Above the Street

Above the Street

Connecting Buildings and People Through Agent-Based Design Interactions

by

Connor Hymes Bachelor of Science in Architecture The Catholic University of America 2014 A thesis submitted to the graduate school of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

degree

Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning March 2017 -

committee chair committee member

Christoph Klemmt A.A. Dipl.

Mara Marcu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

01

Abstract 1.0 DISENGAGEMENT WITHIN CITIES 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Connections Between Buildings

[10 - 19]

02

1.3 Sky Bridges

2.0 AGENT-BASED MODELING 2.1 Agents 2.2 Swarm Intelligence

[20 - 33]

03

2.3 Agent Design Research

3.0 AGENT SCALE EXAMPLE 3.1 Urban Scale Example 3.2 City Block Scale Example

[34 - 43]

3.3 Building Scale Example 3.3 Detail Scale Agent Example ++

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN

04

4.0

CASE STUDY 4.1 Manhattan 4.2 Urban Scale: Midtown 4.2a Evaluation

[44 - 79]

4.3 City Block Scale: Rockefeller Center 4.3a Rectangular Extrusions 4.3b Overlapping Line Offset 4.3c Evaluation 4.4 Building Scale 4.4a Agent Structural Analysis 4.4b Agent Circulation Paths 4.4c Evaluation 4.5 Detail Scale 4.5a Agent Body Mass 4.5b Agent Swarm on Mesh 4.5c Linear Mesh Combination 4.5d Building to Mesh 4.5e Evaluation 4.6 Design Proposal for Manhattan

05

5.0

DESIGN PROPOSAL EVALUATION 5.1 Design Proposal 5.2 Design Process

[80 - 81]

06

6.0 CONCLUSION

[82 - 83]

Bibliography Image Credits

Fig 0.01 - Aerial view of Midtown Manhattan

2

ABSTRACT This thesis responds to the future needs of Manhattan as an increasingly interconnected and diverse network of people, and their relationship to the city. This thesis reimagines how humans interact with the city, creating connections above the street as shared public spaces in between buildings.

The methodology applied to this research designs agent-based interactions at multiple scales of the city. This allows for the ability to refine agent to agent development in-between varying scales. This methodology is implemented as a way of programming agents and investigating how they can be used as design generators through their interaction with other agents and their environment. This recursive method of design creates relationships of agents at the local scale that form complex emergent systems with contextual relationships to the city.

This newly proposed urban framework of connective spaces intends to re-activate Manhattan. Through the connection of the city’s upper areas, this project will engage numerous buildings forging new relationships with Manhattan’s verticality.

3

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

Fig 1.01 - The dense modern city Midtown Manhattan in the 1940’s.

10

01

DISENGAGEMENT WITHIN CITIES

1.1 INTRODUCTION As modern cities evolve, with the amount of people and the density of the built environment, the perception of inhabitable spaces within the city evolves as well. This change of perception within cities can be attributed to in part by Thomas L. Schumacher and Colin Rowe through their development of Contextualism. Contextualism considers all knowledge only to be understood by first understanding its context.1 Evolving interactions between people and buildings can occur within these cities as a consequence of the perception of the city through its solid void relationship.

“The traditional city is primarily an experience of spaces defined by continuous walls of buildings which are arranged in ways that emphasizes the spaces and de-emphasizes the building volumes. It is an experience which can be thought of as resulting from a subtractive process in which spaces have been carved out of solid masses.”2 Modern cities are constructed habitats for people that are designed to provide a sense of meaning to many kinds of people.3 Within cities, “buildings through their composition and arrangement, influence how we feel and what we do within them.”4 Privatized high rises in cities typically contain some ground level public space and sometimes top level public amenities. To the public within the city, these buildings could be perceived as

11

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

just facades or street walls because they have no chance of ever inhabiting or experiencing the them. This condition creates a context where the private areas of the building could be perceived as impermeable solid masses and the public spaces as inhabitable voids. The perception of the city through this solid void lens creates a situation where the upper areas of the city could be perceived as solid masses that the public believe they cannot interact with. This situation would create a clear definition of public and private spaces allowing the voids of the city to be seen as a more interconnected spaces to the public.

Modern cities are and will continue to be complex systems that evolve in unpredictable organic manifestations.

“While cities have traditionally provided stable hierarchal spatial organizations appropriate to the once relatively uniform nature of social composition and concentrated political power, the contemporary city has liquefied into a dispersed urbanity - a constellation of polynucleated attractors, or downtowns, in which architecture is but one more network with infrastructure as its vector of mobility.”5 Designing within these complex systems is challenging because the modern city seems to evolve organically whether it be through

Fig 1.02 (top) - The Exiample. Cerda’s extension for Barcelona Fig 1.03 (bottom) - Steven Holl’s proposal for Manhattan. Parallax Towers.

social change, political forces, recent culture changes natural disasters, increase in population, or even war. The traditional city laid out on a grid is not as predictable as the modern city in its changing state.6 The investigations conducted for this thesis intend to create connective networks between buildings using agent-based systems as a way to design for the complex evolving city. Agents are singular programmed elements within a simulated environment, these agents can interact with other agents and elements in their environment.7 The design methodology for this thesis begins by investigating agent-based systems and their use within multiple scales of the city; urban, city block, building, and detail scale. These research investigations intend to discover how agent-based systems interact at different scales of the city ultimately developing into a cohesive emergent system that interacts with the city at multiple scales. This thesis deals directly with the evolving city, in its state of intrinsic vertical growth and densification, in an effort to create connections to the vertical landscape within major cities.

This will allow people to engage with the upper area of the city and buildings through an agent-based design that is responsive to the evolving nature of the modern city.

1.2 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BUILDINGS Connectivity between people in large scale urban environments allows for possible in-

12

teractions that enhance the creation of the complex city culture within large dense cities. The complex social interactions created by these connections can result in dense environments and dense cultures found in cities that have created what is now modern culture.8 This human density and the density of the built environment found within cities is a circumstance that will only increase with time. As the human population continues to grow and more people migrate to cities there will be a necessity for more available living space, working space, and outdoor space.9 The increasing building heights within cities is an example of how cities are trying to create more room for the amount of people in cities. This verticality allows for more people to live in these dense cities but could create a disengagement between people at the tops of these buildings and the people on the ground level.10 “The human scale, which has dominated the cities throughout the history of mankind suddenly that scale was scattered, and we could not feel at home in these places”11 Connections between buildings have the potential to create a more engaged and connected environment because of the relationships buildings have with people at the human scale12 The idea of a multitude of building connections can evolve into a “practice of architecture, which has traditionally been aligned with permanence and

13

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

stability that must change to accommodate and take advantage of the rapid changes and increased complexities of the contemporary realities.”13 In the process of creating an engaged connected environment one should look at the reality of the modern city and its components. Building heights have grown beyond what was expected since the first city grids were laid out, but architects and planners are still using the same programmatic components of public program on the ground floor and roof, leaving the rest of the building privatized and closed off to the public.14 This programmatic uniformity of public program on the ground level and a more privatized program on the upper levels was successful in cities like Barcelona. When Cerda created the masterplan expansion for the Eixample in the 19th century, he created this divide of public program on the ground level and diversified program on the upper levels. This urban organization was somewhat successful by allowing the city to always be in a state of constant motion through a split program within the block that balanced living and working.15 Translating this programmatic distribution to major cities with buildings rising above 500’ creates an uneven balance of program, where only about 10% of the building contains public programs rather than 50%. The buildings that rise above the city could be perceived as a series of facades or walls because the majority of the public has no chance to interact with buildings that

Fig 1.04 (top) - Linked Hybrid, Beijing, China Fig 1.05 (middle) - Minneapolis skyway Fig 1.06 (bottom) - The end of the High Line

Fig 1.07 (top) - Cincinnati Skywalk interior Fig 1.08 (bottom) - Cincinnati Skywalk at the Chiquita Center

14

are mainly privatized.16 Creating connections to buildings in upper areas is a possibility being explored as a method for the public to interact with buildings.

“Spaces and citizens that are divided according to predetermined classifications, they become atomized particles that respond only to themselves and are left to negotiate a world without the connective tissue that weaves individual buildings into a collective.”17

“Isolated buildings of a single function, the suburban norm, typical at the modern city’s periphery, give way to these projects to hybrid buildings with diverse programs.

