ZJD 6th Year Masters of Architecture Studio 1 Portfolio by CPU-Ai-ZJD

M.Arch Year 2 | Studio 1 Portfolio 2019-20

Zohra Abbas Jessica Corns Deven Kara

STUDIO | ZJD SERPENTINE PAVILION

INTRODUCTION: Social disconnection is the lack of participation in social activities, and is becoming more common in many societies. This is linked to, but not the same as, social isolation, which is an absence of social contact. Loneliness, or the dissatisfaction with levels of social interaction, can be a symptom of both. These issues can partly be attributed to the built environment and the lack of architecture that encourages interaction between people. We look at the pavilion as an experiment to encourage interaction, between themselves and others but also to the architecture itself.

THESIS STATEMENT:

STUDIO | ZJD

To address the problem of social disconnection we propose a pavillion to act as a ‘third place’. A third place is a social space that a person can visit that is not their workplace or home. The pavillion we have designed aims to increase the likelihood of social interaction by providing opportunities for visual connection and increased proximity to other people. ‘Visual connection’ is making visual contact with other people, for example seeing another person’s face, and addresses human disconnection because it gives the brain positive stimlutation. Although a singular design cannot solve the problem of social disconnection, this pavillion addresses key components that fuel this problem.

CONTEXT

Evidence of the design iterations and identifcation of the final design

The background research and design intent to support to the thesis statement

SITE

An examination of the context of the Serpentine Pavilion, the constraints and the influence on possible designs

METHODS The derivation of design drivers from the research and how they are brought into a design space

RUNNING IT DRAWINGS The drawing package inclusive of site and floor plans, elevations, axonometric views and renders

GOING FORWARDS An initial analysis of the researchrelevant to the following unit

PROCESS An exploration of the initial form finding process and the steps for generating design iterations

STUDIO | ZJD

CONTENTS

05 HAPPINESS: A REVOLUTION IN ECONOMICS

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN LARGE CITIES

Bruno

Enyedi, 2002

SOCIAL ISOLATION: DEFINITION

RAPID URBANISATION & MENTAL HEALTH

Williams, 2017

Trivedi, 2008

THE DESIGN SPACE

LONDON IS ONE OF THE LONELIEST CITIES

Nagy, 2017

Parsons, 2017

SUPERMANOEUVRE

SOCIAL ISOLATION & THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

Maxwell + Pigram, 2010

Harries

Krause, 2019 DESIGNING MEASURES

PROBLEM

Nagy, 2017 THIRD PLACES Matthews & Dolley, 2019

LEARNING FROM NATURE Nagy, 2017

DESIGN THEORY

PAVILION

RESEARCH

VANISHING POINT

Research topics and sources

DETERMINING SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS

SPACE

Lavin, 2012

VISUAL CONNECTION

ErtÃ¼rk

THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO VISUAL PERCEPTION

VOLUME WHAT IS THE RIGHT SIZE FOR A CONVERSATION?

James Gibson, 1979 GROUP DISCUSSION AS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE

McAndrew, 2017

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE USE AND DEPRESSION Simsek, 2013

INSEARCH OF HUMAN SCALE IN SEARCH OF HUMAN SCALE Gehl Gehl, 2015

INTERVIEW WITH HERMAN HERTZBERGER (2017): ARCHITECTURE AS VISUAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTION Architecture and Education 2017

STUDIO | ZJD

Fay, Garrod & Carletta, 2000

CONTEXT:

STUDIO | ZJD

This chapter lays out the evidence for increasing social disconnection and describes how the pavilion is a testbed for addressing this problem in a spatial context. The spatial properties are generated using computational methods, encompassing genetic and evolutionary algorithms, which are explained in the following pages. They allow us to explore hundreds of potential solutions, which are evaluated based on design criteria derived from the research into social disconnection.

BRIEF:

STUDIO | ZJD

For this project, our aim was to design an architectural pavilion in the context of Hyde Park and the CONTEXT AS TO THE ST1 Serpentine Galleries. The Serpentine Pavilion is BRIEF used asOF a platform for global architects who havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t designed in the UK to showcase their work and aesthetic styles. It remains as one of the most visited MAKING which A PAVILION TO ADDRESS ISSUE to experiment with designs architectural installations annually, provides the perfectAN context that address the problem of social disconnection.

PROBLEM

EXAMINING THE PROBLEM AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN DISCONNECTION AND A POTENTIAL DIRECTION FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

THE EFFECTS OF HUMAN DISCONNECTION

SURVEY OF FEELINGS OF LONELINESS IN CITIES

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS REDUCES DISCONNECTION

In 2017, London was listed as the loneliest city in the world when in Time Outâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s City Index Survey London ranked highest with 55% of participants from the city stating they had feelings of loneliness (Parsons, 2017). The digital revolution has led to people relying on media for socialisation and information, making people socialise less is person.

Giving people an opportunity to have interactions and gain social connections could help solve this (Harries, 2016). Architecture in urban spaces can play a strong role in whether people are likely to interact (Trivedi, Sareen and Dhyani, 2008).

LONELINESS DISTRUST

DECLINE IN MENTAL HEALTH

Human social disconnection can lead to various side effects with varying degrees of seriousness, ranging from loneliness to a impacts on mental health (Krause, 2019). This impacts on the wider community and can even go as far as decreasing the value of an urban area, because areas with more active communities attract people (Enyedi, 2002). NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN LARGE CITIES

Krause, 2019

Enyedi, 2002

LONDON IS ONE OF THE LONELIEST CITIES Parsons, 2017

RAPID URBANISATION & MENTAL HEALTH

SOCIAL ISOLATION & THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Trivedi, 2008

Harries, 2016

STUDIO | ZJD

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

IDENTIFYING A FOCUS

UNEMPLOY -MENT VISIBILTY SOCIAL ADVERSITY

SOCIAL CONNECTION

SEEING OTHER PEOPLE STIMULATES THE BRAIN, GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERACTION.

NT CO AC

SPACE

SPATIAL PROPORTION TO NUMBER OF PEOPLE EFFECTS COMFORT, VARIETY IN SPACES ENCOURAGES EXPLORATION.

CONVERGE

SMALLER SPACES BRING PEOPLE INTO CLOSER PROXIMITY ENCOURAGING INTERACTION, AND HELPS CONTROL THE FLOW OF PEOPLE, NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A SPACE.

HUMAN SCALE

STRUCTURE PROPORTIONAL TO HUMAN SIZE INCREASES HUMAN COMFORT.

RSATIO VE

SOCIAL ISOLATION LIVING ALONE

DEPRESSION

Williams, 2017

VISUA L

LACK OF CONTACT

DISABILITY

SOCIAL ISOLATION: DEFINITION

SPATIAL FACTORS

Social isolation can be defined as ‘having little or no contact with other people’ and usually lasts for a prolonged period (Williams, 2017). It must not be confused with loneliness, which is a subjective emotional feeling of dissatisfaction with social connections, but loneliness can be a symptom of social isolation. Social isolation can be caused by a variety of personal issues and circumstances, all of which cannot be addressed through one design experiment, so we focus on the problems lack of social contact and living alone.

ABSTRACT FACTORS

CON

INVESTIGATING THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN ISOLATION AND IDENTIFYING THE PROJECT FOCUS

PROJECT FOCUS

STUDIO | ZJD

CAUSES OF SOCIAL ISOLATION

10 THE IDEA OF ‘THIRD PLACES’

No social space = No social interaction

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

CLOSED SPACE

AN ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY OF THIRD PLACES IN THE CONTEXT OF A PAVILION

DIRECTED SPACE

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

A third place is a social place that is separate from the two standard social environments: the workplace and home. To be successful a third place should be free and convenient to get to (Oldenburg, 2005).

OPEN SPACE

LONELINESS

DISTRUST

DECLINE IN MENTAL HEALTH

LISBON

MELBOURNE

MADRID

MEXICO CITY

KUALA LUMP

CHICAGO

SYDNEY

BARCELONA

PARIS

SINGAPORE

TOKYO

MIAMI

HONG KONG

SAO PAOLO

DUBAI

LOS ANGELE

LONDON

NEW YORK

LISBON

DECLINE IN MENTAL HEALTH

MELBOURNE

DISTRUST

LONELINESS

MADRID

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

MEXICO CITY

CHICAGO

HOUSE

KUALA LUMPUR

LONELINESS

DECLINE IN MENTAL HEALTH SYDNEY

PARIS

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

BARCELONA

CAR

SINGAPORE

TOKYO

MIAMI

DISTRUST

In closed spaces users are often restricted and unable to interact with others because there is a boundary around the space. These are spaces in which people spend the majority of their time.

LISBON

MELBOURNE

MADRID

MEXICO CITY

CHICAGO

KUALA LUMPUR

SYDNEY

PARIS

Matthews & Dolley, 2019

BARCELONA

SINGAPORE

TOKYO

MIAMI

HONG KONG

THIRD PLACES

HONG KONG

SAO PAOLO

LOS ANGELES

DUBAI

NEW YORK

LONDON

OFFICE

LONELINESS

Considering that both examples of open and closed spaces often do not encourage interaction between users, we propose a ‘third place’ that is semi-closed. A semi-closed space has a less defined boundary, which encourages more exploration, meaning users are generally moving at a slower pace giving more opportunity for interaction.

= PUBLIC SQUARE

PARK

STREETS

Freedom in open spaces does not encourage users to interact, more frequently users avoid others moving directly across the space to a destination. Users also move more quickly in open space, leaving less opportunity for interaction.

STUDIO | ZJD

WHAT COULD A THIRD PLACE BE?

Social space = Social interaction

11 THE IDEA OF ‘THIRD PLACES’ INCREASING CONNECTIVITY

VISIBILITY

SPACE

CONVERGE

HUMAN SCALE

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SPATIAL ASPECTS OF THIRD PLACES AND HOW THEY COULD ADDRESS HUMAN DISCONNECTION

Seeing other humans

Bumping into other humans

This lack of social spaces fuels human disconnection, a feeling of loneliness due to a lack of human interaction that can lead to the decline of both mental and physical health of a person (Tridevi, 2008). The average routine of a person becomes commuting to work and returning home, because there is a dwindling number of social spaces they could divert to. Research states that public spaces at human scale that allow social interaction could help relieve “the overwhelming sensory experience of a large and unfamiliar city.” (Matthews and Dolley, 2019) According to Enyedi, spaces where human connection can take place must exist in cities to maintain the value of the city. (Enyedi, 2002)

Having the optimal number of people in a conversation

Being in a space proportional to your size - human scale

Openings onto gathering spaces, transparent materials

Smaller spaces

Heights of spaces

Spaces proportional conversation sizes

NEIGHBOURHOOD DETERIORATION

LONELINESS STUDIO | ZJD

THIRD PLACES AND HUMAN DISCONNECTION

12 GENETIC ALGORITHM

THE DESIGN PROCESS

DESIGN PROCESS

The concept of evolutionary design is to begin with a ‘primitive whole’ consisting of an underdeveloped mass which then undergoes a continual series of design changes to become the optimal model of that design. This method of designing allows us to grow the design in a natural way, adding the minimum necessary with each iteration for the design to progress and improve in function. This iterative approach aids the designer in dealing with complexity in projects. This theory of design is also associated with ‘Test Driven Development’ which consists of testing the design and refactoring the inputs if the output is not what is desired.

GENERATION Begin with generating a set of designs randomly from the design space to make the “initial generation”.

FOCUS

DESIGN DRIVER 1

DESIGN DRIVER 2

DESIGN DRIVER 3

DESIGN DRIVER 4

AN ANALYSIS OF ‘EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN’

SELECTION Designs with favourable qualities are selected and used in the generation of the next set of designs.

