McColl Brett 832138 Air Part B by Brett Lachlan McColl

Studio AIR Digital

Alchemy:

Variations

B rett McColl 83 213 8

tutor: Davi d Wegma n 2 01 8 S emest er 1

Theme

0.0 Contents

2 4

0.0 Contents 0.1 Introduction

Part A

Part b

Bibliogrpahy and Image List

8 10 12 14 16 16 17

20 24 26 42 46 68 70 80 81

A.1 Design Futuring Case Study 1 A.1 Design Futuring Case Study 2 A.2 Design Computation A.3 Composition/Generation A.4 Conclusion A.5 Learning Outcomes A.6 Algorithmic Sketches

B.0 Self Reflection B.1 Research Fields B.2 Case Study 1 B.3 Case Study 2 B.4 Technique: Development B.5 Technique: Prototypes B.6 Technique: Proposal B.7 Learning Outcomes B.8 Algorithmic Sketchbook

0.1

Introduction

Fig 1. Me

Fig 3. Designing Environments Final Model

Fig 4. Design Studio Earth Final Model

Fig 5. Design Studio Water Final Render A

I am Brett McColl, a third year student in the Bachelor of Environments, majoring in architecture. My passion for architecture and design stretches back long before I even knew what the words meant. As a child, I used to play and build using LEGO bricks, a hobby and a passion which has remained constant in my life. This desire to build, create, and see the fruits of my efforts inspired me into studying architecture. Architecture provides a fantastic opportunity for me. It allows me to express multiple facets of my personality easily through one medium. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m used to working with numbers and mathematics, so having a field that allows for this to combined with the ability to design and create is perfect. Problem solving challenges and digital design work added to the formula only helps to cement the desire. Like most skills, the ability to design has evolved naturally. Starting out with simple plastic blocks, the tools I have used to design have become increasingly complicated, moving through pencils and paper into computer software along the likes of Sketchup and Rhino. The past two years at the University of Melbourne has helped to refine my critical design thinking, yet this particular skill will always need constant refinement, regardless of age and ability.

Fig 6. Design Studio Water Final Render B

Fig 2. Custom LEGO Spaceship

Fig 7. Desiging Environments Final Render, created using Google Sketchup and Twilight Renderer

Fig 8. Design Studio Earth Final Render, created using Rhino and the Rhino renderer

Fig 9. Design Studio Water Final Render, created using Rhino and V-Ray

PART A

Conceptualisation

a.1

Design futuring CASE study 1

Hertfordshire House Facit Homes, 2012

This house, built in Hertfordshire in the UK, is an interesting design that encompasses part of the ideas surrounding Design Futuring. The idea behind Design Futuring is that there is a future that architects and other professionals will need to design for, and it is possible that the future is not pleasant. In Speculate Everything, Dunne and Raby note that “it is impossible to continue with the methodology” that already exists1. This house, designed by the architecture firm Facit Homes, utilises a new process known as D-Process. The process to create this house begins with a computer model of the house, which contains “every aspect” of the house2. What is truly unique is the manufacturing process for this. Rather than cutting the prefabricated timber offsite, a shipping container holding all the required tools to cut the timber is brought to the site. This reduces much of the carbon footprint involved with manufacturing and transport of individual elements. This also removes the possibility of errors, as the entire project is coordinated by one person, rather than a team that could easily misinterpret information. Not only does this unique D-Process reduce labour and material costs, it also saves time, as each piece is prepared at the time is required. This approach is not limited to just this house, as the software can and has been used to design and manufacture other houses. Although this is currently only used for bespoke house design, it is entirely possible that this system of design could be applied to high rise construction. Considering that the process relies on a scripted software, it would be relatively simple to modify it to adapt the possible outcomes and futures.

Fig 10. Facit Homes BIM Model

Fig 11. Facit Homes container production unit

1. Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming, (MIT Press, 2013) p. 9 2. Facit Homes, D-Process, 2018 <https://vimeo.com/20103388

Fig 12. Facit Homes Hertfordshire House

a.1

design futuring CASE study 2

O-14

RUR Architecture, 2009 O-14 is an outlier amongst the incredibly standard office towers that populate Dubai, not only in terms of design, but in construction. O-14 has a unique outer shell, made from concrete and perforated by circles determined by algorithmic software. This concrete structure is the primary lateral and vertical support of the structure. This allows for a columnless interior, which in turn allows for occupants to “arrange the flexible floor space according to their individual needs”1. This design allows for the building to be easily re-purposed, which falls into Dunne’s and Raby’s idea that design is “not in trying to predict the future”, but being able to “open up all sorts of possibilities”2. The use of this concrete structure also creates a chimney effect that reduces the overall cooling costs of the building by redirecting hot air away from the glass, and out through the top. This combination of environmental consideration and planning for future changes and possibilities demonstrates the type of design that is required for the future.

Fig 13. O-14 3D Model

Fig 14. O-14 Floor Plan +2

1. Welch, Adrian, and Isabelle Lomholt, “O-14 Tower Dubai - Skyscraper - E-Architect”, E-Architect, 2016 <https://www.e-architect.co.uk/dubai/o14-tower> 2. Bruce Bell and Sarah Simpkin, “Domesticating Parametric Design”, Architectural Design, 83.2 (2013), 88-91 <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ doi/10.1002/ad.1560/epdf>.