An open association of spaces to program suggestions is fertilized by gathering and juxtaposing a variety of activities.”18

Connecting two separate buildings above the ground can be done through the use of sky bridges, skywalks, or raised walkways.

Sky Bridge systems can range anywhere from two buildings connecting to multiple buildings and train stations connections.

One example of connections between buildings is Steven Holl’s building Linked Hybrid located in Beijing, China. A mixed use building complex that is described as “open city within a city”19 promoting encounters in the public spaces that range from commercial, residential, educational, and recreational.

Another example is the Minneapolis Skywalk in Minneapolis, it is a skybridge system that spans 8 miles and connects 69 blocks. This skybridge system connects offices, retail, hotels, and parking lots to create a raised connective level widely used by the public.20

Buildings that are isolated to a single function are common in major cities with high rise buildings. Without nonstandard buildings that disrupt building typology, there may be a necessity for connections to these buildings potentially diversifying them. Connections could permeate these programmatically monotone buildings and create

Connections between buildings are typically implemented as positive measures to enhance building and city activity, but they have also created undesirable situations in some urban environments. For example, the skywalks in Cincinnati, Ohio were constructed during the 1960’s to create interior retail spaces that could compete with the

Steven Holl wrote on the importance of diversifying program through nonstandard typology.

15

circulation allowing people reengage with high rises. The engagement of many buildings could create a system of interconnected programmatically diverse spaces above the street.

1.3 SKY BRIDGES

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

Fig 1.09 (top) - Aerial view of the High Line Fig 1.10 (bottom) - The High Line

16

development of growing suburban malls.

This idea seemed beneficial at first, allowing skywalks to pass throughout buildings, but in the end the skywalks were unsuccessful because “urban planners believed that it discouraged street level foot traffic”.21 Cincinnati is not a very dense city considering population or building density which plays a big factor on its failing skywalks.21 The skywalks in Cincinnati are raised only about a level or two above the ground creating minimal visual and retail separation with the ground level. With a more densified population, building density, and a more separation between the ground level and the connective level Cincinnati’s skywalks could have stood a chance in creating connections and engaging people and buildings.22 One of the most successful architectural sky walks is the High Line, located in New York. The high line was constructed in 2009 and is an elevated series of public greenspaces spanning on a reconstructed railway.

The High Line has become a destination and landmark within the city, stimulating economic growth around the area. The high line itself does not connect to any building in particular, it moves from the end of the Meatpacking district to Hudson yards.

The High Lines’ success is based off of the changing nature of New York and the projects potential to create future development within that area of the city, sparking the public’s intrest.24

17

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

Skywalks and skybridge systems within large modernized cities that are able to accommodate the variety of people that inhabit them, like the High Line and the Minnesota Skywalk can become successful elements within dense urban environments.

NOTES

1. Thomas L Schumacher, Contextualism: Urban Ideals + Deformations (Cambridge, MA: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 298.

2. Ibid, 296.

3. Eric W. Sanderson, Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York (New York: Abrams, 2013), 210.

4. Ibid, 222.

5. Thom Mayne and Stan Allen, Combinatory Urbanism: The Complex Behavior of the Collective Form (Culver City, CA: Stray Dog Café, 2011), 27.

6. Thomas L Schumacher, Contextualism: Urban Ideals + Deformations (Cambridge, MA: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 297.

7. Paul Coates, Programming Architecture (London: Routledge, 2010), 89.

8. Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan (New York: Monacelli, 1994), 242-243.

9. Alejandro Aravena, “My Architectural Philosophy? Bring the Community into the Process,” TED video, 15:49, uploaded by “TEDGlobal,” October, 2014, https://www.ted.com/talks/alejandro_aravena_ my_architectural_philosophy_bring_the_community_ into_the_process.

10. Jon Ronson, New York Above 800, The New York Times, January 02, 2016, https://www.nytimes. com/interactive/2016/06/05/magazine/new-york-life. html#/on-observation-decks-selfies-empire-statebuilding.

11. Jan Gehl, “Changing Mindsets About Urban Planning and Living,” YouTube video, 18:21, uploaded by “European Foundation Centre,” May 31, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lid9ELzzT8Y.

18

12. Ibid.

13. Thom Mayne and Stan Allen, Combinatory Urbanism: The Complex Behavior of the Collective Form (Culver City, CA: Stray Dog Café, 2011), 29.

14. Thomas L Schumacher, Contextualism: Urban Ideals + Deformations (Cambridge, MA: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 301.

15. Manuel de Solai-Morales, Ten Lessons on Barcelona: Urbanistic Episodes That Have Made the Modern City (Barcelona: Col·legi D’Arquitectes De Catalunya, 2008),20.

16. Claire and Max, “Apparences,” Vimeo video, 4:08, uploaded by “Claire&Max,” January 10, 2016, https://vimeo.com/151292804.

17. Thom Mayne and Stan Allen, Combinatory Urbanism: The Complex Behavior of the Collective Form (Culver City, CA: Stray Dog Café, 2011), 31.

18. Steven Holl, Edge of a City (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991), 15.

19. “Linked Hybrid / Steven Holl Architects”, ArchDaily.com, last modified September 08, 2009, http://www.archdaily.com/34302/linked-hybrid-stevenholl-architects.

20. Kim Ode, “Minneapolis Skyway System Is Biggest in the World – and about to Get Bigger,” Star Tribune, last modified January 23, 2016, http://www. startribune.com/biggest-skyway-system-in-the-worldminneapolis-is-about-to-get-bigger/366130581/#1.

21. John Yung, “The story behind Cincinnati’s Slowly Disappearing Skywalk System,” UrbanCincy, last modified February 22, 2012, http://www. urbancincy.com/2012/02/the-story-behind-cincinnatisslowly-disappearing-skywalk-system/.

19

Chapter 1: Disengagement Within Cities

23. “Largest Cities in North America By Population,” WorldAtlas.com, last modified December 04 2015, http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largestcities-in-north-america.html.

24. Anna Winston, “The High Line is a “pullingback from architecture” say Diller and Scofidio,” Dezeen, November 03, 2014, https://www.dezeen. com/2014/11/03/elizabeth-diller-ricardo-scofidiointerview-high-line-new-york/.

Fig 2.01 (top) - Birds flocking Fig 2.02 (bottom) - Fish swarming

20

02

AGENT-BASED MODELING

2.1 AGENTS An agent in computational terms is “an autonomous unit of computation. A piece of code that finds and uses its own data and makes its mind up about what to do”1 Agents, in the context of this research, are coded and designed to move within a given environment.

“Agents can be sent out to look for data with precise instructions about what to do with the data once accessed”2 The agents interact with other agents and programmed elements within the given environment. “Agent-based models have autonomous behavior and heterogeneity allowing for each agent the ability to behave on their own with individuality that is unique to other agents. Agent-based models also have adaptive behaviors that allow them to learn, imitate and evolve within simulations rather than repeating one behavior. These adaptive behaviors could be a related to location, proximity to other agents, or a number of pre-determined variables.”3 Agent-based modeling allows for the design of systems through bottom-up design methodologies rather than top-down systems.

Bottom up systems enable the designer to code the primary parts of the system and their relationship to one another generating an overall emergent system. A person has the ability do design the agent movements based on personal preferences or design in-

21

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

fluences, the end result creates a very complex emergent system of multiple agents interacting at a complexity that would not be possible using a top down design system.4 Agents can be utilized as design generator tools for multiple applications by prescribing more localized design functions to the agents. Designing agents at the local scale creates agent interaction with one another and can begin to create self-organizing systems. Agents themselves can be looked at separately in two categories, first as individual agents and second as groups of agents.5 This thesis becomes more concerned with the second category concerning the collection of agents and their interactions within their environment as an emergent system.

2.2 SWARM INTELLIGENCE Swarm intelligence, as defined by Neil Leach combines the designed functions of the agents at their primary level. Agents interacting among themselves can generate complex, generative, and emergent systems.6 “The swarm consists of a number of individuals who are normally in a reflexive relation to one another, and will show emergent structure as groups of boids flock together into aggregates then break up and reform”7

Fig 2.03 - Separation (top), alignment (middle), cohesion (bottom)

Swarms were initially created in order to imitate flocks of birds for animations. Each bird in the flock has a tendency to move according to its partner, without knowledge of the overall form of the flock. Within a flock “A bird doesn’t understand the overall flock. But it’s the interaction of these individual birds that then gives rise to a collective behavior, an emergent outcome/formation/ behavior at the local scale.”8 Simulating flocks of birds is not the intent of this thesis, but by understanding a bird and its relationship to the flock we can better understand the movement of an agent within a swarm. These flocking and swarming simulations are derived from Craig Reynolds, a computer scientist, programmer, and animator who worked for Sony. In the mid 80’s he developed ways of imitating flocks of birds for the film industry.

