Eljari Amani 757362 Final AIR Journal

ABPL30048 ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN STUDIO: AIR Semester 2, 2017 Amani Eljari 757362 Tutor: Bradley Elias Tutorial: Wednesday 9am - 12pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: DESIGN FUTURING Introduction A.1 Design Futuring A.2 Design Computation A.3 Composition/Generation A.4 Conclusion A.5 Learning Outcomes A.6 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN B.1 Research Field - Genetics B.2 Case Study 1.0 - L-Systems B.3 Case Study 2.0 - Bloom Reverse Engineered B.4 Technique Development B.5 Technique Prototypes B.6 Technique Proposal B.7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes - Reflection B.8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches PART C: DETAILED DESIGN C.1 Design Concept C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes C.3 Final Detail Model C.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes References

PART A: DESIGN FUTURING

Table of Contents

Introduction Part A: Conceptualisation

A.1 Design Futuring

A.2 Design Computation

A.3 Composition/Generation

A.4 Conclusion

A.5 Learning Outcomes

A.6 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

FIG.1: MOSQUITO WIREFRAME SKETCH

Introduction

FIG.2: IMAGE OF MYSELF

My name’s Amani and I’m a third year architecture student at the University of Melbourne.

My interests are very much based in the architecture field, hence my major! I’m enthusiastic about all things design and constantly seeking new ways to enhance my own skills.

As I progress with my studies I am coming to further understand the incredible effect that digital design is having on architecture. Furthermore how digital design is beginning to overlap the stages of concept and production in the form of digital fabrication. I love this aspect as I find it gives you more control over your work and allows numerous trials and prototypes to be done with greater ease and efficiency. The further I get in my degree and through producing my own work, I come to realise that the gap between concept and production grows ever smaller. As mentioned in Oxman1, there is a digital continuum from design to production that could not be achieved from the man-machine relationship.

In the past I have predominantly used Rhino 3D but had never used Grasshopper before Air, so I am excited to discover its potential. The next page shows some of my previous work that was highly related to

1 Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), p.2.

4

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.3: ME WEARING THE FINAL MODEL

FIG.4: RHINO MODEL OF BASIC SHAPE OF FRAME

This second year subject focussed on both designing and fabricating digitally using Rhino and laser cutters. Through exploration of a simple waffle system and observation of case studies such as the C-Space Pavillion I arrived at this shape that aimed to demonstrate the idea of personal space around a person’s body. Over the term of this subject my skills with Rhino improved enormously and it really made me come to realise the gains that the architectural world is making from digital design methods.

CONCEPTUALISATION 5

A.1 Design Futuring

It can no longer be assumed that humans have a future1.

If we reflect on the world we live in today, it is easy to recognise that we, as a species, have sacrificed the sustainability of our planet.

This is as a consequence of our population, technologies, and economy, among other things.

The most plausible strategy to provide some kind of future for us is through design; ‘the state of the world and the state of design need to be brought together’2.

1 Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability,

Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p.

1

2 Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability,

FIG.5: MOSQUITO BY FRANÇOIS ROCHE AND R&SIE(N) (2003)

Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p.

4

Much of François Roche’s work heavily incorporates environmental aspects into architecture by using morphogenetic and parametric techniques. Using Mosquito as an example, the main aim of these works is to demonstrate that nature cannot be domesticated and predictable, it must bring some aspect of fear or repulsion. The link between nature and construction is one that has become vital in recent times as we start to question the future of humans on Earth. Ideas that were once radical have now become common practice; we need to live more sustainably.

Digital design has expanded the possibilities for architects who can now design a lot more specifically. Programs such as Grasshopper can also enable us to design more sustainably through use of environmental analysis, circulation analysis, and structural optimisation. The computability of a design now dictates the constructability1.

1

Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003).

FIG.6: MOSQUITO ELEVATIONS

6

CONCEPTUALISATION

The Italian group ‘Superstudio’ was at the heart of architecture and design during the late 60s to 70s; they were known to challenge the way architecture was considered in previous decades. They questioned architecture’s ability to change the world, the possibility of design being the only way for us to have a future. They raised awareness of the potentially negative effect of architecture on the environment at a time when these issues of sustainability were rarely contemplated. The ideas of Superstudio, along with other like-minded designers, were revolutionary in that they knew that something had to be done in order for us to open up possibilities for a more preferable future for humankind1.

This may have seemed radical at the time since it is often hard for us to sense how bad things will really get. It seems this idea of de-futuring our species is likely still radical to many people since if it wasn’t, there would be a lot more effort to save our planet. Despite this, Superstudio’s work did enlighten many people and although the below precedent ‘Niagara’ was not a built example they still had an impact through multimedia techniques.

The uncertainty of our future has been an urgent push in current architectural practise; architects are much more aware of sustainability and how to design more passively to limit damage to our environment. Earlier works like that of Superstudio were definitely very influential.

1 6.

Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press, 2013) p.

FIG.7: SUPERSTUDIO - NIAGARA/THOUGHTFUL ARCHITECTURE (1970)

CONCEPTUALISATION

7

A.2 Design Computation

Has design computation jeopardised our ability of creative thought by encouraging ‘fake’ creativity? I have to question whether this concept of fake creativity has only emerged with the rise in design computation. When architects hand drew they were also copying elements from precedent structures, thus the emergence of such distinct architectural styles throughout history.

Computational thinking enables us to bend computation to our needs so we can understand the aspects of a problem that work with computation and what the limitations and benefits of the computational tools and techniques may be.

Computation is the procedure of calculating and determining something by mathematical or logical methods. Computation expands the human intellect through our need to problem solve, as opposed to computerisation, which is simply entering already conceptualised ideas from the designer’s mind into the computer to be stored.

FIG.8: GRASSHOPPER OCTREE COMMAND PERSON 8

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.9: GEHRY SKETCH DESIGN OF GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM

FIG.10: GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM, BILBAO - GEHRY, 1997

Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao was an influential design marking transformation at the end of the century. It was analog in design and digital in production; contrary to common practice where architect’s design digitally and then produce by manual labour. His initial sketches were computerised by his team of architects as they simply entered his idea into a computer system to be stored. However the way that they then went on to manipulate the form to find the final Guggenheim was a process of computation. They explored with reasoning and logic to to arrive at the finished product.