EVALUATION

SELECTION

FURTHER BREEDING

FEEDBACK LOOP

ITERATIONS

The ‘breeding’ process of the algorithm takes the selected designs and recombines them to create a new generation.

ENVIRONMENT

FEEDBACK LOOP

CROSSOVER

INITIAL BREEDING STAGE

LEARNING FROM NATURE

The pavilion design development is based in generative design theory, taking a theoretical basis and building it progressively into a form. The process of design is outlined, from the initial design drivers that can affect a design, followed by a number of breeding stages in which the best performing designs can be combined to create a better outcome.

DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

INITIAL FACTORS

OUTCOME

Any missed qualities from previous two stages can be injected into the algorithm to allow the correct solution to be generated. LEARNING FROM NATURE Nagy, 2017

Feedback loop sends phenotype back for evaluation, to run through the algorithm again to continually evolve the design forward

PAVILION DESIGN

STUDIO | ZJD

MUTATION

GENERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

Modelling

Algorithm Theory AlgorithmAlgorithm Generative Design

Parametric Design

Foundation Form Theory TheoryFoundation Foundation

Form

DESIGN PROCESS

Manual Design

Sketching

GENERATIVE DESIGN

FOCUS

FOUNDATION THEORY GENERATIVE PROCESS GENERATIVE DESIGNDESIGN PROCESS GENERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

RESEARCH INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS

DESIGN DRIVER 1

OPTIMISATION DESIGN PROCESS

EVOLUTION OF DESIGN PROCESS

DESIGN DRIVER 2

DESIGN DRIVER 3

DESIGN DRIVER 4

Modelling ModellingModelling

AN EXPLORATION INTO THE GENERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS AND OPTIMISATION OF THE GENERATED DESIGNS.

SUPERMANOEUVRE

FORM

EXPLORATION Exploring new designs that differ from the foundation

INORGANIC SPECIATION

MUTATION The design mutates to beyond the foundation

Manual Design Manual Design Manual Design

NOVELTY EXPRESSIONISTIC Designs are Designs become based on more abstract and aesthetics further stray away from theParametric foundation DesignGenerative Design Design Design Generative DesignGenerative ParametricParametric Design

DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE MEASURE 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

DESIGN DESIGN

EXPLOITATION Keeping the same foundation with very minor changes

DESIGN

Sketching Sketching Sketching

SURVIVAL The design remains the same, and the foundation survives as the base

RULE OF THUMB Rule of thumb describes keeping designs simple and straighforward

PERFORMANCE Designs are based on functionality

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA: VALUE MUST HAVE MAXIMISED PERFORMANCE WITHIN XYZ.

DESIGN MEASURE 3

EVOLUTION OF DESIGN PROCESS EVOLUTION OFPROCESS DESIGN PROCESS EVOLUTION OF DESIGN

SUPERMANOEUVRE SUPERMANOEUVRE SUPERMANOEUVRE

SUPERMANOEUVRE Maxwell + Pigram, 2010

DESIGNING MEASURES Nagy, 2017

GENERATIVE DESIGN: LANDESGARTENSCHAU HALL Zaha Hadid Architects generated a design based on the structure of a sea urchinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skeleton, or sand dollar, for the efficiency of the system. The panels were inputted into a form-finding simulation to generate the optimum output. (Dezeen, 2014)

DESIGN OPTIMISATION: BOOTH-GENERATOR Students at Trier University of Applied Science used optimisation and iterative design to generate a pavilion of stacked boxes for the [D3] Schools exhibition. The students inputted site information and judgement criteria to measure the desired qualities to output the best design. (Dezeen, 2010)

MINIMISE VALUE

MAXIMISE VALUE

PAVILION DESIGN

STUDIO | ZJD

INORGANIC SPECIATION INORGANIC SPECIATION INORGANIC SPECIATION

14 DESIGN VARIABLE 1

DESIGN VARIABLE 2

DESIGN VARIABLE 3

CONTINUITY Oversimplifies the design

BIAS Does not fully describe the design problem

GENOTYPE Potentially complex variables that will affect the design

DESIGN VARIABLE 4

RESEARCH INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS

PERFECT BALANCE

UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN SPACE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF IT, FROM WHICH THE ITERATIONS WILL BE GENERATED AND THE DESIGN WILL BE FOUND

PERFECT BALANCE

PHENOTYPE The output form of the information in the variables

VARIANCE Too flexible to address the design problem

COMPLEXITY Too random for drawing design solutions

Using a set of parameters to drive the geometric operations which produce the final form. These parameters can be addressed as the “genotype” and the final form is the “phenotype”. All the unique design possibilities exist in a conceptual space which can be addressed as the “design space”.

This describes the flexibility of the model. Bias describes the condition being too simple and limit the exploration and lead to early exploitation of a sub-optimal result. Variance describes a condition too flexible. The more variance results in a design space which is too large to address the problem resulting in unproductive exploration. The goal should be to create a model in-between, not too bias so they don’t represent the solution space but not so variance that they are impossible to search through.

This describes the internal structure of the design space and how the designs relate to one another. Continuity refers to the internal consistency; things which are closer to each other tend to be more similar than those further apart. Complexity refers to the design space creating unpredictable results beyond our own intuition. The variations between the two inform us our design spaces should be complex without being too discontinuous.

CONTINUITY BIAS

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 4

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 4

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 4

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 4

PERFECT BALANCE GENOTYPE 1

THE DESIGN SPACE Nagy, 2017

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 4

PERFECT BALANCE

GENOTYPE 4

VARIANCE

GENOTYPE 1

GENOTYPE 2

GENOTYPE 3

GENOTYPE 4

COMPLEXITY

STUDIO | ZJD

PARAMETERS

15 Experiments in Rhino Modelling Software Jellyfish House The Jellyfish House was used as a way to allow us to familiarise ourselves further with the Rhino modelling software. We undertook modelling to th finest detail, looking at double skins as well as segmenting the faces into panels, adding that more realistic touch to the model. Accurate structural elements were modelled also. It also gave us the chance to experiment with render styles, to create realistic looking renders, or more stylised ones, as shown below. These skills will be taken forward into the design process to allow for a more detailed model.

THE ATELIER FOCUS

Python in Grasshopper

Example of Python script import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs

A LOOK AT THE SOFTWARES THAT WERE LEARNT TO ENABLE THE EXPLORATION OF GENERATIVE DESIGN

ptList = x[:] newPts = [] distances = [] cirs = []

A workshop in which we learned the capabilities of the Python coding language.

Python is a coding language used to assist in completing operations within Grasshopper. It can be used for a variety of operations and can sometimes be the only way of completing a task. We intend on using Python within our script to help with the early stages of the form generation.

Mesh Experiments

An extension to the above experiment, we looked at how different forms could be achieved within Rhino, from very parametric and geometric shapes, to those with no discernable corners. We experimented with how these could be built up, and how they could be used in an occupied setting. The ideas that were experimented with will help us to decide on the initial forms that we will be able to iterate using the generative and evolutionary algorithms.

for i in range(len(ptList)): for j in range(len(x)): dist = rs.Distance(ptList[i], x[j]) if dist>1.5: print(â&#x20AC;&#x153;Distance is larger 1.5â&#x20AC;?) newPts.append(x[i]) distances.append(dist) This script takes a list of points, generated either randomly or dictated by the designer, and tests to see if they are closer or further than 1.5m to other points. If a point is further than 1.5m away from all other points, it is added to another list which can be called upon for further design stages.

Generative and Evolutionary Algorithms TT Toolbox A generative algorithm, TT Toolbox can be used to iterate designs, based on a number of input parameters.

Parameter 1

Form

Parameter 2 Parameter 3 Parameter 4

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Generative Algorithm in TT Toolbox Iteration 3

5 Metric 1

Iteration 4

Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4

TT Toolbox runs through every possible combination of inputs to create hundreds or thousands of iterations (dependent on the number of inputs). From these iterations, the designer can choose the best iteration based on their own criteria. We are intending on using TT Toolbox to generate our iterations, as it means that the final decision on the pavilion stays with us. Whilst the design might not be the best performing, it may have other qualities that make it a better design

BioMorpher

Design Explorer is an iteration viewer that is linked with TT Toolbox. It takes the iterations that are generated by the TT Toolbox generative algorithm and creates a viewable platform on which to compare and contrast each of the hundreds of iterations. It also generates a data lattice, which can be filtered to isolate specific iterations. This can help when a judgement criteria requires a specific value for one of the parameters or metrics.

View of iterations Data Lattice

BioMorpher utilises an evolutionary algorithm, but with a manual input. Designs are iterated but the decision for the best iterations are left to the designer.

A workshop showing the process of using and extracting iterations from BioMorpher.

Galapagos

Galapagos works in a continuously learning manner. The evolutionary algorithm tests each iteration on a predefined set of judgement criteria. If an iteration performs well, it is used within the breeding stage for the subsequent generations. It continues to do this until the best performing design is found, at which point the designer can observe the result of the process.

A true evolutionary algorithm, Galapagos continues to iterate a design space until it finds the most optimal design.

The Galapagos solver, in which the algorithm exhibits the evolutionary design process.

STUDIO | ZJD

Design Explorer - Iteration Viewer

BioMorpher works in a similar way to TT Toolbox, in that it iterates a number of designs, and continues to do so on the manual input of the designer. The designer chooses the iterations that best fit their criteria, BioMorpher recognises the similarities and continues to iterate until the designer is happy. This is derivative of evolution in nature, as each subsequent generation learns from its predecessors.

SITE: Understanding the features and unique characteristicss of the site on which the pavilion will stand is essential, not having a complete understanding oof this could lead to a negative outcome. This chapter looks at the macro and micro sites in which the Serpentine Pavilion is situated: Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. We examine previous versions of the Serpentine Pavilion have been undertaken, and descirbe and analyse a problem that affects many pavilions today.

ARTIFICIAL INTERVENTIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE

BUILDINGS

GREEN SPACES

HEIGHTS 10-75m

KENSINGTON PALACE

V&A MUSEUM

OXFORD STREET

CARNABY STREET

NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM

BUCKINGHAM PALACE

REGENT STREET

COVENT GARDEN

TRAFALGAR SQUARE

WESTMINSTER ABBEY

KENSINGTON HIGH STREET

PORTOBELLO ROAD

A SITE ANALYSIS OF HYDE PARK AS THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT FOR THE SERPENTINE PAVILION

OXFORD STREET

One of the largest green spaces in the City of London, Hyde Park is the location for the annual Serpentine Pavilion. Surrounded by busy routes for people travelling between work and home, it cements itself as a prime location for a ‘Third Place’.

COVENT GARDEN CARNABY STREET

PORTOBELLO ROAD

REGENT STREET

HYDE PARK

GREEN PARK HOLLAND PARK

ST. JAMES PARK

KENSINGTON HIGH STREET

WIDER CONTEXT PLAN

BUCKINGHAM PALACE PARK

SERPENTINE GALLERY

STUDIO | ZJD

EXAMINING THE WIDER CONTEXT

RETAIL

PLACES OF INTEREST

HYDE PARK POINTS OF INTEREST HISTORY

GALLERIES

ACTIVITIES Sports

LIGHT STUDY Map shows the sunlight hours during the summer months of when the Serpentine Pavilion is up.

