Thesis: Empowering The Architect by Daniel Pound

Empowering the Architect To what extent has parametric design Enabled the Architect? Daniel Pound 33321749 Masters of Architecture Leeds School of Architecture

Daniel Pound 33321749 Masters of Architecture Dr Maria Theodorou and Sarah Mills Submission date 12th December 2016 Empowering the architect: To what extent has parametric design enabled the architect? Word count: 8580

Contents 01

Abstract

Introduction

Emergence of parametric design in architecture

Shifting paradigms in design

Changing roles of a designer

Parametrics throughout history

Case study: Parametricism v parametric design

Design - Primary research

Fabrication and materiality

Case study: DLR Ten Pavilion

Case study: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilions

Fabrication - Primary research

Creating Interaction

Case study: Minimaforms interactive projects

Interaction - Primary research

Conclusion

Bibliography

List of Illustrations

Abstract

This thesis aims to expose the impact of parametric design and associated tools on the role of the architect. The research will look at Patrick Schumacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2009) declaration of Parametricism as a style and access whether this has resulted in the marginalisation of the use of parametrics as a design tool. Through the evaluation of both case studies and personal studio design projects, the thesis will explore how parametric design software is affecting the way the architects design in relation to the three topics; design, fabrication and interaction. Scrutiny of the formalistic verses efficiency design approach of the London Aquatics Centre and Olympic Velodrome will highlight the associated design problem of style or tool. This will lead on to the question: when designing, does utilising parametric software challenge and expand the role of the architect? Does the ability to interact directly with the latest fabrication technology strengthen the designers influence on the design to production process? Analysis of the workflow process involved in the DRL Ten Pavilion and ICD/ITKE research pavilions of 2012-2015 will assess any growing influence and

the resulting changes. Investigations into the work of Theodore Spyropoulos at Minimaforms in the area of interaction will highlight the potential that parametric software brings. Can the use of parametric design software provide the opportunity to explore how buildings interact with their users? Using exploration of a studio design project as primary research, this thesis will analyse the views explored through the case studies. It aims to develop a personal position of the utilisation of parametric design software through highlighting the problems and benefits encountered in the design process. This will once again focus on the topics of design, fabrication and interaction, before looking at the use of parametric design software as a whole. Following the analysis of the primary and secondary research, the catalytic effect of parametric design on the field of architecture will be discussed. This will aim to assess whether there is greater potential for parametrics in architecture, as a stylistic approach or design tool as the pencil and paper has historically been.

design. Whilst this offers a strong option for the rise, many believe the progress is down to the development of computation technology during this time. This is a view that Mark Foster Gage shares in his article ‘A hospice for Parametricism’ through the statement that parametrics is “certainly super charged by digital technologies” (2016, p130).

Introduction

After years of being considered as one of the avantgarde architectural styles, Patrik Schumacher’s 2008 manifesto at the Venice Architectural Biennale declared Parametricism as the next major architectural style through the statement “Parametricism is the great new style after Modernism” (2008, p.1). This declaration comes after the influence of university research programs such as the Architectural Association’s Design Research Lab has filtered through to the professional practices. However, Schumacher believed that the concept of Parametricism is not new to architecture but only recently has it become more widely celebrated. This is supported by his view that Frei Otto is the “sole true precursor of Parametricism” (2008, p1). The architectural style of Parametricism has been around since the era of Frei Otto, but has only came to the forefront of architectural practice in 2008, some thirty years later. The major question that emerges is why 2008? What has been the catalyst that has allowed for the development and emergence of Parametricism as the next major architectural style? As part of the Parametricism manifesto Schumacher (2009) also stated his belief that design styles are research programs. When taking into account that Schumacher was a founding director of the Architectural Associations DRL in 1997 it might offer a reason for the rising popularity of parametric

The resulting development in computational technology has allowed for the emergence of parametric design software such as the opensource Grasshopper plug-in for Rhinoceros 3D and Dynamo for Revit. These parametric design tools have allowed architects and designers with little knowledge of computer programing to create parametrically driven designs using visual software. Thus making parametric design more accessible. If the rise of computational technology has allowed for the development of Parametricism as a prominent architectural style, it raises the question over whether it has further influenced architectural practice. Computational technology has historically had a strong effect on the architectural profession. Throughout this thesis, the effect of parametric design tools on the architectural profession will be analysed. Through analysing Bruno Latour’s (2008) text, ‘A cautious Prometheus’ it will look at the role of the designer and assess the potential catalytic effect of parametric design on the current role. This will help understand whether parametric design software has the potential to change the way we design. In addition, the traditional means of communicating designs will be analysed in Mario Carpo’s (2011) ‘The alphabet and the algorithm’. This will be compared to the impact of parametric design software on the methods of communicating parametric designs. Taking a view on these potentially affected areas, the text will aim to assess whether the use of parametric design tools has ultimately empowered the architect throughout the design process.

