AIR andrew
marasa_585071_semester
2,
2014_tutorial
2
[part a]
[ F I G .
1 ]
C O N T E N T S [ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO AIR - PART A]
P E R S O N A L I N T R O D U C T I O N 1
D E S I G N F U T U R I N G
D E S I G N C O M P U T A T I O N
COMPOSITION/GENERATION
3-6
7-14
15-20
L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S 2 1
A L G O R I T H M I C S K E T C H E S 2 3
C O N C L U S I O N S 2 6
B I B L I O G R A P H Y 2 8
A N D R E W
M A R A S A
[PERSONAL INTRODUCTION]
After four years of dabbling in design, my skill sets and interests have evolved and changed to an extent that has forced me to question and even alter my perspective on the entirety of what design and architecture is. Architecture as a discourse has become such a large idea that unpacking that discourse and creating congruency between it and my work is a perpetual challenge. From when I started studying design formally in 2011, it always began with the brief and finished with my answer to the brief. In addition to that I only answered that brief slowly over a 6-month period with as much attention paid to working out how to leave class early as to my actual work. Much has changed. I no longer see design as just a response to a brief. Architecture and design now strike me as a discourse so broad as to offer
[ 1 ]
it only this name feels restrictive. A comprehensive immeasurable constant conversation – perhaps encapsulates my feelings towards design today. I’m still interested in architecture and design it for this very reason. I don’t take on easy challenges and architecture and design offers an ever– evolving trial to me. Studio Air presents a new chapter in this perpetually problematic academic and creative experiment. Some of my previous work details a strong reliance to the material world, in model making, and sketches. A process of computerisation has been my design discipline for my university career. Studio Air asks for a shift in process, it asks for detachment of habit and proficiency in the application of a totally new design formula.
[ 2 ]
D E S I G N
F U T U R I N G
PRECEDENT [AUSTRIA PAVILION, SHANGHAI CHINA]
[ F I G . Ten million tessellated tiles, transitioning from white to red - dress the entirety of the Austrian Pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai Expo. A built project, its significance in the field of ideas in relation to digital design is the success of both the project’s external and internal forms, as well as its intricate and extensive cladding. The expo is traditionally the realm of experimentation and avantgarde forms of architectural expression, and this pavilion offers no exception to this trend. The firm SPAN Architecture and Design formulated an approach based on contemporary issues and natural forms, with an animated fluid movement. To produce this dynamic curvilinear iconography with a sensual spatial presence, SPAN utilised TopMod software to formulate a series of desired typologies. Computer technology helped realise these forms through an algorithm and parametric approach. Devising the correct typology was the first step; the alternatives produced were applied to a range of criteria, including
[ 3 ]
2 ]
access, structural and aesthetic possibilities. These in turn informed a series of further alterations informed by algorithms, leading to the final product. The design of the pavilion, which includes a restaurant as well as exhibition spaces boasts a fluid continuity of space and form. Arguably evocative but hardly revolutionary, the design’s fruition to a built form is most likely owed to its intended location, an expo environment in strongly architecturally and economically experimentational and developing China. The intensity of the world’s attention on this national pavilion drove higher levels of creativity almost commanding the flexibility and dynamism that parametric design offers. The process of applying algorithmic thinking to addressing site, access, structural and even aesthetic issues seems to have been successful in this case with a strongly flexible and energetic design.
[ F I G .
3 ]
[ F I G .
4 ]
[ 4 ]
[ 5 ] [ F I G .
5 ]
]
[ F I G .