“The basic flocking model consists of three simple steering behaviors which describe how an individual boid maneuvers based on the positions and velocities its nearby flockmates.”9 This simulated flocking model contains three basic steering behaviors that individual agents interact with; separation, alignment, and cohesion.

22

2.3 AGENT DESIGN RESEARCH Separation: steer to avoid crowding local flockmates.

Alignment: steer towards the average heading of local flockmates.

Cohesion: steer to move toward the average position of local flockmates.10 Within flocking models, the agents react to other agents at a nearby distance allowing for localized customization of agents that are not aware of the entire form of the flock.

This has been described as bottom-up design methodology that can create complex systems from designing interactions at the smaller scale create emergent self-organizing systems.11 The design methodology behind the proposed architectural connections for this thesis is derived by using a multi agent-based system. This system will be investigated in multiple scales; the city, the block, and human scale. Investigating the agent design interaction at multiple scales of the city allows for the ability to examine relationship between scales through similar methods of using agents in architecture. This methodology is implemented as a way of programming agents and investigating how they can be implemented as design generators through their interaction with other agents and their environment. Design methodologies from this research are based off the teachings, research, and works of Craig Reynolds, Kokkugia and Jose Sanchez.

23

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

Design research for this thesis begins by testing how agents interact within simulations through the Processing software.

Processing is an open source computer programming language built for visual arts.

These simulations are created through four iterative series (pages 24 - 31) where agents are tested within given environments as a way to begin to look at agent to agent interactions. The outcomes of these iterations will help reveal information for future development at different scales. Elements of design for these iterations consist of; Enclosure: a 3 dimensional cube that the agents’ movement is restricted to.

Number of agents: how many agents are in the simulation.

Trail size: each agent draws a trail behind it recording its movement other agents have the ability to interact with these trails.

The agents are being directed by the forces of separation, alignment, and cohesion as defined by Craig Reynolds.

Fig 2.04 (left row) - Iteration 1.00 series Fig 2.05 (middle row) - Iteration 1.01 series Fig 2.06 (right row) - Iteration 1.02 series

24

AGENT ITERATION 1 PROCEDURE: Ground plane agent analysis of swarm behavior.

FUNCTION: Agents are restricted to movement on a two dimensional plane.

ANALYSIS: Based on the amount of cohesion the agents have more initial draw towards one another. This results more compact swarms as thin lines.

25

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

Fig 2.07 (left row) - Iteration 2.00 series Fig 2.08 (middle row) - Iteration 2.01 series Fig 2.09 (right row) - Iteration 2.03 series

26

AGENT ITERATION 2 PROCEDURE: Vertical agent analysis of swarm behavior.

FUNCTION: Agents begin on the ground plane and move vertically within the given environment.

ANALYSIS: This vertical iteration could mimic structural elements or vertical movement in larger building scale applications.

27

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

Fig 2.10 (left row) - Iteration 3.00 series Fig 2.11 (middle row) - Iteration 3.01 series Fig 2.12 (right row) - Iteration 3.02 series

28

AGENT ITERATION 3 PROCEDURE: Horizontal agent analysis of swarm behavior.

FUNCTION: Agents begin on a plane on the side of the enclosure. Agents move away from their starting point towards the other side of the enclosure.

ANALYSIS: This procedure most similarly mimics the horizontality of sky bridges. The horizontal agent movements range from simple tubular shapes to unorthodox combination of agents and trails.

29

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

Fig 2.13 (left row) - Iteration 4.00 series Fig 2.14 (middle row) - Iteration 4.01 series Fig 2.15 (right row) - Iteration 4.02 series

30

AGENT ITERATION 4 PROCEDURE: Interstitial space agent analysis of swarm behavior.

FUNCTION: Agents appear randomly within the enclosure. No initial directionality is given.

ANALYSIS: The alignment and cohesion strength create initial movements depending on agent proximity that create immensely different outcomes.

31

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

32

NOTES

1. Paul Coates, Programming Architecture (London: Routledge, 2010), 171.

2. Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2011),85.

3. Rahmatollah Beheshti, “Why AgentBased Modeling,” Coursera video, 24:24, https:// www.coursera.org/learn/systems-science-obesity/ lecture/PF0Ff/why-agent-based-modeling.

4. Ibid.

5. Paul Coates, Programming Architecture (London: Routledge, 2010), 89.

6. Neil Leach, Digital Tectonics (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 70-77.

7. Paul Coates, Programming Architecture (London: Routledge, 2010), 89.

8. Roland Snooks, “Volatile Formation., YouTube video, 56.58, uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

9. Craig Reynolds, “Boids,” Reynolds Engineering & Design, last modified June 29, 1995, http:// www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/.

10. Ibid.

11. Neil Leach, Digital Cities (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009),61.

33

Chapter 2: Agent Based Modeling

Fig 3.01 (top) - Kokkugia swarm urbanism diagrams of a self organized city morphology in Melbourne, Australia Fig 3.02 (middle) - Kokkugia urban swarm method Fig 3.03 (bottom) - Circulation networks that are self organizing

34

03

AGENT SCALE EXAMPLES

Research examples regarding agent scale will develop information gained from agent iteration series 1-4 (pages 24-31). Iterations 1-4 created agent-based interactions without using scale as a design factor. Agent to agent interaction that pertains to specific scales will allow for the development of emergent systems through a more architecturally coherent method. Agent scale examples are researched within four scales of the city; urban, city block, building, and detail. Research at the urban scale will research swarm urbanism and its interaction to important forces and elements within the city. The scale of the city block will research how an agent engages within a city block.

The scale of the building will investigate direct connections from one building to another. The detail scale will look into how these agents can be designed at the architectural detail level as a building skin.

3.1 URBAN SCALE EXAMPLE Urban scale agent design is investigated through swarm urbanism. Swarm urbanism is a design example of how architects are using technology and encoding design at the smallest level giving rise to an overall urban system. Previous research from agent iteration 1 (page 24-25) displays iterations of agent-based swarms that begin to create relationships within their own system that are similar to paths of circulation. These iterations are a step in the creation of swarming in urban systems using circulation paths

35

Chapter 3: Agent Scale Examples

as a tool of design. More in depth swarm urbanism studies from Roland Snooks and Robert Stuart-Smith, founders of Kokkugia, investigate “How you can encode the smallest element of the urban fabric, with a series of design rules, and look at the way those interact to generate a self-organized emergent city morphology.”1 Figure 3.01 and 3.02 are diagrammatic process of research Kokkugia conducted, investigating the self-organization of public space, program, and circulation networks.

Each system has their own programmed logic operating within the same environment.2 As a key concept, Kokkugia is “trying to break down some of the hierarchies that exist within architecture and urbanism, to see these things having nonlinear relationships so everything is mutually effecting another”3 In Kokkugia’s example, the intention is to create paths of circulation through design principles encoded in the agents that in turn, react to one another and their environment. The concept of swarm urbanism, in this example, is meant to code design intent of how circulation works letting the agents self-organize to create an urban system.4 Neil Leach describes the role of agents and

Fig 3.04 (top) - Woven composites Fig 3.05 (t middle) - Flinders Street bird’s eye Fig 3.06 (b middle) - Flinders Street interior Fig 3.07 (bottom) - Flinders Street axon

Fig 3.08 (top) - Urban Agency agent arrangement Fig 3.09 (t middle) - Urban Agency Fig 3.10 (b middle) - AADRL swarm printing Fig 3.11 (bottom) - Swarm printing structural analysis

36

their decision making process within swarm urbanism similarly.

