Design Journal - Ben Ryding by Ben Ryding

about me â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - J.R.R. Tolkien Each morning I wake and see that quote hung by my bedroom door on painted canvas. It is motivation that despite the sleepless nights, and the compensational litres of coffee, design is where I want to be. Design has always been a passion of mine. I realised my love for it in year 9, when a teacher first introduced me to photoshop and illustrator, and all the possibilities the software contains. To this date, I am a primarily self-taught, freelance, graphic designer. I have completed design work for many companies, large and small, bands and DJs. The moment I knew I wanted to study architecture came in year 10, when I was lucky enough to complete my work experience at Six Degrees Architects, working closely with Director, Mark Healy.

This opportunity allowed me to get a great insight into the daily workings of an architecture firm and a fantastic introduction to all that an architect does. Since being introduced to Rhino in first year, Virtual Environments, I have used it for design studios and where 3D modelling has been practical. In terms of Grasshopper, however, I am a complete novice. I believe it will be an interesting learning experience, particularly as it adds a rational, ordered element to the chaos which design can be. To me, architecture is art. Seeing the progression from a solitary idea to a final, constructed form is the most rewarding moment of any true art form; be that even painting, sculpture, literature or theatre. Architecture, as art, is about originality. By definition, it is producing something that has never been done before. I think that is incredible.

CONTENTS PART A A.01

Design Futuring

A.02

Design Computation

A.03

Composition/ Generation

A.04

Conclusion

A.05

Learning Outcomes

A.06

Appendix

PART B B.01

Research Field

B.02

Case Study 1.0

PART A

atelier brückner

GS CALTEX PAVILION The GS Caltex Pavilion is a project commis-

ioned by Korean oil company GS Caltex for the 2012 Korea Expo in Yeosu, South Korea. German architecture and exhibition design studio, Atelier Brückner, designed the Pavilion as an illustration of “the companys mission and its vision for the future”.1 The Pavilion is an interactive installation which encourages the user to approach, walk around, and even participate in the “dynamic ensemble”.2 The display is constructed of 18 metre high light poles which illuminate in a multitude of varying colours to “mimic various weather/natural conditions, such as rain, waves, fire, lightning and wind”.3 It has become most popularly known as resembling an “oversized rice field”, with its “blades” swaying like grass in the wind.4

The display responds to the touch of the user. Upon being touched, a surge of light sparks from the source-pole out through the other poles before resuming the original light show. The entire Pavilion is designed as to draw the user in, and, whilst occupying a 1960 m2 area, an 18 metre high light showcan be said to do this. The design intends, through the use of natural imagery, to highlight the oil companies “sustainable energy concepts”.5 At the centre of the Pavilion is a seven metre high, star-shaped, mirrored room with a panoramic view. The black and white projections the user experiences within the pavilion present a poetic illustration of the “company’s willingness to take responsibility” with regard to the sustainable innovations that GS Caltex is taking.6

Atalier Brückner’s philosophy is, primarily, that “form follows content”.7 They aim, through their exhibitions, to lead people into a story. In this particular design, the studio creates initial intrigue through the large, playful displays, drawing the user to the centre of the Pavilion, where the content is made clear, and the story is told. Once inside the design, standing between the large poles of flashing lights, the user is made to feel insignificant as a part of the whole. This is a purposeful aspect of the Pavilion. The effect is that whilst a single person is miniscule when

compared to the greater part of the site, a single person can create a powerful surge which extends, braching from pole to pole, until they have solely affected the entire Pavilion. Showing that the action of one, can affect the experience of the whole. This GS Caltex Pavilion invokes a sense of curiosity. It is near impossible to walk by the Pavilion, as it draws you in. The bright lights, colours, and shear volume of the display all play on the user. In general, people love interaction and inclusion, and that is exactly what this design promotes. The only thing that

this design requires is a single touch and the ‘interaction’ is immediately apparent by anyone in the vicinity of the Pavilion. It would be useful to take note of this project in the design of the installation for this subject. Whilst it is important for the installation to generate energy, it also must promote interaction. This Pavilion has provoked the thought that the installation will require some form of attraction, making users approach and interact with it through sheer curiosity or desire. For without an attraction, there will be no interaction.