Fig 15. RUR Architecture O-14

a.2

Design computation Design computation is changing the architectural industry, slowly moving it away from the traditional methods of design used for centuries. Previously, architects had to rely on pen and paper drawings, before moving to computerised design software, such as AutoCAD. Computerised design and computational design sound similar, but are ultimately two different ideas. Computerised design is more about automating and enhancing the same abilities of traditional pen and paper architecture, whereas computational design is more focused on harnessing the processing power inherent in computers to allow “the writing of rules…for the creation of variations”1. This notion that computers will follow an idea “to its logical conclusion”2 is the inherent point of design. Architects themselves do not have the brain power to process all this information, due to the fact that “we…tend to make mistakes when confronted with large and complex problems”3. Computational design resolves this flaw, allowing for a “powerful symbiotic design system”4, which allows the cold rationalism of the computer to interact freely with the creativity present in the architect. This comes back to “the creation of variations”5. Using this computational design, architects can easily modify the design to suit a range of aesthetic criteria. The computer can easily modify the internal structure to suit the new design, modify the environmental requirements of each room, or possibly restructure and reorganise the layout of an entire building. The entire geometry can change as well, as computers are not limited to considering one or two basic shapes, but rather a veritable suite of specific curves and surfaces that will best work with the inputted designs. However, the key requirement of this partnership of man and machine “is predicated on communication”6. Without this, it is impossible for the computer to truly understand what the ultimate goal of the design is.

1. Yehuda E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media (Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25. 2-6. ibid 7. “London City Hall - Famous Buildings And Architecture Of London”, Designbookmag.Com<http://www.designbookmag.com/londoncityhall.htm> 8. Amy Frearson, “China Milan Expo 2015 Pavilion Has Over 1,000 Bamboo Panels”, Dezeen, 2015 <https://www.dezeen.com/2015/05/05/beijing-skyline-mountain-rangeroof-china-milan-expo-2015-pavilion-studio-link-arc-tsinghua-university-bamboo/> 9-10. ibid

London City Hall

Foster & Partners The London City Hall is an example of the benefits of computerised design. The unusual shape of the building is derived from a sphere, which has several effects on the building, mostly that the surface area of the building is minimised, which allows less roof space exposed to direct sunlight and allows less heat to transfer between the internal and external environments7. The minimised surface is impossible to create efficiently by hand, which is where the benefits of computerised design come in. Rather than manually calculating the designs, designers would be able to define certain parameters for the building and have the final design reflect the requirements. The use of computerised designs allow for these environmental concerns to be inserted into the building’s design from the very beginning.

Fig 16. London City Hall

China pavilion

Tsinghua University + Studio Link-Arc Computational design can breathe new life into ancient building techniques. An example of this is the China Pavilion, which “aims…to create a building that embodies both Chinese traditions and modern technologies”8. The roof changes profile at the front and back of the building, with one side being a copy of a contour of mountain ranges9. The other side uses the profile of the Beijing skyline. Across these two profiles, 1052 sheets of glue laminated bamboo panels, each individually unique, are laid so that the two profiles could be connected10. Although this could have been done by hand, using computational design allows for the panels to be adjusted according to the number, size, and location of the panels, as well as changes to either profile. The use of computerised design also allows for easier fabrication, as the panels can be individually laid out for laser cutting or other such processes.

Fig 17. China Pavilion

a.3

Design computation The use of algorithmic based design tools have allowed for the change between architects manually composing the designs of their creations to generating multiple possibilities of their work. Algorithms are a set of instructions; they follow “a finite set of rules… that are unambiguous and simple to follow”1. The key point of this is that there are a finite set of rules, which ultimately means there should only be a few perfect solutions to any given problem. Here begins the change from composition to generation. While it is possible to follow this set of rules by manually composing the design, it is far less likely to be the correct answer to the problem. This is because there are often too many competing conditions that drive the set of rules. In contrast, generative design allows the computer to process these unambiguous rules, and create a number of possibilities based upon them. From these, the computer will find the optimal, if not perfect, solution to the given rules. The main drawback to the generative method of design is the possible loss of creativity. With this algorithmic based design, the “designer [acts] as a “curator”, rather than making all the decisions”2. Whilst this does mean that the individual has less precise control over a design, it allows for the computer to ultimately calculate the optimal solution to the given problem.

Fig 18. Autodesk Office Generated Layouts

1. Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12 2. Howarth, Dan, “Generative Design Software Will Give Designers “Superpowers””, Dezeen, 2017 <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/02/06/generative-design-software-will- give-designers-superpowers-autodesk-university/> 3. Howe, Marc K., “The Promise Of Generative Design -”, World-Architects, 2017 <https://www.world-architects.com/en/architecture-news/insight/the-promise-of-generative- design> 4-5. ibid 6. Stocking, Angus W., “Generative Design Is Changing The Face Of Architecture | Cadalyst”, Cadalyst.Com, 2009 <http://www.cadalyst.com/cad/building-design/generative- design-is-changing-face-architecture-12948> 7-8. ibid

Autodesk offices

Mars discovery district A key example of generative design comes from how Autodesk designed their office space within the MaRS Discovery District. The aim of the design was based around the ideas of easily traversable spaces while simultaneously creating spaces for people to interact3. This was combined with several simple rules, which determined how much distraction an area was to receive, who was to sit near who, how the spaces and teams are to interconnect, what type of work styles are compatible, and how much sunlight each area received4. Based upon the parameters set, the software completed ten thousand iterations within days. Danil Nagy, designer for Autodesk focused on generative design software, noted that “The computer can then evaluate each one and tell us which ones it thinks are the best. Human architects can then evaluate them on the basis of subjective factors such as aesthetics”5, which ultimately led to the final design of these offices.

Water cube

Arup, PTW, & CSCEC Generative design can also implement rules that are found in nature to influence design. An example of this is Beijing National Aquatics Centre, commonly known as the Water Cube. The external structure of the building used generative design software to mimic the formation and rules of soap bubbles6. J Parrish, one of the directors involved with the project, stated that the programs used allowed him to “do in a morning what used to take me a month”7. This software not only designed the structure, it also checked the load paths and force distributions, in order to ensure it would remain standing. Using this generative design software saved Arup “$10 million on design costs alone compared with traditional design methods”8, showing that this design method is not only efficient, but economical as well.

Fig 20. Beijing National Aquatics Center Interior Fig 19. Autodesk Office Generative Information

a.4 Conclusion

a.5

Learning Outcomes

This section looks towards the future of design. By focusing more on the software aspect of design, and on the generative design, architectural design is improving and ushering in a new age of practice. It is important to understand these systems, as these will be an invaluable tool to use as buildings demand to be larger and more complex. The use of computerised software will be fazed out over time in favour of this new system, allowing designers to create new and complex forms with efficiency and ease.