“Agents should be seen as concrete, singular individual agents, and not as abstract agents that embody the collective intelligence of an entire society.”5 The advantage of a system of swarm intelligence, with agents interacting with one another, is that it has the potential to create unique end results that have relationships to both the city, at the larger scale, and agent to agent interactions, at the local scale.6 3.2 CITY BLOCK SCALE EXAMPLE Agent-based design at the scale of the city block scale looks at multiple buildings within a nearby region. Agents in this scale of design engage with multiple buildings in their surrounding area. Agent-based design at the scale of the city block is implemented in the Flinders Street (Fig 3.05 - 3.07) project proposed by Roland Snooks. This project is based off of research completed in Kokkugia’s speculative research Woven Bodies (Fig 3.04) using agentBody algorithms. AgentBody research uses “architectural behavior encoded at the sub-agent. The agents have a body which represents the bodies around it”7 Agents in this system form woven textures that are responsive to their environment.

At the scale of the city block, agent-based

37

Chapter 3: Agent Scale Examples

design systems are able to react to many different forces giving them the ability to form program, skin, and structure. This scale of agent-based design allows for more detailed elements to emerge that operate within an overall swarm intelligence.

3.3 BUILDING SCALE EXAMPLE At the scale of the building, agents have the possibility to connect two spaces within buildings that were previously completely separate spaces. Designing at a smaller scale allows for different agent interactions to be implemented for program, structure, and direct circulation paths.

Urban Agency (Fig 3.08 - 3.09) is a project by Kokkugia described as, “an organism capable of autonomous intelligent drift through the urban fabric is able to develop emergent architectural form and organization intrinsic or peculiar to its environment”.8 In this application, the behavior of the system is through the agent’s size within the environment. This approach to building scale agent design allows for self-organization creating new structures and unique programmatic relationships between buildings.

Another example of building scale agent design the project Swarm Printing: Aerial Robotic Bridge Construction (Fig 3.10 - 3.11) by the AADRL studio, led by Robert StuartSmith. This project is not in a city environment, but its scale is relatable to the scale

Fig 3.12 (top) - Composite fiber cliff house Fig 3.13 (middle) - Structural hierarchy Fig 3.14 (bottom) - Cliff house ornamental detail

38

of the building. This particular project uses drones in a simulation to construct a bridge using real time constraints of structural loads, materiality constraints, wind, and inclement weather. The importance of this swarm application is the structural design methodology through agent-based swarming techniques.9 At the scale of the building agent-based design begins to use design parameters that are more relatable to architecture than seen at other scales. The scale of the building is crucial when using agent-based design in architectural design methods because of the practical outcomes from its process.

3.4 DETAIL SCALE EXAMPLE At the detail scale of agent-based design, research is intended to relate towards architectural elements typically seen in facades or building skin systems. The project Cliff House by Kokkugia (Fig. 3.12 - 3.14) uses the methodology of designing agent behaviors at the smallest scale allowing them to interact with one another as an emergent system. This project creates a relationship between agents at the smallest scale of design and the overall architectural outcome.10 Structure and skin at the detail scale have a unique outcome from this agent-based strategy.

39

Chapter 3: Agent Scale Examples

Fig 3.51 (top) - Agents in space Fig 3.52 (middle) - Alignment Fig 3.53 (bottom) - Point attractor

Fig 3.54 (top) - Separation Fig 3.55 (middle) - Cohesion Fig 3.56 (bottom) - Mesh attraction

Agents in space

Separation

Alignment

Cohesion

Point Attractor

Mesh Attraction

40

++

ELEMENTS OF Agent-based DESIGN

As a precursor to the case study in chapter 4, this is a list of definitions for the agentbased actions that occur within simulations in Processing. Parameters and design rules that will be used specifically for this case study. agent size (population) - The number and position of agents can be determined within the simulations. The number of agents can greatly affect the overall outcome of the system. More agents allows for more localized agent interactions that effects the whole system. trail size - The trail length is drawn behind the agent as it moves. The agents’ previously traveled position is recorded and shown on screen. Trails are very important because other agents have the ability to interact with them and they can be exported into other programs as points for modeling The elements of separation, alignment, and cohesion were previously introduced through the project Boids by Craig Reynolds (pg 22-23) separation - Agents move away from other agents nearby alignment - Agents move in the same direction as other agents nearby cohesion - An agent moves toward the average location of other agents nearby

41

Chapter ++: Elements 4: Case of Agent-based Study Design

Interacting with the trail allows for simulations to become a more refined over time alignmentTrail - Similar to alignment, but this force allows for agents to align to previously drawn trails of other agents. cohesionTrail - Similar to cohesion, but this force allows for agents to move towards the average position of the trails drawn around them point attractors - Point attractors are defined points within a given environment that have coordinates. These points have the ability to draw agents closer or push agents away within a defined radius. Point attractors give agents a context to engage with that can relate to architecture or the cityscape. mesh attraction - Agents move near the mesh surface finding the closest surface point. Agents then change their direction and velocity in order to continue to find the next closest mesh point. stepSize - Agent trails are drawn on screen through a defined units of pixels in Processing. When Processing displays the trail, a smaller step size will display a trail following the agent closely, a bigger step size displays a trail following the agent within a bigger pixel grid.

42

NOTES

1. Roland Snooks, “Volatile Formation,” YouTube video, 56.58, uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

2. Roland Snooks and Robert Stuart-Smith, “Swarm Urbanism,” Kokkugia, last modified date 2009, http://www.kokkugia.com/swarm-urbanism.

3. Ronald Snooks, “Volatile Formation,” YouTube video, 56.58, uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

4. Ibid.

5. Neil Leach, Digital Cities (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009),61.

6. Ibid.

7. Roland Snooks, “Woven Composites,” Kokkugia, last modified 2012, http://www.kokkugia. com/woven-composites.

8. Roland Snooks, “Urban Agency,” Kokkugia, last modified 2005, http://www.kokkugia.com/ URBAN-AGENCY.

9. Robert Stuart-Smith, “AADRL Behavioural Production,” Kokkugia, last modified 2013, http://www. kokkugia.com/AADRL-swarm-printing-aerial-roboticbridge-construction.

10. Roland Snooks, “Volatile Formation,” YouTube video, 56.58, uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

43

Chapter 3: Agent Scale Examples

Fig 4.01 - Midtown, Manhattan showing urban swarming for scenario 4

44

04

CASE STUDY

4.1 MANHATTAN For the case study application of this thesis, research is conducted on multiple scales in order to create more intensified connections to the city through agent-based design. The scales of design include; the city, the city block, the building, and detail. The case study for this research contains applications within the urban scale site of Midtown, Manhattan. The research pertaining to this case study responds to the future needs of Manhattan as an increasingly interconnected and diverse network of people and their relationship to the city. Midtown, Manhattan is a region of the city that is highly dense with buildings and the people that inhabit them, providing the elements that create urban areas where people become disengaged with buildings.

Connections created from these four scales of agent-based research will create new ways to connect people to the disengaged areas of buildings, enriching environments for future growth of the city. This will allow Manhattan to evolve as a dense modern city that is not all facade, but a connected network of humans, buildings, and the environments they live in.

4.2 URBAN SCALE: MIDTOWN The design methodology for the swarm urbanism scenario begins through uncovering major influential elements within the city; public areas, greenspaces, and areas of transportation. Selected areas include Bry-

45

Chapter 4: Case Study

ant Park, Central Park, Times Square, Rockefeller Center, Grand Central Terminal, and all of the subway stops within the Midtown area(Fig. 4.09). By selecting these areas, a design intent is created that will connect these areas through proposed circulation paths through the agent emergent system.

After selecting these areas, attractor points are set within a digitally modeled environment of Midtown, these attractor points are then exported to Processing. In Processing simulations are run where agents interact with other agents, previously drawn trails, and attractor points. Through these design parameters the agent-based system is interacting with Midtown and will create an emergent system that is site specific. �The city operates as a dynamic, adaptive system, based on interactions with neighbours, informational feedback loops, pattern recognition and indirect control. Like any emergent system, the city is a pattern in time.’1 Within these time based scenarios, agents move throughout the city drawing trails behind them with the rules of separation, cohesion, and alignment. The agent interaction with one another creates an emergent system throughout the city creating a new urban grid at the upper level. Through simulations in Processing many scenarios can be created and tested by examining the agent to agent interaction as well as the overall

Fig 4.02 - Scenario 1, urban swarm Fig 4.03 - Scenario 2, urban swarm Fig 4.04 - Scenario 3, urban swarm

Possible urban applications Fig 4.05 - Scenario 1 process 1 Fig 4.06 - Scenario 2 process 2 Fig 4.07 - Scenario 3 process 3

46

Fig 4.08 - Scenario 4 time based scenario of final urban sequence

interaction of the city swarm. These scenarios are the emergence of a new level to Manhattan that is not dictated by the city grid. Swarming techniques create a new order to the city, scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Fig 4.02 -4.04, 4.08) are urban scale applications implementing agent-based systems connecting to buildings within Midtown.