PAVILION8 (title) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner PAVILION STREET VIEW9 (left, top) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner POLE ‘BLADES’10 (left, bottom) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner

3xn architects

‘LEARNING FROM NATURE’ PAVILION The ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion by Dan-

ish architecture firm, 3XN Architects, was constructed in 2009 for the ‘Green Architecture for the Future’ exhibition at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Pavilion is built using 100% naturally sourced, sustainable materials; often substituting synthetic materials for re-usable materials which had never been used in a project such as this. The focus of this design is on sustainability, and so the architects focused their attention on these natural materials in order to minimise the impact of the design. 3XN Architects often work with complexshapes and forms within their buildings, and

this Pavilion is no different. The form is driven from a Moebius strip - a surface with only one continuous side and one boundary. This concept developed into this ‘rubber band’ style design which, in its context by the Museum, encourages play and interaction. The Pavilion has been designed with a dual energy generation system. On the top-most surface of the strip, a series of 1 mm flexible solar panels have been attached - only where the user is unable to climb. The second source of energy generation is with the incorporation of piezoelectric materials in the floor of the structure. These materials generate a current from the weight of the user. The electricity generated in the Pavilion is used to power the LED lighting integrated in its design.

The sustainable focus of this building is not, in any way, hidden. Everything from the self-reliance of the structure, to the natural and renewable materials are celebrated in the design. The circular nature of the Moebius strip and the choice of green for the aesthetic are very obvious highlights of the ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’. Tony Fry states that Design Futuring is about sustainable design, and ensuring that there is a future in which design may continue to take place.11 Sustainability is about maintenance of the world we live in, ensuring its longevity.

of lush green foilage, and the deep blue of the sky and the ocean, the natural, free form and choice of colour make it seem at one with nature, and not merely intruding on it.

heat it as it cools. The use of these materials has the potential to save 10 to 15 percent on the heating and cooling of buildings. The technology contained in this design is quite phenomenal. It proves that innovation can be found in the most unlikely of places. Although this design may not appear complex, the technology it holds is completely surreal.

The innovation of this design is not limited to the material choices and unique way in which it generates electricity.This structure contains a hydrophilic nanostructure which, not only keeps its surface clean, but with a process known as photocatalysis, removes 70% Piezoelectricity has big potential for of pollutants from smog. research. It generates energy from the interaction which it is designed to It’s surface also has the ability to retain receive - allowing a certain degree of That is not to say that the Pavilions de- heat with phase changing materi- cross-over. With the sheer flexibility of sign is tacky or self-indulgent. In fact, als which have the ability to cool the piezielectricity, this piece of technolquite the opposite. Within its surrounds structure as the temperature rises, and ogy has a lot of opportunity for design.

PAVILION12 (title) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects INNOVATION13 (right, top) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects SOLAR PANELS14 (right, bottom) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects

tom wilcombe

CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG ARENA The Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena

by Tom Wiscombe Architecture is a proposal for a 2012 architectural design competition for the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Shenzhen. This design means to encapsulate “an idea about social space and multi-functionality for 21st century university culture”.1 This week posed the discussion on what constitutes computation against computerisation. Ultimately, this distinction comes down to design realisation, and whether it falls before or after its modelling in design software. Computerisation is the modelling of a realised design, utilising the software available. It limits freedom of modelling as it utilises a set of parameters, with an idea in mind of the conclusion. Whether or not the design is finalised, it has a, relatively, set destination.

Computation, on the other hand, is design which is completely reliant on the software at hand. The design is not realised, nor is a conclusion remotely considered. This type of modelling involves complete freedom of design. It generally involves setting algorithms to ‘see what happens’. In this way, it is more of an investigation into the limits and features of the modelling software, dependant, solely, on the designer’s field of view. In this way, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena can be classified as a computerisation design. Although it is clearly modelled in three-dimensional modelling software, the defined form and simplistic architectural makeup gives the impression that the design was preconceived in the architect’s mind, with an existing conclusion that the software helped him to achieve.

This is, by no means, an inferior method of design to computation. This method uses the software as an aid, rather than a tool. Computerisation assists in the design process, whereas computation is reliant on the software. Likewise, this is not to suggest that computation is inferior. Computation relies on the computer to envision a design concept that the human brain is not naturally equipped to control. It is highly mathematical and is, therefore, a much more complex conclusion when compared in contrast to computerisation.

