig. 5 could be interpreted entirely as a concept.

Comment D In this comment we found a Grasshopper user and the only information we got is that this plug in has been useful in the creative phase.

This is a proper way to use a parametric approach like grasshopper.

There again, the building process used by main software requires the ability to identify power generator geometries that will compose surface patterns.

Arise anothet essential question. The relationship between pure geometry and program application to express our self throught the use of its software properties.

Key motif is the relationship betwen representation and architectural design.1911 The aim of this essay is provide new and fresh point of view for every architect generation and this comment is the best exponent of the parametric approach.

After all if we are trying to define a creative process we are not gonna find a stable definition and as a traditional approach has no rule, even a modern one is characterized from a high level of freedom.

Whats is radical changing is a language that for who never dealt whit it seems to be limitated and probably we can’t define it as the msot clear one , but we can not forget that improvement implies complexity and multitasking.

It is in this panorama that the figure of architect is not well defined or sometimes too clearly defined. Putting everything in different words, there are too many “worlds” affecting architecture and if an architect is influenced mainly by one of them, the designer risk to lost his true position where he or her should abstain.

Bernard Tschumi in his “Parc de la Villette” abstains continuosly applying the “occourrence theory” , defined from aesthetes.

Tschumi sets out to disrupt architecture by advancing notions about space, event, and movement. In the Manhattan Transcripts, Tschumi (1976) claimed that "only the striking relationship between three levels of event, space and movement makes for the architectural experience.

Event’s theory and generative algorithms don’t belong to different worlds.

The only reason why parametric architecture is evolving always more toward an architecture field without references it’s because we need to recover the lost freedom when an architectural crative process is strengthened since a lot of time.

Unavoidably the current architecture belongs to the rationalism and modern movement of the last century, now an evolution seems ready to happen.

Comment E This is the last comment and conclude this third part of the chapter were we lingered on the studios opinion.

11 Academia.edu ,Artificio delle forme,Geometria e percorsi creativi Fabio Bianconi & Stefano Andreani, 2015

69/80

This studio recognizes that a update is necessary in order to be competitive in the architecture of the future but doesn’t mention its eventual application regarding parametric architecture.

This last comment partially resume the conclusive reflection that we can get from these comments.

The future will provide us always more frequently new tools directing itself toward complexity. There is a wide consensus about the necessity to enhance the awarness of 3D parametric software.

Howevere there are some obstacles. One one hand the uselessness of parametric architecture in smaller scales, on the other one some studios are not willing to completely leave a traditional method during the creative phase.

3.3 Creative profiles During the last section we are able to acquire some different “creative profiles” of architectural studios involving the questionnaire anaysis.

There is a reason behind everything. Studios acts in a different way for many causes and we try here to resume the features that make a studio attitude.

-Specialized actors in the team -Studio dimension in the market -Attendance at review/update meeting -Availability to collaborate with international figures All this factors will be supposed and deduced for any case analysed in order to understand the studios willingness to introduce parametric tools in their activity looking at different creative profiles.

It is also interesting, differently from the previous section, get a global comparison and not a fragmented one that separated every question of the questionnaire.

Premising that the end of this essay will open other research fields, before to get a global conclusion, let’s partially suppose once again as we did in the first phase where has been written the article.

We need to suppose continuosly and proceed with a confirmation in a later moment because direct questions on these topics are almost impossible to make.

Even if we know the level of specialization of figures working in every studios or we merely ask for the quantity of attendances at update classes, we could never know how they make their creative process and how they are considering parametric components in a personal project context.

Everything for us is inspiration from our past to our future ; our eucation, our childhood, our worktable, packaging shapes of consumption goods and so on.

From this questionnaire we don’t want to know the lifes of actors making the first sketch of the Guggenheim competition but we are interested in the research of global counterposed point of view that we will comment taking a look toward a potential parametric approach in the future of the analysed studios.