47

Chapter 4: Case Study

4.2a EVALUATION These examples demonstrate how simple adjustments in the basic principles of separation, cohesion and alignment, at the scale of the agent to agent interaction, can have a greater effect on the final outcome of the whole. Scenario 4 (Fig 4.08) was chosen as the most applicable for this case study because it aligned with the points of attraction within the city.

Fig 4.09 - Selected influential elements in Midtown

48

Fig 4.10 - Section through Midtown showing the sectional programmatic diversification potential for urban swarm scenario 1 and 3.

49

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.11 - Rockefeller Center site development diagrams

AA

BB

DD

EE

CC

FF

50

4.3 CITY BLOCK SCALE: ROCKEFELLER CENTER The city block scale, specifically Rockefeller Center, transitions the design to a smaller scale within Midtown, Manhattan that gives rise to the ability to encode agents to create even more specific connections with their environment. At the scale of the city block there is an opportunity to create more intensified refinement of the urban swarm scenarios. This scaled down application is a way to create more specific agent design intent at the scale of the city block. The site of Rockefeller center was chosen for its density in terms of building heights and population diversity, containing a mix of tourists and locals moving through the site daily.

At the scale of the city block there are two methodologies examined (4.3a and 4.3b).

Each methodology has its own variation on the design intent, agent-based design interaction, and production of architectural geometry at the city block scale.

4.3a RECTANGULAR EXTRUSIONS This design iteration begins from the Comcast Building as the central point of Rockefeller Center. Agents will travel from the Comcast building towards buildings of interest within the vicinity. Before these connections are made this iteration begins with an in depth analysis of Rockefeller Center.

Research is done in order to create meaningful connections towards specific levels of intent. (Fig 4.11)

51

Chapter 4: Case Study

AA) Potential Future Engagement - The area of engagement is being targeted by the Department of City Planning to create more office development in the area that allows for taller buildings eventually creating less sectional programmatic diversity.2 BB) Public Level - Typical ground level circulation within Manhattan is set within the city’s grid.

CC) Second Level to the City - The emergence of a new level to the city, without the restraints of the city grid, allowing for opportunities of new complex connections between people and buildings.

DD) Ground Level Program - Currently the ground level of this site is somewhat diverse in the public and private programmatic spaces. The problem is that these programs do not translate up through the buildings, creating monotone levels of program throughout the upper levels.

EE) Buildings of Engagement - The buildings being engaged with in scenario are the Comcast Building, Tower 49, 623 5th Avenue, and the Olympic tower.

FF) Levels of Connection - Within the buildings, certain floors are being targeted for programmatic diversity or lack thereof. The Comcast building, 850’ tall with 70 stories, holds NBC Studios on the top and bottom floors and there are offices in the mid level

Fig 4.12 - Time based simulation of iteration 1 from an aerial view of Rockefeller Center from Processing

Fig 4.13 (top) - Rectangular extrusions extracted from agent trails drawn in Processing Fig 4.14 (middle) - Rectangular extrusions as architectural geometry in Rockefeller Center Fig 4.15 (bottom) - Section of rectangular extrusions

52

floors of the building. Connections are made in between the office floors and NBC studios, achieving a mix of program that will connect to other buildings. Tower 49, 615’ tall with 45 stories, is a commercial office building that has an art gallery on the 24th floor. There are also 12 vacant floors currently in this building that connections are being made to along with the artist gallery.

623 5th Avenue, 561’ tall with 36 stories, contains high end shopping on the ground level with offices in the tower above. Connections are made towards two groupings of office floors, the lower connection is made for its unique condition with the building in front of it. The Olympic Tower, 620’ tall with 51 stories, is a mixed use tower with residential and office floors within. At the 21st floor of the building program switches from commercial to residential, the connections take advantage of that condition connecting to floors directly above and below the program switch. Even though program is meant to permeate throughout the buildings they do aim to connect to specific levels in order to create an initial specific connections.

1) The process of design for 4.3a iteration 1 of the city block scale begins with agents moving through the simulation, in Processing, from the Comcast Building towards Tower 49, 623 5th Ave, and the Olympic Tower (Fig 4.12). The agents draw trails recording their path through the environment. The simulation is ended when the agents have connected with the buildings of interest.

53

Chapter 4: Case Study

These trails are recorded as an ordered list of points that are then imported into Grasshopper. Grasshopper is a programming tool that allows the user to design algorithms that can perform actions within Rhinoceros, a 3 dimensional modeling software.3 2) These points are then converted into lines that are representational of the agent trails recorded in Processing. These lines are extruded as rectangular elements (Fig 4.13).

These extrusions become representational of the path traveled from the Comcast Building to the buildings of interest as an architectural geometry. Designing the paths themselves is not the intent of this design process, it is the variation and connections among paths created from the agent interactions that is the important aspect of this design iteration.

Fig 4.16 (top) - Simulation 1 development diagram Fig 4.17 (middle) - Scenario 4 lines extruded, Iteration 2 Fig 4.18 (middle) - Scenario 4 edited, Iteration 2

Fig 4.19 (top) - Overlapping line hierarchy diagram when three separate lines overlap, Simulation 1 iteration 2 Fig 4.20 (middle) - Architectural geometry, iteration 2 Fig 4.21 (bottom) - Architectural geometry, iteration 2

L1 B

B

L2 1

L3

1 1

A

A

3

1 2

54

4.3b OVERLAPPING LINE OFFSET Iteration 2, at the city block scale, builds off of the agent city interaction previously designed in urban swarm scenario 4 (Fig 4.01 and 4.08). Iteration 2 extracts trails drawn in urban scenario 4 to develop a system with a more unified design strategy between scales. The process begins similar to iteration 1.

1) Agent trails are taken from the urban swarm scenario 4 and converted into rectangular extrusions representing circulation paths.

2) This system of extrusions is edited to reduce unnecessary circulation. When an extrusion makes a complete 90 degree angle from two components of the same length it is edited to a 45 degree path that creates a more direct connection (Fig 4.16).

Figure 4.17 shows rectangular extrusions before they are edited and Figure 4.18 shows the extrusions after.

3) The lines extracted from scenario 4 contain some lines that overlap and follow the same path even after they are edited in step 2. These redundant extrusions are moved beside the extrusion they are overlapping (Fig 4.19).

This design methodology creates formal hierarchy within the design that is represen-

55

Chapter 4: Case Study

tative of the initial urban swarm scenario 4 forces and the agent to agent interaction at the city scale and the city block scale (Fig 4.20 - 4.21).

Fig 4.22 (top) - SpaceStream rectangular agent system Fig 4.23 (middle) - 4.3a Rectangular Extrusions Fig 4.24 (bottom) - 4.3b Overlapping Line Offset

Fig 4.25 (top) - Iteration 1, 4.3a Rectangular Extrusions Fig 4.26 (bottom) - Iteration 2, 4.3b Overlapping Line Offset

56

4.3c EVALUATION: CITY BLOCK SCALE In both design iterations the orthogonal movement of agents and rectangular shape of the agents are a consistent part of the design methodology while designing within the city. The movement allows for the design to move throughout the city’s primarily rectilinear buildings. This design parameter works with the rational design choice of creating rectangular extrusions to connect the rectilinear architectural geometry to floors of buildings.

Rectangular agents, have been utilized in other projects for their contractibility and design aesthetic. Specifically SpaceStream by students at the Bartlett School of Architecture UCL (Fig 4.22). The project uses agent-based design to create architectural elements in the Stream House. The rectangular agents have the ability to create typical architectural elements within the house.

The design uses many agents shown as thin wires, these wires converge in certain areas in order to emphasize certain architectural elements and create a hierarchy within the system.4 Iteration 1 (Fig 4.23 and 4.25) is successful in the creation of meaningful specific relationships towards buildings of interest. But iteration 2 (Fig 4.24 and 4.26) is the more successful design for the city block scale.