D E S I G N
6 ]
F U T U R I N G
PRECEDENT [AVIVA STADIUM, DUBLIN, IRELAND]
The Aviva stadium in Dublin, designed by Populous, completed in 2010 was a revolutionary project. The streamlining and transition between bespoke and inert 3D models to fully parametric allowed the architects to push further their vision for architectural form and opportunity without having to compromise with budget and time constraints. Delivering coordinated information between the architecture firm Populous and the engineering firm Buro Happold resulted in a less erroneous construction process (Wassim, 2013). The parametric modelling tools utilised opened the possibility of intricate geometric components and composition, only feasible in the budgetary and time environment allocated with the technical workflow that only such advanced tools can offer. Static computer modelling was used to find a form with a parametric approach applied
to develop the outer skin. The parametric component of the design process is largely responsible for maximised efficiency of the whole stadium. Even the precise configuration of each of the building’s complex mullions and brackets can be mapped, manipulated and followed through 3D modelling. Maintaining a thorough handle on all components of the project, parametric modelling avoided timely drawing and redrawing to constantly changing specifications. What projects such as this really contribute to architectural discourse is a formula for technical work patterns that both streamline and make more efficient the construction of a building from its design conception to the building assemblage. The flowing geometry and dense glazed façade is what can truly be appreciated from this application of parametric design.
[ 6 ]
[ F I G .
D E S I G N
7 ]
[ F I G .
C O M P U T A T I O N
PRECEDENT [GENETIC STAIR, UPPER WEST SIDE, NEW YORK, USA]
Caliper Studio describes its Genetic Stair as the “culmination of a fully integrated generative design process which exploits advanced digital design techniques from the earliest conceptual stages, through performative analysis and onwards to fabrication.� (Caliper Studio, 2009) It was designed as the centrepiece of a renovated apartment and art gallery in New York. With strict specifications, the stairs were to only be supported at the top and bottom and turn three times climbing almost five meters. These design details were agreed to earlier, almost forcing the application of
[ 7 ]
computing as the design process. This form of discourse re-defines design process, with the integration of fabricators and designers in this case exemplifying the impact that the application of computing can have on a project. Computing through the design process eliminates the barriers that often exist between the designer and fabricators. It allows a congruency in the discourse of both facets of the design process. A genetic algorithm was used in this project to determine the position, thickness and hollowness of members that supported the stairs, with several iterations produced; the algorithm bred the strongest combination. Through the entirety of this process,
8 ]
[ F I G .
fabricators were involved to assess and understand how to engineer the suggested form. A balance between exuberance and rationality was eventually achieved. Catching you off-guard, such a project doesn’t strike as the obvious example of parametric design as projects such as the Austria Pavilion and The Beast. This project details the possibilities presented by computing to produce the most efficient and appealing designs. Efficiency in terms of iteration, composition, structural arrangement and fabrication. Appeal derives from the design intent, as well as the strong honestly that such a design process generates.
9 ]
[ F I G .
The arrangement of steel and the raw nature of the material, design and general thought that is applied to this project adds to it appeal. This all owed of course to the computational approach applied. Without this approach, it would take many more man-hours, and could result in more manmade errors in correcting and adjusting the steel members to optimum efficiency making allowances for fabrication and engineering. A task almost impossible for any architect to achieve alone without a computational approach.
[ 8 ]
1 0 ]
PRECEDENT [GUANGZHOU OPERA HOUSE, GUANGZHOU, CHINA]
[ F I G .
1 2 ]
D E S I G N C O M P U T E R I S A T I O N
[ F I G .
1 5 ]
Computerisation is the process of applying 3D modelling software to a preconceived design ideation for the purposes of either revealing, realising or developing the form. It differs from computation a great deal, with computation more exclusively associating the ideation, development, production and fabrication of a design from computer generative processes. These two precedents presented here are both designed by famed architecture firm, Zaha Hadid. They both highlight a computerisation approach to architectural design, with these two designs being predetermined in some form before being applied to 3D modelling software. The achievement of such architecture is proven in practise by its prominence in the profession. However it ignores the possibilities offered by computation, the impact of which may carry these designs forward and offer more with less cost and time used....
[ 9 ]
PRECEDENT [KING ABDULLAH FINANCIAL DISTRICT METRO STATION, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA]
[ F I G .
D E S I G N C O M P U T E R I S A T I O N
[ F I G .