Architectural computing is a tricky, yet necessary skill to master for the new age of architecture. These past few weeks have mostly been focused on experimenting and discovering the capabilities of Grasshopper, and attempting to transfer existing knowledge of visual coding languages. However, most of the work in Grasshopper so far has revolved around the tutorial guides, and there has yet to be personal exploration of the limitations of the designs.

a.6 Algorithmic sketches

Fig 21. (Above) Response to blockage of communication Fig 22. (Left) Design based off branching system of tree Fig 23. (Below) Segmenting communication blockage

PART B Criteria

Design

b.0 Self reflection

Vishudda Vishudda is one of the seven core chakras found in the body. This chakra is located within the throat, which also provides its common name, the throat chakra. It is connected to the communication centers of the body, both in terms of listening and speaking. This chakra influences the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas, as well as listen and understand others. This chakra is also connected to the thyroid gland, which is also located in the throat. The thyroid has control over the entire body, as it secretes hormones which control the growth and maturity of the body through metabolism1. Ultimately, the throat chakra focuses on communication between people.

Strengths If one is connected with Vishudda, there are many advantages. Firstly, as the chakra represents communication, especially self-expression, one will be easily able to communicate their own individuality to others. Being able to talk effectively and succinctly is also a key advantage. The truth is the final advantage, as a true connection to this chakra allows for true expression of ideas, allowing for seamless communication.

Weaknesses In contrast, the weaknesses that can arise from a blockage in the throat chakra can be severe. If this occurs, confusion can occur, as it might not be possible to communicate ideas effectively between two parties. And it is possible that there is no knowledge about the confusion, so the entire idea that is being expressed is warped and deformed into something far from what is described. The collage on the next page is representative of this idea, with one person describing their idea, and the other misinterpreting it to make it more simple or complex than it truly is. In order to counteract this weakness, the function of the design needs to facilitate calmness, order, structure, and clarity in the user. These four elements are all crucial to effective communication, whether that be written, verbal, or visual communication. The final design needs to also accommodate all three forms of communication.

1. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Know Your Throat Chakra And How To Unlock Its Powerâ&#x20AC;?, Chakras.Info, 2018 <http://www.chakras.info/throat-chakra/>

Fig 24. Vishudda

Fig 25. Chakra

Fig 26. The Joys of Communication

b.1

Research field

The simple tree is often incorporated into multiple facets of communication. The tree can be used as a place of communication, with meetings occurring around trees or people organising to connect under trees. Trees can be used to convey messages, the traditional one being messages of love written into the trunk. Finally, elements of the tree can be used to send messages, such as the burning of leaves and sticks to send smoke signals, or the use of paper in society today. With such a natural system being ingrained into communication, both ancient and modern, it makes sense to study this natural system, and understand how it can be used to create a space for contemplation about how people communicate.

Fig 22. Design based off branching system of tree

Leaves attempt to reach sunlight. Leaves that do not receive sunlight often wither away Cycles

of growth continues Leaves create dense canopy Growth continues until boundary met Leaves

turn

into

branches Branches create more leaves

More leaves grow around trunk Stem

grows

into

trunk

An initial single leaf The tree begins from a single seed Root

system

begins

Begins to absorb nutrients Mimics Roots Collects

nutrients

branches

spread to

encourage

further growth

and

spreads and

Ensures

out further

tree

does

out not

topple

b.2 Case Study 1

For this case study, a grasshopper definition that replicates the branching tree system previously described was discovered. This definition differs from the previous attempt at creating a tree, as it follows a very similar function to the tree, down to almost exactly how it should grow, whereas the previous attempt focused more on replication and branching, to limited success.

The ultimate goal is to create a space for contemplation near Dights Falls, along the Merri Creek Trail. The contemplation must resolve around the chosen chakra, and must focus on the contemplation of communication. As such, the selected designs must showcase a connection to communication in some form. The form should be able to either inspire or allow for communication or debate. And the form should ultimately replicate the system of the tree, and should be able to showcase the form of one.

Fig 27. Grasshopper Tree

Species No. 1: Radius of sphere - Default: 24.015 Species No. 2: Height of base - Default: 22 Species No. 3: Base Shape - Default: Sphere Species No. 4: Number of End Points - Default: 18 Species No. 5: Number of Points to Travel Through - Default: 1000 Species No. 6: Range of Radius of Pipe - Default: Start 1.2323 - End 0.250 Species No. 7: Branch Shape and Type - Default: Pipe Variable

SPECIES

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

No. 7

Iteration 1

Sphere

1-1

Pipe Variable

Iteration 2

Cube

0.5-1.5

Extrude Square

Iteration 3

Cone

1.5-0.5

Extrude Pentagon

Iteration 4

Cylinder

0.1-2

Extrude Octagon

Iteration 5

N/A

2-0.1

Extrude Hekaton

Iteration 6

N/A

100

10-0

OcTree

Iteration 7

N/A

200

0-10

OcTree with Square Leaves

Iteration 8

N/A

300

N/A

Voronoi Cell

Iteration 9

N/A

100

400

N/A

Delaunay Mesh

Iteration 10

N/A

200

500

N/A

Iteration 11

N/A

300

600

N/A

Iteration 12

N/A

400

700

N/A

Iteration 13

N/A

100

N/A

500

800

N/A

Iteration 14

N/A

1000

900

N/A

Iteration 15

N/A

1000

N/A

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 1

Species 1 changes the radius of the base sphere that the script is bound to. The interesting thing here is how the tree expands and changes shape in reaction to the modified size. Although the fourth iteration is more in line with the final size of the structure, iteration seven produces the most interesting result. This design seems to be exist in the sweet spot of being too small and dense, and being too branching and spread out. This pattern could be used as a base for a structure, combined with one of the other variations in this study.