Migayrou formulated a theory of architectural design as the inherent mutations of matter in which geometry and production are an integrated process of variable actualisation1. Through parametric design thinking they were able to think about the structure in parts and as a whole to arrive at the optimum outcome.

The Vitruvian effect descibes a digital continuum from design to production, which transcends the man-machine relationship that humans have known for hundreds of years 2. This continuum of conception, generation, and production is a digital cycle of procurement that aims to eventually remove the need for human assistance and multiple drawings. This will ultimately move towards having everything included in one 3D digital model, completely redefining current practice.

The name Vitruvian is in reference to Roman architect Vitruvius who wrote the Ten Books on Architecture, which outlined architectural fundamentals. In a way we are now rewriting modern day fundamentals of architecture in a digital sense.

This shift to digital conceptualisation, generation, and production has replaced a lot of human input in the production field. Not long ago architect’s would be on site tellng humans what to do, now we use digital counterparts, computers. Digitally, we can be ‘on-site’ designing things and manufacturing though digital fabrication. This benefits the welfare of humans who were made to work as well as increasing ease for the designer to make lots of trials and prototypes.

1 2

Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), p. 2 Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), p. 1

CONCEPTUALISATION 9

A.3 Composition/Generation

FIG.11: GENERATION OF SETS OF LINES INTO SKELETON-LIKE FORM

The shift from composition to generation has been quite recent, however has been a major changing factor in modern practise.

Composition can be a playful, abstract thing; it is the way a whole design is made up. The alternative however is to generate form. This means to actually create something. Digital design has enabled us to generate form through computation. The difference between these two terms can be likened to the opposing methods of modelling a tree by Aristid Lindenmayer and Thomas Gainsborough. Where Gainsborough described the tree once it was grown (composition), Lindenmayer grew the tree (generation)1.

Computation has allowed architects to generate rather than compose. Computers follow algorithms, which are an unambiguous, precise list of simple operations applied mechanically and systematically to a set of objects. However, this obliterates the crucial notion of a virtual machine, while subtly reinforcing the idea of a ‘ghost in the machine’2.

1 2

10

Bradley Elias, Lecture 3, 2017.

Robert A Wilson & Frank C Keil, Definition of ‘Algorithm’, (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.12: CONTOUR LINES MADE WITH GRASSHOPPER

Architects can use algorithms to turn meaningless arrays of lines or patterns into more tangible objects such as Fig.11.

When birds flock each one follows the ones to either side but don’t actually know where they are going. This natural pattern of a bird flock can made into an algorithm by understanding the concepts of separation, alignment, and cohesion1. Then the question becomes what to do with this algorithm now. Generation allows for numerous different versions using the algorithm to be done, so the designer can experiment. From there, like the journey from Gehry’s sketch to the finished Guggenheim, the pattern can be reasoned with through problem solving in computation to arrive at an optimum design.

1

Craig W Reynolds, Flocks, Herds, and Schools:A Distributed Behavioral Model (1986).

FIG.13: BIRDS FLOCKING - SHOWS HOW TO GENERATE IDEAS FROM NATURAL PATTERNS

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

A.4 Conclusion It can no longer be assumed that we, as humans, have a future on Earth. The importance of designing for the environment has taken a long time to be this prominent in societal thinking.

The link between nature and construction has become vital along with the expansion of digital design, which has allowed architects to design more specifically. Design is possibly the only way for us to live sustainably, the only way for us to have a future.

Computation has become the future for design, it expands our ability to problem solve. We are working towards a state of digital continuum through concept, generation, and production, known as the Vitruvian effect. This will eventually eliminate the need for human assistance, going beyond representation; having everything to do with a structure in a single, unified, 3D digital model.

Digital design has enabled us to generate form through computation rather than just compose a form of already preconceived elements. By following algorithms, computers can imitate natural patterns such as the bird flock. This pattern can then be evolved into a design through reasoning and problem solving.

I intend to approach my design in a generative manner as opposed to compositional. I believe that generation is the future of design and is important for understanding the impacts of design on the environment. It would be extremely difficult to design this way without computers, but algorithms and parametric design allow architects to better understand the way things work together. This is leading us to a more innovative future where we are not as much reliant on composing elements of past work into our own. In this sense, generative design will increase our chances of having a future on Earth, being beneficial to our planet and therefore us. We must come to terms with the fact that design is the only way to provide us, as a species, with a future.

FIG.14: GRASSHOPPER PLANAR SURFACES MODEL 12

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.5 Learning Outcomes I have enjoyed learning about the theory and practice of architectural computing, it has always been a subject that interests me. I found that I was familiar with the importance of creating sustainable design on our future and the close link between design and fabrication that has recently emerged. However there was so much that I did not know before this semester and it makes me eager to continue with the subject and discover even more that I don’t know. I am starting to see the real potential of architectural computing along with the concept of the continuum between conceptualisation, generation, and production and how far this concept can go. In regards to some of my past work, such as the one presented in the introduction, this knowledge could have been really helpful. In essence, that project was distorting the human shape but it does not even scratch the surface of the potential of what can be achieved using programs like Grasshopper.

FIG.15: GRASSHOPPER TRIANGULATION ALGORITHM

CONCEPTUALISATION 13

A.6 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

14

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 15

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B.1 RESEARCH FIELD - GENETICS B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 - L-SYSTEMS B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 - BLOOM REVERSE ENGINEERED B.4 TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT B.5 TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPES B.6 TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES - REFLECTION B.8 APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

B.1 Research Field

GENETICS Genetics in design describes the process of generative design, which produces a large number of prototypical forms that are then evaluated on their performance in a simulated environment. A number of similar forms are eventually narrowed down due to their beneficial and survival enhaving traits, which are passed on to new generations.

L-Systems can be used to model, or computationally ‘grow’, prototypes that mimick natural forms. It’s ease of creating numerous prototypes by simply changing paramter values makes culling unsuccessful iterations fast and effective. Through this method of culling, successful traits can be carried on to later generations.

