Studio Air Journal B by Catherine Kho

STUDIO AIR JOURNAL CATHERINE KHO - 813073 S2, 2017 - TUTOR: JULIUS EGAN

Table of Contents

Part B: Conceptualisation

B.01. Research Field

B.02. Case Study 1.0

B.03. Case Study 2.0

B.04. Technique Development

B.05. Technique: Prototype

B.06. Technique: Proposal

B.07. Learning outcome and objective

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.01

RESEARCH FIELD

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.1: ArchDaily, ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 - Stuttgart, 2012, 6

CRITERIA DESIGN

BIOMIMICRY Biomimicry is a technique that using the understanding of how nature works and use that to seek for a sustainable solution for design. This technique is chosen as it it not only relatable to current situation, but also in the future as it has the potential to be able to adapt with the constant changes of environment. With biomimicry, it is not merely â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;mimicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the appearance natural environment, but rather took the qualities of a natural environment has as nature has the ability to restore themself and with human intervention, it often hinder the restoration of nature and ended up disturbing natural cycle of environment. With biomimicry, designer could have something that parallel to how nature works rather than hinder the progress of it.

, http://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart CRITERIA DESIGN

RESEARCH PAVILION 2011

BY ICD/ITKE

Location: Stuttgart

The concept of this research pavilion is based on biomimicry. As the name suggest, this pavilion is using biological principals of a sea urchinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plate skeleton and tries to translate it to architecture using geometries with computer-controlled manufacturing methods for its building implementation. Not only appearance wise, but the behaviour of the geometries are also trying to mimic how living things adapting to its environment. The way this pavilion express it is by heterogeneity, where the cell sizes are not constant but adapting to the local curvature and discontinuities. Overall the fabrication of this pavilion is not a challenge as it is an developable geometries. The challenge for this pavilion is to enhance the effectiveness of the material used. As this pavilion is designed with computer, it will be easier to control the input in it, therefore the chances to have a fabricate the pavilion with an efficient amount of material and less waste is possible. This pavilion shows the high level of understanding by its success to fabricate a complex morphology of the pavilion using with extremely thin sheets of plywood (6.5 mm).

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.2: ArchDaily, ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 - Stuttgart, 2012, http://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.02

CASE STUDY 1.0

CRITERIA DESIGN

12 CRITERIA DESIGN Fig. 3: Arch20, Voltadom - MIT, 2011, http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/

ase Study 1.0

Project: Voltadom By: Skylar Tibbits Date: 2011 Location: MIT

Voltadom is an installation that fill the concrete and glass hallways in MIT campus. The inspiration of the shape is from vaulted cathedral ceilings to create articulated cone-like surface with an oculi, forming a walkway and a barrier between two spaces. An interesting aspect of this is how they fabricate undevelopable multiple curves as it is often become an obstacle to fabricate digitally. By understanding the principle of geometries, voltadom is fabricated with developable surfaces, which makes it the voltadom able to be fabricated digitally.

In this case study, I wanted to explore the possibilities of a basic voltadom shape, which is a trimmed cone and try to create complexity in it by altering its arrangement by changing its seed, the number of the cone component, height and changing the shapes of the cone into something else and try to experiment how far one grasshopper script could transform a model to something more meaningful by considering the external variables to a model.

CRITERIA DESIGN

ITERATION SPECIES ONE: ORIGINAL NUMBER OF CONES

X=10

X=15

X=30

SEED=5

SEED=10

X=1.5

X=2

NUMBER OF SEEDS

SEED=0

VARYING CONE HEIGHT

X=0.5

CRITERIA DESIGN

CONE RADIUS

X=0.5

X=0.75

X=1.0

SLIDER1=0.5

SLIDER1=0.75

SLIDER1=1.0

OPENING SIZE

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES TWO: CONES TO SPHERE QUANTITY

X=10

X=15

X=30

SEED=5

SEED=10

RADIUS=0.6

RADIUS=0.9

NUMBER OF SEEDS

SEED=0

SPHERE RADIUS

RADIUS=0.3

CRITERIA DESIGN

OPENING #1

SLIDER1=0

SLIDER1=0.5

SLIDER1=1.0

SLIDER2=0.5

SLIDER2=0.8

SLIDER2=0.9

OPENING #2

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES THREE: POINT ATTRACTOR POINT ATTRACTOR