Iteration 7: Radius=35

Iteration 1: Radius=5

Iteration 5: Radius=25

Iteration 8: Radius=40

Iteration 2: Radius=10

Iteration 3: Radius=15

Iteration 6: Radius=30

Iteration 9: Radius=45

Iteration 4: Radius=20

Iteration 7: Radius=35

Iteration 10: Radius=50

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 2

Species 2 changes the height of the base, altering the length of the tree. There are a few iterations here that are of particular interest. Firstly, iteration two is unique, as the very base is different to the other iterations. Whilst the other iterations have a pointy base, the base here is denser, creating a more rounded bottom. This fits more in line with how a tree is meant to look and operate. Iteration thirteen is also of note. No other variables have been changed, yet this particular design feels more clustered and dense. This could lead to some interesting designs, as it might be possible to create smaller rooms within a branching structure to facilitate private conversations. However, iteration six is the optimal choice from these, as it creates an open area in the middle surrounded by a branching outer structure. This, if rotated upside down, could provide an interesting auditorium like space to accommodate debates or other speaking events.

Iteration 6: Height=25

Iteration 1: Height=1

Iteration 2: Height=5

Iteration 3: Height=10

Iteration 6: Height=25

Iteration 7: Height=30

Iteration 8: Height=40

Iteration 11: Height=80

Iteration 12: Height=90

Iteration 4: Height=15

Iteration 9: Height=50

Iteration 5: Height=20

Iteration 10: Height=60

Iteration 13: Height=100

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 3

Species 3 modifies the base shape that the script is allowed to operate in. The default shape is the sphere, shown in iteration one. Iterations three and four use a cone and a cylinder respectively, and produce somewhat similar results to a sphere. Iteration two is incredibly unique though. It required more code to allow the script to follow a cube, but the result was impressive. This almost alien like design still follows the principles of the tree, and the open space created can be used in a multitude of ways. This design will be easy to incorporate into a multitude of design options.

Iteration 2: Cube

Iteration 1: Sphere

Iteration 2: Cube

Iteration 3: Cone

Iteration 4: Cylinder

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 4

Species 4 changes the amount of end points that are present in the script, and therefore changes the amount of branches present in the final design. Its interesting to note how dense the canopy becomes as this increases, all the way from a single, hair like structure, through to almost completely filling the deformed base sphere that the script is kept in. Iteration fourteen is the most interesting option, as the sheer amount of end points creates a unique canopy for an interior design. By focusing so much on the outside, it is possible that conversation and discussion inside the structure would be ignored, which could be useful for people attempting to overcome difficulties in communication.

Iteration 14: 1000 End Points

Iteration 1: 1 End Point

Iteration 2: 5 End Points

Iteration 6: 30 End Points

Iteration 3: 10 End Points

Iteration 4: 15 End Points

Iteration 5: 20 End Points

Iteration 7: 40 End Points

Iteration 8: 50 End Points

Iteration 9: 100 End Points

Iteration 10: 200 End Points

Iteration 11: 300 End Points

Iteration 12: 400 End Points

Iteration 13: 500 End Points

Iteration 14: 1000 End Points

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 5

Species 5 modifies the number of points generated by the Populate3D command, and therefore changes the number of points that the branches are able to go through to reach the end point. What is interesting here is that the end points themselves are not moving in any direction, but the way the branch travels to this point changes the entire structure of the tree, and makes it appear completely different. Iteration one is very simplistic, with clean curves, creating an almost feather-like effect. This minimalist design contrasts heavily with iteration fifteen, where the outcome is more twisted and convoluted due to the amount of points that the script can go through. This in itself is a metaphor for communication, as a clean and concise argument based on a few key points will be clearly understood, whilst a complex argument, with a multitude of points and branching discussions, will create confusion in all but the most dedicated listeners. For this reason, the principles in iteration one will be incorporated into future designs.

Iteration 1: 10 Points

Iteration 5: 50 Points

Iteration 2: 20 Points

Iteration 3: 30 Points

Iteration 6: 100 Points

Iteration 9: 400 Points

Iteration 13: 800 Points

Iteration 4: 40 Points

Iteration 7: 200 Points

Iteration 10: 500 Points

Iteration 8: 300 Points

Iteration 11: 600 Points

Iteration 14: 900 Points

Iteration 12: 700 Points

Iteration 15: 1000 Points

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 6

Species 6 focuses on how changing the start and end radius of the variable pipe changes the overall structure. Interestingly, only iterations three and five could arguably be described as a tree. Iterations one, two, and four could be described as other natural formations, with exactly which formation depending on what the individual sees. Iterations six and seven are different though. Iteration six looks more like the result of a chemical reaction, which looks interesting, but is ultimately not related to the topic at hand. It could, however, be a depiction of a root system of a tree, which could be incorporated into future designs. However, iteration seven is the most unique about this species, as this looks more like a bundle of balloons ready to fly away, in contrast to the relatively organic nature of the other designs.

Iteration 7: Start Radius=0/End Radius=10

Iteration 1: Start Radius=1/End Radius=1

Iteration 4: Start Radius=0.1/End Radius=2

Iteration 2: Start Radius=0.5/End Radius=1.5

Iteration 5: Start Radius=2/End Radius=0.1

Iteration 3: Start Radius=1.5/End Radius=0.5

Iteration 6: Start Radius=10/End Radius=0

Iteration 7: Start Radius=0/End Radius=10

b.2 Case Study 1 Species 7

Species seven changes the design of the branch using different commands. Unfortunately, iterations two through four look incredibly similar and almost indistinguishable from the first iteration. The remaining iterations are all incredibly weird and wonderful. Iterations five and six use the OcTree command, which produces an interesting, computeristic approach to the design of the tree. This command has been previously utilised in previous work, particularly in Figure 21. This command follows the branches, which can be used to create a large open space. Iteration nine is also unique, however it seems almost impossible to fabricate, and so will be discarded. Iteration eight was completely unexpected. The Voronoi Cell produced something quite bizarre, a combination of the orthogonal designs of iterations six and seven, paired with the curved nature of the tree cutting away at the design. Although this looks promising, it is yet to be tested whether or not it is suitable for the final design.

