Kwek_Amanda_939562_Part B by Amanda Elizabeth Kwek

U T A O

A m a n d a

9 3 9 5 6 2

Tu t o r : M oy s h i e E l i a s

Conten t s

CO N TE N TS

PART B. Design Criteria 06

B.1 Research Criteria The Serpentine Gallery Pavilion Situation Room

128 B.2 Case Study 1.0 (A) L-Systems & Loops 5 Families - 50 Iterations (B) The ‘BLOOM’ Project (C) Component Design & Manual Recursion

384 B.3 Case Study 2.0 42 42

B.4 Technique: Development + B.5 Technique: Prototypes

B.6 Technique: Proposal

B.7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes

B.8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches (A) Gradient Descent (B) L Systems / Basic Looping

Reference List

PART B:

CRITERIA

DESIGN

PART B.1

RESEARCH FIELD Through the years, Digital Technologies have constantly been ‘changing architectural practices in ways’, impacting the way buildings are being designed and construction practices. These digital driven design processes are ‘dynamic, open-ended and unpredictable but consistent transformations of three-dimensional structures’ that are ‘giving rise to new possibilities’, enabling designers to expand their design opportunities by ‘allowing production and construction of very complex forms’. The field of Genetic algorithms, in a design perspective for generating architecture, is

the use of ‘bio-inspired operations (mutation, crossover & selection)’ to generate high quality solutions to resolve the problem, producing a large amount of random and unexpected possibilities. This often involves the use of recursive aggregation. However, this is unlike simple recursive aggregation which uses recursive algorithms to generate intricate sculptural shapes, by beginning with a simple definition, of which the result has already been more or less determined. One example of simple recursive aggregation is The Serpentine Pavilion.

B.1 Researc h Field

The S e r pe n t i n e Pav ilion B j a r ke I n g e l s G ro u p (B IG )

Figure 1.1 Overall design of the Serpentine Pavilion.3

The Serpentine Pavilion is an example that uses recursive aggregation in its design. It is an ‘unzipped wall’ 1 that transforms ‘from a straight line to a three-dimensional space, creating a dramatic structure’ 1 . The design process begins with the ‘most basic elements of architecture: the brick wall’ 1 . The flat wall is then pulled apart, forming ‘cavity within it’, creating this interesting three-dimensional environment that can be ‘explored and experienced in a variety of ways: inside and outside’ 2. (Refer to the diagrams below in Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.2 Design Process of the Pavilion overall form.

1. The Serpentine Galleries, Serpentine Pavilion and Summer Houses 2016 <http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/ serpentine-pavilion-and-summer-houses-2016> [accessed 20 August 2018] 2. BIG, Serpentine Pavilion <https://www.big.dk/#projects-serp> [accessed 21 August 2018]. 3. Image Source (Figure 1.1) : TOMO TAKA, Designs revealed for BIG’s Serpentine Pavilion and four summer houses (2016) <https://thespaces.com/2016/02/24/designs-revealed-for-bigs-serpentine-pavilion-and-four-summer-houses/> [accessed 20 August 2018].

The S er p en t i n e G a l l e ry Pavilio n

Wall Structure

Wall Components

Spatial Wall

Boxes & profiles are arranged in an orthogonal grid.

The wall consists of 1802 glass fibres boxes (400mm x 500mm) with 2890 cruciforr aluminium extrusions.

The boxes slide inwards & outwards in a checkerboard pattern, unfolding in two layers.

Figure 1.3 Detailed Stacking of the Fibreglass Frames. 2

Due to its massive form, ‘Pultruded fibreglass frames’ 1 , a lightweight material was is to create this pavilion rather than bricks. The shape of fibreglass frames are uniform and identical, which are fixed together using ‘cruciform aluminium extrusions’ 2 . From this project, we can see some similarities in its design process and the process of recursive aggregation. The final outcome of the form and shape of the beginning definition has been determined from the start. Also, it uses a simple definition, the design of a piece which is being used consistently throughout the form. This design technique is different from Genetic Architecture, which can be seen in the next example of the Situation Room.

Figure 1.4 An example of Recursive Aggregation to compare with Figure 1.3 to show its similarities. 4

4. Image Source (Figure 1.4) : echoechonoisenoise, aggregations (2010) <https://echoechonoisenoise.wordpress.com/tag/rhino script/> [accessed 22 August 2018].

B.1 Researc h Field

S i t uat i o n Ro o m M a r k Fo rne s, Th e Ve r y Many

Figure 2.1 Internal Shot of the Installation, showing its organic form.