THE SITE AT A MICRO CONTEXT To Albert’s Memorial 0.2 miles To Kensington Palace

Fountains

Boating Seasonal Events

To Queen Caroline’s Temple 0.1 miles To Lancaster Gate Tube Station

Seasonal Events

Tennis Football

Horse Riding

The Serpentine

To W. Carriage Drive To Princess Diana’s Memorial Fountain 0.2 miles

Main Entrance Point

SITE SECTION

STUDIO | ZJD

AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THE SERPENTINE PAVILION SITE AND THE MAIN POINTS OF INTEREST WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE

Kensington Gardens

Memorials

Sackler Gallery

Serpentine Gallery

CAFE FAMILY ACTIVITIES

EXTRACTION FROM SERPENTINE BRIEF

PERFORMATIVE WORKS: ARTISTS/MUSICIANS/ WRITERS

A LOOK AT THE SERPENTINE PAVILION BRIEF, THE CONSTRAINTS PRESENT AND OUR PROPOSED INTERVENTION

CURRENT PAVILION PROGRAMME

W. CARRIAGE WAY

QUIET SPACES

SOCIAL SPACES

PROPOSED AREA

SERPENTINE PAVILION TIMELINE

PROPOSED PAVILION PROGRAMME

STUDIO | ZJD

JOURNEY

VISUAL CONNECTIONS ON SITE

A STUDY TO SHOW THE EXTENTS OF VISUAL CONNECTION ON SITE, FROM THE CENTRE & THE FOUR MAIN ENTRANCE POINTS

Serpentine Gallery

Serpentine Gallery 50

Using an isovist to study the spatial nature of the environment, the view and visual exposure to the environment can gradually or suddenly change with their position. They can provide a description of the space from ‘the inside’, as they perceive it, interact within and move through it. On a wider context, the isovist spans 50m to encapsulate the entire usable site, clearly showing what can be seen and the obstructions in place. The smaller scale studies use an isovist of 20 metres, based of the distance that the human eye is able to see clearly. The four smaller studies are based on the closest point to the four main entrances to the Serpentine site itself.

ARTIFICIAL INTERVENTIONS INTERSECTING THE ISOVIST VIEW

REPRESENTATION OF VISUAL CONNECTION THAT ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE SITE

20m

20 m

STAND POINT REDIRECTED VIEW ARTIFICIAL INTERVENTION BOUNDARY ISOVIST

SOUTH ACCESS

NORTH ACCESS

SOUTH WEST ACCESS

NORTH WEST ACCESS

STUDIO | ZJD

KEY

PAVILIONS TODAY

20th C. PAVILION

ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIMENTATION:

LOST CONNECTION TO CULTURE

MATERIALISING CONCEPTS NOT YET AVAILABLE

EXPANDING POPULATION OF PRODUCERS: ARTIST / ARCHITECTS = NO DISTINCTION

WHAT IS A PAVILION? AN EXAMINATION OF THE ‘PAVILION’, WHAT IT USED TO BE AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED INTO THE PAVILIONS OF TODAY

MIES VAN DER ROHE BARCELONA PAVILION

LE CORBUSIER PAVILLON DE L’ESPRIT NOUVEAU

The building tested new techniques utilising materials such as steel glass and varying types of marble to create minimal geometric forms.

Explored challenges of the future; overpopulation, how to make the most of a small space.

FREESTANDING

TEMPORARY

AESTHETIC POSTURE

OSKAR ZIETA NAWA PAVILION

THE VERY MANY PILLAR OF DREAMS

Polished steel structure with reflects the surrounding, giving the impression the structure is changing and growing throughout the day.

Built out of thin sheets of aluminum floating like balloons. The pavilion provides shading for the summer months of North Carolina.

NO FUNCTION

AESTHETIC POSTURE

INCREASING NUMBER OF PAVILIONS

RETAIL SPACES

VANISHING POINT Lavin, 2012

Studio ZJD have taken the approach of using the pavilion as a testbed for experimenting with architectural qualities, resulting in a final outcome that could potentially be applied to larger scale architecture and construction. We are addressing the project in this way because we have observed through research and experience that the pavilion in the city has become an aesthetic exhibition and frequently a commercialised commodity, rather than an example of architecture.

STUDIO | ZJD

OUR APPROACH Using the pavilion as an architectural test bed to explore human connection on different scales

23 2011: Peter Zumthor

2013: Sou Fujimoto

2018: Frida Escobedo

ISOLATION

VIEWS

SPACES AND WAYFINDING

Aiming to play with our senses and generate an emotional experience, the walls of the pavilion are staggered creating multiple paths that visitors can journey through to the enclosed hidden garden, giving the visitor time to reflect or communicate.

Through the use of translucent materials and a light weight structure, the pavilion can be climbed to reach higher levels and provides views out to the surrounding areas.

The positioning of the walls encourage the movement around the pavilion revealing and concealing spaces within. The pavilionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; walls, made up of a lattice of cement roof tiles, blur the views within and views out creating a sense of mystery and encouraging exploration.

EXAMINING THE PREVIOUS PAVILIONS A PRECEDENT STUDY OF SOME OF THE PREVIOUS SERPENTINE PAVILIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR PROJECT FOCUS

CIRCULATION

STRATEGIES / CONCEPTS STUDIO | ZJD

USE OF LIGHT MATERIALS / JOURNEYING THROUGH SPACES / COMMUNAL ENCLOSED/OPEN SPACES

METHODS To bring the research and analysis into a spatial context, design drivers need to be derived. This chapter looks at the derivation of such design drivers from the research, looking into how each can be implemented within a potential design. Extraction of parameters from these design drivers is evidenced, alongside the process of designing using these design drivers and parameters. As part of this, evaluation criteria have been identified to be able to judge a design iteration on its performance.

26 DESIGN DRIVERS

GENOTYPE Design Drivers

SPACE

VOLUME

COLLAR POINTS

PERFECT BALANCE

PAVILION

PHENOTYPE Design output from the variables

The design output produced will reflect a balance of the drivers and their associated parameters. How the drivers are measured is decided by the research backing them, and also the experimentation aims of the project.

STUDIO | ZJD

VISUAL CONNECTIVITY

Do the Collar Points line up?

Break lines to grid points

YES

Set Boundary

Extrude lines to random heights

Apply Grid of Poin

Set Boundary

Apply Grid of Points NO

VISUAL CONNECTIVITY

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

SPACE

Does program fit VOLUME spaces created?

COLLAR POINTS

Extr

Extract Random Poin

Extract Random Points NO

Cull the lines using THE EXTRACTION OF INFORMATION FROM THE random pattern DESIGN DRIVERS, WHAT THEY ARE, WHY THEY ARE RELEVANT, ANDHOW THEY CAN ADDRESS THE PROBLEM

NO YES

NO NO

WHAT? Visual connection to other Are theinlines of people a space.

sight with 5-20m?

WHAT? The area of spaces being Doto the lines oflines Break proportional the number of to grid YES sight hit in manmade points people it.

YES Do the Collar Points line up?

WHAT? Height of pavilion panels and Extrude lines to are distance between panels random heightsscale. proportional to human

elements?

YES

WHY? People have decreased feelings of social disconnection when in they have increased visual connections with other Optimised Design people.

WHY? There are optimal conversation sizes for successful interactions where all partaking feel included, and optimal areas NO for the number of people in a NO conversation.

WHY? Users feel more comfortable when not surrounded by vast scales not proportional to their size.

Are the lines of sight with 5-20m?

Cull the lines using random pattern

HOW? Areas given to programme are proportional to the average number of people it is used by. Optimised Design

HOW? Distancing between panels becomes greater and height of panels lower the closer the panels are to a programmatic area where there is likely a higher volume of users.

Bre

YES

Do the Collar WHY? Collar points are bottlenecks Points line up? controlling the flow of users

YES

into an area, also bringing the users into closer proximity of each other, increasing chance of interaction.

Do the lines of sight hit manmade elements?

YES

HOW? The pavilion experiments with lines of sight, where they intersect with programmatic spaces, and where users are semi-visible through translucent material.

WHAT? Narrowing of distance Do the Collar between panels on approach line up? to aPoints programmatic area.

Cull the lines using random pattern

HOW? Each programmatic area will have a number of collar points leading into the space, designs will be discounted if collar points are too numerous or too concentrated.

Are sigh

Opt SUPPORT INTERVIEW WITH HERMAN HERTZBERGER (2017): ARCHITECTURE AS VISUAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTION Architecture and Education

THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO VISUAL PERCEPTION James Gibson

SUPPORT DETERMINING SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS ErtÃ¼rk

WHAT IS THE RIGHT SIZE FOR A CONVERSATION? McAndrew

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE USE AND DEPRESSION Simsek

SUPPORT GROUP DISCUSSION AS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE

IN SEARCH OF HUMAN SCALE Gehl

Fay, Garrod & Carletta

Cull the lines using

STUDIO | ZJD

DEFINITION OF THE DESIGN DRIVERS

HEAD MOVEMENT

THE IMPORTANCE OF VISIBILITY

NO MOVEMENT

A STUDY OF VISIBILITY AND HOW IT CAN CHANGE DEPENDANT ON THE ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL LOOKING STRAIGHT AHEAD vision left and right concealed

TURNING HEAD TO THE LEFT vision straight ahead and right concealed

TURNING HEAD TO THE RIGHT vision straight ahead and left concealed To look and see with your eyes alone does not allow the person to fully perceive the environment, the user must look with their head. The world is revealed and concealed as the head moves, whatever goes out of sight comes back into sight and vice versa. By looking at the environment this way, the visual field seen is a correspondence to the posture of the head. (Gibson, 1979)

THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO VISUAL PERCEPTION James Gibson, 1979

INTERVIEW WITH HERMAN HERTZBERGER (2017): ARCHITECTURE AS VISUAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTION Architecture and Education, 2017

When you are stationary you have a fixed point of observation and a single perspective, similar to the perspective you see when looking at a photograph, only the extent of the camera is visible. (Gibson, 1979)

MOVEMENT Seeing is better when you are moving. The body explores the surrounding environment by locomotion. This allows the world to be seen at all points of observation, each place appears to be connected to one another, stops the single point perspective. (Gibson, 1979)

STUDIO | ZJD

“Purpose of vision, is to be aware of the surroundings, ambient environment, not merely the field in front of the eyes.” - James Gibson (Gibson, 1979)

MOVEMENT THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT

SOCIAL DISCONNECTION

ENVIR

M T EN

“Sense of openness”

HUMA

“To see or to be seen, feeling you are not alone”

“A lack of social spaces feeds in to human disconnection”

(Wood, 2017)

VISIBILITY AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION

HUMAN SCALE Being in a space proportional to your size CONNECTION

RESEARCH INTO SOCIAL DISCONNECTION ON A HUMAN SCALE AND THE ROLE VISIBILITY PLAYS IN THE PROBLEM

TRANSPARENT Clear visual connection No physical connection

The varying properties of the material have an impact on how the person can interact with the environment. Interacting a solid material closes the user off to connections beyond the material and frames your view. The properties of translucent materials allow shadows and silhouettes to be seen through creating mystery and the user a desire to explore what is behind. Transparent materials expose the environment behind them, giving the viewer an insight and extending their view further. The height of an obstruction directly hinders the view, however lower obstructions allow visibility while restricting physical connectivity, again encouraging exploration.