B.2 Case Study 1.0 L-SYSTEMS

2 POINTS, 2 CLUSTERS, XZ PLANE

3 POINTS, HOOPSNAKE 6 LOOPS

ADD 3 MORE CLUSTERS ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 7 LOOPS

3 POINTS, HOOPSNAKE ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES, 5 LOOPS ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 6 LOOPS

3 POINTS HOOPSNAKE 5 LOOPS

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 6 LOOPS

ADJUS 6 LOO

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUS 6 LOOPS

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 5 LOOPS

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALU 6 LOOPS

T X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES CHANGE TO XY PLANE ADD 2 MORE CLUSTERS ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES OPS

ST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

UES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 4 LOOPS

REVERSE VECTOR DIRECTION ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES 5 LOOPS

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

ADJUST X,Y,Z VALUES

I believe this iteration has a very distant spine which I can relate to natural organisms in a way. The spine acts as a structural apparatus to both hold and add movement to an organism. It also has a sense of hollowness towards to bottom, almost like an empty frame, or skeleton.

I like the effect the increasing compactness of the top backbone gives. It makes the structure seem dynamic. The top section is in contrast to the bottom, which is a lot softer and doesn’t hold any particular recurring shape. In both the top and bottom sections however, they fan out to become more open than the centre of the object.

This one is very frame-like, I can imagine it acting as a structural frame that forms the primary structure of a building. I like how it remains abstract; the lack of a base or orientation makes it quite playful in nature. The varying line weights and areas of openness have made it a compelling iteration.

I was drawn to the symmetrical effect of this iteration; it appears like a structure that has been reflected through a body of water.

It seems very clean and organised as all the lines are almost parallel. It is however very dense and comes across as quite a heavy structure with rare areas of relief.

BLOOM PROJECT ANALYSIS

The Bloom Plethora Project designed by Alisa Androsek and Jose Sanchez is unique in the way that it connects architecture and gaming to create a highly interactive experience.

It was commissioned by the City of London for the 2012 Olympic Games and is still being exhibited at many locations around the world, including RMIT in Melbourne. The success of the project is largely due to its interactive nature.

Although it may find moments of stability or failure, it is never finished. Due to this ongoing effect, Bloom can be related to the concept of genetics raised by John Frazer (1995) in ‘An Evolutionary Architecture’. Frazer states that the concept of biological growth can be applied to architectural form. The Bloom Project is designed through a natural process of growth, decline, and points of stability. This allows for a large number prototypical forms to be produced, what Frazer refers to as ‘pseudo-organisms’ and they often have unexpected results.

The natural process of genetics can link to the process of growth that is observed through generation as opposed to composition, as is noticed in the opposing methods of modelling a tree by Aristid Lindenmayer and Thomas Gainsborough. Where Gainsborough described the tree once it was grown (composition), Lindenmayer grew the tree (generation). This relates closely to genetics as both look at natural processes over a long period of time, growth and evolution.

Generation allows for numerous different versions using the algorithm to be achieved, so the designer can experiment. From there the pattern can be reasoned with through problem solving in computation to arrive at an optimum design. In the case of the Bloom Project, the concept of an optimum design is ever-changing.

Rhino and Grasshopper were used in the design of Bloom. Grasshopper allows for the use of genetic-like algorithms, which produce many prototypes that can then be evaluated in their simulated environment. This permits the transfer of preferred traits to new generations. The architects would have used computational thinking, which allowed them to bend computation to their own needs of creating something that can be assembled in many different ways. They would have been able to understand the aspects that worked well with computation and the traits that may be limiting.

Algorithms such as cluster can change one group, or ‘generation’ and this will update all future generations. This mimics the way in which beneficial and survival enhancing traits are passed on to new generations in nature.

It can be designed, altered, and dismantled by the public, which brings it to life as a piece.

Manual Recursion 1. SOFT AND BLOB-LIKE This component is very soft in nature with no hard or sharp edges. Even when manually recursed it blocked together to form a very dense array of components.

2. CURVED This aggregation has quite curved components that change direction, thus tricking the eye into which way the formation may go.

3. SHARP AND JAGGERED This component has very sharp edges that make it appear cold and menacing. The way they were oriented however has created an open structure that has areas that cluster and areas that rope the clusters together.

4. CURVED AND WARPED This component was curvey with very rounded edges, which when combined together gave a pattern that appeared twisted and deformed.

1. SOFT AND BLOB-LIKE

RULE SET: A = AC B = BC C = ABC CONDITIONAL RULES: If A intersects B, keep A If B intersects C, keep B If C intersects A, keep C

2. CURVED RULE SET: A = BC B = AB C = ABC CONDITIONAL RULES: If A intersects B, keep A If B intersects C, keep B If C intersects A, keep C

3. SHARP AND JAGGERED

RULE SET: A = AC B = AC C = ABC CONDITIONAL RULES: If A intersects B, keep A If B intersects C, keep B If C intersects A, keep C

4. CURVED AND WARPED

RULE SET: A = BC B = AC C = ABC CONDITIONAL RULES: If A intersects B, keep A If B intersects C, keep B If C intersects A, keep C

B.3 Case Study 2.0

BLOOM REVERSE ENGINEERED

1. I learnt how to do automatic recursion with Grasshopper using some of the components from manual recursion exercise.

2. I formed a Bloom component piece by looking at photos of Bloom Project.

3. I tested my Bloom component in the automatic recursion algorithm.

4. Going back to basics, I lowered the number of recursions and started to re-orient the base components.

5. I did many trials with different orientations of the base components.

6. With 2 recursions, I found a pattern with good spread and many orientations although a definite directionality.

7. I increased the recursions to 4 and was still happy with the outcome.

8. I increased the recursions to 5.

9. Example of aggregation reacting to environmental factors - done manually.

Between using automatic and manual recursion I found that although automatic was a lot faster and easier to change, I had more control when manual. I feel like I was able to create more interesting patterns using manual recursion although automatic was a lot more rule driven.

