Studio Air: Journal Part A by Cindy Edelene Arief

abpl30048 architecture design studio : air semester 2 / 2014 the university of melbourne cindy edelene arief : 600604 student journal tutor : b.d.elias

table of contents Introduction

Part A: Conceptualisation A.1. Design Futuring Precedent Project 1: Kunsthaus Graz Precedent Project 2: Project ZED A.2. Design Computation Precedent Project 1: Smithsonian Institution Precedent Project 2: 30 St Mary Axe A.3. Composition / Generation Precedent Project 1: Serpentine Pavilion Precedent Project 2: Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway A.4. Conclusion A.5. Learning Outcomes A.6. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

4 5 7 10 11 13 15 17 19 21 22 23

References Image References

25 26

Part B: Criteria Design B.1. B.2. B.3. B.4. B.5. B.6. B.7. B.8.

Research Field Case Study 1.0 Case Study 2.0 Technique: Development Technique: Prototypes Technique: Proposal Learning Objectives and Outcomes Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

Part C: Detailed Design C.1. C.2. C.3. C.4.

Design Concept Tectonic Elements and Prototypes Final Detail Model Learning Objectives and Outcomes

introduction

testimonial and previous work on digital design

My name is Cindy Edelene Arief, currently sitting on my 3rd year undergraduate study majoring in architecture at the University of Melbourne. Building my future dream house, is the basis of why I am pursuing a study in architecture. I have always been fascinated by the different feelings and emotions that emerge from being in a certain space, that is the product of architecture. I wish one day I can create the architectural space which gives people the same fascinated feeling and emotion as I have had. I realised that in this era of technological development, architecture has somewhat shifted towards a more modern and digital approach. Buildings seem to be more complex in form, shape, dimension as well as its construction process. My relatively basic knowledge of digital design might not be sufficient enough to be able to build such complex designs. And it was not until I took the Virtual Environments subject during my first year at university that I was exposed to digital

design. The course introduced students to parametric modelling and digital fabrication through the use of Rhino3DTM and the Panelling Tools plug-in. The brief was to create a paper-based lantern based on the analysis of natural patterns. My design was based on the pattern of spider web. Several experimentations were conducted and tested before I arrived at the final outcome. The changes were made easy by changing parameters on the Panelling Tools, something I never imagine could be produced before. Despite the struggle in learning how the software works and aligning it with my design process, it was certainly an amazing feeling to be able to produce a design I thought I would never be capable of. Digital design has made it possible. Whilst Studio Air again exposes students to Rhino3DTM, but this time with the Grasshopper plug-in, I hope I can gain a deeper knowledge of digital design and realise its emerging potential for the future of architecture.

Above: Development process of the paper-based lantern produced for the Virtual Environments subject.

part a: conceptualisation

Fig 1.1 Frank Gehryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preliminary sketches for Panama Puente de Vida Museo.

a.1. design futuring ‘Effectively, what we have done, as a result of the perspectival limitations of our human centredness, is to treat the planet simply as an infinite resource at our disposal.’

- Tony Fry1

Twenty-first century humans

are unquestionably aware of the environmental changes that have been largely, if not partially, caused by the destructive activities of theirselves. If these continue to occur over a long period of time, we might in the future look and turn back the time to possibly fix all our irresponsible actions towards the nature. Instead of regretting later, why don’t we start to make changes as early as we can? It all lies in what Fry indicates as ‘designing’. Humans all design. They have the capability to create things, whatever level of complexity, and to destroy things simultaneously. Design Futuring - as its name indicates leads to a basic implication of how one’s ability to design can have considerable impact and real difference for the future. It isn’t sustainability but rather “sustainability”, which is regularly emphasised by Fry, that needs to be acquired by every designer of all fields. Architecture as one of the practices too can serve as key

drivers that can contribute in overcoming the problems possessed by defuturing. It is because humans have all the power to choose what form of environment they long to create and live in that the act of design is substantially considered as the governing rule towards the future and the effects it may have impact upon. This is why designers at the earliest stage must be aware, as much as they are aware of the ongoing drastic climate change, of the need to develop their design intelligence. In other words, understanding the whole complexity of designing: why they design what they want to design and what positive implications it may have brought towards the future, changing their way of thinking about design as a whole. The following pages will discuss few examples on built projects that seek to capture the intelligence of designing towards a sustainable future.

a.1.1. precedent work 1

kunsthaus graz, graz, austria by peter cook and colin fournier (2002)

Fig 1.2 Real-world version of the blob-shaped glass panels.