CONNECTION

DISCONNECTION

CONVERGE Bumping into other humans

DISCONNECTION

MIXED MATERIALS Limited visual connection No physical connection

SPACE Lack of social spaces available

SOLID No visual connection No physical connection TRANSLUCENT Semi-visible connection Silhouettes

SPACE Being in a space the right size for the number of people in a conversation. DISCONNECTED CROWDS Amongst people yet not interacting with one another

HEIGHT Visual connection No physical connection

KEY

V PA

Levels of visibility through varying material properties

ILI O

AC H

Scale of obstruction

N A PP R O

STUDIO | ZJD

VISIBILITY Seeing other humans

TOTAL AREA PSYCHOLOGICAL COEFFICIENT

FUNCTIONAL AREA

TOTAL AREA

FUNCTIONAL Values considered constant in the study were that length of space AREA ~= width of space, natural light was predominantly north light, PSYCHOLOGICAL COEFFICIENT colours in the space were neutral e.g. white ir grey, height of the

DENSITY OF

INTERACTIONS DENSITY OF INTERACTIONS

NO. OF USERS

DENSITY OF INTERACTIONS

TOTAL AREA TOTAL AREA =

FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL AREA

AREA

FUNCTIONAL AREA ACTIVITY AREA

TOTAL AREA NO. OF USERS

FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL AREA AREA =

FUNCTIONAL TOTAL AREA AREA =

= FUNCTIONAL FURNITURE AREAAREA =

TOTAL AREA NO. OF USERS

TOTAL AREA FOR OPTIMUM INTERACTION

ACTIVITY AREA

= =

TOTAL AREA

FUNCTIONAL AREA

NO. OF USERS

ACTIVITY AREA

= 2.63 - 2.80

= 2.63 - 2.80 X NO. OF USERS

FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL AREA AREA

= = FURNITURE AREA

FURNITURE AREA

FUNCTIONAL AREA

= FURNITURE AREA

TOTAL AREAAREA TOTAL

NO. OF USERS

TOTAL AREA

= 2.63 - 2.80 TOTAL AREA

TOTAL AREA NO. OF USERS

TOTAL AREA FOR OPTIMUM INTERACTION

= 2.63 - 2.8

= 2.63 - 2.80 X NO. O

= NO. OF USERS

TOTAL AREA FOR OPTIMUM INTERACTION

NO. OF USERS

= 2.63 - 2.80 X NO. OF USERS

STUDIO | ZJD

Ertürk

HUMAN COMFORT

the feedback from the study, for optimum human comfort the value for the number of interactions betweenTOTAL users should be within AREA = the range of 2.63 - 2.80. Giving a quantifiable parameter.

DETERMINING SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS

DENSITY OF FURNITURE

FURNITURE AREA

One of the coefficients studied was density of interactions between RELEVANCE users. The calculation for this was defined as total area in the space divided by the number of users. Based on the feedback from the NO. OF One of thehuman coefficients was density study, for optimum comfort studied the value forUSERS the numberofofinteractions DENSITY OF INTERACTIONS between users. calculation for range this was defined as total interactions between usersThe should be within the of 2.63 2.80. Giving quantifiable parameter. areaa in the space divided by the number of users. Based on

ACTIVITY AREA

DENSITY OF INTERACTIONS

FURNITURE AREA NO. OF USERS DENSITY OF FURNITURE

Values considered constant in the study were that length of space ~= width of space, natural light was predominantly north light, colours in the space were neutral e.g. white or grey, height of the space = 2.6-2.7m.

= FURNITURE AREA

HUMAN COMFORT

DENSITY OF FURNITURE

HUMAN COMFORT

FURNITURE AREA DENSITY OF FURNITURE

DENSITY OF ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY AREA

In the paper A Method for Determining Spatial Requirements with Special Emphasis on User Comfort by Ertürk, input variables are used to observe human comfort, and calculate the range of coefficient values leading to optimum human comfort.

FUNCTIONAL AREA

FURNITURE

ACTIVITY AREA DENSITY OF ACTIVITY

AN EXAMINATION OF THE THEORY OF HUMAN COMFORT AND THE SPATIAL INTERVENTIONS ACTIVITYFROM AREA THAT HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED THE DENSITY OF ACTIVITY RESEARCH

FUNCTIONAL AREA

OF DENSITYDENSITY OF ACTIVITY

FURNITURE AREA

space = 2.6-2.7m.

FUNCTIONAL AREA

HUMAN COMFORT

PSYCHOLOGICAL COEFFICIENT

FUNCTIONAL AREA

THE THEORY OF HUMAN COMFORT

TIONAL REA

DENSITY OF ACTIVITY

FUNCTIONAL AREA PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY AREA COEFFICIENT

CONSTANTS

L AREA

PSYCHOLOGICAL COEFFICIENT

STUDIO | ZJD

In the paper A Method for Determining Spatial Requirements with Special Emphasis on User Comfort by Ertürk (1), input variables are used to observe human comfort, and calculate the range of coefficient values leading to optimum human comfort.

THE ACTIVITY

NO. OF USERS

COEFFICIENT BASED AREA

OUTPUT

A space to accommodate large groups with one dominant speaker addressing the group, usually from a stage or raised area to attract the attention of the group. In this situation the primary aim is not to encourage human interaction but focus on the speaker, so the space per person can be reduced to standard space required per person in a lecture room, which is recommended at 0.6m2.1

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAMME SPACES EXTRACTING INFORMATION FROM THE SERPENTINE BRIEF TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PROGRAMME SPACES THAT WOULD BE PRESENT WITHIN OUR PAVILION The Serpentine brief states that space must be provided for an event and for the cafe. This pavilion is aiming to increase human contact so we are adding to the programme a series of smaller spaces to allow opportunities for human interaction.

THE CAFE Multiple groups of up to five people clustered around tables, tables must be not too close to each other that users feel overheard and not too far from each other so atmosphere is not lost.

THE GROUP SPACE According to research the optimum number of people to be involved in a group conversation is five2. This is because when the number of people goes above five participants find it difficult to maintain understanding for all other members of the group, which is necessary for a successful conversation.

THE PRIVATE CONVERSATION Studies also reflect that often, when a group of people is discussing a sensitive topic or another person the group will be at least one participant fewer3.

THE INTIMATE CONVERSATION Conversation between two people is usually the most personal level of conversation, and where the strongest bonds are made.

SELF REFLECTION

WHAT IS THE RIGHT SIZE FOR A CONVERSATION? McAndrew, 2017

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE USE AND DEPRESSION Simsek, 2013

GROUP DISCUSSION AS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE Fay, Garrod & Carletta, 2000

Self reflection is an important process for acceptance and personal growth4, space to do this is important so that the user can focus on their self without distraction.

100

13.5

8.1

5.4

2.7

STUDIO | ZJD

THE LECTURE SPACE

TRANSPARENT TIMBER

STRUCTURAL GLASS

Input Beam

PROS - Easy to bend and manipulate - Resistant to shock and fracture - Lightweight relative to regular glass - 1200kg/m^3 - Good insulative properties - High optimal transmittance

Beam

Reflection Input

Transparent Wood

CONS Currently in experimental stages of development; widespread use yet to be seen Introduction of polymer

USES - Facade panels: safety glazing/ windows - Wall replacements

A PRECEDENT ANALYSIS INTO DIFFERENT MATEIRALS THAT COULD AID VISIBILITY

ANALYSIS Glazing gives maximum light as it is the most transparent of the materials. Visual connection is high but full clarity in vision means sense of exploration is decreased.

The pavilion requires a translucent construction to inform and expand the use of visual connection within the pavilion. With this in mind, common construction materials have been ruled out due to their opaque qualities; this includes concrete, timber, masonry and metals. As such, we have investigated and compared potential translucent materials that could be used for the pavilion, looking at the benefits of each material, as well as their currnet and potential uses.

USES

MANUFACTURE AND CONSTRUCTION

Rev

The timber has the potential to be embedded with electronics, to allow for interactive timber panels.

200mm

m 100m

POLYCARBONATE m 250m

PROS - Relatively flexible; can be linear or curved - High optical transmittance - Frosted design results in higher privacy - Very high load resistance, with high strength and toughness

SUITABILITY DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE OF ISSUE

www.autodesk.com/revit

EMI PROPERTIES At the introduction of the polymer, the material can be embedded with magnetic nanoparticles. This would give the timber an inherent interferring Rev electromagnetic Description Date property, which can be used to create dead spots within the installation.

PROJECT

Project Name TITLE

Unnamed CLIENT

Owner DRAWN BY

Author

CHECKED BY

Checker

DRAWING NUMBER

A101

Transparent timber lends towards panel construction, to keep construction simple for efficient construction given limited project completion time the pavilion should use a panelised format.

m 100m

TRANSPARENT SOLAR CELLS

DATE

12/10/19

PROJECT NUMBER

Project Number

REV

The material has the potential to be used in transparent solar cells. This allows energy to be produced, whilst also allowing light to permeate into the space below. CODE

SUITABILITY DESCRIPTION

STATUS

PURPOSE OF ISSUE

www.autodesk.com/revit

PROJECT

Project Name

m 250m

USES - Structural walls - Windows - Roofs

SMART WINDOWS Unnamed The material can also be used within smart windows and in place of privacy glass. The introduction ofOwnerelectrically conducting particles would allow a current to be fed through the panels, and change the A101 transparency of the material. TITLE

CLIENT

DRAWN BY

Author

CHECKED BY

Checker

SCALE (@ A1)

ANALYSIS Polycarbonate panels have a thicker frame, giving the panel increased opacity and decreased visual connection. Too high of an opacity may increase isolation and decrease curiosity.

CODE

STATUS

SCALE (@ A1)

200mm

Blak Box at Barangaroo

Date

INTERACTIVE PANELS

Traditional timber is modified to remove a polymer called lignin, which gives timber its colour and strength. This is then replaced with an artificial polymer, which strengthens the wood and makes it transparent or translucent dependent on the thickness of the timber.

CONS - Expensive to purchase - Easily scratchable, marrable and dentable

Description

DRAWING NUMBER

ANALYSIS Transparent timber has medium levels of opacity, and as the same as regular timber, the panels can vary in thickness. Therefore, opacity can also be varied should it be required.

DATE

12/10/19

PROJECT NUMBER

Project Number

REV

STUDIO | ZJD

INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL MATERIALS

19/01/2020 14:32:16

Transparent Labyrinth by Robert Morris

CONS - Costly to manufacture Increased security around installation

PROS - Low density compared to glass (1200k/m^3) - High optical transmittance -Low thermal conductivity - High relative toughness - Biodegradable & environmentally friendly - Same properties as regular timber - Fire resistant, as opposed to the flamable nature of regular timber

19/01/2020 14:32:16

33 COLLECTIVE-LOK

RICHARD SERRA

KENGO KUMA

Mappa Mundi - A Peace Corps Memorial

Junction/Cycle

Oribe Tea House

FORM

An examination of form; the principle of an undulating form, falling as it reaches the middle and rising again to the edges. A sense of exploration; knowing where you can get to but having to explore to get there.

A spiral pattern, creating pockets in which to explore. High walls restrict view, forcing the user to explore further. A central circulation path that converges in the middle, multiple entrances which give a different experience each time.

MATERIALITY

Use of structural glass in a continuous ribbon to create the form; uninterrupted by rigid structure, free flowing.

Use of copper and weathered steel, a rigid material leaning into a sense of isolation.

FINDING PRECEDENT IN FORM

To understand how we could progress our concepts, we explored precedents of form and materiality, ranging from pieces made from structural glass and the forms that can be achieved, to more traditional methods of construction and materials in timber. We looked at how the materials can enhance visibility as well as how the form can encourage social interactions.

FORM A ribbed structure interconnected with small bands to create a solid structure but light and airy. Blocks are arranged in a way that encourages privacy and openness at the same time, through the density of the placed bands.

MATERIALITY Plastic corrugated boards, connected with plastic bands. Frosted finish which allows light diffusion but not direct viewing.

1 Pane

2 Panes

3 Panes

4 Panes

STUDIO | ZJD

A PRECEDENT STUDY FOR OTHER SMALLER PAVILIONS THAT UTILISE FORMS THAT ENCOURAGE VISIBILITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

STUDIO | ZJD

PROCESS:

STUDIO | ZJD

This chapter looks at the process of design, the steps that need to be taken and in what order, to create design iterations used to inform the final design. As part of this, judgement criteria and design metrics are identified to help analyse and judge the iterations and judge the generated designs. Outlining these prior to the design iterations is key as the variable parameters directly result in the performance of the iterations.

Apply Grid of Points NO

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

DESIGN OPTIMISATION

Does program fit spaces created?