In manual recursion, each component had to be oriented by hand, which was extremely time consuming and prone to straying from the rules. However I believe it gave me greater control over the aggregations made.

Reference the axiom polyline from Rhino into Grasshopper in the Curve component; it must be an L-shaped polyline.

Reference the b from Rhino into G Curve componen L-shaped polyline

To be able to view the bloom compo create a new Orient component. Th End, Plane, and Mesh components. O will also appear on the axiom and ba the directions of these curves.

New growth rules can be set using a ‘branch = growth rule’ panel.

The number of re adjusted by adjus number slider. Ad ton can be pres component step-

To bake, the orig ponent (not the step 4) must be se

branch polylines Grasshopper in the nt; they must be es.

Reference the bloom mesh created in Rhino into the ‘Mesh’ Grasshopper component.

onent on the axiom and base curves, his must be connected to the Plane Once preview is on, the components ase curves, making it easier to orient

ecursions can be sting the ‘Repeat’ dditionally the Butssed to grow the -by-step.

ginal Orient comone created in elected.

Set the orientations of the branch polylines in relation to the axiom.

In reverse engineering the Bloom Project, I have been able to create a form that strongly resembles it. This is due to the initial component that I modelled, which is almost identical to the original.

This was achieved through using the Picture Frame command on Rhino and then tracing it, filleting edges, extruding, trimming, and capping it.

The other main similarity is the colour. The use of pink may distract a viewer from seeing the actual array of components, but simply associate that pink with the Bloom Project.

Differences arise in the actual orientation of the components. The Bloom Project, although its ability to be re-arranged infinitely has more directionality and organised curving nature. In comparison, the forms that I created using automatic recursion were slightly more random in appearance.

I feel like I was able to creating more Bloom-like forms using manual recursion. But as I progress with using Grasshopper I would like to push the boundaries and create forms that are unique. It may be interesting to use different components also that separate my arrangements from previous works.

I want to create an arrangement that has good spread without clumping together. Of course there should be areas of varying density and openness. I want a good sense of directionality although without it being completely linear. The form should seem random with a sense of organisation.

B.4 Technique Development

In this section, the Bloom Project has been used as a starting point from which four new components are formed and arranged with more branching options. This creates more complex forms that strive towards the enhancements mentioned in B3: spread, directionality, and randomness. They are designed with digital fabrication in mind.

Component 1 Ruleset 1 This aggregation has an organic, coral-like appearance. It mimicks such natural form in the way that it has areas of randomness that are however clustered into regular forms. I like the way it spreads out in multiple directions from a very central starting point.

The components are planar and quite simple, which would make fabrication of the pieces fast and easy. It has area that are quite dense, which could affect assembly.

RULE SET: A = ABC B = AC C = BD D = AB E = BCD F = CD

Component 1 Ruleset 2 In comparison with the first ruleset using this component, this aggregation is a lot more random and bush-like. I would have prefered it to spread out a bit more in areas to relieve some of the mass.

I believe the first rule set was more effective with this component as due to its blob-like nature, space is important in the aggregation.

RULE SET: A = CE B = AC C = BD D = AB E = AE F = CD

Component 2 Ruleset 1 The component used here is jaggered and pointy. I expected it to create a menacing array of pieces but was pleasantly surprised with the delicate aggregation that was produced. Although there are pieces facing almost all directions, there is a sense of directionality created seen through thinner areas trailing behind a denser mass.

These pieces would be more difficult to fabricate than the previous component. This is due to the surface having many different heights, edges, and cut-outs. Due to the delicacy, I also worry that it would not support its self weight when many pieces are assembled.

RULE SET: A = CE B=A C = BD D=B E = AE F = ACD

Component 2 Ruleset 2 This aggregation is delicate and fragile. It is extremely open, which is a nice change from the dense aggregations I had been creating. It is light weight and clear.

Although I like the way this aggregation presents digitally, I would be concerned for its ability to hold its weight when fabricated due to the extremely thin components and connections. If a suitable material was found it could be successful.

RULE SET: A = CE B=A C = BC D=B E=C F = ACD

Component 3 Ruleset 1 This component is an interesting one because on one side it is jaggered and hard and the other side is soft and rounded. When arranged in a composition however, this jaggered edge produces almost a blurred effect, which is not aesthetically appealing. Despite the unsuccess of the component, the aggregation does have nice spacing and directionality.

I could imagine a similar aggregation that composes of a different component.

RULE SET: A = CE B=A C = BC D=B E = AB F = ACD

Component 3 Ruleset 2 This aggregation is interesting in that it is quite tightly woven in its body, but then has some random arms that stick out in certain places. It makes it seem very random. It also opens up the aggregation and provides areas of the aggregation that are denser than others.

With a different component, this could be successful. However I feel as though the structure does lack balance, with some tweaking of the directions of the base curves a better solution could be found.

RULE SET: A = CE B = DE C = BCD D=B E = AB F = ACD

Component 4 Ruleset 1 This aggregation does have less base curves than the others and that is due to the fact that I stumbled across this pattern that I really liked and was unable to reproduce it to its same extent with more base curves.

I like the way it has a rope-like element that runs through the middle from which many smaller lines or clusters form off.

I would make the component slightly thinner just to make it more delicate. This could be fabricated easily and I believe it would work as a structure.

RULE SET: A = ABC B = AC C = DB D = AB E = BCD

Component 4 Ruleset 2 This aggregation has a good spread but it is lacking in direction, there are too many elements roping out of the main structure, making it seem very disorganised and too close to being symmetrical.

In reality this would not be able to stand as the elements are too thin and they would not be able to support the denser centre. The previous ruleset with this piece made better use of the component.

RULE SET: A=A B = ACD C=D D = AB E = BCD F = AD G = BD

B.5 Technique Prototypes

An interesting method of fabrication that I have not yet used is 3D printing a mold and using this to cast many elements.

3D printing is an additive manufacturing process that makes three-dimensional objects. To create a mold, a solid block must be created around the 3D model on Rhino, and then split this block in two so the components can be easily cast inside it later. Once the mold is printed, there are various materials that can be casted such as silicone or plaster.