Fig 1.3 Digital version of the blob-shaped glass panels.

In 2002, Peter Cook and Colin Fournier won the international competition for the Kunsthaus Graz in Austria, a multidisciplinary venue for contemporary exhibitions and events of art, media and photography. The building shows how the architects have merged the historical urban site with the new avant-garde design which serves a new architectural landmark for the city of Graz2.

generate energy through integrated photovoltaic panels3. Far more interestingly, its outer skin also acts as a media façade which can be changed electronically to cater the changing content of the museum. Visitors who enter the interior building can also feel the different spatial and sensorial experience as they walk through.

The most interesting feature of Kunsthaus Graz is notably the blob-shape of the exterior skin made up of 1,288 semitransparent acrylic glass panels which

Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus-graz/ architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. 3 Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http:// inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museum-generates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. 2

Though it may seem odd in shape, as what Frank Gehry did in his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Kunsthaus Graz is a clear example of how an iconic public building successfully regenerate the

Fig 1.4 An extremely modern design sitting in the urban historic site of the city of Graz.

underprivileged image of the city through engagement with the public. This is something every architect needs to learn from, their design needs to speak to the community that it serves, and accordingly the community will respect the work that has been done. The built-in photovoltaic units on the glazed panels makes the building not only have low environmental impact by generating its own power but also make easy the fabrication process through paneling. The use of computer technology has aided the assembly process of the glass panel which make

the fabrication more time-efficient. Moreover, glazing enables natural daylight to fill in the interior space thus saving energy and creating a more sustainable future. Kunsthaus Graz provides an efficient example that being intelligent in designing, both in terms of material selection and low energy emission, is crucial in slowing the rate of defuturing the world is currently undergoing. Architects play an important role in delivering a positive contribution towards a more sustainable future.

a.1.2 precedent work 2

project zed, london, uk by future systems (1996)

Fig 1.5 Large centre wind turbine placed in the hole of the building of Project ZED designed by Future Systems.

Project ZED was part of a Europeanfunded research project whose objective was to investigate the potential of achieving zero-carbon emission in a mixed urban development4. In a highly-dense urban setting of London where most activities take place in indoor buildings, consuming considerable amount of energy along with the use of transportation, Future Systems sought to create a self-sufficient energy building to lower its environmental impact. As the project’s title is “Project ZED: Towards Zero Emission Urban Development – The interrelationship between energy, buildings, people and microclimate”2, Future Systems incorporated the use of photovoltaic units in the louvers and a large wind turbine placed in the middle of the center of the building hole. They used a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to analyse the environmental effects of airflow around the building5. Having its own wind turbine and photovoltaic cells creates an advantage of reducing energy cost as the building can generate its own power. Built in 1996, Project ZED has shown a redirection in architectural practice towards a more

Fig 1.6 CFD analysis of the wind-flow around the building of Project ZED, London.

sustainable future and not only think about aesthetics value. Design intelligence as mentioned by Fry1 is also applied here through the curved form of the building which is not randomly decided, rather it is meant to minimise the impact of wind along the building perimeter and instead redirect it towards the center where the turbine is located. With regards to design futuring, it is thus clear that Project ZED strives to consider all the environmental conditions which are then incorporated into their design thinking and process.