Extract Random Points

STEP ONE

DESIGN OPTIMISATION

OUTLINING THE DESIGN PROCESS

YES

VECTOR OF INPUT DATA Input parameters that encompass every possible output.

Do the Collar Points line up?

Break lines to grid points

YES

Extrude lines to random heights

STEP TWO OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS Objectives describe the aims of the optimisation.

CONSTRAINT FUNCTIONS

Constraints describe the feasibility of the solutions.

Cull the lines using random pattern

Are the lines of sight with 5-20m?

OPTIMISATION STRATEGIES

Do the lines of sight hit manmade elements?

YES

STEP THREE

STEP FOUR YES

Optimised Design

DETERMINISTIC

STOCHASTIC

Method using rules to directly analyse the data, often used on more simple optimisation problems.

Method where random solutions are tested, generally used on more complex optimisation problems.

STUDIO | ZJD

IDENTIFYING DESIGN STEPS AND DECISIONS

EXTRACTING THE SITE BOUNDARY USING THE SITE CONSTRAINTS TO DEFINE THE SITE BOUNDARY, FROM AVOIDANCE OF OBSTRUCTIONS TO INCORPORATING VISIBILITY SITE EXTENT

OFFSET FROM SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE

MAIN ACCESS POINT TO SITE

BOUNDARY TRIM TO OPTIMISED VIEWS

COMBINING THE ISOVISTS

PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY

STUDIO | ZJD

The site boundary is defined by a series of isovists, using human vision distances to locate where on the site the users would be exposed to man-made construction. Instead the pavilion highlights the natural landscape to increase user comfort levels, in turn increasing likelihood of user interaction. The boundary is also offset from obstacles at the site edge by 2m, to ensure clear passage and access around the perimeter of the pavilion.

THEORISING INITIAL FORM FINDING AN EXPLORATION INTO THE INITIAL STEPS OF DESIGN AND WHAT IS DERIVED FROM THE PROCESS The initial form is based on a grid, which can be culled to create a number of routes to the same destination. This encourages exploration through the site and can result in a higher number of interactions between users. It is also paramount to incorporate multiple destinations, so that there is a journey within the pavilion as opposed to outside of it.

SOLID

MOVEMENT

Solid geometry lacks a sense of journey.

Creating openings encourages exploration.

1 Panels are arranged in a grid format for ease of construction and maximum design options.

2 Openings in grid provide options for users to explore, creating movement and opportunities to meet people.

CREATING SPACES

VISUAL CONNECTION

Cutting grid creating spaces for program.

Giving users ability to see connecting spaces.

3 Creating spaces for programmatic elements allowing users to gather increasing chances of human connection.

4 Different levels of visual connection create different environments of experience, giving the users choice in their exploration of the pavilion.

KEY GATHERING SPACE

LITTLE VISUAL CONNECTION REFLECTION PARTIAL VISUAL CONNECTION AWARENESS VISUAL CONNECTION OPPORTUNITY

STUDIO | ZJD

CIRCULATION

39 Apply Grid of Points NO

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

Extract Random Points

Apply Grid of Points

YES

EXPLORING THE FORM COMPUTATIONALLY

ESTABLISH GRID

Set Boundary

Apply Grid of Points

GRID MORPH Morph Grid

Does program fit spaces created?

Do the Collar

Break lines to grid points

YES

Points line up? POINTS DEFINE COLLAR

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

Does program fit spaces created? Extract

The grid is set with 1200mm spacing so that the circulation paths are Extract Random Points accessible even at their minimum widths.

DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE THE FORM

Random Points

Morph points are inserted randomly to distort the grid stochastically. This must be done randomly so the results are not pre-determined and are therefor more varied (Nagy).

From morphed grid collar points are created, which act as bottlenecks to passively control the flow of people into an opening in the grid. NO NO

YES

Cull the lines using random pattern

TEAMLAB BORDERLESS Tokyo, Japan

Do the Collar Points line up?

Break lines to grid points

YES

Are the lines of sight with 5-20m?

YES

Extrude lines to random heights

Do the Collar Points line up?

Break lines to grid points

YES

Extrude lines to random heights Optimised Design

NO NO

Are the lines of sight with 5-20m?

Do the lines of sight hit manmade elements?

YES

Apply Grid of Points

YES

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

Does program fit spaces created?

Optimised Design

Extract Random Points

Cull the lines using random pattern

Are the lines of sight with 5-20m?

Do the lines of sight hit manmade elements?

YES

‘Wander through the Crystal World’ is part of the teamLAB Borderless exhibition in Tokyo. Situated in large room, the LED lights are suspended above the mirrored floor creating an illusion of a never-ending boundary. One of the concepts surrounding the curation focuses on the ‘relationships among people’ this is evident as the user travels through the colour-changing space, the direction is blurred resulting in crossing paths with others. The positioning of the slim suspended lights allow the user to catch glimpses of others on another route along the installation.

Do the Collar Points line up?

Break lines to grid points

YES

APPLY HEIGHT SCALE Extrude lines to random heights

Creating diversity in panel height means the users have varied levels of visual connection depending on Are the lines of their location inDo the the lines ofpavilion. This sight with 5-20m? sight hit manmade introduces a newelements? possibility of total visual connection but still having a physical boundary between users. NO

Cull the lines using random pattern

YES

Optimised Design

CULL GRID ACCORDING TO VISUAL CONNECTION YES

The culling of the grid enables circulation throughout the pavilion. Optimised Design Cull is based on proximity to morph points, so that the density of the grid decreases as the user nears an opening in the grid.

APPLY PROGRAMMATIC AREAS

Programmatic elements are applied to openings in the grid according to the areas required for their capacity. STUDIO | ZJD

Cull the lines using random pattern

E UM

ECTION NN

VISUAL

VO L

SP A

INTS PO

COLL

DESIGN SPACE GENOTYPE

SPATIALISING THE DESIGN DRIVERS

PHENO

EXTENT OF GRID MORPH

RIGHT BALANCE ADDRESSING THE DESIGN PROBLEM

GRID DENSITY

BIAS Does not fully describe the design problem.

NO. OF MORPH POINTS

HEIGHT OF PANEL

VARIAN Does not fully describe t

PERFECT BALANCE

RIGHT BALANCE FOR DESIGN SOLUTION CONTINUITY Oversimplifies the design.

Area of Inhabitable Space (m)

Distance between Morph Points (m)

Distance of Grid Lines (m)

Variety of Panels (%)

COMPL

Too random for drawing

Distance between Programme Spaces (m) DESIGN SPACE

PHENOTYPE

GENOTYPE

PHENOTYPE

Potentially complex variables that will effect the design. The output form of the information in the variables.

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA

BIAS Does not fully describe the design problem.

PERFECT BALANCE

VARIANCE Does not fully describe the design problem.

STUDIO | ZJD

EXTRACTING THE PARAMETERS AND METRICS FROM THE DESIGN DRIVERS, TO USE AS INPUTS FOR THE GENERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

GENOTYPE

Potentially complex variables that will effect the design. The output form of the info

METRICS

Area of Inhabitable Space (m)

Distance between Morph Points (m)

Distance of Grid Lines (m)

Variety of Panels (%)

Distance between Programme Spaces (m)

R FO

1.5m

all

t oo

≥1.5

3.0m

3.0

era

≥1

.5m

LECTURE SP AC

A RE

≥1

too lar CIENT BA g EFFI SE O D C A

Average distance: based on range of morph +0.75m

Within a range of 1.5m - 3m based on access and turning in an unmorphed grid

Maximum variety of scale of panel of given sizes

Distance equal to or more than 1.5m

1.5m gap for access as morph points create collar points

Access of 1.5m needed in unmorphed grid to keep it to human scale and allow two people to access simultaneously

Increasing the diversity of views within the sight and varying the views to stray away from normality

Not side by side but close enough to encourage exploration

ACE SP SQM?

CAF

LECTUR E

Addressing the programme area exploration and how close we can get to matching it

E SQM?

GROU

P SPA

SQM?

Certain sized spaces for conversations

STUDIO | ZJD

JUSTIFICATION

IDENTIFICATION AND EXTRACTION OF THE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA FROM THE METRICS TO ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE OF A GIVEN DESIGN ITERATION

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA

JUDGING THE METRICS

RUNNING IT: Generative and Evolutionary algorithms, when fed with the right design inputs, result in hundreds of design iterations. This chapter evidences these iterations, a selection of which have been explored in more detail, showing the metrics for each of them. The selection is gradually reduced, subject to the judgement criteria, resulting in a group of optimally performing iterations. The selection of the final design is ultimately the decision of the designers, who take any external factors into account.

VARIATION OF DESIGN SHOWCASING THE ITERATIONS THAT RESULTED FROM THE GENERATIVE ALGORITHM

STUDIO | ZJD

CLICK IMAGE TO ACTIVATE

Iteration 2

Iteration 5

Iteration 6

Iteration 16

Iteration 20

Iteration 27

Total Inhabitable Area - 274m² Morph Point Distance - 14.7m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 49%; 3m: 19% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 277

Total Inhabitable Area - 196m² Morph Point Distance - 14.6m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 44%; 2m: 35%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 5

Total Inhabitable Area - 204m² Morph Point Distance - 19.4m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 23%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 45% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 7

Total Inhabitable Area - 145m² Morph Point Distance - 18.9m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 45%; 3m: 25% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 12

Total Inhabitable Area - 267m² Morph Point Distance - 17.9m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 24%; 2m: 60%; 3m: 16% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 138

Total Inhabitable Area - 216m² Morph Point Distance - 17.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 15

Iteration 46

Iteration 52

Iteration 56

Total Inhabitable Area - 174m² Morph Point Distance - 14.0m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 22%; 2m: 54%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 4

Total Inhabitable Area - 336m² Morph Point Distance - 21.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 58%; 3m: 16% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 196

Total Inhabitable Area - 195m² Morph Point Distance - 17.3m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 25%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 28% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 49

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Ite ra

Iteration 34

26 n tio

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA Total Inhabitable Area - 304m² Morph Point Distance - 19.8m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 58%; 3m: 15% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 161

Iteration 68

It e

Iteration 66

Total Inhabitable Area - 283m² Morph Point Distance - 17.3m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 56

Iteration 75

Total Inhabitable Area - 311m² Morph Point Distance - 20.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 25%; 2m: 58%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 106

Iteration 80

Iteration 83

n tio

Total Inhabitable Area - 199m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 57%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 205

Iteration 93

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Total Inhabitable Area - 114m² Morph Point Distance - 19.8m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 41%; 3m: 33% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 70

Total Inhabitable Area - 179m² Morph Point Distance - 18.7m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 15%; 2m: 30%; 3m: 55% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 7

Total Inhabitable Area - 246m² Morph Point Distance - 20.4m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 22%; 2m: 56%; 3m: 22% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 96

Total Inhabitable Area - 102m² Morph Point Distance - 16m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 37%; 3m: 33% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 21

Total Inhabitable Area - 334m² Morph Point Distance - 17.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 45%; 2m: 35%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 80

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

46 Cafe Space

ITERATION 26 Lecture Space Total Inhabitable Area - 283m² Morph Point Distance - 17.3m

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 56

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 18%

Performance - HIGH The areas of the spaces, whilst larger than needed, allow for a a range of habitation. The grid distance is compact enough to encourage exploration, and the variation of panels gives a sense of human scale to the design. The position of the spaces and walls also results in a view coverage that extends furtehr than the reach of the design.

Lecture Space

Cafe Space

ITERATION 99 Total Inhabitable Area - 334m²

Ancilliary Space

Morph Point Distance - 17.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 45%; 2m: 35%; 3m: 20%

144m² LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 80 View Coverage - 15%

Performance - MODERATE The inhabitable area is much larger than needed, leading to less of an exploration of the rest of the site. The design implements a 1.5m grid, which lends to a better experience at human scale. A smaller number of collar point wall intersections means that the spaces are closer together and collar points that are shorter. View coverage is average also.