Iteration 8: Voronoi Cell

Iteration 1: Pipe Variable

Iteration 2: Extrude Square

Iteration 3: Extrude Pentagon

Iteration 4: Extrude Octagon

Iteration 5: Extrude Hekaton

Iteration 6: OcTree

Iteration 7: OcTree with square leaves

Iteration 8: Voronoi Cell

Iteration 9: Delaunay Mesh

b.3 Case Study 2

For this case study, the chosen precedent is the Radiolaria pavilion, from Shiro Studio. This is a fitting choice to analyse and reverse engineer. The Radiolaroa pavilion mimics a natural system, with flowing curves and a simple, egg like design to the overall structure. The pavilion is described as an interpretation of ancient temples, and the “design encloses an open public space, creating a more social interpretation of temple architecture”1, which is a similar outcome required for the discussion of communication. Finally, the Radiolaria pavilion was designed in collaboration with D-Shape, who specialises in large scale 3D printing, which resulted in the Radiolaria pavilion being printed out on site. This is of particular note, as the production focus of the studio is on 3D fabrication.

Fig 28. Radiolaria Pavilion

1. “The Radiolaria Pavilion | D-Shape”, D-Shape.Com, 2018 <https://d-shape.com/portfolio-item/public/>

Sphere

Base shape for the structure

Deform

Converts sphere to egg shape

Populate 3D

Provides base points for line work

Voronoi 3D

Creates web like pattern

Polyline

Converts pattern to lines to place onto deformed sphere and work with mesh

Cull

Remove unnecessary geometery

Mesh

Connects vertices and lines together

Weaverbird Mesh Thicken

Creates tubes of structure

b.3 Case Study 2

There are some clear differences between the initial project and the reproduction created. The reproduction is a lot more angular in design, and the amount of holes and shape of them are quite different as well. However, the overall design remains the same, with the same basic principle of an open space for communication being created within the structure.

b.4 Technique: Development

For B.4, the script utilised in B.2 has been adapted into the original tree script, along with commands encountered in the reverse engineering of the Radiolaria Pavilion. For this, selection criteria needs to be adhered to. As it is a contemplative space, it needs to create an interior space, preferably one that is disconnected from the world around it. However, it still needs to be somewhat open, similar to how the Radiolaria pavilion created their social environment with a penetrated surface. The design needs to display the growth of a tree, starting from a single point and spreading up and out. This contemplative space is meant to revolve around solving and fixing the problems people have with communication, and their inability to be understood correctly. The design needs to be able to in someway be able to facilitate or begin the process of fixing and helping them to communicate with clarity.

Species No. 1: Base Dimension Species No. 2: Start Point of Deformation Species No. 3: Size of Deformation Box Species No. 4: Strength of Deformation Species No. 5: Number of End Points Species No. 6: Range of End Points in X Domain Species No. 7: Range of End Points in Y Domain Species No. 8: Number of Points to Travel Through Species No. 9: Number of Nearby Points to Find Species No. 10: Number of Leaves in OcTree

SPECIES

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Iteration 3

Iteration 4

Iteration 5

Iteration 6

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

100

No. 5

100

No. 6

0-1

0.5-1

0-0.5

0.2-0.8

0.4-0.6

N/A

No. 7

0-1

0.5-1

0-0.5

0.2-0.8

0.4-0.6

N/A

No. 8

200

400

600

800

1000

No. 9

N/A

No. 10

N/A

b.4 Technique: Development Species 1

Species 1 modifies how large the bounding box of the structure is, and thus how large the structure becomes. Although the final design will need to be scaled up to size, this still provides an interesting look at how the size modifies the behaviour of the script. Iteration 2 is the most appropriate, as there is a strong mass at both the top and bottom of the structure, indicative of the canopy and the trunk of the tree, with smaller, less dense structure leading to it.

Iteration 2: Base Dimension=40

Iteration 1: Base Dimension=30

Iteration 3: Base Dimension=50

Iteration 5: Base Dimension=70

Iteration 2: Base Dimension=40

Iteration 4: Base Dimension=60

Iteration 6: Base Dimension=80

b.4 Technique: Development Species 2

Species 2 changes the start point of the deformation, or the where the seed of the tree is buried. Leaving this value at 0 created a more unified and even design at the top and bottom, rather than an unbalanced appearance, where the top is appears heavier at the bottom or vice versa. As such, Iteration 1 is best, as it provides a clean and ordered design, which is required as part of a communication.

Iteration 1: Deformation Start Point=0

Iteration 3: Deformation Start Point=4

Iteration 5: Deformation Start Point=8

Iteration 2: Deformation Start Point=2

Iteration 4: Deformation Start Point=6

Iteration 6: Deformation Start Point=10

b.4 Technique: Development Species 3

In this species, the deformation box position is modified along the z-axis. It could also be considered how far up the trunk the leaves begin to sprout. Similar to the previous species, Iteration 4 provides a balanced approach, in terms of the composition of the roof and base. Unlike the other iterations, this particular one almost fully encloses the interior space on all four sides, while the others still have missing walls or roofs. This helps to create that isolated contemplative space, whilst still being open and inviting.

Iteration 4: Deformation Box Size=6

Iteration 1: Deformation Box Size=0

Iteration 3: Deformation Box Size=4

Iteration 5: Deformation Box Size=8

Iteration 2: Deformation Box Size=2

Iteration 4: Deformation Box Size=6

Iteration 6: Deformation Box Size=10

b.4 Technique: Development Species 4

Species 4 changes the strength of the deformation that occurs to the bounding box. This particular species worked inversely to what was expected, with little deformation creating smaller designs, whilst the stronger force creates solid designs. Out of the designs, Iteration 2 was the one that best displayed the growth of the tree. The mass in the middle is also reminiscnint of a catwalk or stage, providing a good space for communication to occur.