Through analysing primary and secondary case studies, the following sections will explore the catalytic effect that parametric design software has had on how the architect designs. If the process of design has been effected in the manor to which both Carpo and Latour describe, the case studies will aim to analyse the extent of this. The three topics of design, fabrication and interaction provide possibly the greatest insight into the extent of the catalytic influence. Therefore, the chosen case studies will aim to show both the positive and negative influences of the parametric design process on the three areas and the how it has changed the architect’s design process. When considering the effect of parametric design software on the design process, the effect of research institutes such as the Architectural Associations Design Research Laboratory will be highlighted. This will show the way in which the use of software has expanded architectural design capabilities. The case studies however, highlight how parametric design software provides the opportunity to tailor the design process to the users aims. The two projects, Hopkins Architects’ London Olympic Velodrome and Zaha Hadid Architects’ Olympic Aquatic Centre both utilise parametric software in the design process but with different aims. Through looking at the formalistic approach of the Aquatics Centre and the efficiency driven velodrome, the versatility of the software during the design process will be explored. Thus identifying the potential of the software for designers sceptical of the Parametricism movement and the formalistic approach to which it has become synonymous. Possibly the biggest change in the way parametric software has influenced the work of architects is in the design to fabrication process. Interaction between the architects and the fabrication process is increasing due to the nature of parametric design. The increasing differentiation and complexity within architectural design because of parametrics has resulted in a challenge to the traditional process. The two case studies chosen explore this

development and implications associated with the changes. The Architectural Associations DLR Ten pavilion highlights how differentiation within the parametric design process encourages the architect to have greater control of the fabrication process. Through directly utilising the digital building model to create and amend the fabrication drawings, the designers were increasing their involvement and challenging the traditional allographic approach. This will develop through the second case study of the University of Stuttgart’s ICD/ITKE research pavilions between 2012 and 2015. Constructing the pavilions with robotics and 3D printed carbon-fibre the case study highlights how the fabrication method has become an integral part of the whole design process. It will also look at the implications this has on the traditional role of the architect because of developing technologies. Whilst the area of fabrication may be seen as having the greatest change because of parametrics, the greatest potential for development may lie in the area of interaction. Whether it is human-human, machine-human or machine-machine interaction, the use of parametric design software provides one of the greatest potentials for achieving interaction. Both Schumacher (2016) and Spyropoulos (2016) have expressed their belief that the Parametricism movement needs to embrace the potential for interaction in architecture. Through his work at the Architectural Association DLR and Minimaforms, Spyropoulos has been pushing the field of interactive architecture. The two case studies by Minimaforms, Petting Zoo and Memory Cloud focus on exploring the desired interaction. The first project Memory Cloud explores social interaction between users. The second project, Petting Zoo focuses on humanmachine interaction in a physical form. It will also assess the impact that these developments can have on the future of interactive architecture. The analysis of the secondary case studies discussed will provide an opportunity to understand some of the issues at play in the three highlighted areas. Through the analysis of a personal design

project as primary research, there will also be an attempt to understand the issues on a first hand basis. This primary research will help to form a more personal position on the three topics. The personal project Poiesis, involved the designing of a pavilion that communicated the principles of ballet dancing. Using the parametric design software Grasshopper, the project three dimensionally recorded a ballet dancer before interpreting the data to create an experiential pavilion. Whilst the design project was theoretical and not constructed, the production of

design models at multiple scales allowed for an insight into the benefit issues that surround the use of parametric design software in architecture. This will also aim to highlight any specific changes to the work of the architect as a direct result relating to the use of the parametric software.