Silicone could work well in this project as I believe it will hold better than plaster, which may break under the loads. If slotted in correctly together, the pieces should be able to hold themselves, just like the components in Bloom. Silicone can be translucent and mixed with a dye to give colour, which will stand out in Dulux Gallery.

This component could work well with laser cutting since it is a flat surface. I initially thought perspex could work well for this component but the jagged edges and excessive loads that will be on the entire structure led me to think otherwise. Perspex snaps easily and without warning, which could jeopardise the full composition. For this reason I believe MDF (medium density fibreboard) would be the most suitable.

There is a Rhino template for laser cutting on the FabLab website. The components to be cut must be made 2D and then fitted onto the template. Once the job is complete, you must remove the pieces from the board and then can start assembling.

When fitted together, the strength of many pieces will allow to structure to stand on its own. MDF does not look attractive in its post-laser cut state due to colour and visible burn marks so it should be painted.

Similarly to Component 2, this component could be done using the laser cutter due to its flat nature. As it is slightly more compact than the previous component, perspex could be a suitable material. I believe this may add a nice effect of translucency to the overall model and play with the transmission and distortion of light through the components.

When laser cutting perspex, it is melted rather than burned (like MDF), which does not leave any marks along the edges. Once the laser cutting is complete, each piece must be carefully removed from the sheet and then can be fabricated by slotting the pieces together at the ends. As there is not as much space for the slotting together of elements, some kind of glue may also be needed in order to prevent collapse.

Unlike the other components, this one is not flat but rather slopes to a point at the base. For this reason I would choose to use 3D printing to create this element.

3D printing can only print in the colour of the material being used, most likely white, which eliminates the opportunity to make a coloured structure. However white could be nice in the way that it would blend more with the Dulux Gallery instead of completely stand out.

The elements are quite small and delicate, the 3D printer will be able to create many of them with ease and efficiency.

B.6 Technique Proposal

The images in this section demonstrate how I have applied my aggregation to the Dulux Gallery. The site is very geometric and restrained in its linear shaping, contrasting to living, organic nature of my aggregation.

Additionally, the use of colour in the aggregation makes it stand out from an otherwise dull and plain setting.

When entering my aggregation into the site I avoided simply placing it there; I wanted it to interact. It protrudes over and is shaped by the walls which contain it, playfully avoiding contact with the surfaces of the gallery.

I have left areas of the gallery empty to imply that there is room for more growth and to encourage further interaction with the structure. I could imagine people of all ranges interacting and rearranging the structure, as is done in Bloom. I could also see it as being a haven for small creatures such as birds or insects to explore and take refuge in. This is due to both to the way it mimicks a more natural formation and the many nooks and crevices.

Despite areas of the aggregation being quite compact and dense, there are also areas of light and openness that provides a nice contrast.

B.7 Learning Objectives & Outcomes

REFLECTION

Part B has been extremely challenging, having reached the end I feel a strong sense of accomplishment. From not having any experience with algorithmic techniques a few weeks ago, I’m quite proud of the work I have now produced.

From using Rhino in the past I thought I would be more comfortable with using manual recursion as it was all commands I had used before. However this proved to get confusing very quickly as the form rapidly grew in size and components. When doing a similar exercise automatically with Grasshopper it made me realise why using algorithmic techniques is so important.

Automatic recursion made it easier to be able to alter my technique many times and produce many generations of the same component to find the ones that work best. I could test how these aggregations worked when placed in a simulated environment, the Dulux Gallery.

B.8 Appendix

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN

Thankyou to my group members Maddie Gundry, Nancy Williams & Vanda Nemeth

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C.1 DESIGN CONCEPT C.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES C.3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL C.4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

C.1 Design Concept

DEVELOPING TECHNIQUE

After receiving feedback for my interim Part B submission, I have progressed my design within a group to develop its relationship with the site and the species that encounters it. We had to resolve the tectonic system to create a design that would be buildable in the Dulux Gallery. We also had to consider the fabrication method of the components and explore different prototypes that could be fabricated easily and efficiently.

The feedback I received from my interim submission focused on the fact that my individual components lacked a real relationship with each other. I had not thought through connection components, joints, or components that related to the base. The aggregation was effective digitally however it could not have been as effectively fabricated. This meant that we had to choose a component that had suitable properties allowing it to connect and support each other above the terrain.

When we formed a group we decided to start off the principles displayed in Nancy’s cross-over component and work from there.

INITIAL SITE TERRAIN TRIAL

INITIAL SITE TERRAIN TRIAL

RELATIONSHIP WITH SITE I began modelling a site terrain placed in the walls of the Dulux Gallery. I wanted to attempt Grasshopper commands that I had tried in the weekly tutorials and confine them to the Dulux Gallery I had modelled. The first few attempts however would have taken away from the aggregation instead of complimenting it, so I turned to a more simple method of populating geometry using a Voronoi component. This allowed for varying levels where the aggregation could connect with the base.

During Part B I had imagined my aggregation as a haven for small creatures such as birds and insects to interact with. With the barren, angular landscape the Voronoi component has formed, there is still opportunity for our aggregation to soften it and make it more inviting for these types of creatures.

TECTONIC SYSTEM At the end of Part B I had not given any thought to the tectonic system. But I knew coming closer to fabrication this would be the main obstacle. I believe it is important to design without the constraint of whether or not it can realistically happen. Once a successful aggregation has been achieved, focus on resolving the structure.

We were set on using a component made up of two intersecting shapes for much of this part, however it turned out this component would struggle with tectonics.

Slots could not be made deep enough to be sufficient support and the method of 3D printing did not print high enough detail. If we had stayed with this component, we would have struggled to connect enough components to form a satisfactory cluster with joint systems.

For these reasons we moved towards a two-dimensional structure using the laser cutter, which could produce more precise components. The main reason we were avoiding laser cutting at the beginning was because we had almost all used it in the past and wanted to explore new fabrication methods. However after exploration - as discussed in C.2 - we returned to laser cutting.