To answer a question about creativity, I think most people need to take a step back and think about their creative process. Most people tend to focus on the “creative” part of the equation when they really should be focusing on the “process” part. It is

70/80

a process … it takes time, and despite the fact that legendary Finnish architect Alvar Aalto said “You can’t chew pencils and spit ideas”, being creative is work and you shouldn’t expect to sit down and be struck with genius … at least not all the time.

I tend to break my own creative process into three different and distinct categories: Distraction ,Inspiration and Creation.2012 Parametric architecture strongly affect the third component: the act of the creation for that reason we can consider it as a new level of inspiration after the inspiration, a really strong tool that has to be used in a proper way. Unbalancing our self we could define parametric architecture as a tool affecting directly our experience.

Bob Norson take into account different features that influence us during the perception of the basic concept to develop. What we know involountarily during these 3 experience is “collaborate” with an external component. So we can conclude that first of all in our creative process we need collaboration.

Collaboration means the action of working with someone to produce something and If we consider this words from a more abstract point of view we can get the following definition.

Collaboration means the exchange of information between two different entity in order to achieve a planned purpose. Parametric architecture is also collaboration and this aspect becomes vital inasmuch the complexity required a complex administration.

So we can identify two kind of collaboration.

1.” Personal collaboration” that is related to our relation with the software and our potentiality to abstain from influences and treasure our experience in the right moment.

2. “External collaboration” that is related to the relation with external factor. In short collaboration between architect to success in a complex project.

The construction phase of complex shape has infact been enriched by new relations more and more decisive.2113 Different actors are involved in a building process and always moe during a preliminary phase where the utilization of software in order to communicate becomes crucial.

Many studios rely on the collaboration and believe in it as value added, others find not so beneficiary a collaboration where is going to occur a comparison between them and the collaborator.

We should accept our skills and limits and collaborate to increase our experience for the next project we will compose rather than preserve what we know. We will touch directly this topic taking a look at the highlights included in the next “creative profile table”.

12 Lifeofanarchitect.com The creative process for an architect, Bob Borson, November 6 2013 13 Ingrid Paoletti, “Costruire le forme complesse” ,Maggioli Editore 2010

71/80

Creative profiles table (fig .6)

Profiles

Profile A

Profile B

Profile C

During the planning phase have you used a 3D modeling software ?

yes

yes

yes

In that case which kind of software has been used ?

Rhino, Grasshopper

Autocad, Rhino

3DS max, Revit

What is the main purpose of advanced tool utilisation ?

a structural optimization, an aesthetic element, visualize ideas and make a choice to pursue a design process

get building information from the model, visualize ideas and make a choice to pursue a design process, make a realistic representation that could make more plausible some solutions of the project

get building information from the model, visualize ideas and make a choice to pursue a design process, make a realistic representation that could make more plausible some solutions of the project

According to you, a 3D modeling approach can match the level of knowledge of a project developed with a traditional architectural process based on 2D design and moquettes ?

yes

yes

yes

According to you, how much a 3D modeling approach can influence preliminary composition phase ?

high

high

on average

How much an advanced tool can influence the language determining complex shapes ?

high

high

high

3D modeling approach can improve project quality ?

high

on average

on average

Have you used during the planning phase a 3D plug-in parametric software ?

yes

yes

no

In that case which kind of software or plugin it has been used ?

Grasshopper

Grasshopper

Revit

If you used it, why you have decided to use a parametric approach ?

a structural element, an aesthetic element, to control completely the model, to get a complex shape easily

an aesthetic element, to get a complex shape easily

get building information from the model, to control completely the model

If you have designed parametric component in your project, how much do you believe it has affected the concept phase of the project ?

on average

low

low

In your design office how many people are able to use 3D parametric software ?

two people

two people

three people

If anyone in your design office is able to use these kind of tools, who is the person you rely on ?

every time we adopt a different method according to the situation

every time we adopt a different method according to the situation

we prefer appoint the development of the activity keeping out every kind of collaboration

Do you see in the next future the possibility to invest in a large part in advanced tools ?

yes, we are increasing the utilisation of advanced tool in order to improve our knowledge

yes, we are increasing the utilisation of advanced tool in order to improve our knowledge

yes, we are increasing the utilisation of advanced tool in order to improve our knowledge

Personal opinion

We have used Grasshopper from the early phase of design. And it was very useful to set up different design approach.