Iteration 2 extracts agent trails from the urban scenario 4 giving the design a more

57

Chapter 4: Case Study

meaningful relationship to the urban scale and the city block scale. Hierarchy between the overlapping and redundant agent trails within iteration 2 create another level of design intensification towards the scale of the city block. This design methodology creates formal hierarchy within the design that is representative of the initial forces that the urban swarm scenario 4 reacts to within Midtown and the agent to agent interaction with trails at the city block scale.

Fig 4.27 (top) - Structure from agent trails Fig 4.28 (middle) - Edited and additional structure, shown in red Fig 4.29 (bottom) - Vertical structure, shown in red

4.4 BUILDING SCALE At the building scale of design, agent interaction begins to transition towards the creation of more architectural elements. At this scale, research is conducted through two iterations. The first iteration 4.4a looks at major structural connections, and the second iteration 4.4b begins to create circulation paths.

4.4a AGENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Agent-based structural design is intended to create structural elements supporting the paths created from the city block scale. The structure enhances the agent design from previous scales adding another layer of development.

1) From the previous scale of the city block the rectangular architectural geometry is exported as a mesh from Rhinoceros to Processing.

2) In Processing, agents align to the mesh as they simulate through the environment.

The agent trails drawn represent structural members.

3) The agent trails are imported into Grasshopper and extruded as structural members (Fig 4.27). The structural system extracted is not always a cohesive system. Structural elements are added in order for the structure to work as a unit. In figure 4.28 the red represents added structural elements.

58

Fig 4.30 (top) - Agent mesh interaction, Processing Fig 4.31 (middle) - Structure for possible commercial program in red Fig 4.32 (bottom) - Structure for possible green space in red

4) Vertical structural elements are produced with the same agent mesh alignment procedure. From nearby buildings, meshes are placed every 100’ and agents are simulated over them to create a standardized vertical structural support (Fig 4.29).

The structural system created becomes the systems primary structure. The next steps continue this iteration with additional potential program, creating the need for more structural support. Commercial and greenspaces are the two spaces being tested.

4) In Processing, an agent size that is greater than the one used in step 2 is simulated over the geometry to create a secondary structure. More agents allow for more interactions with a variety of outcomes(Fig. 4.30).

4.1) Agent trails are extracted from Processing and produced in Rhinoceros as secondary structural elements in support of the new proposed program within the given area designated for commercial use (Fig 4.31).

Structure for the greenspace is designed to have less structural elements interfering with the greenspace 4.2) Step 4.1 is mimicked here but the agents are directed towards the bottom of the mesh surface. The elements in this step become the secondary structural support primarily for green spaces.

59

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.33 (top) - Mesh as planes for each route.

Fig 4.34 (bottom) - Agent mesh simulation

Fig 4.35 (top) - Paths edited for circulation Fig 4.36 (bottom) - Paths edited for more normal circulation

60

4.4b AGENT CIRCULATION PATHS

4.4c BUILDING SCALE EVALUATION

Agent-based design at the scale of the building focuses on the circulation paths traveled from one building to another through the generic paths as architectural geometry defined at the scale of the city block. This more intensified application allows for a variety of paths of circulation based on the agent movement.

At the building scale, the structural and circulation iterations begin to create architectural language within the agent-based system of connections. This scale of design allows for the bridge between buildings to become a more typically structured element of design. It also allows for some variety in program, with options for different structural adaptations along the bridge. The circulation paths, created from the agent trails, allow for a unique promenade throughout spaces and is a result of the nature of agentbased design method used. Both of these systems work well together at the scale of the building, by creating agent-based connections through more architectural language than seen in previous scales of design in this case study. Structural variation based on program will allow for similar structural language within the project while allowing for hierarchy of primary and secondary elements.

1) Mesh planes are created from the architectural geometry produced at the scale of the city block (Fig 4.33).

2) The planes are imported separately into Processing where a low number of agents interact with the mesh (Fig 4.34) 3) Agent trails are extracted from processing and extruded as paths in Rhinoceros (Fig 4.35).

4) The paths are then edited to create more normalized circulation within the system.

These paths as a result of the agent trails create a variety of circulation paths and experiences of the space.

61

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.37 - Iteration 1 simulation 2 agents interacting with the architectural geometry from Processing

Fig 4.38 - 4.4a stigmergy structural development axon iterations

62

4.5 DETAIL SCALE The fourth scale of design investigates agent interactions at the detail scale. There are four iterations to this scale investigation; 4.5a Agent Body Mass, 4.5b Agent Swarm on Mesh, 4.5c Linear Mesh Combination, and 4.5d Building to Mesh. At the detail scale, agents begin to interact with the architectural geometry created at the scale of the city block. This scale creates possibilities for the creation of skin, and cladding, and secondary structural elements.

4.5a AGENT BODY MASS Agent Body Mass uses agent to agent and agent to mesh interaction to create a structural system around the 4.3a Iteration 1 architectural geometry (Fig 4.23 and 4.25).

1) The architectural geometry (Fig 4.15) is re imported into Processing as a series of meshes. Simulations are run where the agents interact with the mesh as a way to create a cohesive structural system around the path(Fig 4.37).

This method of generative design is referred to as stigmergy, when agents react to something they have built themselves creating a complex structure. Stigmergy is seen in nature which is similar to this instance of design “where it’s the agent moving around some type of structural architectural geometry in the way that termites moves around mud to generate intensively complex formations”5

63

Chapter 4: Case Study

2) Agent trails from Processing (Fig 4.34) are imported into Grasshopper and edited to create relationships between the architectural geometry and the structure. Stigmergy techniques were implemented as the structural simulation, through many iterations, to create the desired structural geometrical relationships (Fig 4.38).

The agents simulating over the path do not completely align to the path as they begin to cut corners in order to become a more aligned unit of agents. This design choice was another way to reduce swarming around the architectural geometry reducing its’ mass. Figures 4.39, 4.40, and 4.41 display the combination of the architectural path geometry and structural simulation of the Agent Body Mass iteration interacting as one system.

Fig 4.39 (top) - 4.4a path and structure combined, zoomed Fig 4.40 (bottom) - 4.4a path and structure combined, plan

64

Fig 4.41 - 4.4a path and structure combined, axon

65

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.42 (top) - Simulation 2 agents interacting with simulation 1, Processing Fig 4.43 (middle) - Simulation 2 agents interacting with simulation 1, Processing Fig 4.44 (bottom) - Simulation 2 agents interacting with simulation 1, Processing

Fig 4.45 (top) - Simulation 2 agents interacting with simulation 1, Processing Fig 4.46 (middle) - Simulation 2 extruded as structure Fig 4.47 (bottom) - Simulation 2 extruded as structure development

66

Fig 4.48 (top) - Simulation 2 extruded as structure development

4.5b AGENT SWARM ON MESH Agent Swarm on mesh uses agent to mesh interactions to create a more cohesive relationship from the architectural geometry to the structural elements.

1) This iteration deforms the rectangular architectural geometry creating a more rounded representation of the extruded path.

2) The geometry is then imported into Processing and agent mesh interactions are tested (Fig 4.42 - 4.45).

3) The agent trails are imported into Grasshopper and extruded into structural elements (Fig 4.46 - 4.47).

4) These structural elements are tested and developed in order to move around the architectural paths as desired (Fig 4.48), This agent testing, can still be a rectangular unit because of how the trail lines from Processing are interpreted and formalized in Grasshopper. This iterative investigation gives the ability for a cohesive structural element to fully interact with the architectural path.

67

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.49 (top) - Informal mesh around extruded agent trails Fig 4.50 (middle) - Agents interacting with informal mesh, from Processing Fig 4.51 (bottom) - Second agent simulation of more structural elements

Fig 4.52 (top) - Linear agent extrusion development Fig 4.53 (middle) - Linear extrusions combined with black extrusions, elevation Fig 4.54 (bottom) - Linear extrusions combined with black extrusions, axon

68

4.5c LINEAR MESH COMBINATION At the building scale, the intent for this iteration is to make more direct paths to buildings creating a hierarchy of architectural elements that are a result of the agent interaction.

1a) In processing, agents are directed towards a building that has been previously engaged with in the city block scale iterative investigations.

1b) The agent trails are imported into Rhinoceros where an informal mesh is created around each trail (Fig 4.49).