Kalay, in Architectures New Media, stated that “[computers] lack any creative inabilities or intuition” and therefore are “totally incapable of making up new instructions”.2 This shows that regardless of technological advances, there will always be a need for the designer; that a computer will never be able to produce an original, creative thought.

outcome is perceivable in the human brain; it is believable that a person could produce this concept. That is to say, that Tom Wiscombe could have, potentially (and with the desire to do so), designed this project by hand, without the aid of a computer at all. However, the rise of technology, in particular three-dimensional modelling software, has made this method unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. This is a Referring this back to the Arena, the design truly expresses the prospects conclusive proof of computerisation, of computerisation as a modernist aprather than computation, is that this proach to the architectural profession.

ARENA3 (title) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture MODELLING DEVELOPMENT4 (left, top) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture ARENA AT NIGHT5 (left, bottom) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture

robert stuart-smith

NATIONAL ART MUSEUM OF CHINA The National Art Museum of China is a 2012

proposal by Robert Stuart-Smith and Roland Snooks (kokkugia) in collaboration with Studio Pei Zhu. Utilising a cloud metaphor, the project required a “formless form” to contrast the Beijing Olympic site’s “monumental nature”.6 An algorithmic methodology was used to create a seamless connection between the interior and exterior. The cloud metaphor was carried through a variety of aspects throughout the building. The use of glazing gives the building a sense of lightness; reflecting colours and allowing a spatial connection between the built form and it’s landscape. The algorithm used generated a flowing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to an

other. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal. In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, the National Art Museum of China project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illustrates the need for the computational approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes dependent on where the user stands in relation to the building. It requires a three-dimensional approach.

The algorithm used generated a flowing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to another. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal.

ily on the computer than “the designer’s mind”.8 His view is that it is computerisation that is “the dominant mode of utilising computers in architecture”.9 This view is a limited one. Although in terms of architecture as an inhabitable building, computerisation is more widely used for generating form, this outlook doesn’t account for the possibilities of this type of programming.

In Algorithmic Architecture, Kostas Terzidas wrote that in comparison to computerisation, “computation or computing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited”.7 He expresses this view as computation relies more heav-

In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, this project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illustrates the need for the computational

approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes dependent on where the user stands in relation to the building. It requires a threedimensional approach. The outcome for this subject is meant to prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”. This project demonstrates that beauty can be found in the unlikely. It’s natural, fluid form gives a sense of dynamism; as if the structure may alter if the user looks away. This truly demonstrates that computation is a methodology for achieving beauty through mathematics and algorithms.

MUSEUM10 (title) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design ‘CLOUD’ FORMATION11 (right, top) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design GENERATED FORM12 (right, bottom) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design

matsys

CHRYSALIS I I Chrysalis III is a project by Matsys exploring

cellular morphologies, particularly the “selforganisation of barnacle-like cells across an underlying substrate surface”.1 This design is an exploration of these cells finding their most balanced packed state through natural shifting across the surface until relaxing into an overall form. This project is a design for a 1.9 metre tall light source, with light expanding from the 1000 cells dispersing around a room to create a soft, natural glow. This is a design which focuses on materialisation. As this is designed to be an aesthetic fo cal point for a room, the materiality and struc 14

ture needed to fit this purpose. Matsys opted for composite paper-backed wood veneers; poplar veneer for the interior of the structure, and cherry veneer for the exterior. This use of a wood finish adds to the sense of a natural form which the design is attempting to create, as well as generating a natural orange glow from the light source on veneer. Although each individual cell is made up of straight - to some degree, jagged - edges, taken from a voronoi base geometry, the way in which these cells are connected give this sense of an overarching, natural form. Utilising Rhino, Grasshopper, and various Grasshopper plugins, simulations were run to determine this ‘balanced state’.