We aimed to use quite lightweight material as a heavy structure meant it had to be stronger and would cause problems when it came to fabricating a whole aggregation. We wanted to ensure that the components connecting the aggregation to the base had similar features to the base component and perhaps simply bent a different way.

DESIGN DEFINITION

Soft, inviting component that

Nancy’s

cross-over,

hollow,

would interact well with small

three-dimensional component.

creatures and could contrast the sharp, angular terrain.

Ability to create better joint sys-

Change to la

tems and manipulate a base

method of fabr

component that matches the

gan exploration

regular components.

nents.

Better slotting system trialled

Difficulty creating efficient joints

however still not satisfactory.

and base members.

aser cutting as

3D printing not creating at ac-

rication and be-

ceptable quality of detail.

n of flat compo-

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Dulux Gallery is cleared of all

Site terrain is constru

existing work and internal walls.

small trenches in the flo

walls into them that ar

the digital model. Ca

These are all fixed usin

The components are transport-

They are spray

ed to the Dulux Gallery.

khaki colour pain

They slot into each other and

Small clusters a

are permanently fixed with ad-

that then slot int

hesives.

ucted by excavating

Gaps in the terrain are sealed

oor and slotting timber

and it is painted black.

re laser cut to size from

aps are attached also.

ng nail plates.

painted with

nt off site.

are formed first

to each other.

The components for the aggregation are laser cut

Some pieces are left free without adhesives so they can be altered by those who interact with the space.

CONSIDERATION OF FABRICATION

As our component started to progress, it was important that we thought about fabrication. Approaching the end of semester, FabLab queues would be growing, meaning we had to start producing prototypes early.

We tried many fabrication techniques early to deduce which would be most suitable to the task and once we decided on one we kept prototyping to resolve the components. We also had to infer what materials were most feasible.

Another benefit of manufacturing many prototypes is that they were all of just a single component or small cluster. If we simply fabricated the whole final and it had an error that would be a waste of money and time.

HAND MADE BAMBOO COMPONENT

3D PRINTED PLASTIC COMPONENT

LASER CUT MDF COMPONENT

LASER CUT MDF COMPONENT FINAL

C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes

ANALYSING COMPONENT

We had to carefully analyse the chosen component to ensure that it would be feasible to fabricate. The requirements that we pursued were: - Structural capability in terms of strength and rigidity of joints - Amount of components to fill the space without making it appear cluttered - Cost and time of fabrication - Material properties

Through extensive refinement we were able to develop a component that could satisfy these needs and form an effective relationship with the site terrain.

ORIGINAL COMPONENT OUR ORIGINAL CROSS-OVER COMPONENT, 3D PRINTED

Our initial component was one of Nancy’s explorations from Part B. We chose this component as we liked the three-dimensionality of it, two similar 3D objects intersecting to form one component. The hollowness also gave it a sense of openness, which gave a good spatiality when it was aggregated. It had good directionality with opportunity for the aggregation to sprout in many orientations. It was strong and rigid meaning it would be able to support an entire aggregation.

Many issues arose with this component however. It was extremely difficult to produce sufficient joints to other components. This was due to its thickness and hollowness whereby if slots went too deep you would be able to see insecting components coming through the other side. And the components would not be stable at all without adhesives. Additionally, as it was quite bulky, aggregation of many recursions did eventually become too busy.

3D printing may have also not been the most efficient fabrication method as not too many components could be formed on each print, which would significantly slow down the process. We considered 3d printing a few moulds and casting with resin however this was not cost-effectve and would not have produced the desired finish.

PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT The hand made bamboo prototype as we wanted to experiment with more natural materials and bamboo seemed like an easy-to-use, lightweight option. This prototype made economical use of materials as there was barely any wastage of bamboo. Additionally bamboo is a readily renewable material due to fast growth rate. It would be a sufficient material as it is strong and rigid. Although to tie each component together requires a lot of string and would be extremely time consuming not to mention limiting to the design; the space that the string occupies cannot be used joints to other components. Also, since it was fabricated by hand it would be almost impossible to create consistent slots across all the components.

This could lead to problems when joining later on.

A fabrication method that we did not end up trying although we gave it extensive research was casting with resin in a 3D printed mould. We decided against this method due to its high cost, impractible time constraints, and it would not produce the desired finish.

When we shifted to using the laser cutter it made making prototypes easier and less time consuming. It was generally quick and not too expensive - especially when using MDF (medium density fibreboard). As MDF is an engineered timber product, there is no inconsistencies in surface thickness, and it is quite strong. In our first prototype the slot sizes were too large, which lead to vast gaps and lack of structural support. Once the slot sizes are exactly correct however, it should be able to support itself without the need for adhesives. The laser cutter burns MDF to cut it resulting in burn marks along the edges, this means the components must be painted.

FLAT COMPONENT TO LASER CUT

BAMBOO AND STRING COMPONENT MADE BY HAND

Due to these prototypes we came to realise that we had to evolve our design in order to overcome the limiting features of the cross-over component concept. We went back to the basics and explored a concept that we had discussed earlier in the semester, the Strangler Fig.

We felt as though our design was lacking some kind of precedent or inspiration, we could instead show the aggregation mimicking nature against the harsh, man-made terrain.

LASER CUT COMPONENT - INCORRECT SLOTS

STRANGLER FIG PROTOYPE DEVELOPMENT

The successful component is the green seen above. We now had to play with different growth patterns. We decided to grow the components all upwards with slightly varying orientations to give the aggregation a good sense of directionality.

The Strangler Fig is a plant that ‘strangles’ other plants in order to survive. It generally grows in rainforests where there is intense competition for sunlight. Often the ‘host’ tree that it strangles dies, leaving the Strangler Fig with a hollow centre. We thought this was an interesting growth pattern that we could simulate to strangle areas of the terrain and allow light to reach other areas. When exploring possible components we used shapes similar to the Strangler Fig as seen below.

The next task was creating the slots. For the 1:1 model we decided on MDF, which has a thickness of 3mm. These easily fitted on the 1:1 component. The 1:10 component was problematic however. We decided on 1.8mm boxboard, which meant the slots did not fit on the tiny 1:10 component. For this reason we had to widen the component and adjust the size of the holes within the component. The depth of the slots was also slightly shortened.