Fig 2.1 Interior of the Smithsonian Institution Building showing the triangulated-surface roof canopy.

a.2. design computation computation vs computerisation The term ‘computation’ and ‘computerisation’ are often mixed and misunderstood. They are in fact two distinctive features and understanding the difference is crucial in realising the importance of computation in architecture. Computerisation refers to a mode of working where architects use computers to simply digitise certain procedures which have initially been conceived in the designer’s mind6. Computers are solely used for digital drafting, such as editing, copying and increasing drawings’ precisions. On the other hand, computation involves processing of information through an understood model expressed as an algorithm and often it generates results that are unexpected, compared to the pre-conceptualised ideas that are digitised in the computerisation mode. With the growing numbers of computer programs being created, architects are increasingly allowed to explore new options and go beyond their capabilities. Computation does not only make it easier to adapt with changes that are often made throughout a design process, but it also lets the architects to predict its performance through the advanced tools they are using.

A more responsive and efficient design is enabled by computation, allowing the construction of complex models and giving performance feedback. Changing certain values of parameters within the digital tools can create multiple varieties of instances, most of which are complex geometries, which seem to be unachievable in the era where computer software had not yet existed. The capability of experimenting with materials in computation also has a huge impact on the final outcome. It empowers the architects to create a performanceoriented design based on the evidence in the environmental field, which leads them to an ecological design that responds to the environmental conditions. Computation undoubtedly presents a huge potential in creating a more sustainable future through a more advanced and sophisticated design process. Architects are becoming equipped with the tools needed to overcoming solutions and even predict the project performance before executing. Engaging with computational techniques is therefore essential and beneficial in relation to the sculptural form that is going to be generated throughout this course in response to the LAGI brief.

a.2.1. precedent work 1

smithsonian institution, washington dc, usa by foster + partners (2007)

The analysis of two precedent works by Foster + Partners will show how engagement with contemporary computational techniques play a significant role in creating a sounder architecture.

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, USA, shows how the use of a single computer program could generate the geometry of such complex roof on its central courtyard. Foster + Partners take into account the consideration of structural and acoustic performance which are incorporated into their design process.7 Through the use of computer code and collaboration with a Specialist Modeling Group (SMG), they explored many design options and did several modifications before reaching the final outcome. Computation thus enables Foster + Partners to create a performancebased design with the inclusion of this

environmental condition requirements into the parameter. It also shows that in computational design, designers are given the opportunity to explore and evaluate the best possible result. The use of digital modeling software in producing this roof canopy allows the architect as the master builder to communicate more efficiently with other professionals and trades involved in the production of buildings. Engineers, for example, have a more comprehensive understanding in interpreting the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design as the computer information is translated into the construction information.8 They are provided with guides in a language that builders can understand. A better collaboration between different professional fields is thus achieved. Accordingly, a design continuum is established between design and construction.7

Fig 2.2 Computationally-generated roof geometry that allows natural daylight to enter the large interior space.

a.2.2. precedent work 2

30 st mary axe, london, uk by foster + partners (2007)

A similar approach to the use of

computational design technique is again done by Foster + Partners in London, UK. The 30 St Mary Axe building is easily recognised through its tapering form towards the summit that sits on the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skyline (Fig 2.4). It is not without reason, or simply the architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intention to create the distinctive form of the building. Evidences, including environmental conditions and building performance requirements, are gathered. Each

element of the building is the response of these constraints that have been incorporated in their design thinking. As an internal specialist group, Foster + Partners consist of computational designers working separately from the design teams. Designers are the ones dealing with the design process along with its varying needs depending on the project. The building profile of 30 St Mary Axe is intended to reduce wind deflections

Fig 2.3 (left) - The apex of the 30 St Mary Axe showing computational design technique. Fig 2.4 (right) - Identifiable building profile that tapers towards the summit in the background of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skyline.

compared to other rectilinear tower of similar size which helps maintains a comfortable environment at ground level as well as providing natural ventilation through the design of windows.9 These variables all affect the design process as a whole and digital linkage is established between the parametric modelers and the changing variables towards a performance-oriented design.