Iteration 2: Deformation Strength=20

Iteration 1: Deformation Strength=0

Iteration 3: Deformation Strength=40

Iteration 2: Deformation Strength=20

Iteration 4: Deformation Strength=60

Iteration 5: Deformation Strength=80 Iteration 6: Deformation Strength=100

b.4 Technique: Development Species 5

In this species, the number of end points that the structure grew to is modified. Although the later iterations are wild and imaginative, they structurally would not work without heavy modifications, with multiple floating elements. Iteration 1, with a singular end point, produced more content than expected, although it does not created any type of usable space. Iteration 2 strikes a nice balance between realism and conceptualism.

Iteration 2: 20 End Points

Iteration 1: 1 End Point

Iteration 2: 20 End Points

Iteration 4: 60 End Points Iteration 3: 40 End Points

Iteration 5: 80 End Points

Iteration 6: 100 End Points

b.4 Technique: Development Species 6

Species 6 modified the range in which end points would sit within the x-axis. This ultimately was left at the full range, as the narrowed designs did not display the desired form of the tree. The balance of many of the later designs were out of place, with the roof or base disappearing entirely from the design.

Iteration 1: Range from 0-1

Iteration 1: Range from 0-1 Iteration 2: Range from 0.5-1

Iteration 4: Range from 0.2-0.8

Iteration 3: Range from 0-0.5

Iteration 4: Range from 0.4-0.6

b.4 Technique: Development Species 7

Similar to the previous species, Species 7 modified the range in which the end points would finish, this time on the y-axis. The results were interesting here, however a similar problem to a previous species arose: that of buildability. The later iterations provided too many floating geometeries, which would have to be removed in order to create the structure. This would ruin the overall asethetic of the design, so allowing the points to sit in the full range was the preferred option.

Iteration 1: Range from 0-1

Iteration 2: Range from 0.5-1

Iteration 4: Range from 0.2-0.8 Iteration 3: Range from 0-0.5

Iteration 4: Range from 0.4-0.6

b.4 Technique: Development Species 8

Species 8 provided interesting outcomes. By modifying the number of points that the script could navigate through, the bizarreness of the structure increased. Iteration 2 provided a similar outcome to previously selected iterations. Iteration 4, however, proposed an interesting take on communication. Within the design, there are three raised platforms, all of which have enough space for someone to easily stand upon and move if scaled correctly. This could easily provide the framework to tackle the three forms of communication, verbal, written, and visual. This iteration also provided a structure based loosely around the tree, yet didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the floating elements that would render it impossible to construct.

Iteration 4: 600 Points

Iteration 1: 1 Point Iteration 2: 200 Points

Iteration 3: 400 Points

Iteration 5: 800 Points

Iteration 4: 600 Points

Iteration 6: 1000 Points

b.4 Technique: Development Species 9`

Species 9 modified how many points that the tree growth had to find in order to calculate the shortest route between points. The smaller numbers created smaller designs at the expense of open areas internally. Iteration 5 is the optimal choice, as it creates the large internal space without sacrificing smaller designs.

Iteration 5: 10 Points to Find

Iteration 1: 2 Points to Find

Iteration 2: 4 Points to Find

Iteration 4: 8 Points to Find

Iteration 3: 6 Points to Find

Iteration 5: 10 Points to Find

b.4 Technique: Development Species 10

This species determines how many cubes are created around any particular branch, or how many leaves are created. Iteration 2 provides a good blend between the openings similar to the Radiolaria pavilion, yet still has the closed in design required for the contemplative space. More leaves creates a dense, blocky mass, whilst fewer leaves creates floating structures, neither of which are appealing as a final design.

Iteration 2: 3 Leaves

Iteration 1: 1 Leaf

Iteration 2: 3 Leaves

Iteration 3: 5 Leaves

Iteration 4: 7 Leaves

Iteration 5: 9 Leaves

b.5 Technique: Prototypes

For this studio, the final design is to be 3D printed directly on site, using technology that will be theoretically available in the not too distant future. As such, the 3D printers available at the university need to be utilised to prove that this design could be printed. The first step to create a prototype is to modify the design so that it would sit flat on the printing rafts, and hanging and unconnected geometry would be either resolved or removed. This was changed in Step 2, to the right. Step 3 focused on changing the size of the structure to suit the capabilities of the 3D printers. The University of Melbourne offers many options for 3D printing, however the printers used were the NeXT Lab printers, which used heated thermoplastic laid down in the required layout. Although the 3D printers in the FabLab can be used to produce the prototypes, this technology would unlikely to be used on site. This is because the FabLab printers use a powder based printing system, where the powder is solidified only where the structure is, and the excess material is used as a support, where it is blown away once the structure is done. This works in a controlled environment, however it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work in an outdoor environment, where wind can easily blow away the support structure. Step 4 converted the entire structure into one closed mesh, and Step 5 to 7 shows the process of inserting the model into the MakerBot Print software to detail the tool path in order to print the model. Once this process is done, the file can be exported, and sent to the NeXT Lab to be printed. Unfortunately, time is a huge factor in regards to 3D printing. Although the model could theoretically be printed within a day, sending it to an outside source also means that this print has to wait for other prints to be completed. As this print initially required the larger printer, there was an even longer wait time. Step 7 shows that the prototype can be printed as one solid structure, however Step 8 changed the printing design from one solid structure to five smaller substructures, which would be assembled upon completion of printing. This was due to the need to switch printers. Step 9 shows the finished outcome of this process. The printed pieces are laid on a raft bed, which is easily removed. Removable printing parts are also placed to support any overhanging structure, however Step 8 minimised the amount of hanging structure by rotating the design to its flattest point. Step 10 shows the final outcome, proving that this particular structure can be 3D printed. However, the structure would not be printed in pieces, as the pieces of the model here are ever so slightly out of alignment, and slightly warped. Although this would be an unlikely issue in the final product, it is better to have a unified finish across the entire structure.