The Situation Room by TheVeryMany is one of the examples that is rather similar to how genetic architecture works through its process. The overall form of the installation is ‘created out of Boolean operations merging the spheres and lending rigidity through the inherent double curvature, while best allowing for storage through nesting of incremental radii’ 5 . ‘Perforated pink aluminium panels’ 6 is used for the installation due to its ‘light-weight, ultra-thin self-supported shell structure’ 5 that was required. Not only did it make it easier

5. TheVeryMany, SITUATION ROOM (2014) <https://theverymany.com/14-storefront> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 6. Dan Howarth, Marc Fornes creates pink “envelope of experiential tension” for Situation Room installation (2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/10/15/marc-fornes-pink-aluminium-situation-room-installation-storefront-art-architec ture-new-york/> [accessed 20 August 2018] 7. Image Source (Figure 2.1) : ARTINDOORS, SITUATION ROOM IN NYC BY MARC FORNES <http://artindoors.altervista.org/situa tion-room-nyc-marc-fornes/> [accessed 21 August 2018].

Situat ion Ro o m

‘Perforated pink aluminium panels’ 6 is used for the installation due to its ‘light-weight, ultra-thin self-supported shell structure’ 5 that was required. Not only did it make it easier to create such unique forms, it also blurs the boundaries of ‘spatial envelope, acoustic-membrane, structural performance, assembly-parts and distributed lighting’ 5 with the help of the ‘coat of neon-effect’ 5 . From this project, we can see some similarities in its design process and the process of genetic architecture. The end result of this project is not determined from the start by the architect, but instead it was derived from experimentation of many iterations to create many random possibilities through the use of recursive algorithms, resulting in best of the many to be used for the final product. Through genetic architecture, it enables them to be able to produce a variety of pieces that are unique in their own ways that has different purposes that benefits the outcome, of which only the ‘fittest’ will be used, similarly to human DNA.

Figure 2.2 List of process works to show the parameters of the project and its finalised form.

8. Image Source (Figure 2.2) : TheVeryMany, SITUATION ROOM (2014) <https://theverymany.com/14-storefront> [accessed 20 August 2018].

PART B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0

B.2A L- systems & Loops

L- Syste m s Hi sto r y an d The ory The L-systems, also known as the Lindenmayer systems, was designed and developed by ‘Hungarian theoretical biologist’10, Aristid Lyndenmeyer in 1968. Its purpose is to be able to create a ‘mathematical theory of elementary plant development’ 9. The emphasis of this system ‘was on plant topology’ 12 , to study the ‘spatial relations between cells or larger plant modules’ 9 ; ranging from ‘ biological simulation, mathematical formalisms, theory of computation , artificial life and visualisations’ 13. The main concept of the L-systems is about ‘parallel rewriting’ 13; a technique which is used for ‘defining complex objects by successively replacing parts of a simple initial object using a set of rewriting rules or productions’ 12 . In other words, it consists of a set of symbols which are ‘rewritten (replaced, changed) according to some set of rules ’ 13 . This process happens ‘over the entire set of symbols simultaneously, simulating parallel development of components’ 13 , which is draws similarities in the way which cells develop in an organism.

9. PROCEDURAL COMPOSITION TUTORIAL, L-Systems: Some History <http://www.avatar.com.au/courses/Lsystems/History.html> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 10. Wikipedia, L-system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#L-system_structure> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 11. Paul Bourke, L-System User Notes (1991) <http://paulbourke.net/fractals/lsys/> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 12. Algorithmic Botany, L-System <http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/abop/abop-ch1.pdf> [accessed 26 August 2018]. 13. JON McCORMACK, GENERATIVE MODELLING WITH TIMED L-SYSTEMS (2004) <http://users.monash.edu/~jonmc/research/Pa pers/McCormack_DCC04.pdf> [accessed 26 August 2018].

5 Fa m ilies - 5 0 I te rat i o n s

Fa milie s

Growth

Direction

Dispersion

Twist

Irregularity

B.2A L- systems & Loops

A xio m : B A= AB B= AC C= ABC

A xio m : C A= AB B= CD C= BC D= AD

A x i om : C A= EAB B= AB C= BCD D= DA E= BC

A x i om : A B A= AB B= CDB C= BC D= AD

Ax io m : ACE A= ABE B= BC C= ABC D= AD E= CB F= ED

Ax io m : CD B A= BC B= CDA C= DA D= CD

G row t h The iterations are similar as they all start out from a singular ‘branch’ , which slowly grows outwards and upwards , similar to a plant and tree; thus resulting in its family name , Growth.