Clockwise from top left: Figure 1: Olympic Velodrome by Hopkins Architects Figure 2: London Aquatics centre by Zaha Hadid Architects Figure 3: ICD/ITKE research pavilion 2015 Figure 4: Petting Zoo at the Barbican by Minimaforms Figure 5: Memory Cloud by Minimaforms Figure 6:AA DRL Ten Pavilion

Emergence of Parametric design in Architecture In the years since the Modernism design phase dominated and revolutionised the architectural profession, there has been many styles emerging. These styles such as Postmodernism, High-tech and Deconstructivism have influenced architecture but have not had the revolutionary influence that modernism brought. During a presentation at the 2008 Architecture Biennale in Venice, Patrik Schumacher proposed the recent avantgarde architectural practice as a new style called Parametricism, declaring “Parametricism is the great new style after Modernism” (2008, p.1). Based on the beliefs of differentiation and optimisation between elements and the substructures, the rise of Parametricism in the recent avant-garde of architecture has been helped by the demands of the post-Fordist society looking to move away from the standardised past. If such a switch has become apparent and prevalent within the architectural profession as suggested there must have been a catalyst driving the emergence of a parametric design as the avant-garde style. When trying to evaluate the dominant catalyst that brought about the stylistic change there was many different questions that present them self as an option. When designing, does utilising parametric software challenge and expand the role of the architect? Does the ability to interact directly with the latest fabrication technology strengthen the designers influence on the design to production process?

Can the use of parametric design software provide the opportunity to explore how buildings interact with their users? All of the preceding are strong catalysts of the shift, however, in the digital age the development of computation technology throughout all aspects of our lives has had a profound effect on the architectural profession. This technological change has influenced all of the potential catalysts previously stated changing the way in which an architect operates. Schumacher’s (2008) manifesto believes that Parametricism goes beyond the use of computational software as a means for production. “Parametric design tools themselves do not account for the shift from modernism to parametricism” (Schumacher, 2009, p16). While Schumacher may argue that parametric design tools such as Grasshopper have not defined the drastic stylistic shift, they have enabled its emergence. This view is backed up by a critic of Parametricism, Mark Foster Gage (2016, p.130) who believes that the movement has been “supercharged by digital technologies”. Without such parametric design tools, achieving two of the main components of parametricism; fluidity and differentiation, would not be possible in the digital age. When discussing the meaning of design Latour (2008), speaks of a successful design being judged by the context for which it is produced. Without the use of such computational technology, would the positive heuristics of parametric design to which Schumacher (2009) refers be achievable? Thus suggesting that the emergence in computational technology had been a strong catalyst in the development of parametricism as a style. Further reference is given to the importance of the advancing technology in changing the way we design, but Schumacher believes it is the “designers grasp of the unique formal and organisational afforded by these processes” (2009, p. 17) that sets parametricism apart from other styles which utilise parametric software in their workflow. These processes and positive heuristics that the style aims for are not new developments. These standards

have previously been explored by various architects throughout the pre-digital era at varying levels of detail, although not to the extent to which we now associate. With Frei Otto being pronounced as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the sole true precursor of Parametricismâ&#x20AC;? (Schumacher 2009, p.18) it is hard to argue that Parametricism was not previously considered a style of architecture prior to digital computation. Conversely, the development of computational technology has made parametric design accessible to those who previously would not be able to follow the work of those revolutionary architects.

Shifting Paradigm in design The increasing level of computation within architecture can be seen as catalyst in changing how the architectural profession operates. These changes are linked intrinsically; the developments in different strands pull others along. The development of parametric design tools leading the avant-garde architectural style has resulted in changes in how architects work, just as the introduction of CAD software did. The level and type of information produced by an architect is changing to adapt to the digital age and the construction methods available. This is further enhanced by the changing way in which a designer/ architect is perceived in modern day society, and the role which they play in the design phase. Throughout history, the role of an architect has both changed and developed; from its origins as a master builder to the architect as we now know it. The autographical roots of the architect as a master builder relied on explaining the design of a building through written descriptions, models and sketches. Consequently, resulting in buildings being built often only as a representation of the design provided, not as the architect had envisioned. This gave the builder more control over the design during the construction phase as the building, size, details and overall aesthetic were often open for interpretation. Without having direct control over the construction phase as a master builder, the architect ownership of a design was often lost. In attempt to gain further control over the final product, visionaries such as