Computation has signaled the point of significant innovation in the 21st century, changing architectural practices in a way that only few were able to anticipate decades ago when production and construction of very complex forms used to be very difficult and unimaginable.8

a.3. composition / generation

a shift from composition to generative design approach In contemporary architecture,

digital media is no longer seen as a representative tool for visualisation but as a generative tool for the derivation and transformation of forms. Generative design is all about writing or scripting the rules which can be easily articulated to produce a range of possibilities from which the designers can further explore for development without knowing what the outcome is going to look like. It is not about “making of form” but rather “finding of form”.8 This generative design method involves a broad range of elements from algorithmic thinking, parametric modeling and scripting cultures. It has been discussed earlier that computation has played an extremely important role in solving complex architectural-related problems that were not achievable before the emergence of computer programs. By thinking algorithmically, architects dealing with parametric modeling are to become familiarise with the culture of scripting, or writing all the differentiated rules, or variables which are to be incorporated into the design process. The term parametric refers to the declaration of parameter rather than shape, the association in parts of a model with other elements. Through this associative relationship, multiple variations of creations are made possible

by changing, or scripting, the value of the parameter. The era of the new millennium has seen incredible approach towards parametric architecture, so much that the term ‘parametricism’ coined by Schumacher8 as the new style of architecture emerges. There is ongoing debate whether parametricism can be proposed as a new style, however, it goes beyond the scope of the discussion in this chapter. It is rather more essential to look at the potential of parametric approach to design that increasingly become part of architectural practices. With parametric modeling, generation of forms, whatever level of complexity, is enabled through the ‘file-to-factory’ process of Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) fabrication technologies. This allows engineers to construct complex forms more efficiently through the digital data that they receive and understand, something that was not achievable before the emergence of digital technologies. The development of new linkage between conception and production is therefore redefined.10 As scripting is enabled, a building performance can thus be predicted before construction takes place, allowing performance feedback to occur that results in a more efficient performance.

Fig 3.1 Serpentine Pavilion (2002) by Toyo Ito demonstrating the aesthetic and tectonic possibilities of design computation.

a.3.1. precedent work 1

serpentine pavilion, london, uk by toyo ito (2002)

Fig 3.2 (above) and Fig 3.3 (below) Exterior and interior of the Serpentine Pavilion.

Fig 3.4 (above) and Fig 3.5 (below) Pattern exploration through algorithmic thinking for Serpentine Pavilion, London.

The most distinguished feature of

Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito is its complex pattern of a rather simple rectangular box form. This pattern arose from Itoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collaboration with a team of designers called ARUP who initiated a basic geometric algorithm formed by rectangle and lines.11 At a glance, the resulting pattern may seem complex, but careful examination will reveal an algorithm of cube that expands as it rotates. Ito would never come up with such pattern had he not team up with ARUP and explored the infinite possibilities that emerged through algorithmic thinking. The application of generative approach in this pavilion is clear in that finding of form eliminates the making of form in Itoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pattern exploration and experimentation.

There has been a shift of explicitly defining the shape to defining the systems as done by Ito in his exploration of the pattern. By changing simple rules, e.g. rotating the squares and drawing lines, Toyo Ito was able to achieve such dramatic and complex result. Fabricating is an important feature in parametric design where passing on of information from architects to builders must be thoroughly understood in order to build a successful construction.8 To rationalise the design pattern, Ito divided the elements into different structural elements that can be understood and thus assembled by the engineers. Thus, a parametric approach in generative design method has proved to make efficient the collaborative relationship between architects and engineers.

a.3.2. precedent work 2

port authority triple bridge gateway, new york, usa by greg lynn (1994)

Greg Lynn is widely known as an innovator in redefining the medium of design with digital technology. He is amongst one of the first architects to use animation software not as a medium of representation but rather of form generation.8

that making present the forces in a given context is fundamental in the form making of architecture. Mimicking natural phenomenon, in this case he used the movement and flow of pedestrians, cars and buses, Lynn then incorporated these into his design.