FINAL 1:1

FINAL 1:10

POTENTIAL AGGREGATIONS To cluttered towards the centre.

RULESET:

Axiom = ABD

A = ABC

B = AC

C = DB

D = ABD

Iterations = 3

Good spread and directionality.

RULESET:

Axiom = ABD

A=B

B=D

C = AB

D=C

Iterations = 10

Too consistent in direction, no excitement or mystery.

RULESET:

Axiom = ABD

A = DB

B=E

C=B

D = AB

Iterations = 10

To cluttered towards the centre and messy.

RULESET:

Axiom = ABD

A=B

B = AC

C = AD

D = BC

Iterations = 7

CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MODEL Moving forward we had to finalise our aggregation while focusing on the main elements of openness, interaction with terrain, and directionality we aimed to achieve.

Then the priority became fabrication of the final presentation models fabricated using parametric tools.

C.3 Final Detail Model

FICUS - STRANGLER FIG

The final model was fabricated using parametric tools and digital fabrication.

The resolution of material choices, surface treatments, shading, and visual effects was finalised to create a 1:10 presentation model of a small section of the site as well as a 1:1 cluster of the aggregation.

Scale 1:400

AERIAL VIEW

PLAN VIEW 1:150

CONSTRUCTION USING PARAMETRIC TOOLS The final model was created by using an automated recursion on the Grasshopper plug-in to Rhino. We experimented with orientation of components from the axiom, rulesets, and constraints to find the ideal aggregation.

We used two-dimensional fabrication. Our successful component was flat so once we perfected the slot sizes we simply laser cut the exact same component approximately 250 times. This number was close to the amount of components needed for the 1:10 section of the design, but it was actually chosen for convenience as it was the most components I could fit on the FabLab template without exceeding the file size limit. Therefore I did not struggle with nesting components on the template to be economical with materials. I however was careful to nest the 1:1 components efficiently on the template to fit as many as possible - eight.

Once these were printed they were spray painted. I had the colour specially mixed as we were after a soft khaki-green that we believed would attractively compliment the Strangler Fig. We formed small clusters first by slotting the components together and fixing with super glue. They were then all joined together to closely match the digital aggregation and fixed to the terrain, also with super glue.

To make the site terrain I used a Voronoi component on Grasshopper that was bound to the shape of the Dulux Gallery that I had previously modelled. I then populated different levels in relation to random points I arranged.

Once this was populated and baked, I capped all the elements. These then had to be constructed using the laser cutter. To set up the file I had to label all the elements (as shown on following pages) and re-orientate each wall and cap to become flat. I then made them two-dimensional by using the Make2D command. Once this was done I nested them on the FabLab template to be as economical as possible with material.

To make the base of the terrain, I used Make2D from top view of the section we had chosen and offset all the lines to the thickness of the boxboard being used for the wall and cap components (1.0mm). I then made areas around each shape that would stay solid - not cut so it would hold together without jeopardising thickness of gaps.

Once all printed I fixed the base to the prepared 70mm base using adhesives and then fixed the walls and caps using masking tape before spray painting it all black.

MATERIALITY

1:1 CLUSTER - MDF - 3.0MM

1:10 CLUSTER - BAMBOO CARBONISED - 1.8MM

1:10 SITE TERRAIN - BOXBOARD - 1.0MM

For the 1:1 model we used 3.0mm thick medium density fibreboard (MDF). We believed this had suitable qualities as it is strong and rigid and can be easily painted. Also since it is a engineered product it has a consistent thickness eliminating possible problems with slot size.

For the 1:10 site terrain we used 3.0mm MDF for the base, which sat on top of a 70mm base made of timber and sealed around the side using mountboard. The walls and caps were made of 1.0mm boxboard. We chose box board as the walls and caps did not need to be as thick and strong as the base as they don’t support much weight. Boxboard also make construction easy with just masking tape instead of glue. Since spray paint was applied over the top, labelling of pieces and masking tape did not jeopardise the design.

For the 1:10 aggregation we were initially going with 1.8mm boxboard but were informed that the FabLab had run out of this material a few days before submission. Since we had made the slots 1.8mm thick we were adamant on using a material with the same thickness.

We tried bringing an external material to the FabLab but for this we would have needed to attain a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and this would have slowed down our process.

With a limited time frame we decided on 1.8mm bamboo as it was the only other material of same thickness. On submission we were then asked to change the slot sizes after all due to the fact that bamboo is a natural material and so has unevenness in surface thickness. I increased the size of the slots by 0.03 to accomadate for any variation. Once printed construction was easy but time consuming and tedious as we glued each component together once slotted.

SURFACE TREATMENTS The 1:1 and 1:10 aggregation components were all spray painted with a pale khaki colour. I got this colour specially mixed at Autobarn Doncaster by a staff member. I chose from the below colour options ‘C113985’, which was mixed with white to wash it out. Nothing had to be done to the MDF or bamboo in preparation for spray painting, both timbers were a suitable base for the paint to stick to.

The site terrain was simply spray painted black with two coats. I considered covering the terrain with plaster and sand to patch out the form of the masking tape that can be slightly seen. But decided this could have threatened the structure along with it being quite time consuming.

When choosing an alternative material for the 1:10 aggregation components there was either natural or carbonised bamboo. The only difference is carbonised is darker. We went with carbonised as natural was unavailable and we were painting anyway.