5 Fa m ilies - G row th

A x io m : B A= ABG B= CB C= CDB D= DE E= EFC F= FGA G= GAD

A x io m : B A= BCD B= AC C= DB D= CA

Axiom : C A= EAB B= AB C= BCD D= DA E= BC

Axiom : CD A= BCD B= AC C= DBA D= CA

The iteration which best reperesents the family of Growth would be the 10th iteration because of its best shows the progression of growing, which is a fixed cycle.

B.2A L- systems & Loops

A xio m : DA A= ABC B= CDA C= BAD D= CAD

A xio m : BA A= AC B= BA C= CDA D= DA

x10

A x i om : B C A= ABC B= AC C= CAB

A x i om : C A A= ABC B= CDAB C= BAD D= CAB

Ax io m : AB A= ABC B= ACB C= BA

x10

Ax io m : CD A= BC B= BDA C= DA D= CDAB

D irect i o n A sense of direction is what categorises these 10 iterations together; where they all have a similarity of this uniform curved structure form which seems to be going in a similar direction.

5 Fa m ilies - D i re c ti o n

x10

A x io m : C A= AC B= BA C= DCA D= CBD

A x io m : A D A= ABCDE B= BC C= CD D= DE E= EA

A x i om : B A= BD B= CA C= ADB D= DABC

A x i om : AC D A= ABCD B= ACD C= DBC D= DABC

The iteration which best reperesents the family of Direction would be the 10th iteration because of its never ending loop effect, giving us a continous sense of direction.

B.2A L- systems & Loops

A xio m : C D B A= ABCD B= ACD C= DBC D= DABC

A xio m : AC A= AB B= BC C= CA

A x i om : A E A= BDE B= ACD C= ABED D= BECA E= ACED

A x i om : B A= ACB B= BA C= CA

D isper s i o n These models share a similar idea of Dispersion. They all began with a focal point being the centre (where the lines are more dense and closely formed together), and then ‘explodes’ outwards (lines are less congested and more spread out).

Ax io m : AB CD A= AB B= BCD C= CD D= DEB E= EA

Ax io m : B C A= DA B= CAD C= ABD D= B

5 Fa m ilies - D i s p e rs i o n

A x io m : A A= AB B= CD C= BC D= AD

A x io m : BE A= ABDE B= ACD C= ABED D= BECA E= ACED

Axiom : B A= BCD B= BD C= DAC D= CB

Axiom : B A= C B= BA C= CDB D= DA

x10

The iteration which best reperesents the family of Dispersion would be the 6th iteration because of its ttrong core where the lines are more concentrated and the ends being more free and away from each other.

B.2A L- systems & Loops

A xio m : A B A= ABC B= ACB C= BAC D= CA

A xio m : B A= AD B= ABCD C= ADB D= CADB

x10

Axiom : CD A= ABC B= ACB C= BAC D= CA

x10

A x i om : C D B A= ABCD B= ACD C= DB D= DABC

x10

Ax io m : A A= BCD B= CDAB C= ADB D= CAB

Ax io m : A A= AB B= CD C= BC D= AD

Tw i st The iterations made all consists of this notion of twisting; where the form seems to be going in two opposing directions, turning and moving away from each other.

5 Fa m ilies - Tw i st

x10

A x io m : B A= AB B= BC C= CA

A x io m : B A= BD B= CA C= ADB D= DABC

A x i om :B A= AC B= BA C= CD D= DA

A x i om : C B A= ABC B= BC C= CA

x10

The iteration which best reperesents the family of Twist would be the 5th iteration because of its strong turning effect where we can see the forms moving away from each other.

B.2A L- systems & Loops

A xio m : C B A= AC B= BCA C= CA

Axiom : A BC D A= CAB B= C C= ADC D= B

x 10

Axiom : BD A= CAD B= BD C= AC D= DB

Axiom : BCD A= CABD B= C C= ADC D= B

Ax io m : B D A= BA B= CD C= AB D= DC

Ax io m : B CD A= CABD B= A C= ADC D= D

Irregul a r i t y These forms all are rather irregular as they all are very different in their own ways, thus the similarity draws because of their difference.

5 Fa m ilies - I rre g u l a ri t y

A x io m : B A= DA B= CB C= AD D= BC

A x io m : C A A= D B= ABCD C= B D= CBD

A x i om : B C A A= DA B= CB C= AD D= BC

Axiom : D A= D B= ABCD C= B D= CBD

The iteration which best reperesents the family of Irregularity would be the 1st iteration because of its rather interesting how symmetrical form could form something irregular.