Figure 7: Frei Otto: Precursor to Parametricism Olympic Stadium

Alberti, in the fifteenth century, challenged the way in which designs were communicated through the introduction of orthogonal scaled drawings and annotations. Thus changing the role of an architect from an autographical craftsman to an allographic art. Mario Carpo stated that “Modern architectural authorship came into being only with the rise of what I have called the Albertian paradigm - the definition of architecture as an allographic art” (2011, p117). Through this statement, Carpo believes that the foundations of the western architectural system of representing buildings in orthographic drawings is based on Alberti’s desire for buildings to be constructed as an identical copy of the architect’s drawings. This shift in paradigms changed the way in which an architect’s authorship of his work is portrayed, from being autographical to the allographic system described by Alberti. This development also allowed the designer to have greater control over the finished product without the need to be present during construction through the accurate representation of the building in standard drawings. The allographic drawing system to which Carpo refers remains the primary method of communication for an architect to date, despite the introduction of Computer Aided Design (CAD) packages at the end of the twentieth century. The uptake of CAD packages within the profession signified a change in method of drawing production, from analogue drawing to digital drafting, although the allographic output of drawings remained the same. It could be argued that the digitalisation of drawings allowed for increased accuracy, and therefore an exact representation of the design was achieved in an allographic form which previously could not be produced through hand drawings. Further developments in computational technology, in particularly the rise of parametric and three dimensional modelling, has allowed for the greatest challenge to the allographic work flows, suggesting a potential return to the autographical craftsman as a digital master builder.

Changing roles of a designer The potential return towards the role of the master builder taking greater control over the design to production process can be considered as challenging the current role of an architect as a designer. It is often seen by many that the role of an architect is to solely design the aesthetical look of the building and the resulting spaces both inside and out, the physical spaces of which the building consists. This is predominantly achieved through the re-application of previous designs strategies and styles resulting in building that is often redressed in a more contextual façade system. This is the process that has come to dominate architectural design within professional practice following the modernist influence of the past. When considering the shifting paradigm discussed previously relating to drawing methods, the role of a designer and what it means to design must too be questioned. French philosopher Bruno Latour (2008) challenged the traditional meaning of the word design, looking at how the emphasis has been changing from a minimalistic approach of simply giving a new “look or shape to something” to a more empowering and stimulating approach. This is taking us away from the superficial redressing process to which architecture has become accustomed. In the same way in which Mario Carpo (2011) defines the changes in drawing and representation methods as revolutionary, Latour suggests that as designers in the present social, cultural and political setting now have to deal with an expanded definition of design that encourages

revolutionizing as opposed to redressing. Placing emphasis on the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;precautionarily designedâ&#x20AC;? Latour (2008, p.4) further suggests that the role of a designer is returning to include the making and fabrication of an object as a vital part of design. Highlighting the additional development of the meaning of design. It becomes clear that architecture as profession is facing a distinct period of change in the methods of both designing, articulating and manifesting buildings. Individually Bruno Latour and Mario Carpo have suggested that two of the vital principles that define the architectural profession, designing and drawing, are both facing radical changes, which will in turn come to define the role of an architect. The two separate areas discussed by Carpo and Latour both suggest the role of the designer within architecture is evolving to have a greater influence on both the manufacturing information, both through the production of fabrication information and the overall materiality of the design. This increased influence upon the buildings design process is further promoting the use of parametric computational design tools allowing the integration of revolutionary design strategies not seen before. The improvement of parametric design tools and its integration as the avant-garde architectural style has changed the way designers can look at the built form. Techniques that were previously limited to the few pioneers of Parametricism pre-digital revolution have become widely accessible, allowing designers to further integrate strategic factors. Gone has the requirement for standardised sizes, as the ability to apply differentiation and organic forms to buildings becomes more achievable in the digital age. The concurrent development of fabrication systems has also changed the way architects can think about the construction methods, giving the architect a more hands on approach providing control over the production process. These two areas of design and fabrication along with a third, interaction, are the areas in which it appears parametric design tools present a designer the greatest benefit. The

following sections focus on the areas of Design, Fabricate and interaction and explores with personal primary and second hand case studies, the way in which parametric design tools have empowered the architect to have greater control over the whole design to fabrication process.