LOWER BOUND= 0.5 UPPER BOUND=1.0

LOWER BOUND= 1.0 UPPER BOUND=0.5

LOWER BOUND=1.5 UPPER BOUND=1.0

HEIGHT RATIO=1.0

HEIGHT RATIO=2.0

X=0.4

CONE HEIGHT

HEIGHT RATIO=0.5

OPENING SIZE

X=0.1

CRITERIA DESIGN

HEXAGON GRID

LOWER BOUND= 0.5 UPPER BOUND=1.0

LOWER BOUND= 1.0 UPPER BOUND=0.5

LOWER BOUND=1.5 UPPER BOUND=1.0

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES FOUR: CONES TO CYLINDER QUANTITY

X=10

X=15

X=30

SEED=5

SEED=10

RADIUS=0.6

RADIUS=0.9

NUMBER OF SEEDS

SEED=0

SPHERE RADIUS

RADIUS=0.3

CRITERIA DESIGN

HEIGHT

SLIDER1=0

SLIDER1=0.5

SLIDER1=1.0

CRITERIA DESIGN

SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Lights How much sunlight allowed to penetrate through? How much sunlight is blocked? 2. Interaction Will it help people to interact with each other? Will it isolate people to have their own personal space?

SPECIES TWO: CONE TO SPHERE

SPECIES THREE: POINT ATTRACTOR

This iteration has a rather big opening that could allow light to penetrate through well. With interaction aspect of it, this design did not capture any quality of. The possible design of this might be a stepping stones for the river, but with a transparent material in the opening to allow intersting experinece of crossing the river.

With the opening above the trimmed cone, it will allow light to penetrate through. In term of interation, this pods may isolate people to have their own personal space. This design could be used for a public toilet where it often just looks like a cuboid.

X=10 SEED=0 HEIGHT=0.3 SLIDER1=1.0 SLIDER2=0.5

CRITERIA DESIGN

LOWER BOUND= 1.0 UPPER BOUND= 0.5 HEIGHT RATIO= 2.0 X=0.4

SPECIES THREE: POINT ATTRACTOR

SPECIES FOUR: CONE TO CYLINDER

In term of exposure to sunlight, this may provide a decent amount of light inside the pods. With this interesting arrangement, it could be an interesting space for children to play hide and seek around it, therefore the amount of sunlight may not matter in this case. This could bring more interaction in Merri Creek as it feels like there is minimum human interaction in it.

This may look different compare to previous successful outcome, however this iteration is considered successful as it generate a new pattern with the intersection between the cylinders. This generation of pattern might be useful in the upcoming design as the pattern.

HEXAGON GRID LOWER BOUND= 0.5 UPPER BOUND=1.0

X=30 SEED=0 RADIUS=0.9 SLIDER1=0

CRITERIA DESIGN

In this iteration I was struggling to figure out which command could be connected. Some may have some significant difference, but some is not. This is the last part where I will be doing this journal individually, and for the next part of the journal will be done in pair, and hopefully could increases the quality of the iteration. My aim for the next task and upcoming 50 iteration is to experimenting more Grasshopper script and see the outcome of it.

CRITERIA DESIGN

We design this pavilion as a response to our experience while visiting Merri Creek. We often being disturb and disturb while we stop to rest in the Merri Creek. Therefore we intended to create a rest area for people to stop and also for cyclist to rest. Another possibilies to improve the pavilion is to scale down the pavilion appearance and have it as chairs. The inspiration behind this model is from a musical where it show a pattern where a group of gangster dance along gracefully following the leader. This quality that we notice is incorporated in the design by having the several pipes connected to one point.

CRITERIA DESIGN

MERGING TECHNIQUES From the following part of the journal I will be pairing up, with Jessica who is using patternisation as her design techniques. While discusing about the techniques, we realise that biomimicy and patternisation is in a way is not significantly different in term of aesthetic as biomimicry is also a pattern, but it follows the behaviour of a living organism. Biomimicry in a way could be categorised as patternisation but patternisation could not be categorised as biomimicry as it did not adopting the behaviour of an organism. Even though both techniques are different, it often overlapped with each other. An example of this overlapping techniques is ZA11 Pavilion in Clug, which will be our precedent studies on the attempt of reverse engineering.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.4: Pinterest, De Young Museum - San Fransisco, https://id.pinterest.com/pin/398639004497024778/

CRITERIA DESIGN Fig.5: Arch20, Voltadom - MIT, 2011, http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.03

CASE STUDY 2.0

CRITERIA DESIGN

ase Study 2.0

Project: ZA11 Pavilion By: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan Date: 2011 Location: Clug, Romania

This pavilion is built by a group of design student to exhibit the strong representational of parametric design, which align with the other purpose of this pavilion, which is to attract passerby to an event that currently happening in Clug, Romania. This pavilion is possible to attract passerby due to its distinguishable appearance. The way this pavilion placed in the middle of a street also evoke peoples curiosity to get closer and explore the pavilion

CRITERIA DESIGN

I am interested to recreate this pavilion which made from a series of distorted hexagon which makes the appearance of the pavilion less â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;harshâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and has more fluidity, which later on, will be the base for my further experimentation on exploring the possible outcome from it. The experimentation will be mainly focusing on the patternization.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.6: ArchDaily, ZA11 Pavilion - Clug, 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/110322-night-render

REVERSE ENGINEERING

1. Draw curve to imitate the outline of the pavilion in rhino, duplicate so it will create the top and the bottom of the pavilion.