During the primary phase Grasshopper is a good tool that make us go toward unknown direction. It’s a new tool and we need experience and external references.

I think that parametric software are very useful when it is used to represent an idea from a drawing, model or any type of physical studies. It's not our goal to use the parametric to create a very complex form, on the contrary parametric must be used to decomplexify the shape and simplify it's way to built.

In this competition the risk is to create a parametric shape just for it's aesthetic, especially when it's a program where the form can take an enormous place in the design.

Questions

Â

72/80

What’s coming out from the fig.6 is enough clear. Let’s pay attention on the blue shades in the table. The sequence of answers is more or less the same in the first two profiles, it differs in the third one. Drawing our self on the last paragraph about collaboration we can immediately establish some radical differences from this two parametric approach. In the first two cases is declared the utilization of Grasshopper meanwhil in the third one the utilisation of the BIM software, Allplan.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence but the following data about the collaboration is strongly significative for our analysis.

We previously stated that complexity implies collaboration and with parametric architecture collaboration is accentued because of the freedom in the utilisation of the parametric plug in. The first two cases admit that everytime they deal with a project involving some parametric operation they are prone to find a new collaboration. This data fully mirror the nature of this competition where studios collaborated also from really long distance.

Some examples of international collaborations are the following studio, three competitors of the six finalists.

SMAR Architecture Studio (Madrid e Western Australia) Architectural Agonism (New York, Barcellona e Sydney) AGPS Architecture Ltd. (Zurigo e Los Angeles) It’s remarkable the existence of Cisco, one of most used organization between architecture studios to collaborate and win every kind of distance.

We could develop an entire chapter about the colaboration topic, by now we limitate our self to describe cisco collaboration architecture model through a diagram.

• Find and connect • communicate and meet • create, share, consume

User Experience and environments

Application and devices

Network and compute infrastructure

Collaboration Services

• Network • Computer • Storage

Figure 7 Cisco model of collaboration for Architecture

• • • •

UC Clients Web conference Social Customer Care

• • • • • •

Cal control Conferencing Scheduling Edge Services Messaging Media Service

Beyond this schematization that confirms how the collaboration should be considered as a great resources between studios. We can also describe the advantages of this processes.

This open, integrated architecture works with new and existing technologies, and helps you simplify business processes. By aligning this architecture with your strategic goals, you can:

73/80

-Increase productivity and lower your total cost of ownership -Accelerate time to market and increase revenue growth -Improve customer satisfaction and generate new ideas2214 Coming back on the table what we need to points out is the connection between parametric architecture through Grasshopper that easily involves collaboration and the bond between a parametric process through Allplan that seems to avoid the collaboration. Of course we can’t know the real number of cases similar to the last quoted example and we also remain in a supposition sphere, even if comments help us to take a direction rather than onther one.

Infact in the two “Grasshopper profile” emerges how the process has been important in order to define the project and the parametric plug in is considered as a active component in the perception of shapes.

Meanwhile in the third one comment there are two important assertations.

The first part, “It's not our goal to use the parametric to create a very complex form, on the contrary parametric must be used to decomplexify the shape and simplify it's way to built”, describe the attitudes of this studio on generative algorithms processes that is the opposite one comparing it with the first two cases.

In addition to this, the second part of the answer “In this competition the risk is to create a parametric shape just for it's aesthetic, especially when it's a program where the form can take an enormous place in the design” points out the drama that is living the contemporary complex architecture and seems to be a explanation related to the previous assertation.

Dealing with the first part of the section where we described features that make a studio attitude it’s pretty obvious the difference between the three profiles.