2a) The informal mesh is re imported into Processing where agents interact with it (Fig 4.50).

2b) This is again imported and translated into Rhinoceros. These agent trails are designed to be a more dense base element of the path (Fig 4.51).

3a) Agents trails from step 1a are reconfigured as more linear elements (Fig 4.52) creating a relationship to their connection to the building and the city block scale agent application as more linear elements.

3b) Agent trails are combined from step 2b (Fig 4.51) and 3a (Fig 4.52) to create a cohesive system in relation to previous scales of design (Fig 4.53 and 4.54).

69

Chapter 4: Case Study

The overall path within this system is a combination of the linear elements and sporadic elements of this agent-based design system. These paths work as intermediate connections to the building in which the scale of the city and city block do not consider in the design. This agent design expands on the agent-based circulation paths created at the building scale at the scale of the detail.

Fig 4.55 (top) - Mesh in Rhinoceros, red is the agent start area and the dark grey is the mesh that will be interacted with.

Fig 4.56 (middle) - Agent simulation in Processing Fig 4.57 (bottom) - Architectural geometry type 1

Fig 4.58 (top) - Architectural geometry type 2 Fig 4.59 (middle) - Architectural geometry type 3 Fig 4.60 (bottom) - Architectural geometry interaction with buildings

70

4.5d BUILDING TO MESH This building scale iteration directs agents to move in a more linear direction when their position is close to a building, when the agents move farther away they begin to have more interaction more with one another.

1a) The architectural geometry created from the city block scale is reinterpreted to allow for mesh interaction at areas that are farther away from the buildings. Figure 4.55 shows the agent start area in red and the mesh being interacted with as dark grey.

1b) The new meshes are imported into processing and the trails are recorded (Fig 4.56).

2a) Agent trails from processing are re imported into Grasshopper and edited to create hierarchy of visual language among extruded elements (Fig 4.57 - 4.60).

This architectural design intent allows for a more controlled system in terms of how the trails interact with buildings throughout the city. This process creates more linear elements closer to buildings and more sporadic elements farther away as the agents interact with the mesh. This method continues some of the practical design parameters in previous scales of design. By allowing the agents to freely interact with the mesh in certain areas creates new diversified spaces that are unrestricted by the rectilinear city within those moments. This design also al-

71

Chapter 4: Case Study

lows for the system to connect to buildings through a rectilinear outline similar to the process at the scale of the city block.

Fig 4.61 - Detail scale diagram showing the transformation from the architectural geometry.

72

4.5e DETAIL SCALE EVALUATION Agent design iterations at the detail scale allow for a more intensified agent design to occur. Design at the detail scale allows for the creation of small scale agent-based design that is also able to influence other scales of design. In 4.5a Agent Body Mass agents created a more generic structural massing around the architectural paths. 4.5b Agent Swarm on Mesh the agents are designed to completely interact with the geometry becoming a cohesive structural encasement of the path. 4.5c Linear Mesh Combination begins to create hierarchy within the paths allowing for more linear elements to interact with sporadic elements. 4.5d Building to Mesh builds off of 4.5c and reinterprets the linear elements with their proximity to nearby buildings The iterations at this scale give a more intensified agent interaction with buildings.

The architectural geometry created deals with obstacles not seen at the scale of the city, city block, or building scale. Agentbased design at the detail level creates a level of complexity from the agent to mesh interactions that allows for unique methods of creating skin around the architectural geometry.

73

Chapter 4: Case Study

Fig 4.62 (top) - Urban swarm scenario 4 Fig 4.63 (middle) - Axon, final design Fig 4.64 (bottom) - Interior, final design

Fig 4.65 (top) - System components, final design Fig 4.66 (middle) - Elevation, final design Fig 4.67 (bottom) - Building connection, final design

74

4.6 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR MANHATTAN This case study is completed by combining all scales of design as a connective system between buildings above the street. This final project is designed at multiple scales of the city of Midtown, Manhattan through a recursive process of agent-based design.

This newly proposed urban framework of connective spaces intends to re-activate Manhattan. Through the connection of the city’s upper areas, this project will engage numerous buildings forging new relationship with Manhattan’s verticality.

Located adjacent to Rockefeller center, this project emerges as a new series of connections within the city for people to engage with. The variety of spatial qualities has the potential to facilitate new program that could benefit the public and existing buildings. This system offers vast potential for development not only at the site but for all of Midtown.

This system begins at the urban scale of Midtown, Manhattan using the previous iteration from 4.2, scenario 4 (Fig 4.62). This scenario has the qualities that engage the city on intimate and large scale applications.

This urban scale design connects major public spaces and systems of transportation as an emergent urban swarm of human circulation paths. At the scale if the city block, the overlapping line offset technique is used to create formal hierarchy within the design that is representative of the initial

75

Chapter 4: Case Study

urban swarm forces and the agent to agent interaction. At the building scale, structural elements are created within the horizontal and vertical rectangular extrusions from the scale of the city block. Circulation paths are created from one building to another as direct paths of circulation creating a variety of spatial experiences. At the detail scale, techniques from 4.5b, 4.5c, and 4.5d are used in order to create this final system.

4.5d introduced the methodology of restricting agent movement to a linear directionality when they are closer to buildings. This method is enhanced for the final design by using the rectilinear extrusion from the city block scale, as a solid elements that sits in between the building and the bridge. This bridge to building relationship has the potential to alter perceptions of the solid void relationships of the upper areas of the city.

Fig 4.68 - Final design axon

76

77

Chapter 4: Case Study

78

NOTES

1. Neil Leach, Digital Tectonics (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 61.

2. “Greater East Midtown.” NYC.gov, last modified January 03, 2017, http://www1.nyc.gov/site/ planning/plans/greater-east-midtown/greater-eastmidtown.page.

3. Jose Sanchez, “Rhino3D Grasshopper Tutorial 01 - Intro” YouTube video, 9:06, uploaded by “Jose Sanchez,” May 18, 2013, https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=xKNoGHXlIdI.

4. Soomeen Hahm, ” Wonderlab: Crafting Space,”MArch Architectural Design (SD), October 22, 2015, https://issuu.com/bartlettarchucl/docs/ bart_ad15_issuu.

5. Roland Snooks, “Volatile Formation,” YouTube video, 56.58, uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

79

Chapter 4: Case Study

80

05

DESIGN PROPOSAL EVALUATION

5.1 DESIGN PROPOSAL

5.2 DESIGN PROCESS

The outcome of this thesis creates a series of building connections over a site adjacent to Rockefeller Center that emerges from agent-based interactions over Midtown, Manhattan. This design intends to create new ways of connecting to and experiencing the upper areas of the city.

The successful aspect of this design process comes from the method of the creating multiple iterations of agent-based interactions at many scales of the city. This process designs self-organizing systems at different scales of the city. These systems interact with each other to create a connection between all scales of design.

This project was successful in its direct connections to buildings that allow people to move around multiple spaces above the street. The variety of outcomes that occur through the design process create new and challenging ways of designing inhabitable spaces. Through the design methodology, this outcome mainly deals with the architectural design elements of the point and the line to create form. These elements become apparent in the outcome through the collection of extruded lines that become inhabitable spaces. This outcome creates the most architecturally significant elements at the scale of the building and detail scale where the structure and skin are created.

The end result does not create a building, but a series of intermediate architectural spaces that could facilitate development, programmatic diversity, and new ways to connect with buildings in the upper areas of the city.

Some difficulties found with the final design lie in structural attachments to existing buildings and the overall support of the new sky bridge system.

81

Chapter 5: 4: Design Case Study Proposal Evaluation

Some of the difficulties lie within the adaptability of the connections proposed. Since the architectural geometries created at the city block scale are extracted from the initial urban swarm they become somewhat fixed when transitioning to smaller scales of design. This was meant to benefit the process, showing how the initial influences of the city could potentially affect each scale. But at the city block scale and building scale there is some desire for more contextual connections to specific areas of buildings.

The design process is very difficult because of the numerous variables that can be edited within each step of the process. The variables of mesh settings and agent movement can create a variety of different outcomes from minor adjustments.

82

06

CONCLUSION

This thesis set out to create urbanistic architecture that could potentially connect people to the upper areas of Manhattan. Through the agent-based design interactions at different scales of the city the importance of this design and design method emerged.