1 9 ]
However, as a built project, the Guangzhou Opera House possesses excellent spatial arrangements, public space and noise hierarchy. Can all these really be addressed within 3D modelling and by only relying on parametric design for architecture? Criticism must be made of buildings such as the Austria Pavilion if architecturally similar designs such as that created in Guangzhou by Zaha herself can be just as easily if not more delicately achieved. The role of the architect and his or her own skill and spatial creativity is still important for the discipline for this reason. The argument for computation verses computerisation, or more traditional forms of design often ignores the possibilities that a more pure form of human creativity can create, that is if you believe that technology corrupts design or makes it lazy or unrefined. In any case, there are no extremes in this debate, it is not a black and white question or response.
[ 1 0 ]
1 6 ]
[ F I G .
D E S I G N
2 0 ]
C O M P U T A T I O N
PRECEDENT [SCREEN FOR EUROCONT HEADQUARTERS, BADALONA, SPAIN]
Apparent chaos seems to be the result of HYBRIDa scp’s screen for Eurocont Headquarters in Spain. A series of glass panels alternate opacities and geometries to provide an acoustical, visual and temperature barrier between the company’s workshop and offices. The product created in the end is the result of a specific algorithm, utilising algorithmic thinking to produce, manipulate and determine the most efficient and effective approach to the brief. The formal manipulation of the design of the screen is not the touch of its designers, but rather the algorithm they have designed. An algorithm designed with formal criteria to produce an ideal geometry for the practical demands of the brief. Computing enables the design to, in this case, produce multiple iterations until the designer is satisfied with the outcome. It informs the designer through
[ 1 1 ]
algorithmic expression that the outcomes it produces are the most effective in terms of the parameters set by the designer, in this case acoustic and optical needs as well as specific geometries such as the sides of polygons and the area of perforation. Figure 23 outlines a linear process to which an algorithm can be written, to map building block geometry, to opacity options to determine a resultant geometric pattern. Computation enables the designer, it gives them more control almost making them a master builder once again. As they now have direct control on all the parameters of the design to best answer every component of the brief, not just aesthetics. The opportunity computing provides for a project such as this is an iterative geometry, understandable geometries but also efficiency and intelligence behind this geometry.
[ F I G .
2 1 ]
[ F I G .
[ F I G .
2 3 ]
[ 1 2 ]
2 2 ]
[ 1 3 ]
D E S I G N C O M P U T A T I O N DISCUSSION Computational design as a discourse demands a high level of discipline by designers, empowered by such technology to expand their capabilities. There could perhaps be an argument against such a statement, basing an ideological standpoint into the doubt placed on such technology to really convey the emotive strength of an architect’s creative ability. That perhaps computational design results in cold, disconnected and inhuman design, with uncomfortable spatial qualities to the users of a building. However many academic papers reject such a mentality, instead opting to highlight the extensive benefits that computational design offers. Enabling a framework for influencing and negotiating the interrelation and interdependencies of datasets of information, computational design has a unique capacity to generate complex form, order and structure (Peters, 2013). That is to say, that these tools enable designers to augment their intellect and increase their capacity to find solutions to complex design problems. In addition to this, the use of these tools hands architects the ability to produce multiple iterations, unexpected results to inspire and inform new design decisions. As a discourse, computational design relies on computer technology, which by its very nature, as noted by Kalay (2004) is a superb analytical engine. Furthermore as computers can be programmed to follow logic and reasoning to inform a conclusion, from correlating a number of instructions that form a program. In relation to computational design, this programming can inform a logical set of dependency and associative dependency relationships concerning objects and semantic relationships (Oxman, 2014). For architecture, this can concern anything from the position, thickness and hollowness of members that for example supported the Genetic Stair project in New York, to the acoustic and optical
[ F I G . 2 4 ]
needs as well as specific geometries for the screen project for Eurocont headquarters in Spain. In discussing these two precedents of use of computational design, as well as in particular discussion of the Aviva Stadium in Dublin, an overarching theme in regards to the benefits that the form of design undertaken to produce these projects is the design continuum (Kolarevic, 2003). Computational design enables a continuum through the design process, from ideation to fabrication, and even beyond (Peters, 2013). The Genetic Staircase highlights this point by its elimination of interdisciplinary barriers between designers and fabricators, who worked side by side for the entirety of the project, aided in the common language that computational design offered to them both in aesthetics as well as constructability, as two key components informing the parameters. Computational design by integrating ideation to fabrication reduces the risks associated with the usual translation of information through the construction process saving money and time. Placing in the hands of architects, who traditionally sit at the beginning of the design process after the client, the tools to enable their reach into fabrication and engineering of their projects increases the control architects have. These tools put the architect in the drivers seat when it comes to the integration of design with, structural, material or environmental performance (Peters, 2013) Its with this newfound power, architecture demands on practice a higher level of disciple and understanding of the power of these tools. But not eliminating the architect’s ability to design, computational design merely informs traditional architecture with a more enhanced apparatus for architects to control their design intention.