B.2B C ase Stu dy 1

The ‘B l o o m P ro j e ct ’ Al i s a A n drase k an d Jo se Sa nc hez

Figure 3.1 Close up Shot of the Installation, showing its unique form produced using a ‘cell’ that is used recursively. 16

The ‘Bloom Project’ is a project that was design in celebration of the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012. The aim of this project designed to be very ‘interactive’ 14 ; by conveying and embracing the ‘creativity of everyone that encounters it’ 15, allowing members of the public to alter and dismantle the pieces , creating their own unique designs. LEGO was the main driving concept of this project; a ‘generic and universal, and other toys that could be assembled in different ways’ 15. The project consists of 60,00 neon pink pieces, made up of ‘recyclable plastic cells’ 15.

14. Plethora Project, Bloom <https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom/> [accessed 3 September 2018]. 15. Urbanista, Bloom: Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez <https://www.urbanista.org/issues/issue-1/features/bloom-alisa-andrasekand-jose-sanchez> [accessed 3 September 2018]. 16. Image Source (Figure 3.1) : BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez (2012) <https://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-acrowd-sourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez/img_3588> [accessed 3 September 2018].

The ‘Bloo m P ro j e c t ’

The pieces are designed as such to allow a ‘reconfigurable system’ 15 , where there are many ‘possible connections between the cells’ 15 by ‘recombining the connections in each cell’ 15. Not only does this teach them the idea of generative, it also the many possibilities it could have despite its pieces being the same. Another interesting part of this project is that it is also ‘ a never finished structure in constant fluctuation, finding moments of stability and moments of failure’ 14. Similarly to recursive/ Genetic architecture as seen in the Serpentine Pavilion, it consists of a main ‘element’ that is to be multiplied recursively, producing a broad variety of possible outcomes. These outcomes will then be sorted in accordance to its determined perimeters; deciding which fits best and which does not. All in all, recursive/genetic architecture is ‘a game, and, as in complexity theory, the simplest generic element can recombine.’ 15

Figure 3.2 Showing the of process of one of the many interesting possibilites the ‘cell’ could make, an abstract bench using the pieces recusrively.

17. Image Source (Figure 3.2) : Atonio Pacheco , London’s Other Distributed Social Game: A Collective Gardening Experience (2012) <http://www.evolo.us/londons-other-distributed-social-game-a-collective-gardening-experience/> [accessed 3 September 2018].

B . 2 C Co mpo nent D esign and M anual Rec ursion

6 Co m po n e n t s

Fluidity

Twist

Edgy

6 Co m p on e n ts

Tumour

Tentacles

Overlap

fl ui d ity. Axiom = BCD A = ABCD B = ACD C = ABC D = BAC

e d g y. Axiom = ABCD A = ACD B = ABD C = ABC D = AC

t umour. Axiom = ABC A = ABD B = ABCD C = ABC D = ACD

te n t acl es. Axiom = ABCD A = ABD B = ACD C = ABC D = AC

PART B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0

B.3 Case Study 2.0

Aggy-At t a c k Co mp one nt Ag g re g at ion Th e co n cep t o f t he ste p s b e l ow t akes re fe re n ce to R e c ursi v e A g g re g at i on, bu t in an a u to m at ic a p p ro ach t hro ug h t he help of grass h oppe r de fin ition s. Th e main pe r ime ters of t h is a re t he rul e s e t s , num b e r o f ge n e ration s an d its or ie n tation .

Create an axiom handle; polylines that are joined at a right angle. (a) Reference it as a Curve component (select One Curve) in grasshopper. (b) It is important that the polylines are joined at a right angle as it helps specify the new plane and to orient the future branches.This also applies to the dummy branch polylines.

Design a Component , which will be used as the main component of the aggregation. (a) Orient and place the component on the axiom handle. (b) Reference the Component as a Brep in Grasshopper. (c) The dummy branches that were created earlier will then have a component each, which takes reference from the main component.

Using the axiom handle as the reference point, create several dummy branch with right angled polylines (similar to the axiom handle). (a)The number of branches, direction and location varies depending on the design of the component as these will affect the way in which the aggregation grows later. (b)The length of the polylines should be fixed as the component used throughout will be the same. (c) Reference these branches a Curve component (select Multiple Curves) in grasshopper. Each will then have an alphabet to differentiate each branch.