In his winning competition entry for the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Lynn used the ‘Wavefront’ software in representing series of ‘forces’ of traffic and pedestrian flow.12 He then exemplified these ‘forces’ by particles that were rendered in the software as spheres (Fig 3.7). These forces that originate not only from within the system itself but also from its surrounding context are essential in predicting, or simulating the object form that is being generated. It accounts for a perfomance feedback before the construction assembly is being executed, avoiding unexpected results that may arise.

His use of parametric and generative design approach which are embedded in the dynamic simulation he created, has shown a major shift in the use of digital media as design tools rather than as devices for visual representation. Generative design method further shows that applying natural principles into design does not necessarily mean copying from the nature. It involves learning from the nature and how we can produce, or more appropriately, generate form in response to the conditions of the environmetal context.

Lynn’s design of a protective roof and lighting scheme for the bus terminal in New York serves as an efficient example

‘While physical form can be defined in terms of static coordinates, the virtual force of the environment in which it is designed contributes to its shape.’

- Greg Lynn cited in Kolaveric8

Fig 3.6 (above) Digital model of the proposed bus terminal as a result of dynamic simulation. Fig 3.7 (below) Forces represented by particles that are rendered by spheres in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Wavefrontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; software, showing the flow of pedestrians, cars and buses.

a.4. conclusion Architecture isn’t just a practice about creating space and building things. Many buildings which are aesthetically pleasing to human eyes may not be friendly to the environment. During the construction process, they may have consumed a lot of energy through the use of materials which are not renewable, a lot of money to transport the material from one place to another, as well as great amount of time in building the construction from the ground that varies depending on the level of complexity. Above all, it is the responsibility of future designers, including architects, to incorporate their design intelligence towards designing a more sustainable future, or slowing the rate of defuturing. Design intelligence ranges from wise material selection to responding to the local environmental conditions. Unfortunately, tackling the problem of defuturing too often extends beyond what human’s capability can offer. This is why technology plays such an essential role. Contemporary built projects have shown that engagement with computing enables them to generate and build complex form which was thought to be unimaginable before the emergence of digital technology. Computation has revolutionised the way architectural practices behave in the 21st century. It allows designers to expand their abilities to deal with highly complex

situation in response to design futuring. In response to the brief of the LAGI project to create a public-art energy generator installation that is both environmentally and user friendly, my intended design approach will be to use materials that are highly renewable and locally-obtained as well as incorporating site conditions towards my design thinking. This will include consideration of sun path, wind flow, and other parameters that should be integrated within the generation of form assisted by digital computer software, in this case, Rhino3DTM and Grasshopper. By doing so, not only will the designers be benefited as computation enables complex problem to be solved in a timely manner, but also the engineers dealing with the construction process who are guided with ‘construction language’ translated from the digital they are able to understand. It will also consume less time and cost to build as local materials do not require to be transported from a far, and the local people in Copenhagen will appreciate it more when seeing local resources being used.

a.5. learning outcomes My understanding about architectural design has broadened so much after learning about the theory and practice of architectural computing. Previously, I was not aware that computation has played such an important role in contemporary architectural practice. I was wondering how builders are able to construct such complex form of buildings. This all has been made possible by the use of digital technology that enables fabrication process to take place relatively easily. Through Grasshopper, I now understand that changing basic and simple rule or parameter can result in multiple variation of creations and even lead to very complex forms, forms that I thought I am

not able to generate. Although it may seem daunting at the beginning to learn how to use Grasshopper without any preliminary background, I began to see the potential of computation for my future design career. I have always designed things that are aesthetically pleasing, not considering any environmental conditions or situations that need to be taken into consideration, even if so, at a very limited level as no concrete approach can be taken at that point. Now that digital computation has aided in this problem, I am very much looking forward to what outcome I can possibly achieve with the assistance of computation, specifically for the design for the energy generator installation.

a.6. appendix - algorithmic sketches approach, in which I can apply the capability of this feature in Grasshopper through minimising the use of materials that I intend to use for the energy generator installation.