Let’s associate profile A and B and compare them with C. Every studios has specialized actors, many in the third case. Dimension in the market remain unknown for the third cases meanwhile for the first two we can bear witness thanks to the final comment of a external collaboration that indirectly makes increase the “studio boundaries”.

In all the likelihood the first two studios have specialized actors attending update meeting more frequently than the third one given that the third studio consider parameteric architecture just a process where information are extrapolate, this doesn’t affect the high specialization in BIM programs like Allplan.

The availability to collaborate is strongly related to the dimension in the market that today doesn’t depends anymore just from personal resources but thanks to the world wide web from the wish to increase the experience of the studio joining different kind of collaborations and taking advantage of them.

14 Cisco.com, Collaboraton section, Cisco collaboration architecture model 2015

74/80

3.4 Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition: A Parametric Analysis (epilogue) A conclusion for this analysis deserves a information rearrangement to indicate reached goals.

We proceeded respectively with the following phases and intents.

-A deep analysis on the competition announcement that aimed to describe condition in which competitor worked and what the jury was looking for. Showing the requirements to join this competition we could develop a fair opinion on every case discussed anonymously in this essay.

In the concept design guidelines was required to demonstrate that the architecture, immediate external space, exterior, and interior spaces are of the highest quality, expressing the goals of the program and responding to the site.

This particular of the guideline let us deduce the power of the graphical instrument in order to win this competition.

-A description of the article that has been a premise in order to continue this analysis. We should remember that in this article was resumed a quality evaluation on renders through diagrams because at the moment the only material that could be consulted were renders.

Watching at all the renders we had a first impression of the attitude of participants and we noticed a strong gap between different cases but a common wish to address the project toward complex shape.

We deepened this assertation about complex shape thanks to the contribute of Patrick Schumacher but we also comment it taking into account questionnaire comments.

-A comparison between our previous evaluation during the article composition and a second one once project boards have been published.

This comparison worked as litmus paper for us and we completely understand differences between jury evaluation and our personal graphical evaluation looking at parametric architecture.

-Finally we let partecipate directly studios in our analysis through a online questionnaire sent for e-mail. We received many feedback and with all the result we made one more defined analysis always paying attention to parametric use of software.

During this long process we focused on parametric architecture more than every other topic and we didn’t try to understand an evaluation from the jury.

That was not our goal but given that we are aware of the competition winner let’s see once again how the winner achieve the award of 100 000 euro in a competition where complex shapes where the key word was “complex shape”.

We knewn from he second part of the essay that the winnes are Nicolas Moreau and Hiroko Kusonoki. These two architects are really young but have a large experience in terms of collaboration.

75/80

We can’t overlook this quality of the winners given that in the previous section we developed many consideration about collaborations after the “creative profiles” composition.

Moureau and Kusonoki currently are located in Paris (France) but both started their career in a total different context, Tokio. Kusunoki starts worked for Shigeru Ban, meanwhile Moureau worked for SANAA and Kengo Kuma. They leave toghether Tokio to start a new activity in France.

In the previous 3 lines is vierified how many experiences these two architects had and attending totally different context they probably have arrived until develop a kind of international experience impling different abilities.

The collaboration betwen architects probably is the only one factor that combines our evaluation with the one made by the jury but we need also to say that our aim was not to declare a winner of complex shape.

Our goal since the first page of the essay has been consider the use of parametric architecture in the competition and the fundamental question it is “how prametric architecture affect a creative process in architecture?”.

We are going to provide an answer of course during this last section taking into account interest results.

Winners probably didn’t even use a parametric component in their project and this make us thing that parametric architecture is not more than a choice of architects.

Several times we bumped into commment that consider parametric architecture like an expression limit and probably is it true for now given that if renders where this component is used are recognizable, we run into a standard method that kills the creative process.

So we can say that during this essay there are continuously two main different stream of thoughts.