[ 1 4 ]
[ F I G .
2 6 ]
[ F I G .
2 6 A ]
C O M P O S I T I O N / G E N E R A T I O N PRECEDENT [THE BEAST, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, BOSTON, USA] Computing is an integral part of Neri Oxman’s work, which focuses on this idea of ‘material ecology’. This concept relates to the notion advocated by Oxman, who advocates a ‘synergetic approach to design whereby material organization and behaviours, as they appear in the physical world, may be integrated into digital tools for design exploration’ (Wassim 2013). From conception to fabrication the beast follows this methodology, applying it through digital technology. Oxman utilises nature as not only as a form of formal inspiration, by also as a source of technical solution to design. Most evidently seen in the application of a voronoi algorithm to produce stiff veins of material patterns, with the space in-
[ 1 5 ]
between these veins filled with varying densities of resin material. These spaces would again be defined by digital analysis of the structural function of a section, to support the structure in various ways and for various purposes from comfort to structure. This is a generative form of digital design, allowing the materiality of the design to dictate form and fabrication. What is particularly important for such design, is for the designer to correctly apply parameters and have a clear vision for how these may be applied. The elegance and informed logical expression that this form produces is a direct application of such a principle.
[ F I G .
[ F I G .
2 7 ]
2 5 ]
[ 1 6 ]
[ F I G .
2 8 ]
C O M P O S I T I O N / G E N E R A T I O N PRECEDENT [PS_CANOPY]
Generative design dictates the overall form produced here by su11 architecture+design in their PS_Canopy. Here, the firm’s aim was to break down their perceived ‘categorical barrier’ of traditional building typologies. To do this, they applied generative digital design techniques. Developing a generative approach, based on genetic principles, this design employs the metaphor of a flower, developed with an L-systems script, designed to create a branching form seen in figure 28. Scaling and clustering of the individual triangular components could be parametrically
[ 1 7 ]
controlled by this L-system, observed in figure 29. The canopy’s elegance in design is akin to it being informed by genetic science, biomimicry and by the generative functions of the L-systems script, also inspired by nature. It is in this form of design application and inspiration that Oxman’s (2014) assertion, that computational design can really produce a second nature. One informed by the first nature, augmented by a modern design process of selection and manipulation.
[ F I G .
[ F I G .
2 9 ]
3 0 ]
[ 1 8 ]
[ 1 9 ]
[ F I G .