In this way, Matsys has utilised threedimensional modeling software, in an attempt to accurately recreate natural processes. It is, to some degree, using one of the most advanced design technologies, in an attempt to resemble that which man has had no influence over. Kostas Terzidas sees computational architecture as the use of modelling sofware as a tool, unaided by the “designer’s mind”.2 Although, technically, this project fits beneath Terzidas description, without the designer, this project would not come into the physical space. Computation can, therefore, be described as design realisation after the inclusion of the computer, as

a tool, for reaching a final design out- solely on the mind of the designer. A come. computer may generate form, function, movement, structure, but it cannot Although Matsys was, to some de- generate finish - not without the degree, aware of the individual cell struc- signer’s input. ture and the overall form, it is the way in which the cells are distributed over This aspect of materiality comes unthe design that defines this project as der Terzidas’ ideal of the use of “the computational. It is, in this way, an ex- designer’s mind”.3 Computation is a ploration of artificial self-organisation. very technologically reliant method of design, but the input of a designer is Materiality is not a result of computa- what allows the method to progress. tion; a computer can not generate a The designer writes and adjusts the material which gives ‘balance’ to a algorithm, decides the fabrication design. Materiality is a decision based process, and the materiality in which purely on the architect. Whether this is it will be constructed of, and without a a decision based on structural stabil- single of one of these inputs, the final ity and functionality, or purely an aes- design would not come into the reality thetic decision, the final product rests spectrum.

INTERIOR4 (title) Chrysalis III, Matsys PLAN/ ELEVATIONS/ AXONOMETRIC5 (left, top) Chrysalis III, Matsys EXTERIOR6 (left, bottom) Chrysalis III, Matsys

michael hansmeyer

SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS Subdivided Columns, by Michael Hansmey-

er, is a fantastic example of the capabilities of modern technology. Utilising the column as a starting point, due to its place as an â&#x20AC;&#x153;architectural archetypeâ&#x20AC;?, Michael Hansmeyer developed it into an example of infinite complexity, through computational algorithms.7 Michael Hansmeyer has experimented with computation throughout his entire career. However, as in majority of his projects, the computer is where the design would stay. Hansmeyer used this project to bring computation out of the computer, to the physical realm. Using 1mm thick sheet and a laser cutter, Hamsmeyer and his team constructed the columns at 1:1, a total of 2.7 meters tall. Despite not being able to achieve 100% of the computational detail, the team were able, through reliance on the technological, to attain an incredible level of accuracy. These columns

demonstrate the possibilities of computation. It proves that computation does not have to be limited to the virtual; that, with the advancements of technology, complex geometry, and the detail involved, is possible. This project is an explicit exploration into fabrication. For a professional, such as Michael Hansmeyer, the computation design for Subdivided Columns was a very achievable feat. The fabrication of this design, however, whilst desiring to achieve the same level of complexity, was much more difficult. Using a laser cutter is the most modern, convenient and applicable technology that is also plausible. Although 3D printing is on the rise, issues with scale and expense make it unsuitable for this circumstance; particularly this early in its production. Despite this, 3D printing is an example of future technology impacting the possibilities of future design.

Fabrication and manufacturing are the only limitations on the computational approach. Computational architects are merely waiting on the fabrication technology to catch up to the modeling software. When this occurs, more and more computational projects will arise in the physical space, outside of the computer. In comparison to the Matsys project, Subdivided Columns is much further outside the possibilities of current manufacturing technologies and, therefore, fabrication of the columns was a much larger accomplishment. Effictively, with

this project, the experimentation came Hansmeyer was able to achieve in in terms of the fabrication, not the Subdivided Columns is way outside computational approach. the mindset of any designer. This is a great statement on computation as a Contemporary architecture involves practice. Whilst the human mind is nothe presence of modern materials, where near capable of this design, a techniques and technologies in the de- computer is. However, the human mind sign process. The incredible detail and is the exact input which allows a comornamentation evident in these Sub- puter to output these complex geomdivided Columns provoke the thought etries and creative designs. In this way, that computation is the design means one is not, and cannot be without the of the future, and as fabrification tech- other. The future of architecture and nologies catch up, architectural design design as a whole resides in computwill as well. ers and modern technology and to disregard this, is to fall behind the conThe level of complexity that Michael temporary movement.