Ensure that the branches are not colliding with each other. (a) In grasshopper, use Cull Pattern to get rid of any recursive components that are colliding with each other.

‘Agg y-At t ac k Co mp o n e n t Ag greg atio n’ D efinitio n

Create a point in which determines where the aggregation shall start its growth from.

Create some geometries; a platform and volumes as ‘obstacles’. This affects the rowth of the aggregation; by growing around these ‘obstacles’, allowing each ruleset to have vary in form, depending on the ‘obstacles’. (a) Reference the obstacles as a Brep Component (set Multiple Breps) in grasshopper.

Adjust the rulesets and the number of generations by increasing or decreasing it, to generate and develop the aggregation till you obtain desired results.

PART B.4 + PART B.5

TECHNIQUE : DEVELOPMENT + TECHNIQUE : PROTOTYPES

B.4 Technique: D evelo pm en t B.5 Tec hniq ue: P ro to types

axiom B axiom A

Secondary component

Parent Component

Com p o nen t 1

Ru l e s e t 1 Axiom = AC A = ABC B = AC C = AB

Ru l e s e t 2 Axiom = B A=A B = BC C = CA

axiom C

Fa b r i c at i on Me t hod The fabrication method that would be most ideal for these components would be Laser Cutting (CNC). This is because the components are of a flat surfcae, with less complexitiy to it other than the slits on its boundaries. In addition, since all the components are of the same design. Thus all we need to do is lay the outline of the components laid out on the size of the cut material in the digital software and import it into the CNC software for cutting. Thus multiple pieces can be cut at the same time.

B.4 Technique: D evelo pm en t B.5 Tec hniq ue: P ro to types

axiom B axiom A

Secondary component

Parent Component

Com p o nen t 2

Ru l e s e t 1 Axiom = AC A = BC B = BAC C = BA

Ru l e s e t 2 Axiom = B A = CBA B = ABC C = AC

Fa b r i c at i on Me t hod Due to the complex form of these components, 2 fabrication methods would be most ideal for these components; Subtractive manufacturing (CNC) and Injection Moulding.

axiom C

The components will first be produced using subtraactive manufacturing; by having a volume of a material. The volume will then be put into the CNC machine and the volume will be reduced to the shape of the components design. These fabricated components will then be used to create a mould. Once the mould of these components are created, it will then be used as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for Injection Moulding. Injection moulding would be more ideal rather than using CNC for all the way as it is much faster in terms of production.

PART B.6

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

B.6 Technique: P roposa l

Aggy-At t a c k @ M S D

Figure 4.1 Internal Shot of MSD showing how the space is not being fully utilised in term of the seating spaces and instead seems like its designed more for aesthetics.18

Melbourne School of Design (MSD) is like a second home to many design students, where they spend many hours doing their work and assignments; be it alone or with a group of friends. The building has gained lots of popularity because of its aesthetics; throughsocial media, architecture websites and sometimes even considered as a tourist spot. However, the practicality of the school has been questioned by many students, on whether it was really designed to meet the needs of the students or the needs of the media?

Agg y-At t ac k @ M S D

Figure 4.2 and 4.3 Close up Shot more awkward placing of study seatings in the MSD Building despite the large space it has that is not being fully utilised. 18

Thus, the aim of the installation is to protest against the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priority over the welfare of the students, mocking the design of the school; where they put aesthetics before practicality. The design of the parent component is a design of an arm, representing the unity of the students, coming together protesting against the school. The secondary component is a torn, which represents anger and frustration; larger at the points with more human contact, vice versa. The colour red was used to portray anger and is able to stand out the most.

18. Images Source (Figure 4.1-4.3) : Archdaily, Melbourne School of Design University of Melbourne / NADAAA + John Wardle Archi tects (2015) <https://www.archdaily.com/622708/melbourne-school-of-design-university-of-mel bourne-john-wardle-architects-nadaaa> [accessed 11 September 2018].

PART B.7

LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES Through the weeks process of research and design development, I felt what I have learnt so far was and is indeed very useful, especially since we are in computation method is ‘the ‘way in architecture’ designing. Though it is not as flexible as compared to manually method of designing; through hand drawings with more control and ‘authority’ when designing, it has indeed opened a whole new ‘world’. With the use of computation softwares to design, not only has it eased the workload for many people, it also creates new challenges and opportunities, allowing us to push beyond our boundariesand even producing outcomes that we never expect or thought of ourselves.