CRITERIA DESIGN

2. Use command curve in Grasshopper, then reference both curves. Use command Loft to create surface.

3. Use comm scaled down t ate the inner cen

mand scale to the loft to cresurface in the nter.

4. Using command in LunchBox plugin in Grasshopper, Hexagon Cells to create the hexagon in both surfaces

5. Use ruled surface to loft the hexagon together to create the connection between two hexagons

CRITERIA DESIGN

In t vilio eng ZA1 diff

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.7: ArchDaily, ZA11 Pavilion - Clug, 2011, http://www. archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrickbedarf-bogdan-hambasan/img_5111

the reverse engineering process, eventhough we did not nail every aspect of the ZA11 paon like how it connected to each other and the holes in it, I think our attempt on the reverse gineering still considered as successful due to the fact that we are able to potray the quality of 11 that we wanted to capture, which is how hexagonal grid is being distorted and how it gives ferent impression to the building. This will be our base for the upcoming 50 iterations.

CRITERIA DESIGN

The connection between the site and the pavilion is that we feels that even though there are a lot of users in Merri Creek, there is no interation between the users. Therefore, this pavilion is intended to be a place for people to hang out, for children to play around through the gaps and also could be a conversation starter as it is has a very unusual appearance. The feedback given during this pin up is to have a specific purpose of the pavilion and think more about why this pavilion is better than other.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.04

CASE STUDY 3.0

CRITERIA DESIGN

ITERATION

SPECIES ONE: PATTERN

TRIANGLE

RANDOM QUADS

TRIANGLE

RANDOM QUADS

HALF CYCLINDER

BOX WITH HOLES

SPECIES TWO: SPHERE

SPECIES THREE: BOX MORPHE

CRITERIA DESIGN

HEXAGON

DIAMOND

SKEWED QUADS

HEXAGON

DIAMOND

SKEWED QUADS

EXTRUDED CURVE

TORUS

BOX MORPHE WITH SURFACE BOX

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES FOUR: KALEIDOSCOPE

KALEIDESCOPE

CHANGE DISTANCE #1

SPECIES FIVE: IMAGE SAMPLING

EXTRUDED IMAGE

USE EXPRESSION AND RU SURFACE

SPECIES SIX: SINGLE LOFT, MOVE AND EXTRUDED

TRIANGLE

CRITERIA DESIGN

RANDOM QUADS

ULED

CHANGE DISTANCE #2

CHANGE DISTANCE #3

CHANGE DISTANCE #4

CHANGE Y-VALUE

DOUBLE IMAGE SAMPLING

DOUBLE EXPRESSION

SKEWED QUADS

DIAMOND

HEXAGON

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES SEVEN: VORONOI

VORONOI

CHANGE COUNT VALU

VORONOI 3D

RULED SURFACE

ONE BASE PLANE

TWO BASE PLANE

SPECIES EIGHT: VORONOI 3D

SPECIES NINE: DATA GRID STRUCTURE

CRITERIA DESIGN

CHANGE MAX FACTOR

CHANGE AND U-VALUE AND Y-VALUE

ADDING POINT ATTRACTION

PIPES

VORONOI 3D AND PIPES

OFFSET AND MOVE

THREE BASE PLANE

ADDING CIRCLE AND FLIP

ADDING CONE

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES TEN: QUALEA

HEXAGON

DIAMOND

We som fec foc figu bot com iter do thin wo

CRITERIA DESIGN

RANDOM QUAD PANELS

TRIANGLE PANELS

SKEWED QUAD

e are interested in exploring the possibilities from this rigid hexagon grids transform into mething more flexible like a bimetric design by having the grids distorted. This shows the efct of patternization to the whole overall appearance of a design. Therefore our iteration mostly cusing on how the pattern is generated rather than the shape of it. It takes such a long time to ure out which script could works and it takes a lot of trial and error in the Grasshopper as we th are beginner in grasshopper. While we are experimenting with more complex script, the mputer often not responding which makes us have to forced closed the app and losing some ration that we made or when the computer is responding fine, suddenly the script could not what we have been scripted and when we check the balloon messages, it mentioned someng like ‘could not be loft, Grasshopper don’t know why’ which very frustating. However, as we ork together, we managed to finish all iterations.