COLOUR OPTIONS

FINAL PAINT COLOUR

TERRAIN AFTER ONE COAT SPRAY PAINT

FABRICATION PROCESS SITE TERRAIN PART 1 (DIGITAL PREPARATION)

FULL SITE TERRAIN SECTION OF TERRAIN TO FABRICATE

UNCUT SLOTS IN BASE SO DOESN’T FALL APART

LABELLED SECTIONS (CAPS NUMBERS & WALLS LETTERS)

FABLAB TEMPLATE OF WALLS AND CAPS NESTED AND LABELLED - 1.0MM BOXBOARD

FABLAB TEMPLA 400MM X 400MM

SECTION OF TERRAIN TO FABRICATE

ATE FOR 3.0MM MDF BASE OF TERRAIN M

BASE OF MODEL

FLATTEN AND MAKE2D ALL WALLS AND CAPS AND LABEL

FABRICATION PROCESS SITE TERRAIN PART 2 (PHYSICAL MODEL)

FABRICATION OF 70MM X 400MM X 400MM BASE

FIRST LAYER SPRAY PAINT ON SITE TERRAIN

LABELLED AND UNPAINTED SITE TERRAIN

SITE TERRAIN PRIOR TO CONNECTION TO BASE

FINAL SITE TERRAIN

FABRICATION PROCESS AGGREGATION COMPONENTS

CREATE SLOTS TO CORRECT SIZE - USED TRIM COMMAND ON RHINO SINCE COULD NOT BOOLEAN ON MESHES. 1:1 HAD SLOT SIZES OF 3.0MM. 1:10 HAD SLOT SIZES OF 1.83 TO ACCOMADATE FOR VARYING SURFACE THICKNESS OF BAMBOO.

MAKE SMALL CLUSTERS FIRST

SET UP FAB LAB TEMPLATE. 1:1 NEST AS MANY COMPONENTS AS FILE SIZE LIMIT IS EXCEEDED.

SPRAY PAINT CLUSTERS

HOLD PIECES TOGETHER WHILE GLUE DRIES

S POSSIBLE. 1:10 PUT AS MANY AS CAN BEFORE

UPDATED FABLAB TEMPLATE FOR 1:10 COMPONENTS WITH CHANGE OF MATERIAL.

FINAL AGGREGATION

ASSEMBLY

C.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes FEEDBACK FROM FINAL PRESENTATION

The feedback we received for the final presentation started with doing line drawings for the plans and elevations to make it easier to read. This was difficult since our digital model was all meshes but we used MeshtoNURB command followed by Make2D. We also had to produce a full bleed render showing the actual Dulux Gallery, we put in a lot of effort although none of us have much experience with realistic rendering. We talked to fellow students and watched video tutorials to learn. We were also given the opportunity to enhance the design through re-aggregation and further resolving footings.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES & MY PERFORMANCE OF THEM OBJECTIVE 1: Interrogating a brief by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering.

I believe I successfully interrogated the brief and kept working towards a design that was innovative and exciting while exploring new parametric tools that I was unfamiliar with at the start of the semester.

OBJECTIVE 2: Developing an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design, and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration.

By using Grasshopper it was fast and easy to create numerous trials quickly and gradually change certain components until the ideal aggregation is reached. These successive generations lead to exploration of many design options.

OBJECTIVE 3: Developing skills in various three-dimensional media and specifically in computational geometry, parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication.

My skills in three-dimensional media have grown extensively over the course of the semester. At the beginning I had limited knowledge of Rhino and none of Grasshopper, now I am a lot more confident in parametric modelling. These skills are invaluable in the architectural field.

OBJECTIVE 4: Developing an understanding of relationships between architecture and air through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere.

When designing a digital model it is extremely important to consider how that design can be brought to life in the physical world through digital fabrication. It was vital to contemplate how the design would support itself structurally, how joints would be made between components, as well as its visual features and how they could be achieved in the real world.

OBJECTIVE 5: Developing the ability to make a case for proposals by developing critical thinking and encouraging construction of rigorous and persuasive arguments informed by the contemporary architectural discourse.

We had to critically analyse our design constantly to ensure it would be feasible in today’s world of digital design and fabrication. We explored many avenues of fabrication, familiarising ourselves with many. We managed to have good reason to choose the method we went with.

OBJECTIVE 6: Develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemprary architectural projects.

Early in the semester I looked at architectural projects that started off as sketches and then taken to digital modelling like the work of Frank Gehry or the growth of tree algorithmic design by Lindenmayer. This was shown in our precedent study of the Bloom Project. We used similar growth patterns to develop our design.

OBJECTIVE 7: Develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming.

I furthered my understanding in Rhino, which I now feel proficient in. I formed a strong basis of knowledge for Grasshopper and furthered my knowledge of digital rendering.

OBJECTIVE 8: Begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application.

Computational techniques have a vast amount of advantages. The ease of creating innumerable trials and changes to the model saves time and effort that would otherwise be spent on extensive re-drawing or hand-made prototypes. Prototyping is most important to create a successful design and this too is made uncomplicated. Despite these advantages it is important to know what methods of modelling and fabrication are appropriate when

REFERENCES Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press, 2013).

Elias, Bradley, Lecture 3, 2017.

Fry, Tony, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg).

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (Spon Press: New York, 2003).

MSD (2017), ‘FabLab’, accessed 15 September 2017, https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/fablab Plethora Project (2017), ‘Bloom’, accessed 29 August 2017, https://www.plethora-project. com/bloom/ Oxman, Rivka & Oxman, Robert, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge).

Reynolds, Craig W, Flocks, Herds, and Schools:A Distributed Behavioral Model (1986).

Wilson, Robert A. & Keil, Frank C, Definition of ‘Algorithm’, (London: MIT Press).

Woodbury, Robert F. ‘How Designers Use Parameters’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (London; New York: Routledge, 2014).

HTTP://WWW.NEW-TERRITORIES.COM/MOSQUITOS.HTM HTTP://GEORGEMACIUNAS.COM/EXHIBITIONS/FLUXUS-AS-ARCHITECTURE-2/FLUXHOUSEFLUXCITYPREFABRICATEDMODULAR-BUILDING-SYSTEM/FLUXHOUSE-FLUXCITIES/ESSAYS-2/SUPERSTUDIOARCHITECTURAL-GROUP-1966-1978-DESIGN-MUSEUM-TOURING-EXHIBITION/ HTTP://URBANTICK.BLOGSPOT.COM.AU/2010/05/R-QUESTION-OF-MORPHO-ECOLOGICAL.HTML HTTPS://WWW.E-ARCHITECT.CO.UK/BILBAO/GUGGENHEIM-MUSEUM-BILBAO