3 1 ]
C O M P O S I T I O N / G E N E R A T I O N DISCUSSION Architecture has to be considered in both its glorified built form in practise as much as its literature. In both these interdependent and symbiotic fields, architecture reflects positively on this shift to computational design. Architecture is enticed by a new level of logical justification of design outcomes, derived from generative design processes as opposed to the traditional compositional discourse. In particularly Oxman (2014) notes the scripting culture that emerged from the new millennium, supported by new and newly available software, with this technology enabling design thinkers and researchers. Subsequently, algorithmic thinking and even parametric modelling added to this scripting culture to inform a new architectural discourse. Over the past fifty years the majority of computer-aided design development has been aimed at offering varying levels of assistance to human driven design. This was done through augmenting parts of the design process, ranging from drafting to modelling systems. In the past few years, the role of the computer has changed, to just merely being able to support designers to being able to provide design solutions to be approved and developed by a designer (Kalay, 2004). This has led to the beginning of a whole new and more comprehensive discourse of architectural theory and philosophy, which is fully engaged in the new understanding of the interdependencies of technology, science and design/architecture (Oxman, 2014). The design continuum, outlined by Kolarevic (2003) affirms such a sentiment in architectural theory and practise. With this new continuum transcending as Oxman (2014) suggests more then just the “instrumental contribution of the man-machine relationship.” Moreover, here is this emergence of an interdisciplinary approach to architecture, enabled by computational design. Algorithmic thinking, as a discourse, fully integrates this new understanding
of interdependencies of technology, science and architecture, and translates them into a measurable approach to design. Furthermore, as Peters (2013) asserts, architecture is at the present moment, witnessing a shift in the drawing of these algorithms as a method of design formulation and communication. Algorithmic thinking as a discourse defines itself in an interpretive skill used to comprehend the results of generative code, understanding how to best manipulate and speculate the code to define design potentials. Parametric design flows into this concept of algorithmic thinking, representing more then just merely a design technology, but rather, as algorithmic thinking suggests, as new form of design thinking. Parametric systems are the development of a series of written rules, or algorithmic procedures to form multiple iterations to be scrutinised by the designer. According to Oxman (2014) parametric design, supported by new a burgeoning of available software established itself in a new generation of designers as a preferred design discourse, of course enabling “design thinkers and researchers, ” this in time extending to practise. This can be mostly attributed to parametric design’s ability to establish a new form of logical expression in architecture, seen as working in tandem with algorithmic thinking to focus upon a clear associative and interdependent logical relationship within design. However, as many academic papers written on the subject suggest, algorithmic thinking is still a contemporary point of discussion. Citing a continuous lack of sufficient understanding of the concepts, when this understanding permeates the architectural community, and the discussion of digital architecture ceases to be analysed as something fundamentally different, then these forms of design can become a true discourse for the application of architecture in practise.
[ 2 0 ]
[ 2 1 ]
[ F I G .
3 2 ]
L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S PART [A]
Design, dealt with as a problem, requires a solution, a solution characteristically should be an option designed to meet a particular need, or set of needs. Therefore, what designers are expected to do is to analyse problems, set goals for how they may be overcome and devise a path to realise them. The efficacy of these actions and the communication of these actions to others is a crucial part of this process. A computational approach offers more opportunities than restrictions to meet these expectations (Kalay, 2004). Computational design as a discourse applies a systematic and logical approach to design as a problem and opportunity.
of parameters, which translates to parametric thinking. Computational design is often criticised for perhaps rendering a response to a design problem that doesn’t truly reflect the ergonomically [figure 32] and psychologically experience that people have in buildings. However this is not malignant through the entire discourse. Human ergonomic and psychological spatial experience can inform computational design as much as other performance criteria. Parametric design permits flexibility in the designer’s preference or equality amongst performance criteria
Primarily, this is due to the nature of a design problem, its reliance on the designer’s familiar with formal reasoning methods and ability to frame a problem in a manner that with create and amenable solution. A trial and error process can often overcome these multiple and conflicting multivalent parameters that dictate the efficacy of a design solution. Algorithmic thinking demands to take a commanding role in the comprehension of the outcomes of the generating algorithm based on the parameters set by the designer. This requires an understanding of how to best manipulate these parameters to further design potential. Parametric design allows the generation and exploration of this design potential, facilitating the modification of algorithms to investigate the relationship between elements. Computational design goes further then just simply being a tool to generate design, but becomes a median for the translation of designer’s set challenges and the production of multiple options for responding to such challenges.
The opportunities for increased flexibility, freedom and congruency in the design process are inherit in computational design. In saying this, parametric design dictates that such congruency can coexist with a designer’s creative process. Computational design ties this process in with the processes of fabricators and engineers etc. The consequence of such a high level of interdisciplinary participation in more levels of the design process builds more consistent, structure, coherence, traceability and intelligence into computerized 3D form (Wassim, 2013). Streamlining the design process involves the integration of professional disciplines, reduces error, and opens up more fabrication options and efficacy.