With technology advancing so quickly, it could and will continue taking over people’s jobs, because they are so much faster and cheaper. Thus it is important we constantly stay ahead to make ourselves useful and relevant; to be deemed as ‘fit’ to continue ‘fighting’ in the architecture industry. Rhino and grasshopper were the main 2 softwares that used for this portion of the journal. It was rather frustrating at the start as I lacked basic knowledge, causing many difficulties and issues during the tasks at the start. However, with the help of tutorial videos and even more self-learning and exploration with the software, not only did it help me to better express my thoughts

PART B.8

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

PA RT B .8 Ap pend ix - Algo r ithmic S ke tch es

G RA D I EN T

Gradient D escent (Basic Flow Simulation)

DESC ENT

PA RT B.8 Ap pend ix - Algo r ithmic S ke tch es

L- SYST E M S /

G row t h Axiom : C D A= BCD B= AC C= DBA D= CA

Tw ist A x i om : A A= AB B= CD C= BC D= AD

Direc x8

Ax io m : ACD A= ABCD B= ACD C= DBC D= DABC

L-Systems / Basic Looping (Recursion)

BASIC LO OP I N G

c t ion

D i s p e rsio n A x io m : AC A= AB B= BC C= CA

I r reg ular ity A x i om : C B A= AC B= BCA C= CA

x 10

Refere n ce L i st 1. The Serpentine Galleries, Serpentine Pavilion and Summer Houses 2016 <http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/ exhibitions-events/serpentine-pavilion-and-summer-houses-2016> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 2. BIG, Serpentine Pavilion <https://www.big.dk/#projects-serp> [accessed 21 August 2018]. 3. Image Source (Figure 1.1) : TOMO TAKA, Designs revealed for BIG’s Serpentine Pavilion and four summer houses (2016) <https://thespaces.com/2016/02/24/designs-revealed-for-bigs-serpentine-pa vilion-and-four-summer-houses/> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 4. Image Source (Figure 1.4) : echoechonoisenoise, aggregations (2010) <https://echoechonoisenoise.wordpress. com/tag/rhinoscript/> [accessed 22 August 2018]. 5. TheVeryMany, SITUATION ROOM (2014) <https://theverymany.com/14-storefront> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 6. Dan Howarth, Marc Fornes creates pink “envelope of experiential tension” for Situation Room installation (2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/10/15/marc-fornes-pink-aluminium-situation-room-installation-storefront-art-ar chitecture-new-york/> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 7. Image Source (Figure 2.1) : ARTINDOORS, SITUATION ROOM IN NYC BY MARC FORNES <http://artindoors. altervista.org/situation-room-nyc-marc-fornes/> [accessed 21 August 2018]. 8. Image Source (Figure 2.2) : TheVeryMany, SITUATION ROOM (2014) <https://theverymany.com/14-storefront> [accessed 20 August 2018]. 9. PROCEDURAL COMPOSITION TUTORIAL, L-Systems: Some History <http://www.avatar.com.au/courses/Lsys tems/History.html> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 10. Wikipedia, L-system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#L-system_structure> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 11. Paul Bourke, L-System User Notes (1991) <http://paulbourke.net/fractals/lsys/> [accessed 24 August 2018]. 12. Algorithmic Botany, L-System <http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/abop/abop-ch1.pdf> [accessed 26 August 2018]. 13. JON McCORMACK, GENERATIVE MODELLING WITH TIMED L-SYSTEMS (2004) <http://users.monash.edu/~jon mc/research/Papers/McCormack_DCC04.pdf> [accessed 26 August 2018]. 14. Plethora Project, Bloom <https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom/> [accessed 3 September 2018]. 15. Urbanista, Bloom: Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez <https://www.urbanista.org/issues/issue-1/features/ bloom-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez> [accessed 3 September 2018]. 16. Image Source (Figure 3.1) : BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez (2012) <https://www. archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-san chez/img_3588> [accessed 3 September 2018]. 17. Image Source (Figure 3.2) : Atonio Pacheco , London’s Other Distributed Social Game: A Collective Gardening Experience (2012) <http://www.evolo.us/londons-other-distributed-social-game-acollective-gardening-experience/> [accessed 3 September 2018].

Refere n ce L i st 18. Images Source (Figure 4.1-4.3) : Archdaily, Melbourne School of Design University of Melbourne / NADAAA + John Wardle Architects (2015) <https://www.archdaily.com/622708/melbourneschool-of-design-university-of-melbourne-john-wardle-architects-nadaaa> [accessed 11 September 2018].