STUDIO | ZJD

KEY - IDEAL ITERATION

Iteration 140

Iteration 160

Iteration 152

It e

Iteration 136

Total Inhabitable Area - 164m² Morph Point Distance - 16.3m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 19%; 2m: 33%; 3m: 48% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 3

Total Inhabitable Area - 95m² Morph Point Distance - 20.9m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 24%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 48% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 0

Total Inhabitable Area - 109m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 17%; 2m: 58%; 3m: 25% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 9

Total Inhabitable Area - 139m² Morph Point Distance - 19.3m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 50%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 1

Iteration 162

Iteration 164

Iteration 179

Iteration 182

Total Inhabitable Area - 338m² Morph Point Distance - 18.8m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 60%; 2m: 19%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 40

Total Inhabitable Area - 147m² Morph Point Distance - 18.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 12%; 2m: 26%; 3m: 62% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 189

Total Inhabitable Area - 380m² Morph Point Distance - 20.9m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 23%; 2m: 62%; 3m: 15% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 112

Total Inhabitable Area - 106m² Morph Point Distance - 15.8m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 48%; 3m: 26% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 15

Iteration 196

Iteration 202

Total Inhabitable Area - 190m² Morph Point Distance - 20.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 42% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 168

n1 it o

VARIATION OF DESIGN EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA Total Inhabitable Area - 401m² Morph Point Distance - 16.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 46% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 94

Iteration 220

Total Inhabitable Area - 143m² Morph Point Distance - 18.5m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 49%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 18% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 31

Total Inhabitable Area - 109m² Morph Point Distance - 20.4m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 50%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 6

Total Inhabitable Area - 130m² Morph Point Distance - 18.5m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 56%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 5

Iteration 228

Iteration 235

Iteration 242

Iteration 243

Total Inhabitable Area - 313m² Morph Point Distance - 19.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 15%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 57% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 78

Total Inhabitable Area - 286m² Morph Point Distance - 16.2m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 48%; 2m: 25%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 32

Total Inhabitable Area - 217m² Morph Point Distance - 16.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 54%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 14% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 129

Total Inhabitable Area - 309m² Morph Point Distance - 17.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 51%; 2m: 29%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 197

Ite ra

Iteration 215

72 1 n tio

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Total Inhabitable Area - 204m² Morph Point Distance - 17.0m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 43%; 3m: 25% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 25

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

Lecture Space

ITERATION 122 Cafe Space

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Total Inhabitable Area - 401m²

Ancilliary Space

Morph Point Distance - 16.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 46% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 94

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 13%

Performance - LOW The combination of a larger space with a larger grid distance means that there is less of an emphasis on the human scale as well as the exploration and experience of the space. The variety of space is good, but low view coverage and low morph point distance detracts from the design.

Cafe Space

ITERATION 172 Lecture Space

Total Inhabitable Area - 254m² Morph Point Distance - 17.0m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 43%; 3m: 25%

KEY

LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

View Coverage - 15%

Performance - MODERATE The areas that are present are suitable for the programme of the pavilion, whilst still allowing for a sense of exploration through the site. A close to equal panel variety means that views through the site are varied, lending to the overall experience of the pavilion. An average view coverage also means that views can be had from within the site outwards.

STUDIO | ZJD

144m²

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 25

Iteration 261

Iteration 268

Iteration 279

It e

Iteration 244

n2 it o

Total Inhabitable Area - 155m² Morph Point Distance - 16.8m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 20%; 3m: 51% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 5

Total Inhabitable Area - 185m² Morph Point Distance - 17.6m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 24%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 29% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 20

Total Inhabitable Area - 163m² Morph Point Distance - 19.3m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 23%; 2m: 56%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 26

Total Inhabitable Area - 184m² Morph Point Distance - 21.1m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 38%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 34% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 2

Iteration 287

Iteration 306

Iteration 324

Iteration 330

Total Inhabitable Area - 402m² Morph Point Distance - 20.4m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 39%; 2m: 33%; 3m: 28% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 0

Total Inhabitable Area - 170m² Morph Point Distance - 19.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 44%; 3m: 30% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 63

Total Inhabitable Area - 193m² Morph Point Distance - 17.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 58%; 3m: 12% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 124

Total Inhabitable Area - 140m² Morph Point Distance - 19.5m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 44% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 96

Iteration 332

Iteration 348

Iteration 371

Iteration 377

Total Inhabitable Area - 65m² Morph Point Distance - 20.0m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 36%; 2m: 55%; 3m: 9% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 49

Total Inhabitable Area - 73m² Morph Point Distance - 19.2m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 14%; 2m: 35%; 3m: 51% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 6

Total Inhabitable Area - 277m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 26%; 3m: 45% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 101

Total Inhabitable Area - 157m² Morph Point Distance - 18.8m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 20%; 2m: 43%; 3m: 37% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 1

Iteration 402

Iteration 414

Iteration 419

Iteration 450

Total Inhabitable Area - 265m² Morph Point Distance - 17.4m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 57%; 3m: 13% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 68

Total Inhabitable Area - 184m² Morph Point Distance - 15.1m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 38%; 2m: 40%; 3m: 22% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 26

Total Inhabitable Area - 400m² Morph Point Distance - 18.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 50%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 23% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 36

Total Inhabitable Area - 203m² Morph Point Distance - 20.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 51%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 182

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Ite ra

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

38 3 n tio

Total Inhabitable Area - 368m² Morph Point Distance - 17.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 37%; 2m: 46%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 19

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Total Inhabitable Area - 411m² Morph Point Distance - 16.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 22%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 51% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 42

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

50 Cafe Space

Lecture Space

ITERATION 241 Total Inhabitable Area - 368m² Morph Point Distance - 17.2m

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 37%; 2m: 46%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 19

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 13%

Performance - MODERATE Certain metrics lend themselves to this being a good iteration, such as the distance between the morph points, as well as the grid distance and panel variation. But a low view coverage and close programme areas means that the exploration through the site is reduced, whilst also reducing the ability to create ancilliary spaces.

Cafe Space

ITERATION 338 Lecture Space

Total Inhabitable Area - 411m² Morph Point Distance - 16.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 22%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 51%

KEY

LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

View Coverage - 12%

Performance - LOW The programme spaces that have been designed are much too large for the needs of the pavilion. In addition to this, a low view coverage, low morph point distance and unequal panel variation makes for a low performing iteration. STUDIO | ZJD

144m²

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 42

Iteration 484

Iteration 496

Iteration 508

Iteration 514

Total Inhabitable Area - 295m² Morph Point Distance - 19.5m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 40%; 2m: 33%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 36

Total Inhabitable Area - 120m² Morph Point Distance - 18.5m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 56%; 2m: 26%; 3m: 18% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 30

Total Inhabitable Area - 204m² Morph Point Distance - 17.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 34%; 2m: 16%; 3m: 50% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 74

Total Inhabitable Area - 80m² Morph Point Distance - 17.1m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 35%; 2m: 41%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 12

Total Inhabitable Area - 171m² Morph Point Distance - 21.3m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 23%; 2m: 43%; 3m: 34% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 50

Total Inhabitable Area - 253m² Morph Point Distance - 18.4m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 57%; 2m: 20%; 3m: 23% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 142

Iteration 530

Iteration 546

Total Inhabitable Area - 241m² Morph Point Distance - 19.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 53%; 3m: 18% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 166

Total Inhabitable Area - 160m² Morph Point Distance - 17.4m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 50%; 2m: 30%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 275

Iteration 548

Iteration 560

Total Inhabitable Area - 203m² Morph Point Distance - 16.8m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 55%; 3m: 19% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 53

Total Inhabitable Area - 158m² Morph Point Distance - 16.4m Grid Distance - 3.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 43%; 2m: 19%; 3m: 38% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 9

22 5 n tio

Ite ra

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Iteration 474

Ite ra

Iteration 459

80 5 n tio

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

Total Inhabitable Area - 162m² Morph Point Distance - 17.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 28%; 2m: 44%; 3m: 28% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 39

Total Inhabitable Area - 189m² Morph Point Distance - 21.8m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 42%; 2m: 30%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 93

Iteration 562

Iteration 594

Iteration 596

Iteration 602

Iteration 610

Iteration 612

Total Inhabitable Area - 243m² Morph Point Distance - 18.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 53%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 50

Total Inhabitable Area - 197m² Morph Point Distance - 21.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 59%; 2m: 25%; 3m: 16% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 51

Total Inhabitable Area - 194m² Morph Point Distance - 20.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 59%; 3m: 15% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 38

Total Inhabitable Area - 168m² Morph Point Distance - 18.3m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 55%; 2m: 21%; 3m: 24% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 38

Total Inhabitable Area - 145m² Morph Point Distance - 19.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 25%; 2m: 55%; 3m: 20% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 294

Total Inhabitable Area - 316m² Morph Point Distance - 14.4m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 142

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

Cafe Space

ITERATION 522 Lecture Space

Total Inhabitable Area - 162m² Morph Point Distance - 17.6m

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 28%; 2m: 44%; 3m: 28% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 39

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 12%

Performance - HIGH A close to needed inhabitable area means that little space is wasted with the remainder of the site. Coupled with a larger morph point distance and close panel variations, it creates a space that fits needs but still encourages exploration. The grid distance also allows for smaller areas to be identified as ancilliary spaces.

Ancilliary Space

Lecture Space

ITERATION 580 Total Inhabitable Area - 189m² Morph Point Distance - 21.8m

Cafe Space

KEY

LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

Panel Variation - 1m: 42%; 2m: 30%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 93

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

View Coverage - 6%

Performance - MODERATE Much of this iteration works in line with the judgement criteria. The inhabitable area is close to the ideal amount, the morph point distance is larger, leading to more chance of exploration through the site. The spaces are spread throughout the site, rather than being clustered, but the design is let down by an extremely low view coverage.

STUDIO | ZJD

144m²

Grid Distance - 1.5m

Iteration 631

Iteration 642

Iteration 660

Total Inhabitable Area - 164m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 31%; 2m: 59%; 3m: 10% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 53

Total Inhabitable Area - 187m² Morph Point Distance - 16.5m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 31%; 2m: 42%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 19

Total Inhabitable Area - 244m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 53%; 2m: 429%; 3m: 18% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 148

Total Inhabitable Area - 247m² Morph Point Distance - 17.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 55%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 13% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 62

Iteration 709

Iteration 715

Iteration 737

Total Inhabitable Area - 95m² Morph Point Distance - 18.8m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 55%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 17% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 18

Total Inhabitable Area - 234m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 33%; 2m: 46%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 3

Total Inhabitable Area - 208m² Morph Point Distance - 20.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 25%; 2m: 50%; 3m: 25% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 0

Total Inhabitable Area - 277m² Morph Point Distance - 21.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 37%; 2m: 50%; 3m: 13% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 115

Iteration 743

Iteration 755

Iteration 774

Iteration 779

Total Inhabitable Area - 107m² Morph Point Distance - 17.1m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 35%; 2m: 26%; 3m: 39% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 6

Total Inhabitable Area - 306m² Morph Point Distance - 16.2m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 52%; 3m: 18% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 176

Total Inhabitable Area - 169m² Morph Point Distance - 17.2m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 47%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 47

Total Inhabitable Area - 115m² Morph Point Distance - 22.3m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 24%; 2m: 49%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 42

Iteration 785

Iteration 786

Iteration 791

Iteration 793

Total Inhabitable Area - 283m² Morph Point Distance - 19.0m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 24%; 2m: 49%; 3m: 27% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 138

Total Inhabitable Area - 266m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 55%; 2m: 26%; 3m: 19% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 101

Total Inhabitable Area - 107m² Morph Point Distance - 19.3m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 32%; 3m: 32% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 4

Total Inhabitable Area - 207m² Morph Point Distance - 20.6m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 52%; 3m: 22% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 51

Ite ra

Iteration 619

04 6 n tio

VARIATION OF DESIGN EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

Ite ra

Total Inhabitable Area - 128m² Morph Point Distance - 16.0m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 40%; 3m: 33% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 219

57 6 n tio

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Total Inhabitable Area - 374m² Morph Point Distance - 18.6m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 42%; 3m: 26% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 78

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

54 Lecture Space

ITERATION 604 Total Inhabitable Area - 128m²

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Morph Point Distance - 16.0m Grid Distance - 2.0m

Cafe Space

Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 40%; 3m: 33% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 219

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 7%

Performance - LOW A lower than outlined inhabitable area with low view coverage and closer morph point distance detract from the performance of this iteration. Whilst the good variety of areas and heights of panels lend itself to the design, it still lacks in creating a space to explore as well as experience human scale and connectivity to others.