DESIGN Parametrics throughout history It has become clear that the development of parametric computation technology has resulted in the chain of events leading to Schumacher’s declaration of Parametricism as the new avant-garde style in the architectural profession. Reference was given to Frei Otto being the “sole true precursor of Parametricism” (Schumacher, 2008, p.1), although numerous architects and historians believe the origins and principles to which Parametricism is linked can be found deep into the architectural past. Historian Mario Carpo (2016) believes that the use of parametric equations within architecture can be dated as far back as the first century BC through the work of Vitruvius. Whilst this is not the digital parametric’s to which we are now accustomed to, the same algorithmic principles were used through written text to describe the design of columns. Prior to the shift to an allographic communication method of which Alberti defined, the use of written rules and parameters was widely used to communicate the design of building elements in the absence of visual graphics. Whilst the previous examples of analogue parametric design rely on a scripted rule based system to which we may directly relate to modern digital computation, more recent examples of pre-digital Parametricism can be found in the working models of Frei Otto and Antonio Gaudi. Though his experience working on completing the Sagrada Familia, Mark Burry believes that it is the “evidence of expanded design

horizons that their experimental intensity reveals” (2016, p.34) that makes both Gaudi and Otto such importance to the parametric debate. Their working models both relied on the influence of the materials in the natural world to create efficient and optimised designs, relating to the principles to which Schumacher (2008) defines Parametricism. The development of parametric computation software has allowed architects to replicate and communicate the principles that both Gaudi and Otto portrayed. Without these tools, the principles discovered would be unachievable to all but the revolutionary few. When declaring Parametricism as the next major architectural style after Modernism, Schumacher (2009) expressed his view that architectural styles are to be viewed as the representation of design research programs. This gives us a clear interpretation of Schumacher’s beliefs on the role and importance of university research programs in shaping the avant-garde architectural practice. This is further evidenced through his role as founding director of the Design Research Laboratory at the Architectural Association. Established in 1997 the Design Research Laboratory aims to pursue “innovation in the fields of computation, material behaviour, generative design, fabrication, prototyping and urban development” and has since established itself as one of the leading education and research institutions. Since its opening much of the work and research of the DLR has focused on the use of parametric design tools within the design process. Under the guidance of the different tutors, the emphasis of the studios has led to a variety of strands being researched. Initial projects led by Schumacher focused on developing the fluid geometry to which Zaha Hadid Architects are now recognised. Later guidance from Theodore Spyropoulos and Shajay Bhooshah has resulted in further research into interactive architecture and computational advancement respectively. The main benefit of the differing leadership is the continual development of parametric software as a design tool, not focused on Parametricism as a style.

Parametricism v parametric design Parametric design and computation offers more to the designer than the simple ability to achieve the positive heuristics from which Schumacher defines Parametricism. Two case studies, The London Aquatics Centre by Zaha Hadid Architects and the Olympic Velodrome by Hopkins Architects, explore how the use of parametrics within the design phase can allow the architects to achieve different goals. The Hopkins designed velodrome may not meet the desired criteria of Parametricism but embodies a design more akin to Frei Otto than that of the Aquatics Centre. Whilst the Aquatics Centre focuses on a differentiated panelised freeform design, the velodrome’s designers had a primary goal of efficiency through understanding and maximising the potential of the chosen materials. Looking for a cost effective approach, Hopkins looked to replicate the efficiency of racing bicycles within the design strategy following the approach

of “eliminating all but the essential” (Hopkins et al, 2016, p. 25). The strongest example of this when comparing it to the formalistic approach of Zaha Hadid’s Aquatic Centre, is the contrasting strategies employed for the roof form and structure. In order to improve the efficiency of the design, Hopkins and structural engineer expedition engineering explored the use of steel cables and prefabricated cassettes as the main structural components within the roof. Through using parametrics to simulate the forces on the proposal, the team were able to reduce the amount of steel required from 2,191 tonnes to 1,029 tonnes, a 53% reduction (Hopkins et al, 2016). This ability to increase efficiency within design using parametric software allows designers to maximise the impact of materials upon a design. In contrast to this, the Aquatics Centre focused on a formalistic approach to the design, with the roof structure designed to promote the roofs form. In true Parametricism style, the use of parametric software integrated the structural design into the process, but this focused on the form as opposed to the efficiency of the roof. This resulted in the roof weighing 220kg/m2 compared to the 60kg/m2 of the velodrome. This highlights the ability of parametric design software to enable the architect to focus the design development on different outcomes, and it emphasises how the stylistic approach of the designers influences the outcome, not necessarily the design tools used. Whilst Schumacher (2009) believes that Parametricism will become the next major architectural style, it is also clear that the skills and techniques of the avant-garde practice has been implemented elsewhere.