Step 1: Initial Design

Step 4: Create closed mesh in order to print

Step 7: Modify settings of the software to reduce wall thickness and create supports. This will allow the model to be printed as efficiently as possible

Step 2: Create Flat surface, remove or resolve overhanging geometry

Step 5: Export file from Rhino to MakerBot Print software

Step 8: Reduce and break apart design to allow it to print on a smaller printer

Step 10: Fully finished and assembled prototype

Step 3: Scale to a 1:100 size, ensure it will fit within print dimensions

Step 6: Allow software to prepare a tool path for the print head to follow. Notice that there is unsupported geometry that will not print correctly

Step 9:Printed parts, some removed from raft beds and with supports removed. These two temporary elements are easy to remove from the structure

b.6 Technique: Proposal

Hero Shot + Landscape

For this proposal, a communication pavilion has been created based upon the values of the iterations deemed to be successful in B.5 The proposal provides a contemplative multiuse space to facilitate and encourage all forms of communication. The design uses a cube based system, which is designed to encourage order and structure in the user. The form of the tree inspires the form of the tree, with a large base and a larger roof, representing the trunk and the canopy of the tree, with the surrounding walls representing the branches of the tree. The design encourages communication in many ways. Firstly, it provides flexible use space, with movable benches. This allows the public to come and use the space as they wish. A stage is also provided to use, allowing for organised speeches, debates, or other public speaking events to be run. This will allow people to help foster their communication abilities, and allow them to create clear and concise points to get their arguments across. The stage can also be used to host amateur theatrical productions, allowing both visual and verbal communication to occur. The pavilion is intended to be constructed from concrete. Concrete, or a material with similar properties, can be easily printed in a similar manner to the thermoplastic printing process used for prototyping. The dense concrete creates a sound barrier between the outside world and the contemplative space, allowing for a quiet environment. Concrete is also very receptive to paints, allowing it to be graffitied and painted on. This allows people to express themselves, and communicate visually and textually. The location of the site is within a bend of the Yarra River, near the location of Dights Falls, and where Merri Creek branches off from the Yarra River. This location is at a point where it is far away from bustle and noise where a quiet space can be created, but close enough to be accessible by the general public. The number of surrounding locations also allows it to be used by a wide demographic.

Fig 29. Proposal in landscape

Fig 30. Proposal Hero Shot

b.6 Technique: Proposal

6 8

N 0m

100m 72

Legend

3 4

1 2

1. Yarra River 2. Dights Falls 3. Merri Creek 4. Merri Creek Trail 5. Eastern Freeway

6. Victoria Park 7. Collingwood Toy Library 8. Victoria Park Railway Station 9. Johnston Street with Shops 10. Studley Park Boathouse and Collingwood Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Farm

Fig 31. Proposal Site Plan

b.6 Technique: Proposal

1. Seating Area 2. Stage 3. Preparation Area 4. Storage Area 5. Walkway 6. Movable Benches

6 6

Fig 32. Proposal Roof Plan

Fig 33. Proposal Floor Plan

N 0m

10m 74

Fig 34. Proposal Section Cut

Fig 35. Proposal North Elevation

b.6 Technique: Proposal

Fig 36. Proposal Usage 1

b.6 Technique: Proposal

Fig 37. Proposal Usage 2

b.7

Learning Outcomes

After a review of the completed work, the learning outcomes were not met to the fullest extent. The brief has been scrutinised to create a design based around contemplation, specifically around communication. 3D skills are also improving, as more and more skills are being compounded upon the already learnt skills. However, the key issue here is the use of Grasshopper within Part B. Ultimately, Grasshopper is a new tool to be experimented with and played around with, and as this is still the early stages of using the software, it is not being used to its full potential. Grasshopper is currently being used to speed up what could already be created, not exploring what could not be created before. In moving on to Part C, the boundaries of Grasshopper must be explored, without ruining the computer.

b.8 Algorithmic Sketches

Fig 38. (Left) Experiment 1 Fig 39. (Right Top) Experiment 2 Fig 40. (Right Middle) Experiment 3 Fig 41. (Right Bottom) Experiment 4

Bibliography + image list

Adam-Smith, Ben, “HPH046 : Manufacturing A House On-Site Using A Mobile Production Facility – With Diana Woodward”, Houseplanninghelp.Com, 2014 <https://www.houseplanninghelp.com/hph046-manufacturing-a-house-on-site- using-a-mobile-production-facility-with-diana-woodward/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Bell, Bruce, and Sarah Simpkin, “Domesticating Parametric Design”, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 88-91 <https://doi. org/10.1002/ad.1560> “China Pavilion - Milan Expo 2015 / Tsinghua University + Studio Link-Arc”, Archdaily, 2015 <https://www.archdaily. com/627497/china-pavilion-milan-expo-2015-tsinghua-university-studio-link-arc> [Accessed 13 March 2018]

Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12

Facit Homes, Celia & Diana - Grand Designs 19Th September 2012, 2012 <https://vimeo.com/53932758> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

Facit Homes, D-Process, 2018 <https://vimeo.com/20103388> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Frearson, Amy, “China Milan Expo 2015 Pavilion Has Over 1,000 Bamboo Panels”, Dezeen, 2015 <https://www.dezeen. com/2015/05/05/beijing-skyline-mountain-range-roof-china-milan-expo-2015-pavilion-studio-link-arc-tsinghua-university- bamboo/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] “Generative Architecture - Transformation By Computation - BUILTR.IO”, BUILTR.IO, 2015 <http://www.builtr.io/generative- architecture-transformation-by-computation/> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

Grozdanic, Lidija, “Stunning Chinese Pavilion For Milan Expo 2015 Resembles Billowing Wheat Fields”, Inhabitat.Com, 2015 <https://inhabitat.com/stunning-chinese-pavilion-for-milan-expo-2015-resembles-billowing-wheat-fields/> [Accessed 13 March 2018]