Lecture Space

Cafe Space

ITERATION 657 Total Inhabitable Area - 374m²

Ancilliary Space

Morph Point Distance - 18.6m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 50%; 3m: 18%

KEY

LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

View Coverage - 12%

Performance - MODERATE Whilst the inhabitable area present is larger than needed, the variety of spaces means that the programme can be changed to whatever purpose is required. The lower grid distance and larger morph point distance mean that ancilliary spaces can easily be identified and exploration through the site is higher. An average view coverage gives it a moderate performance.

STUDIO | ZJD

144m²

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 78

Iteration 800

Iteration 803

Total Inhabitable Area - 309m² Morph Point Distance - 17.9m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 22%; 3m: 51% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 30

Total Inhabitable Area - 169m² Morph Point Distance - 20.3m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 54%; 3m: 16% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 61

Iteration 807

Iteration 824

Total Inhabitable Area - 197m² Morph Point Distance - 15.1m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 28%; 2m: 20%; 3m: 52% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 30

Total Inhabitable Area - 228m² Morph Point Distance - 15.2m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 28%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 44% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 31

Ite ra

83 8 n tio

29 9 n tio

VARIATION OF DESIGN EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA Total Inhabitable Area - 230m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 39%; 3m: 29% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 47

Total Inhabitable Area - 267m² Morph Point Distance - 16.7m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 45%; 3m: 23% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 178

Iteration 839

Iteration 841

Iteration 848

Iteration 862

Iteration 897

Iteration 901

Total Inhabitable Area - 166m² Morph Point Distance - 20.2m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 27%; 2m: 40%; 3m: 33% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 46

Total Inhabitable Area -148m² Morph Point Distance - 19.2m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 29%; 2m: 49%; 3m: 22% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 109

Total Inhabitable Area - 416m² Morph Point Distance - 13.5m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 35%; 2m: 44%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 86

Total Inhabitable Area - 205m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 3m Panel Variation - 1m: 38%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 34% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 9

Total Inhabitable Area - 267m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 13%; 2m: 33%; 3m: 54% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 0

Total Inhabitable Area - 137m² Morph Point Distance - 15.1m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 47%; 2m: 30%; 3m: 23% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 10

Iteration 914

Iteration 920

Iteration 922

Iteration 928

Iteration 937

Iteration 945

Total Inhabitable Area - 258m² Morph Point Distance - 16.9m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 26%; 2m: 52%; 3m: 22% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 167

Total Inhabitable Area - 205m² Morph Point Distance - 19.1m Grid Distance - 2.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 30%; 2m: 27%; 3m: 43% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 86

Total Inhabitable Area - 106m² Morph Point Distance - 18.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 31%; 2m: 22%; 3m: 47% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 36

Total Inhabitable Area - 317m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 52%; 2m: 22%; 3m: 26% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 140

Total Inhabitable Area - 211m² Morph Point Distance - 18.8m Grid Distance - 2.0m Panel Variation - 1m: 51%; 2m: 28%; 3m: 21% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 110

Total Inhabitable Area - 238m² Morph Point Distance - 17.1m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 46%; 2m: 31%; 3m: 23% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 101

KEY HIGH PERFORMING ITERATION

LOW PERFORMING ITERATION CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

STUDIO | ZJD

MODERATELY PERFORMING ITERATION

Cafe Space

ITERATION 833 Total Inhabitable Area - 230m² Morph Point Distance - 19.6m

VARIATION OF DESIGN

Lecture Space

Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 39%; 3m: 29% Collar Point Wall Intersections - 47

EXTRACTING SELECT ITERATIONS, OBSERVING THE METRICS AND JUDGING THEIR PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA

View Coverage - 20%

Performance - HIGH The metrics that have been derived from this iteration show that this is one of the best performing designs. The inhabitable area is relatively close to the outlined value, the morph point distance is high, allowing for a greater sense of exploration. A close to equal panel variety and large view coverage lend themselves to a very well performing design.

Cafe Space

ITERATION 929 Total Inhabitable Area - 267m²

Lecture Space

Morph Point Distance - 16.7m Grid Distance - 1.5m Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 45%; 3m: 23%

KEY

LARGER 1.5m EQUAL 30-60 LARGER

AREA OF MULTIPURPOSE SPACE, CAFE AND REFLECTION SPACES MORPH POINT DISTANCE IDEAL GRID DISTANCE PANEL VARIATION NO. OF COLLAR POINTS AVERAGE VIEW COVERAGE

View Coverage - 7%

Performance - MODERATE Another well performing design, with higher than needed areas but a good variety of spaces. Morph point distance is average, coupled with a denser grid means that exploration is present. Relatively close to equal panel variation and spread out spaces mean that the experience is also benefitting. But the design is ultimately let down by the low performing view coverage.

STUDIO | ZJD

144m²

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 178

57 Chosen Iteration Grid Morph

Culling Process

Final Arrangement to take forward

REFINING THE DESIGN CURATING THE SPACES AND CREATING THE CIRCULATION PATHS Whilst this design might not be the best performing design in each category, its performance to the judgement criteria is averaged to be good. But ultimately, the decision is left to us, to decide whether this would be a good footprint for the pavilion to be expanded upon. The combination of spaces, despite being larger than needed, allow us to design the pavilion to maximise utility, whilst also being able to embody a solution to the problem outlined. It allows us to include the concepts and ideas that would make this pavilion a space in which interactions could take place, and in which people would become more connected to others and the environment around them. Chosen Iteration Iteration 833

Total Inhabitable Area - 230mÂ˛

Grid Distance - 1.5m

Panel Variation - 1m: 32%; 2m: 39%; 3m: 29%

Collar Point Wall Intersections - 47

View Coverage - 20%

Creation of circulation into pavilion Creation of circulation into programme spaces Maximisation of view coverage from programme spaces Adjusment of panels better views

for

STUDIO | ZJD

Morph Point Distance - 19.6m

Identification of programme spaces

METRICS IDENTIFIED PROGRAMME AREAS

60m²

54m²

Total Inhabitable Area 230m²

30m²

Morph point distance 19.6m

EVALUATING THE DESIGN Greater distance between morph points creates more collar points

Grid distance 1.5m

Grid of 1.5 to allow dual direction exploration at human scale

Optimal Panel Variation

Iteration Panel Variation

1m - 33% 2m - 33% 3m - 33%

1m - 32% 2m - 39% 3m - 29%

Greater distance between the spaces creates chances for collar points. The number of wall intersections is representative of the culling required to create a collar point. A middle ground results in better collar points

Collar Point Wall Intersection 47

MEASURING THE METRICS OF THE DESIGN AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA IN MORE DEPTH

Total Required area 144m²

The isovist radius is set to 25m, as the distance that can be seen by someone with good eyesight. It also allows the extent of the intervention to be observed from within the programme spaces.

View Coverage 20%

STUDIO | ZJD

CHOSEN ITERATION PLAN VIEW

PROGRAMME AREAS WITHIN THE PAVILION

PROGRAMME AREAS WITHIN THE PAVILION Total Footprint of Pavilion 1364m²

Serpentine Brief Footprint for Habitation 300m²

5m²

IDENTIFYING THE PROGRAMME AREAS

60m²

Total Inhabitable Area 230m²

Total Required area 144m² 12m²

ANCILLIARY SPACE

ASSIGNING PROGRAMME TO THE CURATED SPACES

Main Spaces

CAFE

15m²

5m² 5m²

ANCILLIARY SPACE

60m²

5m²

REFLECTION SPACE

12m²

104m²

5m² 60m²

REFLECTION SPACE

15m² 5m² 12m²

60m² 15m² 60m²

OPEN SPACE

5m² 15m²

Secondary Spaces 5m²

60m²

5m²

12m² 104m²

15m² 12m² 104m²

15m²

5m²

5m² 60m²

STUDIO | ZJD

ANCILLIARY SPACE

12m²

OVERALL DISTANCES

PROGRAMME DISTANCES 1

CAFE SPACE

7.5m

OBSERVING THE DISTANCES

14m

10m 2m 13m

2 2m 2m

DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE DISTANCES OF THE PAVILION FOOTPRINT AS WELL AS THE PROGRAMME SPACES

52m

OPEN SPACE

2m 3m 3m

22m

13m

20m

5m 5m

34m

1.5m

2.5m

STUDIO | ZJD

GRID DISTANCE

TO/FROM THE CAFE SPACE

South-West Access

ENTRANCES INTO THE PAVILION

STUDIO | ZJD

North Access

TO/FROM THE OPEN SPACE

South Access

AN EXPLORATION INTO THE ENTRANCES TO THE PAVILION FROM THE FOUR MAIN ACCESS POINTS TO SITE

North-West Access

FINDING THE ENTRANCES

DISTRIBUTION OF PANEL HEIGHTS

LOOKING AT THE SCALE IDENTIFYING THE VARIATION OF PANELS, THEIR HEIGHTS AND HOW THIS TRANSLATES TO BETTER VISUAL CONNECTION

DISTRIBUTION OF PANEL HEIGHTS Outlined distribution of panel variance

Achieved distribution of panel variance

1m Panels - 33%

1m Panels - 32%

2m Panels - 33%

2m Panels - 39%

3m Panels - 33%

3m Panels - 29%

3m Panels 2m Panels 1m Panels

STUDIO | ZJD

Variation in height allows for different view experience in different spaces

VIEW COVERAGE FROM PROGRAMME AREAS

DISTRIBUTION OF PANEL HEIGHTS

[Plus ancilliary spaces]

100% View Coverage (No. of spaces x max view coverage) Area of spaces view coverage 25 m

ANALYSING THE VISUAL CONNECTION

20% View Coverage X 100 = %

INTERSECTING THE ISOVIST TO UNDERSTAND THE EXTENTS OF THE VIEWS WITHIN THE SITE AND FROM EACH OF THE PROGRAMME SPACES 2

Cafe Space View Coverage

Lecture Space View Coverage

STUDIO | ZJD

DRAWINGS:

STUDIO | ZJD

This chapter showcases the drawing package for the pavilion, including renders and visualisations to show the experience of being within the space and what that may feel like.