HALL OF COLUMNS (title) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014] EXHIBITED COLUMN (right, top) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014] CONSTRUCTION DETAIL (right, bottom) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

Computation is a design method which pro-

vokes vastly different opinions on its place within architecture. Whilst many computational designers are excited by how far technology has progressed, there are many who believe that the rise of computation will lead to the end of creative thought. Bryan Lawson suggests that computation is an encouragement of “fake creativity”.1 This view is based solely off of the reliance of the computational designer on the computer, as a tool. There is a common view amongst many that computation requires nothing more than knowledge of design software. To take this view is to suggest that one could paint a masterpiece after learning the basics of how to hold a brush. Computation requires a precise integration of programming knowledge with a vast design skill set in order to create a successful computational design. It is important to draw elements from precedents in the approach of a design. Part A of this journal presents a variety of innovative computational projects in which to draw inspiration. Further exploration into energy generating

materiality is crucial to the progression of this design. Whilst standard energy generating concepts - solar, wind, hydrolic - are simple and quite effective, it is important to also experiment with other innovations, such as piezoelectric materials, which generate energy through the interaction that the project is designed to encourage. A computational design approach is the most beneficial progression As a designer, it allows a complexity of form that cannot be achieved through traditional design methods. This allows experimentation of intricate design outcomes, materiality, and innovation. It is important to note, however, that with the progression towards a fabricated scheme, fabrication technologies must be constantly referred to in order to judge the possibility of certain outcomes. Ultimately, this project is designed to benefit Copenhagen and the people within. It must be an attractive concept which fits, aesthetically with its landscape, whilst promoting interaction and renewable energy. Through computational and technological innovation, it will prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”.2

L E A R N I N G Having had no prior experience in Grass-

hopper, I consider myself to have progressed vastly in such a short period of time. From merely copying definitions from tutorial videos, without much understanding of what each component does, to having created an unguided concept, with lengthy definitions and a comprehension of why it works, I feel that I am truly getting an initial grasp of the computational method.

O U T C O M E S

Algorithmic computational design was initially new and scary to me. However, in the mere three to four weeks of learning, I can certainly see the benefits. Computation seems to open many doors - excuse the cliche - in terms of dynamic, intricate design. In retrospect, my past design experience could have benefitted greatly from current knowledge, casting away the limitations of geometric form and evolving into a new scope of architecture.

appendix

Grasshopper has sparked a deeper

level of thinking into form generation. The learning of this program was an introduction to an algorithmic method of design. This logical way of thinking has the ability to produce more complex, dynamic designs, in contrast to a lot of static architecture as a result of traditional design techniques. Moving into Part B will begin a deeper exploration into geometry and complex formmaking. The models displayed here highlight just a minute selection of ways that form can be achieved. These forms experiment with the introduction of patterning and materiality on a singular base surface. It shows that, although, the primary research field for Part B will be on the overall geometry, a finish must be considered throughout; be it to add an element of complexity to the design, or to allow more practical fabrication. I believe that personal expermentation and problem-solving, particularly in the third week, has allowed for a much more concrete understanding of Grasshopper than if I had merely mimicked tutorials. It has demonstrated the possibilities of this modelling software, as well as the potential for computational design in architecture. 21

REFERENCES design futuring (4 - 7)

1. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 2. Ibid. 3. Design Boom, Atalier Brückner: GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo <http://www.designboom.com/readers/atelier-bruckner-gscaltex-pavilion-for-the-2012-expo-korea/> [accessed 11 March 2014] 4. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 5. Ibid. 6. eVolo, GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo / Atelier Brückner < http://www.evolo.us/architecture/gs-caltex-pavilion-for-the2012-korea-expo-atelier-bruckner/> [accessed 11 March 2014] 7. Atalier Brückner, Philosophy (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/atelier/philosophie.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 8. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008) pp. 1-16 12. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/ architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014] 13. Noliac, Learning From Nature (Denmark: Noliac, 2014) <http://www.noliac.com/Learning_ from _ Nature-8152.aspx> [accessed 10 March 2014] 14. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/ architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014]

design computation (8 - 11) 1. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tomwiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014] 2. Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25 3. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tomwiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014] 4. Ibid. 22

5. Ibid. 6. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith. com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014] 7. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006) 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith. com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014] 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid.

composition/ generation (12 - 15) 1. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014] 2. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006) 3. Ibid. 4. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014] 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, Subdivided Columns (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html> [accessed 23 March 2014] 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid.

conclusion (16) 1. Bryan Lawson, ‘“Fake” and “Real” Creativity Using Computer-Aided Design: Some Lessons From Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press, 1999), pp. 174-179 2. Land Art Generator Initiative (Pittsburgh, PA: Land Art Generator Initiative, 2014) <http://landartgenerator.org/>

PART B

geometry

RESEARCH FIELDS The chosen research field for this week, and potentially the continuation of Part B, is geometry. This field was chosen due to its broad scope, particularly in relation to the possibilities of future design.