These challenges are navigated in this design discourse in the form
Efficacy in design ideation, development, generation and fabrication has allowed the use of computational design to produce more geometrically complex designs. Oxman (2014) suggests that we can somehow create a second nature with computational design. In fact what must be asserted is the tangibility in new and more complex forms with a strong logical base to which computational design can be attributed.
[ 2 2 ]
A L G O R I T M I C SELECTION FROM PART [A] These generative iterations are the product of a series of parameters dictating the allocation of points along a curve. With these points producing curved lines. These lines can then be altered by an additional series of parameters, which dictate the curvature, length and magnetism of these ‘arms.’ The elegance and whimsical patterns this creates are intriguing, and even translate to 3D as well as 2D, with the additional of more parameters into the algorithm.
[ 2 2 ]
S K E T C H E S
[ 2 3 ]
A L G O R I T M I C
S K E T C H E S
SELECTION FROM PART [A] A tubular form is manipulated with panels, subdivision and the addition of form to a surface. This creates an array of possibilities, with these iterations merely representing a few ‘species’ that have stood out to me as completely different, showing the array of possibilities with even the most simple algorithm.
[ 2 4 ]
[ 2 5 ]
C O N C L U S I O N S PART [A] Part A introduced us to the ideas that will form the foundation of our application of computational design to answer the LAGI brief. These ideas, developed by the analysis of precedent and of academic sources facilitate an understanding of the logic located within the practise of algorithmic thinking and parametric design. My design approach will seek to follow the ruled understanding that I have established in this architectural discourse. That is, an appreciation of the tools that I am equipped with and their ability to augment my own design ability. Employing algorithmic thinking, designs generation rather then composition will be a driving principle behind the development of my design. Although this design discourse is by no means unique, the application and
[ 2 6 ]
the outcome will be as innovative as the difference in the human experience. I intend to have a strong focus on both ergonomic and psychological parameters, seeing the human experience in a parametric design as fundamental. While of course, as pertaining to the brief, making sure that there is a focus on environmental and structure parameters. The benefits of parametric design are that of course, all these parameters can be considered as interdependent, and easily manipulable. Finally, the flow on from such an approach has its grounds in the benefits that such a deep logical flow of information into a single design can have for its user and context. There is an infinite range of possibilities.
[ F I G .
3 3 ]
[ 2 7 ]
B I B L I O G R A P H Y [PART A]
WRITTEN SOURCES: CALIPER STUDIO 2009, CALIPER STUDIO, NEW YORK VIEWED 5 AUGUST 2014, < HTTP://WWW.CALIPERSTUDIO.COM/ARCHITECTURE/PROJECTS/GENETICSTAIR>.
KALAY, Y 2004, ARCHITECTURE’S NEW MEDIA: PRINCIPLES, THEORIES, AND METHODS OF COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN, MIT PRESS, CAMBRIDGE.
KOLAREVIC, B 2003, ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, SPON PRESS, LONDON.
OXMAN, RIVKA & OXMAN, ROBERT (EDS) 2014, THEORIES OF THE DIGITAL IN ARCHITECTURE, ROUTLEDGE, LONDON.
PETERS, B 2013, ‘COMPUTATION WORKS: THE BUILDING OF ALGORITHMIC THOUGHT’, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, VOL. 83, NO. 2, PP. 08-15.
WASSIM, J 2013, PARAMETRIC DESIGN FOR ARCHITECTURE, LAURANCE KING PUBLISHING LTD, LONDON.
WILSON, ROBERT A. & KEIL, FRANK C., (EDS) 1999, THE MIT ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCES, MIT PRESS, LONDON, PP. 11, 12.