STUDIO | ZJD

SITE PLAN

SCALE BAR @ 1:500 0

STUDIO | ZJD

1:500

GROUND PLAN

SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

NORTH SECTION WITH RENDERED CALLOUTS

SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

EAST SECTION WITH RENDERED CALLOUTS

SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

71SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2 0

WEST ELEVATION

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

72SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2 0

EAST ELEVATION

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

73 0

SCALE BAR @ 1:200 @ A2

NORTH ELEVATION

STUDIO | ZJD

1:200 at A2

STUDIO | ZJD

GLAZED CANOPY

CANOPY FIXING

EXAMINING THE STRUCTURE TRANSPARENT WOOD FIXED PANEL

PANEL BASE FIXING

GROUND

FOUNDATION DETAIL

CANOPY DETAIL

STUDIO | ZJD

A LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAVILION

PROPOSAL

CONSTRUCTION

IN USE

TAKE DOWN

SEQUENCING THE CONSTRUCTION EXAMINING THE CYCLE OF THE PAVILION AS WELL AS THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION

FOUNDATIONS EXCAVATED

PANELS INSERTED AND FIXED

FLOOR COVERING FITTED

FIXTURES FITTED AND EXCAVATIONS FILLED

GLAZED ROOF PANEL FITTED TO PROGRAMMATIC AREAS

STUDIO | ZJD

SITE HOARDING ERECTED

78 GLAZED ROOF PANELS TRANSPARENT TIMBER COLUMNS TRANSPARENT TIMBER PANELS

EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC

DOWELL FIXING BETWEEN BOARDS

EXAMINING THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE PAVILION TRANSPARENT TIMBER PANEL

PANEL FIXINGS STAINLESS STEEL STABILISING PANEL WITH PPC COATING TIMBER FLOOR PANELS WITH ANTISLIP TEXTURE TIMBER BATTENS STAINLESS STEEL BASE PANEL WITH PPC COATING

STUDIO | ZJD

GROUND

STUDIO | ZJD

GOING FORWARD:

STUDIO | ZJD

The architectural installation that we have designed aims to address the issue of social isolation but as a small scale intervention. By using the pavilion as a test-bed and the creation of a third place, it helps to encourage social interaction between people, others and their environment. However, the research that has been evidenced can also be translated to a bigger scale. This chapter includes a brief look at happiness economics as a way of translating this solution to a larger scale.

HAPPINESS ECONOMICS

Apply Grid of Points

Gives an insight to understand and measure what people value in life... not just restricted to economic factors, such as GDP, influencing their well-being

Set Boundary

Morph Grid

Does program fit spaces created?

Apply Grid of Points

Extract Random Points

Set Boundary

HAPPINESS ECONOMICS

Morph Grid

Apply Grid of Points

NO Set Boundary

Extract Random Points

“Are you satisfied with your life?” “How happy are you?”

Do the Collar Points line up?

YES

Break lines to grid points

HE A

CE AN

Cull the lines using random pattern

lines using Cull Cull the the lines using random pattern random pattern

Bruno

People may value lower income and more holidays over higher income and no free time

Extrude lines to random heights

H LT

T EN NM NO

TY NI

NO NO

lines of of Are lines Are the linesAre ofthethe sight with 5-20m? sight with 5-20m? sight with 5-20m?

YES

DoDo the the lines of Do the lines lines ofof sight hitsight manmade hit manmade sight hit manmade elements? BOOSTS elements?

YES

Family, friends and neighbours

Less long working hours Unemployment

Extrude lines to BOOSTS random heightsHAPPINESS

Healthy Breaklifestyle lines to grid points

YES

EN VIR

L BA

WORK

EC O N

LIF E

HAPPINESS = Fulfilled life, a sense of well-being, joy or contentment

Break lines to grid points

YES

K OR M

YES

INC

Extrude lines to random heights

Do the Collar Points line up? More money motivated

TYP E

Mood boosters increase human interaction, which in turn boosts mood

Extract Random Points

Points line up? Passionate about your job and not just working for the paycheck

Does program fit spaces created?

There are wider influences on mood and happiness and measuring happiness is not a simple process Do the Collar YES

Research into the relationship between personal satisfaction and economic factors such as wealth and employment. By using economic analysis, data can be collected to explore the factors impacting postive or negatively to the well-being and quality of life. (Bruno, 2008)

Morph GridYES

CO M M U

AN EXAMINATION OF THE WIDER SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS THAT CAN AFFECT A PERSONS HAPPINESS, WITH THE AIM TO CARRY THIS RESEARCH FORWARD INTO THE NEXT UNIT

HAPPINESS: A REVOLUTION IN ECONOMICS

Does program fit spaces created?

URBAN VALUE elements?

BOOSTS CONNECTION

YES

Lower pollution levels and more natural surroundings Optimised Design

Optimised Design

YES

STUDIO | ZJD

SURVEY

P10 Oldenburg, R., 2005. The Great Good Place. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. Williams, Y. “Social Isolation: Definition, Causes & Effects.” Study.com, 30 May 2017, study.com/academy/lesson/social-isolation-definition-causes-effects.html P11 Matthews, T. and Dolley, J. (2019). Many people feel lonely in the city, but perhaps ‘third places’ can help with that. [online] [Accessed 7 Nov. 2019]. The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/many-people-feel-lonely-in-the-city-butperhaps-third-places-can-help-with-that-92847 Kaida, K., Takahashi, M. and Otsuka, Y., (2007). ‘A Short Nap and Natural Bright Light Exposure Improve Positive Mood Status’. Industrial health, 45(2), pp.301-308. P13 Nagy, D. (2017) Learning From Nature. [online] Medium. Available at: https:// medium.com/generative-design/learning-from-nature-fe5b7290e3de [Accessed 25 Oct. 2019]. P14 Maxwell, I.J. and Pigram, D.A., 2010. Supermanoeuvre-Inorganic Speciation: Matter, Behaviour and Formation in Architecture. Contemporary Digital Architecture: Design and Techniques. Barnes, C. (2020). Booth-generator by students from Trier University of Applied Science | Dezeen. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen. com/2010/01/24/booth-generator-by-students-from-trier-university-of-appliedscience/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. Winston, A. (2020). Landesgartenschau Exhibition Hall is a plywood pavilion made by robots. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/24/ landesgartenschau-exhibition-hall-at-university-of-stuttgart-robot-prefabricatedplywood/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. P15 Nagy, D. (2017) The Design Space. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium. com/generative-design/step-1-generate-6bf73fb3a004 [Accessed 25 Oct. 2019]. Nagy, D. (2017) Designing MEasures. [online] Medium. Available at: https:// medium.com/generative-design/designing-measures-2c66a71b2ff3 [Accessed 25

Oct. 2019]. P23 Lavin, S. (2012) Vanishing Point:The Contemporary Pavilion. New York, NY: Art Forum. Consultants, N. (2017). BARCELONA PAVILION: STATEMENT OF MODERNISM – Bringing Designs To Life. [online] Nirman.com. Available at: http://nirman.com/ blog/2017/05/03/barcelona-pavilion-statement-of-modernism/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. ArchDaily. (2017). Le Corbusier’s Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau Named One of “20 Designs That Defined the Modern World”. [online] Available at: https://www. archdaily.com/883336/le-corbusiers-pavillon-de-lesprit-nouveau-named-one-of20-designs-that-defined-the-modern-worl [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. ZIETA. (n.d.). Nawa - An architectural public sculpture by Oskar Zieta. [online] Available at: https://www.zieta.pl/nawa/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. Cogley, B. (2019). The Very Many creates Pillar of Dreams pavilion in Charlotte. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/20/the-verymany-pillar-of-dreams-pavilion-charlotte/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020]. P24 Barrett, M. (2020). Piet Oudolf: Inside the Serpentine Pavilion. [online] Architecture Now. Available at: https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/a-garden-designed-bydutch-master-piet-oudolf-takes-centre-stage-inside-this-years-pavilion/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019]. Serpentine Galleries. (n.d.). Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2012 by Herzog & de Meuron and Ai Weiwei. [online] Available at: https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/ exhibitions-events/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2012-herzog-de-meuron-and-aiweiwei [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020]. Self, J. (2013). Sou Fujimoto to design Serpentine Pavilion 2013. [online] Domusweb. it. Available at: https://www.domusweb.it/en/news/2013/02/14/sou-fujimoto-todesign-serpentine-pavilion-2013.html [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019]. Serpentine Galleries. (n.d.). Serpentine Pavilion 2018 designed by Frida Escobedo. [online] Available at: https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/ serpentine-pavilion-2018-designed-frida-escobedo [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019]. P28 Gehl, J. (2015). In Search of Human Scale. [online] TEDXKEA. Youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgw9oHDfJ4k [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019]. P29 Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press. P30 Wood, A. (2017). Interview with Herman Hertzberger (2017): architecture as visual and social connection. [online] Architecture and Education. Available at: https:// architectureandeducation.org/2017/08/29/interview-with-herman-hertzberger2017-architecture-as-visual-and-social-connection/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. P31 Ertürk , Z., A Method for Determining Spatial Requirements with Special Emphasis, Irbnet, [Online] [Acessed 31st October 2019] http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/

CIB15098.pdf P32 Engineeringtoolbox.com. (2019). Building Area per Person. [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/number-persons-buildings-d_118.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2019]. Fay, N., Garrod, S. and Carletta, J. (2000). ‘Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size’. Psychological Science, 11(6), pp.481-486. McAndrew, F. (2017). ‘What Is the Right Size for a Group Conversation?’. [online] Psychology Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/outthe-ooze/201707/what-is-the-right-size-group-conversation [Accessed 14 Nov. 2019]. Simsek, Ö. (2013). ‘The Relationship Between Language Use and Depression: Illuminating the Importance of Self-Reflection, Self-Rumination, and the Need for Absolute Truth’. The Journal of General Psychology, 140(1), pp.29-44. P34 Fig.1 Davis, A. (2014). Glass panes form transparent labyrinth by Robert Morris. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/03/glass-labyrinthrobert-morris-nelson-atkins-museum-kansas-city/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019]. Fig.2 Hamakareem, M. (2019). Transparent Wood - Production, Properties, Applications, and Advantages. [online] The Constructor. Available at: https:// theconstructor.org/building/transparent-wood/29163/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019]. Fig.3 Gross, R. (2018). BLAK BOX is a light- and sound-filled pavilion that invites deep listening. [online] Indesignlive | Daily Connection to Australian Architecture and Design. Available at: https://www.indesignlive.com/the-good-times/blak-boxdeep-listening-sydney-festival [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019]. P40 Wander through the Crystal World | teamLab /. (2018). Wander through the Crystal World | teamLab / . [online] Available at: https://www.teamlab.art/w/crystalworld [Accessed 14 Nov. 2019]. P81 Frey, B. (2008). Happiness - A Revolution in Economics. Munich Lectures in Economics. Graham, C. (2010). Happy Talk: The Economics of Happiness. [online] Brookings. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/happy-talk-the-economics-ofhappiness/ [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020]. Kroll, C. (2014). What makes people happy and why it matters for development. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment-professionals-network/2013/sep/03/happiness-economicswellbeing-mdgs [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020]. Twomey, C. (2018). Happiness economics, ‘hygge’ and the world of work. [online] The Irish Times. Available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/ happiness-economics-hygge-and-the-world-of-work-1.3562976 [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020]. Yale Insights. (2010). What are the economics of happiness?. [online] Available at: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-are-the-economics-of-happiness [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020].

STUDIO | ZJD

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P9 Parsons, G. (2017). ‘London is Among the Loneliest Cities in the World’ Time Out [Online] [Accessed 7th November 2019 17:28] https://www.timeout.com/london/ blog/london-is-among-the-loneliest-cities-in-the-world-021617 Krause, N. (2019). Neighborhood Deterioration and Social Isolation in Later Life Neal Krause, 1993. [online] SAGE Journals. Available at: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/10.2190/UBR2-JW3W-LJEL-J1Y5 [Accessed 7 Nov. 2019]. Enyedi, G. (2002). Social sustainability of large cities. Ekistics, 69(412/413/414), 142144. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/43619551 Harries, E. ‘Social Isolation and its Relationship to the Urban Environment’. McGill University. Trivedi, J.K., Sareen, H. and Dhyani, M., (2008). Rapid urbanization-Its impact on mental health: A South Asian perspective. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(3), p.161.