The complexity of agent-based design is developed through the design of the components within a given environment, this provides a method of form generation that can be related to architectural design intent.

As a recursive process, further research could begin to design smaller and more detailed elements continuing this process of designing through scales of the city. There are also a lot of interesting possibilities of agent-based tectonics at the detail scale that could be pursued in the future.

83

Chapter 6: 4: Conclusion Case Study

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schumacher, Thomas L. Contextualism: Urban Ideals + Deformations. ambridge, MA: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Sanderson, Eric W. Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York. New York: Abrams, 2013.

Mayne Thom and Stan Allen. Combinatory Urbanism: The Complex Behavior of the Collective Form.

Culver City, CA: Stray Dog Café, 2011.

Coates, Paul. Programming Architecture. London: Routledge, 2010.

Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: Monacelli, 1994.

Aravena, Alejandro. “My Architectural Philosophy?

Bring the Community into the Process.” TED video, 15:49. Uploaded by “TEDGlobal,” October, 2014. https://www.ted.com/talks/alejandro_ aravena_my_architectural_philosophy_bring_the_ community_into_the_process.

Ronson, Jon. New York Above 800, The New York Times, January 02, 2016. https://www.nytimes. com/interactive/2016/06/05/magazine/new-yorklife.html#/on-observation-decks-selfies-empirestate-building.

Gehl, Jan. “Changing Mindsets About Urban Planning and Living.” YouTube video, 18:21.

Uploaded by “European Foundation Centre,” May 31, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Lid9ELzzT8Y. Solai-Morales , Manuel de. Ten Lessons on Barcelona: Urbanistic Episodes That Have Made the Modern City. Barcelona: Col·legi D’Arquitectes De Catalunya, 2008.

Claire and Max. “Apparences.” Vimeo video, 4:08.

Uploaded by “Claire&Max,” January 10, 2016. https://vimeo.com/151292804.

Holl, Steven. Edge of a City. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991.

Coates, Paul. Programming Architecture. London: Routledge, 2010.

“Linked Hybrid / Steven Holl Architects.” ArchDaily. com. Last modified September 08, 2009. http:// www.archdaily.com/34302/linked-hybrid-stevenholl-architects.

Reynolds, Craig. “Boids.” Reynolds Engineering & Design. Last modified June 29, 1995. http://www. red3d.com/cwr/boids/.

Ode, Kim. “Minneapolis Skyway System Is Biggest in the World – and about to Get Bigger.” Star Tribune. Last modified January 23, 2016. http:// www.startribune.com/biggest-skyway-systemin-the-world-minneapolis-is-about-to-getbigger/366130581/#1.

Yung, John. “The story behind Cincinnati’s Slowly Disappearing Skywalk System.” UrbanCincy.

Last modified February 22, 2012. http://www. urbancincy.com/2012/02/the-story-behindcincinnatis-slowly-disappearing-skywalk-system/.

“Largest Cities in North America By Population,” WorldAtlas.com. Last modified December 04 2015. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largestcities-in-north-america.html.

Winston, Anna. “The High Line is a “pulling-back from architecture” say Diller and Scofidio.” Dezeen, November 03, 2014. https://www.dezeen. com/2014/11/03/elizabeth-diller-ricardo-scofidiointerview-high-line-new-york/.

Burry, Mark. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2011.

Beheshti, Rahmatollah. “Why Agent-Based Modeling.”

Coursera video, 24:24. https://www.coursera. org/learn/systems-science-obesity/lecture/PF0Ff/ why-agent-based-modeling.

Snooks, Roland. “Volatile Formation.” YouTube video, 56.58. Uploaded by TAMUarchitecture, 23 April, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULkRh-rJGyg.

Leach, Neil. Digital Cities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

Snooks, Roland and Robert Stuart-Smith. “Swarm Urbanism.” Kokkugia. Last modified date 2009. http://www.kokkugia.com/swarm-urbanism.

Snooks, Roland. “Woven Composites” Kokkugia, last modified 2012, http://www.kokkugia.com/wovencomposites.

Snooks, Roland. “Urban Agency.” Kokkugia. Last modified 2005. http://www.kokkugia.com/ URBAN-AGENCY. Stuart-Smith, Robert. “AADRL Behavioural Production.” Kokkugia. Last modified 2013. http://www. kokkugia.com/AADRL-swarm-printing-aerialrobotic-bridge-construction.

“Greater East Midtown.” NYC.gov. Last modified January 03, 2017. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/greater-east-midtown/greater-eastmidtown.page.

Sanchez, Jose. “Rhino3D Grasshopper Tutorial 01 Intro.” YouTube video, 9:06. Uploaded by “Jose Sanchez,” May 18, 2013. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=xKNoGHXlIdI. Hahm, Soomeen. ” Wonderlab: Crafting Space.”

MArch Architectural Design (SD). October 22, 2015. https://issuu.com/bartlettarchucl/docs/ bart_ad15_issuu.

IMAGE CREDITS

0.01 08 Aerial view of Midtown Manhattan, Source: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/ showthread.php?t=21249&page=8 CHAPTER 1 1.01 10 Midtown, Manhattan from 10,000 feet in the air 1944, Source: http:// wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread. php?t=21249&page=8 1.02 12 Aerial view of The Exiample, Source: http://blog.ghatapartments. com/2015/10/15/the-eixample-districtbarcelona/ 1.03 12 Parallax Towers by Steven Holl, Source: http://www.zeroundicipiu. it/2012/01/11/i/9/

pg#

Fig. #

pg#

Fig. #

* All images created by Connor Hymes unless otherwise noted.

1.07 14 Cincinnati Skywalk interior, Source: http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot. com/2009/02/take-virtual-tour-of-cincinnati-skywalk.html 1.08 14 Cincinnati Skywalk at the Chiquita Center, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Cincinnati_Skywalk 1.09 14 Aerial view of the High Line, Source: https://www.nycgovparks.org/ parks/the-high-line/photos 1.10 16 The High Line, Source: https:// www.nycgovparks.org/parks/the-high-line/ photos CHAPTER 2

1.04 14 Linked Hybrid Building in Bejing China, Source: http://www.archdaily. com/34302/linked-hybrid-steven-holl-architects

2.01 20 Birds flocking, Source: http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143051/ Winged-whirlwind-Starlings-dramatic-tornado-formation-thousands-gather-settingsun.html

1.05 14 Minneapolis Skyway, Source: http:// www.startribune.com/minneapolis-skywaytraffic-gets-a-boost/83077937/

2.02 20 Fish swarming, Source: http://www. iaacblog.com/programs/swarm-intelligence/

1.06 14 The end of the High Line, Source: http://www.archdaily.com/24362/the-newyork-high-line-officially-open

2.03 22 Separation, alignment, and cohesion from Craig Reynolds ‘Boids’, Source: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/

3.01 32 Kokkugia swarm urbanism diagrams of a self organized city morphology in Melbourne, Australia, Source: http:// www.kokkugia.com/swarm-urbanism 3.02 32 Kokkugia urban swarm method, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/swarmurbanism 3.03 32 Circulation networks self organizing, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/ swarm-urbanism 3.04 34 Woven composites, Source: http:// www.kokkugia.com/woven-composites 3.05 34 Flinders Street bird’s eye, Source: http://www.rolandsnooks.com/projects/#/ flinders-street/ 3.06 34 Flinders Street interior, Source: http://www.rolandsnooks.com/projects/#/ flinders-street/ 3.07 34 Flinders Street axon, Source: http://www.rolandsnooks.com/projects/#/ flinders-street/ 3.08 34 Urban Agency diagram, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY 3.09 34 Urban Agency, Source: http://www. kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY

pg#

Fig. #

pg#

Fig. #

CHAPTER 3

3.10 34 AADRL swarm printing, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/AADRL-swarmprinting-aerial-robotic-bridge-construction 3.11 34 Swarm printing structural analysis, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/AADRL swarm-printing-aerial-robotic-bridge-construction 3.12 36 Composite fiber cliff house, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/cliff-house 3.13 36 Structural hierarchy, Source: http:// www.kokkugia.com/cliff-house 3.14 36 Cliff house ornamental detail, Source: http://www.kokkugia.com/cliffhouse CHAPTER 4 4.22 56 SpaceStream rectangular agent system, Source: http://www.designboom. com/design/spacestream-project-rc6-adbartlett-school-architecture-02-15-2016/