[ 2 8 ]
IMAGES: 1 ] MUSEO SOUMAYA HTTP://UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG/WIKIPEDIA/ COMMONS/5/5D/MUSEO_SOUMAYA_PLAZA_CARSO_V.JPG 2 ] AUSTRIA PAVILION, SHANGHAI, CHINA, DESIGNER – SPAN ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 2010 HTTP://VISDIGARMANDO.BLOGSPOT.COM.AU 3 ] AUSTRIA PAVILION, SHANGHAI, CHINA, DESIGNER – SPAN ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 2010 HTTP://WWW.SUCKERPUNCHDAILY.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2010/06/AUSTRIAN-PAVILION-BG.JPG 4 ] AUSTRIA PAVILION, SHANGHAI, CHINA, DESIGNER – SPAN ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 2010 HTTP://WWW.E-ARCHITECT.CO.UK/SHANGHAI/SHANGHAI-EXPO-AUSTRIAN-PAVILION 5 ] AVIVA STADIUM, DUBLIN, IRELAND, DESIGNER – POPULOUS, 2007-2010 HTTP://UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG/WIKIPEDIA/COMMONS/A/A2/AVIVA_STADIUM,_ DUBLIN.JPG 6 ] AVIVA STADIUM, DUBLIN, IRELAND, DESIGNER – POPULOUS, 2007-2010 HTTP://WWW.CLAD.CH/IMAGES/AVIVA-STADIUM-1.JPG 7 - 1 0 ] GENETIC STAIR, UPPER WEST SIDE, NEW YORK, USA, DESIGNER – CALIPER STUDIO, 2009 HTTP://WWW.CALIPERSTUDIO.COM/ARCHITECTURE/PROJECTS/GENETIC-STAIR 1 2 - 1 5 ] GUANGZHOU OPERA HOUSE, GUANGZHOU, CHIN, DESIGNER – ZAHA HADID, 2003-2010 HTTP://WWW.ZAHA-HADID.COM/ARCHITECTURE/GUANGZHOU-OPERA-HOUSE/ 1 6 - 1 9 ] KING ABDULLAH FINANCIAL DISTRICT METRO STATION, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABI, DESIGNER – ZAHA HADID, HTTP://WWW.ZAHA-HADID.COM/ARCHITECTURE/KING-ABDULLAH-FINANCIAL-DISTRICT-METRO-STATION/ 2 0 - 2 3 ] SCREEN FOR EUROCONT HEADQUARTERS, BADALONA, SPAIN, DESIGNER – HYBRIDA SCP, 2010 HTTP://WWW.HYBRIDARCH.NET/#!EUROCONT/C10JA 2 4 ] MOSIAC DOME INTERIOR, NASIR AL-MULK MOSQUE, SHIRAZ, IRAN HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/NASIR_AL-MULK_MOSQUE#MEDIAVIEWER/ FILE:MASDJED-E_NASR_OL_MOLK.JPG 2 5 - 2 7 ] THE BEAST, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, BOSTON, USA, DESIGNER – NERI OXMAN, 2010 HTTP://WWW.MATERIALECOLOGY.COM/PROJECTS/DETAILS/ BEAST#PRETTYPHOTO[BEAST]/6/ 2 8 - 3 0 ] PS_CANOPY, DESIGNER - SU11 ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN, 2009 HTTP://WWW.SU11.COM/#!DUNEHOUSE/C1LN1 3 1 ] IRRIGATION PATTERNS HTTP://JML.IS/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2012/12/GOOGLE-MAPS-GOOGLECHROME_2012-12-08_11-41-02.PNG 3 2 ] MODULAR, DESIGNER - LE CORBUSIER HTTP://WHARFERJ.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM/2010/12/5210990565_469FC3F9FF_B.JPG
3 3 ] PACKED PAVILION, SHANGHAI HTTP://API.NING.COM/FILES/QHWOEFN19ZUAQUJ4WEW2RBZ4XZQSF5ZAMDM7VOP77RX3HRVFZXZOZZTUHYPIGFFXGZA*XGGNEMLV9FKOKD7A79FKGT1ODA4W/6.JPG
[ 2 9 ]