-Parametric architecture make us create freely -Parametric architecture is a limit for our creation It’s hard for us make a decision when the real truth is that everything it’s up to the user of these parametric plug in. But given that we found many times users of BIM technology when the parametric architecture differs from the parametric concept of Grasshopper inasmuch is driven buy the software rather than leave us completely free in front the geometry world, we need to state other consideration and go over our precarious position.

During the interview to the winner Nicolas Moreau states that architecture is that subject that connects space and people and in this context one of the main duty of the architect was create an effective connection between city and waterfront trough an art museum.

With this passages we can probably understand the reason why architects things that parametric design doesn’t offer them the occasion to think freely.

This parametric movement offers new typology of shapes never seen before.

We are now ready to handle complex shape that were inconceivable about one hundred years ago, but not in art maybe.

Our urban context completely differs from parametricism and we deal with geometric composition generated from the beginning.

76/80

We can state that in a parametric process we are too much free to design shape and we lose the perception of real conditions.

This explain why some studios prefer maintain parametric architecture like last passage rather than start with it.

This explain also why some factions are not agree with Patrick Schumacker conception of parametric like new architectural period.

There is too much gap between this generation and the last one in architecture and this improvement has no association with improvements in our history.

We can compare it to internet for the comunication field.

Figure 8 examples of robotic achitecture system

The use of robots, combined with digital design tools, means a new aesthetic becomes possible, with novel shapes and patterns that would be nearly impossible to achieve without the automated machines: industrial manipulators that are extremely precise and good at repetition.2315 Differently from the previous uses with well defined parameters we are able to describe “actions” in a 3D space and make it possible in the reality.

Without references complex shapes risk to became meaningless shapes and for this reason parameric field need continuously research.

In this competition we have seen some good use of parametric architecture and some other not proper but we realize that there is a research on complex shapes.

By the way since always in the architectural field there is a strong desire to succeed in controlling complex shape.

The following example is suitable to solve our doubts about complex shape.

We are in the 1958 during the Bruxelles international Exhibition.

This exhibition is remarkable in the history for his intention to apply main concepts belonging to a natural field in architecture.

Science is increasing in this period and all the architects try to give their contribute taking a look at what’s happening in this period to make avanguarde structure.

The most important building is the “Atomium” by Andrè Wterkeyn. A steel structure representing an enlargement of an Iron molecule.

There is another project, less important that is appreciable for its shape and purpose. It is the Poeme electronique by Les Corbusier, nowadays not existing.

The most notable feature of this Expo pavilion is the lack of square and plain surface. If we look at the foto (Fig.9) of this pavilion and we don’t know that was made by Les Corbusier we could think that it is belonging to the contemproary era.

It was composed from striped surfaces made by precompressed reinforced concrete .

15 Iee spectrum.org Architects Using Robots to Build Beautiful Structures By Markus Waibel, 20 Sep 2011

77/80

What is important for us now is not the shape for once but the purpose of the building because this factor could connect parametric architecture with our society permanently in the future.

The main idea behind this pavilion is the reproduction of soundwaves. We so many examples in the history of care about the distribution of soundwaves but we’ve never assisted before of this examples to the compination between new shapes and technological purposes.

So from this analysis arise an important conclusion. Parametric architecture, like every other method could set aside for us some revolutionary way to live and it’s a Figure 9 Le poeme electronique Les Corbusier duty of the architect belonging to this Bruxelles 1958 generation push the new discoveed field looking for alternative methods to “inhabit” buildings.

We can conclue this essay in the following passage. Architecture ghathers its rules from the experience but in the same moment looking for a continuous developlment it is ready to refrain every influence.

Parametric architecture is an emerging field of architecture that stiil need infinite researches to be stable and the greater risk for who deal with it is to make meaningless shapes.

Only purposes can justify the use of parametric architecture even if this typology of architecture is prone to go with us from the preliminary phases rather than later.

So we are going to enter in a new conception of architecture where purposes and utilizations are originated from the shape and not the opposite.

Architects must ask themselves if they are finding a new direction rather than thinking that they are going in the wrong one.