CRITERIA DESIGN

SUCCESSFUL

VORONOI - POINT ATTRACTOR

VORONOI 3D - PIPES

We always attracted to how voronoi looks as it is an upredictable but yet there are some sort of beauty in the pattern of it. Initially, we thought that it could only be applied in a flat surfaces, however while we are testing a lot of script in Grasshopper, we found out that voronoi could be mapped into a surface. This outcome will carried further to the design proposal.

As our design technique are biomimicry and paternisation, this is very interesting as the pipes component that made up the voronoi has a very flexibility in term of expanding the pattern unlimitedly. This suits to both our technique biomimicry and patternisation. The pipes also could act as the main structure that could support a design in further design proposal.

Complexity: 3/5 Fluidity:2/5 Light: 3/5

Complexity: 3/5 Fluidity:2/5 Light: 4/5

CRITERIA DESIGN

L OUTCOME

DATA GRID STRUCTURE - ADDING CONE

QUALEA - HEXAGON

We found this is very interesting as it is pushes the outcome of a distorted hexagon becoming a very interesting model with a very different looks to its initial appearance. The appearance of this would not be included to the design proposal, however, this is considered as successful because it allow us to witness how Grasshopper script could change the whole appearance of a model.

As we were experimenting with new plugin, we came across with Qualea and it transform the hexagonal grid into something very angular with a lot of component extruded to different direction. Compare to previous chosen outcome, it shows how Grasshopper could transform one object to two significantly different appearance. This technique may be considered to be used in the upcoming design proposal.

Complexity: 5/5 Fluidity:2/5 Light: 2/5

Complexity: 2/5 Fluidity:2/5 Light: 1/5

CRITERIA DESIGN

THE UNSEEN

CRITERIA DESIGN

This building is made up entirely glass. The idea of this come up during a conversation with friends regarding Mies van der Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Glass Skyscrapper Project of 1922 where the idea of it was revolutionary. Until these days, there is no building to be made in such way. And while reading the passage from Zora, we were thinking of how a transparent pavilion that is barely visible, but yet will be remembered by people who visit it. Not the appearance, but the presence of it.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.05

TECHNIQUES: PROTOTYPES

CRITERIA DESIGN

ROTOTYPE

FIRST ATTEMPT

As we are pleased with the combination of voronoi and point attractor, we are trying to fabricate what we did by having it laser cut. The sequence of the fabrication is rather simple as we are using laser cut to fabricate the component of the model. We unroll, gives tabs in each component as the joint and put on etch so we could fold the joint. While processing the model to have it prepared for laser cut, we lose sense of scale which results our model is bigger than what we expected which is fine, but having a very thin component which makes it prone to tearing up.

CRITERIA DESIGN

ROTOTYPE

SECOND ATTEMPT

BEFORE MODEL MANIPULATED FURTHER

Another attempt on fabricating the voronoi pattern, but this time we are trying to be more aware on the scale and we also change the way we fabricate the pattern, which is by having each cells laser cut individually instead of holes cut in one piece of paper to gives the model more fluidity in term of arrangement and also depth to it.

TABS ARE RIPPING WHEN MODEL ARE BEND FURTHER

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.06

TECHNIQUES: PROPOSAL

CRITERIA DESIGN

The problem with this second attempt is when we are trying to bed the material we used is too thin and when we folded the tabs, it was ripping into 2 sheets eventhough we did put etching on it to prevent ripping.through This makes During our visit to Merri Creek, we exploring the the pathways given. Most whole appearance of jogging the protoactivities that happen in there are people cycling, and walking. As it is our typestop look and messy. first time visit that site, we often enjoy the site, however as most people are using the same laneway, we often disturbing other people activities and we are also disturbed.

CRITERIA DESIGN

ITE ANALYSIS

SUN PATH

VEGETATION DENSITY

MOVEMENT

RIVER FLOWS

CRITERIA DESIGN

HAT?

We are proposing a path for pedestrian to walk without being disturb by cyclist and vice versa. The way each component of the bridge will adapt to its surrounding environment. This will be placed in the area where most circulation. The size of it will not be very large however the span is rather long as it will allow pedestrian to experience Merri Creek without the annoyance of being disturbed by cyclist or vice versa.

HY?

The design that we are proposing is a response to the experience that we have in Merri Creek. This to make the experience for both site users more pleasant and also to increase the safety in the site as there are a lot of cyclist and also children in site as there is school nearby the site. Cyclist may not be aware of them and could hit them accidentally. With this proposed pedestrian path, it will separate both site users and minimise the chances of the accident happen.