Fig 4.1 Arches created between two curves.

From creating arches between two curves (see Fig 4.1 ), I began to see the potential of generating a much more complex form. It turned out that a form as shown on the next page was generated, though some rules needed to be changed as they consist of 3 different curves whose points need to be shifted in order to produce the grid shell surface. Whilst watching the video tutorial, I discovered the use of geodesic feature which is to create shortest possible path between two points. This instantly reminds me of the design futuring

Fig 4.2 Grasshopper script for the grid shell form shown on the next page.

I believe that there are still more features that I will discover throughout my learning process of Grasshopper in this course which can assist me in generating my design form. Another very important lesson that I learn is, as mentioned earlier, computation allows complex form to be generated in a very short time. This is shown by how changing the control points of the curve in Fig 4.4 can result in an unexpected outcome where association between its elements enable the responsive adaptation to the changing parameter.

Fig 4.3 Geodesic feature results in a non-straight line between the curves, showing the shortest possible path between two points.

Fig 4.4 Highly adaptive environment of digital computation design where simple changes are followed by the more complex generated form.

Fig 4.5 Each curve has its own point that corresponds to another location of points on another curve.

references Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1. 1

Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum. at/en/kunsthaus-graz/architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. 2

Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museumgenerates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. 3

Steemers, K. and Nikolopoulou, M. (1998). “Assessing the Urban Microclimate: Introducing Innovative Modelling Techniques.” PLEA 98 Passive and Low Energy Architecture Conference (1998). 4

Kolarevic, Branko. “Computing the performative in architecture.” Proceedings of the 21th eCAADe Conference: Digital Design. Graz, Austria. 2003. 5

Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 8-15. 6

Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd < http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution/> [Accesssed 17 August 2014]. 7

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-62. 8

Foster + Partners 2014, “30 Sty Mary Axe” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe> [Accessed 17 August 2014]. 9

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10. 10

Deuling, Ton, “Serpentine Pavilion // Case Study” in Collective Architects <http://www. collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentine-pavilion-case-study> [Accessed 19 August 2014]. 11

Gregg Lynn FORM 2014, “Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway” in Gregg Lynn FORM <http://glform.com/buildings/port-authority-triple-bridge-gateway-competition/> [Accessed 20 August 2014]. 12

image references Fig. 1.1 Frank Gehry, “Preliminary sketches for the Panama Puente de Vida Museo” in Gehry Partners, LLP, <http://www.foga.com/> [Accessed 18 August 2014] Fig 1.2 Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museumgenerates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. Fig 1.3 Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum. at/en/kunsthaus-graz/architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. Fig 1.4 Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museumgenerates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014]. Fig 1.5, 1.6 Techniker, “Project ZED”, Techniker Ltd <http://www.techniker.co.uk/projects/detail. cfm?iProject_id=121> [Accessed 9 August 2014] Fig 2.1, 2.2 Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution/> [Accesssed 17 August 2014] Fig 2.3, 2.4 Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe> [Accesssed 17 August 2014] Fig 3.1 Balmond Studio Photographer, “Serpentine Pavillion 2002” in Archello < http://www. archello.com/en/project/serpentine-pavilion-2002#> [Accessed 19 August 2014]. Fig 3.2, 3.3 Sylvain Deleu, “Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002 / Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond + Arup” in ArchDaily <http://www.archdaily.com/344319/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2002-toyo-itocecil-balmond-arup/> [Acessed 19 August 2014]. Fig 3.4, 3.5 Deuling, Ton, “Serpentine Pavilion // Case Study” in Collective Architects <http://www. collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentine-pavilion-case-study> [Accessed 19 August 2014] Fig 3.6, 3.7 Gregg Lynn FORM 2014, “Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway” in Gregg Lynn FORM <http://glform.com/buildings/port-authority-triple-bridge-gateway-competition/> [Accessed 20 August 2014].