Howarth, Dan, “Generative Design Software Will Give Designers “Superpowers””, Dezeen, 2017 <https://www.dezeen. com/2017/02/06/generative-design-software-will-give-designers-superpowers-autodesk-university/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Howe, Marc K., “The Promise Of Generative Design -”, World-Architects, 2017 <https://www.world-architects.com/en/ architecture-news/insight/the-promise-of-generative-design> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

Kalay, Yehuda E, Architecture’s New Media (Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25 Keane, Katharine, “Architect Magazine”, Architectmagazine.Com, 2017 <http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/autodesks- move-to-mars-complete_o> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

“Know Your Throat Chakra And How To Unlock Its Power”, Chakras.Info, 2018 <http://www.chakras.info/throat-chakra/> [Accessed 19 April 2018]. Lee, Evelyn, “O-14 GREEN DUBAI TOWER”, Inhabitat.Com, 2008 <https://inhabitat.com/o-14-dubai-commercial-tower/> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

“London City Hall - Famous Buildings And Architecture Of London”, Designbookmag.Com<http://www.designbookmag.com/ londoncityhall.htm> [Accessed 13 March 2018]

Peters, Brady, and Xavier de Kestelier, Computation Works (London: Wiley, 2013), pp. 8-15 Pohl, Ethel Baraona, “In Progress: 0-14 Tower By Reiser + Umemoto”, Archdaily, 2009 <https://www.archdaily.com/22200/in- progress-0-14-tower-by-reiser-umemoto> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

“The Radiolaria Pavilion | D-Shape”, D-Shape.Com, 2018 <https://d-shape.com/portfolio-item/public/> [Accessed 19 April 2018]. Rondina, Ilaria, “0-14 Tower | Area”, Area, 2014 <https://www.area-arch.it/en/0-14-tower/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Stocking, Angus W., “Generative Design Is Changing The Face Of Architecture | Cadalyst”, Cadalyst.Com, 2009 <http://www. cadalyst.com/cad/building-design/generative-design-is-changing-face-architecture-12948> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

“The Facit Home - Facit Homes”, Facit Homes, 2018 <http://facit-homes.com/the-facit-home> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Turrill, Katrina, “Grand Designs 2017: Couple Let Architect Take The Reigns But Do They Like The End Result?”, Express.Co.Uk, 2017 <https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/859641/grand-designs-2017-kevin-mccloud-chris-kayo-hertfordshire> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Villaggi, Lorenzo, and Danil Nagy, “Generative Design For Architectural Space Planning – Autodesk University – Medium”, Medium <https://medium.com/autodesk-university/generative-design-for-architectural-space-planning-9f82cf5dcdc0> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Welch, Adrian, and Isabelle Lomholt, “O-14 Tower Dubai - Skyscraper - E-Architect”, E-Architect, 2016 <https://www.e-architect. co.uk/dubai/o14-tower> [Accessed 14 March 2018]

Fig 1. McColl, Wayne. 2018 Fig 2. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 3. McColl, Brett. 2016 Fig 4. McColl, Brett. 2017 Fig 5. McColl, Brett. 2017 Fig 6. McColl, Brett. 2017 Fig 7. McColl, Brett. 2016 Fig 8. McColl, Brett. 2017 Fig 9. McColl, Brett. 2017 Fig 10. Facit Homes. 2011. Retrieved from <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1560/epdf> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 11. Facit Homes. Retrieved from <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1560/epdf> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 12. Facit Homes. Retrieved from <http://facit-homes.com/clients/selected-exteriors> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 13. RUR Archiecture. Retrieved from <https://www.area-arch.it/en/0-14-tower/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 14. RUR Archiecture. Retrieved from <https://www.area-arch.it/en/0-14-tower/> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 15. RUR Archiecture. Retrieved from <https://www.archdaily.com/22200/in-progress-0-14-tower-by-reiser-umemoto> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 16. Foster & Partners. Retrieved from < http://www.designbookmag.com/londoncityhall.htm> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 17. Tsinghua University + Studio Link-Arc. Retrieved from < https://www.archdaily.com/627497/china-pavilion-milan-expo-2015-tsinghua-university-studio- link-arc/55482fa4e58ece50290006e6-china-pavilion-milan-expo-2015-tsinghua-university-studio-link-arc-photo> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 18. Autodesk. Retrieved from < https://www.scandinavian-architects.com/images/CmsPageElementImage/98/77/43/58dd80c01e7041f4beea33f00ab568f5/58d d80c01e7041f4beea33f00ab568f5.f5fb7444.jpg> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 19. Autodesk. Retrieved from < https://www.scandinavian-architects.com/images/CmsPageElementImage/99/43/55/58e3fd2d07e8480eac4519910ab5609b/58 e3fd2d07e8480eac4519910ab5609b.f5fb7444.jpg> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 20. Arup, PTW, & CSCEC. Retrieved from < http://www.cadalyst.com/cad/building-design/generative-design-is-changing-face-architecture-12948> [Accessed 14 March 2018] Fig 21. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 22. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 23. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 24. Unknown, retrieved from <https://www.crystalvaults.com/sacral-chakra-expl Fig 25. Unknown, retrieved from <https://www.crystalvaults.com/sacral-chakra-explained> Fig 26. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 27. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 28. D-Shape, retrieved from <https://d-shape.com/portfolio-item/?public/> Fig 29. McColl, Brett. 2018, Background: Google, retrieved from <https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.7959926,145.0008823,3a,90y,139.34h,94.23t/data=!3 m6!1e1!3m4!1sKPvgLhz4g2XELZZPAbprvw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656> Fig 30. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 31. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 32. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 33. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 34. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 35. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 36. McColl, Brett. 2018, Grafiti: aquiaf1na, retrieved from <hhttp://aquiaf1na.tumblr.com/image/120395088941> Fig 37. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 38. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 39. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 40. McColl, Brett. 2018 Fig 41. McColl, Brett. 2018