OW?

The way the path is arranged is according to the existing path in the site in order to minimise the difference experience from both path. Not only from the movement, but also the vegetation density and sun path. The integration of site analysis are reflected in the materiality that we use. We are considering to use material that has transparency to it as it allow light to penetrate through the site instead of shades the area as the site is already well shaded with trees in it.

CRITERIA DESIGN

EXPLODED IMAGE

This explode image shows how we apply the techniques that we learn during the research field. The patternisation techniques is applied in the way repetition of the path elements and the biomimicry side of the techniques is how we made this adaptable in environment. As we wanted to split the movement our given site, we are proposing this pedestrian path. However, as Merri Creek is much more beyond our site, and may have similiar issue, having a component that allow it to be extendable gives the opportunity to expand its benefit to the other side of Merri Creek.

CRITERIA DESIGN

CONSPICIOUS

CRITERIA DESIGN

In our first pin-up as a team, we are mentioning about our frustation of being disturbed by cyclist, and we are proposing a pavilion in there. However, we realise that we did not come up with a solution to the issue that we are addressing directly. In this design proposal, we wanted to directly addresing the frustation we have by proposing a pedestrian path that divides the users of the site.

CRITERIA DESIGN

As I w to pro away f of the ing th incorp of bot way, b our de

Peters, Brady. ( 61 1

CRITERIA DESIGN

was reviewing the reading again, I found passage saying ‘very often teams use these tools ove that their building is located in a good way, that it is working, and this takes the focus from the main design idea’1. It made me thinking how we always explains our design. Most e time we are trying to convince other that our pavilion will works, and only briefly mentionhe design and where the inspiration from. With this proposed project, we are starting to porate the design aspect of it and explaining how the design came from our understanding th techniques and try to apply it to our proposed design. Even though we still have a long but I think it is such a fortunate that could notice now as it will make us more aware about esign more for the upcoming project.

(2013) ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 56CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

mistakes have the power to turn you into something better than you were before

Our feedback given were lacking of connection between the qualities of references and the pavilion designed. What we explained regarding the building is very general, in term of the qualities of a bird, and focusing more towards something that as a designer could not control. This made me realise about the thinking behind a design, what is more important is the idea that trigger the design and the stories behind it rather than appearance of it. What may aesthetically pleasing may be meaningless without any explanation. Even though it is such a shame as there is guests during this pinup, but Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m glad that I could realise this and will keep in mind all the feedback given and will carry that though out my studies and further.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Learning Outcome

As the previous part of the journal we are doing research about parametric design and I learn a lot regarding what can designer do in collaboration with computer, however it is a whole new level experience when personally experimenting with it. It is very exciting (and frustrating as the computer often not responding) to see the different design produced just by altering, changing or adding another script and trying to guess what how it will transform the current model. Another thing that I learn mostly apart from Grasshopper, is the importance of thought and ideas behind a design rather than what merely looks good. It makes me realise no matter how good the design looks or how it presented on a paper, it will be meaningless without a story behind it.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Learning Objective

My aim for the upcoming part of the journal will be trying to explain better thought and ideas regarding a design and be more experimental in term of design. Other thing that I would like to do from the next upcoming project is to be more aware and thoughtful towards process rather than the end results of it.

CRITERIA DESIGN

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;jump off the roof

CRITERIA DESIGN

f (but not literally)â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

CRITERIA DESIGN

Appendix

CRITERIA DESIGN

REFERENCES Arch20, ‘Voltadom by Skylar Tibbits’, n.d. <http://www.arch2o.com/voltadomby-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/>, accessed on 13 August 2011. Dezeen, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’, 2011 < https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/>, accessed on 15 August 2017. Design Play Ground, ‘CLJ02: ZA11 PAVILION’, n.d <http://designplaygrounds. com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/>, accessed on 24 August 2017. Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 56-61

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIGURE LIST Fig.1: ArchDaily, ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 - Stuttgart, 2012, http://www. archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart Fig.2: ArchDaily, ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 - Stuttgart, 2012, http://www. archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart Fig. 3: Arch20, Voltadom - MIT, 2011, http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylartibbits-skylar-tibbits/ Fig.4: Pinterest, De Young Museum - San Fransisco, https://id.pinterest.com/ pin/398639004497024778/ Fig.5: Arch20, Voltadom - MIT, 2011, http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylartibbits-skylar-tibbits/ Fig.6: ArchDaily, ZA11 Pavilion - Clug, 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/110322-nightrender Fig.7: ArchDaily, ZA11 Pavilion - Clug, 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/img_5111

CRITERIA DESIGN