During this analysis we developed many topics and we also tryed to make conclusions through sylogisms but we are studying a competition and we always remained to this end.

Reading the competition announcement we can’t fly over this passage regarded sustainability : to demonstrate a response to the environmental priorities of the program, the lifecycle and the responsible use of materials; and also to demonstrate it is suited to the site climatic conditions, is practical within time and budget, and resolves the given site constraints with respect to road access and port operations.

It’s definitely vague as a guideline about what can be the technological component that make the project actually useful from every point of view.

However some competitors tried to give a strong technological impact to the project also trying to justify their choices.

Probably this was not the first goal of the jury that focused more on the concept and position of architectural volumes between city and water.

Probably if they provided more information about technologic systems, this competition could increase its quality.

78/80

And buildings themselves are parts of a larger functional relationship with their surroundings. In architectural discourse, these fundamental concepts should be kept apart, because they address completely different questions, none less important than the other. Taking this as a basis, the two concepts of function and purpose can be com- bined to form a more complex system, considering on the one hand, that in- tending subjects, means and purposes can consist of partswhole and cause- effect relationships, and on the other hand, that parts can consist of intending subjects, means and purposes.2416 The relation between functionality and parametricism could be the key to make the utilization of parametric software efficient at all. We are not looking for a software able to merge utilization, technology and shape, it will never exist because that one is the duty of the architect: merge experiences.

We are interested in a right perception of the project. For the previous reason we found interesting leave a format for a proper parametric perception given that parametric field remains a total open research.

Looking at some competition cases we compare different creative method with different results and everyone of them turned out to be a good answer to the competition necessities.

We can suppose some steps in order to help new generation of architects basing our self on this competition analysis.

-Be aware of technologies purposes before to perceive the shape through parrametric architecture. During this essay we understood that many personalities in the architecture panorama state the strongets contraddiction “Be free in the conception of the shapes, let the influences go away” with “Architecture differs from art because of use and not just shapes”.

Undeniably architecture needs purposes, unfortunately or not before than shapes and dispositions, actully everything should descend from space utilizations and technology purposes.

Architect should design the emptyness and leave the conception that architecture means fullness of components.

-A strong research that connects shapes, material and purposes is the basic requirement for a good project made with parametric tecniques.

Every project should be forerunned from a deep analysis on materials, purposes and other topics dealing with it. This is the only way to create new experience and don’t be influenced from something that is not totally belonging to the new case.

-Solutions are infinites.

16

Function, Purpose, Use in Architecture and Urbanism, ute Poerschke und eduard h. Führ 2010

79/80

A good advantage that parametric architecture brings is the possibility to create solutions more than previous method.

This because we are acting in a decoded space and we can get every kind of measure and shape. Of course this doesn’t mean “free building process”.

Standard solution are the sustainable ones.

-Create a technological component able to bring an innovation for architecture rather than a solution for our own project.

Architecture is continuous research, a new component could be also a modification of an existing one.

-Look for references at the moment we are building a component in detail and let this step influence the project and the shape of our project.

If we are looking for new experience but in the same time we don’t need to create the most evocative shape to keep the attention of the client, we can actually take a deep inspiration between the lines of our necessities.

-Traditional methods are worth like alternative ones.

The Design process lead us to conclusion and we saw in this analysis 1715 different unique conclusions. Different conclusion means different methods.

Parametric architecture is justifiable for many reasons like architecture is it and for a parametric approach it’s remarkable to start with a relationship between people and emptiness of the space rather than fill up the space with a smart pattern.

-Collaboration is a value added to our analysis.

Our necessity is to share a creative process. Share a creative procedure is not easy.

Generally a personal attitude is not prone to be merged with another one different.

However this is the only way to meet complex that will increase needs for a complexity that is going to increase always more.

In short, these are some expedients for a good parametric approach. We don’t forget that this competition is the proof that there is not a only way to perceive and design buildings, so in light of the fact that the competition winner represent a really good collaboration between different experiences, let’s collaborate to make new ways to design architectural solutions.

80/80