Whilst geometry is a integral part of many of the other research fields - patterning, tessellation, structure, etc. - the design focus varies between the underlying form and the way in which it will be fabricated. In this way, although with tessellation, the final outcome must have a tessellated exterior, with geometry, the fabricated form could be tessellated, patterned, or be made up of a purely structural aesthetic.

Algorithmic design, as was explored in Part A, is quite limitless in its design possibilities, particularly in contrast to traditional methods. It is due to this, that geometry was chosen, in the hopes of maintaining the limitless design potential. Three designs were proposed as the starting point for geometry research, being: SG2012 Gridshell by Matsys, Green Void by LAVA, and VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits. These designs present a fantastic example of the various ways of achieving form. Each of these designs contain an evident base geometry, however, each was achieved in a different way.

Matsys’ SG2012 Gridshell is, to some degree, as it appears. The base geometry was somewhat pre-conceived, with a ‘line work’ pattern applied over, giving it a kind of structural aesthetic. LAVA’s Green Void was, although not seemingly, designed in the complete reverse of Gridshell. The geometry is very apparent, and it contains no abstraction of patterning or tessellation. However, this form was achieved with a set of lines which were piped, meshed, and altered through the Kangaroo plugin for Grasshopper to achieve a minimal surface. Skylar Tibbits’ VoltaDom contrasts these designs,

yet again. Whilst, once again, an underlying geometry can be seen, the form was achieved purely through the joining of the paneled elements. This design, in particular, could be said to come under tessellation as the primary design focus, as the overall geometry was more of a secondary concern. Fabrication is an aspect which must be perpetually considered throughout the design process. Although LAVA’s design is, arguably, the most focused on the geometry of the design, it is much for complex to fabricate due to its complex, curved form. However, a simple

variable triangulation would simplify the fabrication process entirely, as it would allow the construction to be reduced to smaller, paneled elements or nets, which would come together to form the, more complex, whole. In this way, geometry is the most effective way of achieving true computation. Although the sectioning, strips/ folding, patterning, and several other fields contain clear design intents, geometry allows experimentation within the software, not realising the outcome until it is produced through the algorithmic method.

GREEN VOID1 (title) Green Void, LAVA VOLTADOM2 (right, top) VoltaDom, Skylar Tibbits SG2012 GRIDSHELL3 (right, bottom) SG2012 Gridshell, Matsys

For this exercise, an exploration of LAVA’s of line work using the Kangaroo plugin Green Void will provide the base for ex- for interaction and minimalism. This final perimental research. method provided the foundation for experimentation. The Grasshopper definition for this project provided three different methods of Species One demonstrates an initial achieving the form of the design. These take on this method, extending the defimethods were through the lofting of nition to include a hexagonal mesh centhe extreme base geometries, drawn tre, with lines drawn from its joints to the in Rhino and lofted in Grasshopper, edges of a box drawn in Rhino. a complete Rhino loft using a series of closed curves, and finally an abstraction The iterations in Species One and Two 28

will be assessed based on three main factors, these being referred to: ‘level of suction’, ‘reduction’ and ‘complexity’. An ideal outcome will be one which has a relatively high level of suction and reduction, whilst not being overly complex. That being said, it must contain potential for further exploration. As can be seen, particularly in Species One, a low radius, coupled with a high spring factor created minimal, if any,

‘suction’. Therefore, the desired result will most likely have a fairly high radius, and a medium to low spring factor. The most succesful designs from Species One, for this reason, would be iterations five and six. However, due to the requirement for further exploration, Species Two was an, overall, more successful species than Species One.

ploration than Species One. This design was built, purely, in Grasshopper, without the need for manual design. It is branched off a singular polyline, drawn between a set of points on a base geometry, this allows the alteration of the overall form and complexity, rather than merely the variable thickness of a set line.

This decision is based on the fact that it does not appear overly complex, yet still maintains a level of interest in the design. Simultaneously, it has a good ‘level of suction’ as well as a high reduction factor. This iteration is interesting as it has varying levels of reduction, ranging from the thicker ‘trunk’ lines to the thinner ‘branch and twig’ lines. This gives the outcome a much more natuDue to the additional parameters of Arguably the most successful geom- ral aesthetic; something which was esthis Species, it allows for a further ex- etry of this species is iteration three. sential to the designers.