Ben Galea I grew up in Melbourne creating buildings, towns and cities whilst playing with Lego with my younger brother. The idea of creating, designing and building and the joy that came with it must have stuck because here I am studying my third year of architecture. My current experience with digital design tools extends as far as Google Sketchup and stops there. I have never used Rhino, Grasshopper, Photoshop, InDesign or even Illustrator and this course looks to be a steep learning curve for me as I attempt to get my head around these various programs. However, Parametric Design intrigues me and the use of computer aided design opens a whole new world of possibilities in spatial creation and experimental design outcomes.
A. Case For Innovation
A
s digital architecture continues to grow in prominence in our cities, so do the questions about reliance on digital tools and what real capacity we as humans have to create, when so much is reliant on computer programs. Innovation in architectural form has been largely digitised in the new millenium due to the ability to expedite experiments. This is because of digital models and their capacity to be altered at the click of a button. The ease with which a model can be redesigned, reinspected and eventually replaced creates a need for the digital environment to encourage continued innovation. However, form is only a cog in the architectural machine. It is the responsibility of architects to ensure the final designs remain relevant to the target audience and do not ostracise themselves due experiment for experiment’s sake. Although difficult to define, architecture is essentially the creation of space for people to inhabit and this should not be lost. When buildings are built as a means to themselves, this human aspect and social relevance of architecture is lost and the structures risk becoming large, ineffective sculptures awaiting demolishing. Contrasting these potential pitfalls in over-experimentation, digital modelling tools create the the environment to enhance the social significance already prominent in architecture. Redifining space to maximise efficiency and qaulity of life can be achieved through intuitive use of computer aided design. Effective data analysis alongside continued discourse between the architectural profession and public needs are requirements to achieve this. The Gateway Design Proposal asks for cohesion between archituctural design and public interface with it. Creating ‘forward-looking’ symbolism that is both stimulating and relevant relies not only the specifics of the design but how well they are aimed at the target audience, predominanlty visitors.
A.1 Architecture as a Discourse Son-O-House Stimulating both tactile and aural senses, the SonO-House by NOX was built around the extrapolation of human movement and algorithmic design based around the resulting data. The overlapping forms encourage movement throughtout the strucuture, which in turn transforms these movements into digitised sound. This creates a new concept of dynamism within a structure that behaves differently depending on how the individual interacts with the space. Building external http://farm5.static.flickr. com/4145/5018446312_12582fea15.jpg
The theory behind the design of Son-O-House was derived from the typical motions of the human body. Analysing the movements of the limbs, joints and extremities of people (similar to data points in Grasshopper). Paper strips were cut in areas corresponding with the different bodily movements (below) then connected, resulting in intertwining lines and curves. The way the building reacts to people is a reflection of the way in which the building was first conceived, giving it a ‘natural’ and ‘human’ element. This method of design would be quite useful in relation to the Wyndham Gateway Project through the use of data point input and ensuing parametric modelling techniques.
Paper Experimentation http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/machuma.html
A.1 Architecture as a Discourse Libeskind’s similar stelae http://farm3.staticflickr.co m/2215/2240561192_8465 5c85ed_z.jpg
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin is a distinctive peice of place-making architecture. It was commisioned to symbolise the Jewish victims of WWII but uses no symbols or signage. space is divided by concrete stelae creating the feeling of isolation and dizzying disorientation. However what is particularly interesting to this studio is the use of dual sets of statistical data to create the contoured effect of both ground level and the tops of the concrete stealae. Through manipulation of input data, the design was able to take shape by creating a flowing undulation from the edges of the memorial site. Similar to Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, also in Berlin, the use of undulation can create signs of physical nausea through the manipulation of gradient on site and disorentation of the senses. The data input aspect of this project is of interest to this studio as examples can be directly referenced to Grasshopper. Differing results can be obtained through manipulation of algorithms and the same data overlay techniques can be utilised to experiment with different outcomes.
View from inside memorial Photo taken by self