Left to right Figure 8: London Olympic Velodrome: Hopkins Architects Figure 9: London Aquatics Centre: Zaha Hadid Architects

Clockwise from top left Figure 10: Lightweight cable structure of Velodrome roof under construction. Figure 11: Heavy steel roof structure of aquatics centre under construction. Figure 12: Sectional comparison of Velodrome and Aquatics Centre

as previous scrutiny of dancing has mostly relied on still frame examination of photos and not the direct analysis of three dimensional data that the recording process provided.

Personal design project - Poiesis As part of my recent design studio project Poiesis, I have experimented with the use of parametric software throughout the design process. This primary research has allowed for the exploration of some of the theories discussed in relation to the use of parametric design tools and the resulting effect that their use has on the design process. With a set brief of creating a pavilion that focused on the creative art of dance, the design aimed to educate the user in ballet dancing through their interaction with the final form. This process involved the digital recording of a ballet dancer performing set moves, analysis of the data recorder and the development of a tunnel which imposes the ballet dance on the users in order for them to pass through. Throughout the design development, the use of parametric software was essential at all stages. Utilising Rhinoceros 3D and parametric plug-in Grasshopper in the early design process became invaluable during three stages: the digital recording of the dancer, development of form and resulting building system and the development of design iterations. During the recording phase, the Grasshopper software (along with an Xbox Kinect sensor) provided an interface in which the skeletal frame of the dancer could be scanned and recorded digitally. Whilst this may have been possible using other software, the use of Grasshopper had a significant benefit. From this starting point, the recorded data can be interrogated and analysed ready to inform the rest of the design. This is beneficial to designers

When moving forwards with the design process and looking to develop a structural building system which could effectively communicate the motion of the ballet dance, the use of parametric software became influential on the design. The resulting design choices led to the proposal of a modular structural system where each piece was unique. The software allowed for the development of rules which governed the size limitations and joining techniques of the individual modules. This logic was then applied to create over two thousand individual modules. Without such parametric processes creating the individual modules, achieving the desired design effect would not have been possible due to the number of modules that would have required calculating and drawing manually. This factor leads on to the next benefit of promoting an iterative design process. Whilst many key design strategies were originally explored through sketches, the parametric workflow allowed for the exploration on many different iterations. Whether it be the path of the tunnel, depth of modules or changing of dance moves that were being developed, the use of parametric software provided the opportunity for the exploration of different iterations by simply changing parameters. This allowed for the quick exploration of different options, which without the use of parametric software would have been a time consuming process. Throughout the design phase, the use of parametric software enabled a project to develop which would previously be near impossible to achieve without. From the hassle free collection and manipulation of the recorded dancing data to the ability to produce varying iterations of design, parametric design tools promoted a fluid and fast development of the pavilion. However, this fluidity was as a result of many hours spent experimenting ways in which different design decisions were achievable in the software.

As with drawing with a pencil, the skill of scripting in parametric software needs time and practice in order to learn to understand the processes and data flows which allow for the development of a design. This problem itself could be one of the biggest restrictions in the wide-spread use of parametric design software among Architects as their design skills become limited by their ability to script within the software.

Clockwise from top left Figure 13: visualisation of recorded dancing data Figure 14: Manipulation of recorded data Figure 15: Abstract image showing build up of pavilion

Fabrication Fabrication and materiality Whilst the development of parametric and generative design practises has allowed architects to challenge and explore the way in which they conceive and implement ideas, concurrent improvements in fabrication technologies has allowed for progressive designs to become reality. Perhaps the largest potential to architectural progression is the interaction between these CAD and the transfer of information to the new fabrication methods (CAM). However, as with many developments the architectural profession is often slow on the uptake of new technologies. A sentiment which Carpo shares through this statement, “Oddly, many architects and urbanists are still doing that right now, at they ignore, or deny, that today’s machines are no longer those that Le Corbusier and his friends celebrated and sublimated almost a century ago” (2011, p.13). Despite this slow uptake across the majority of the profession, many of the leading practices and educational institutes are researching and implementing the new technologies and fabrication methods available. Including how they have the potential to change the way in which the profession works. The following section will consider two examples, analysing how the design and fabrication procedures highlight the potential for a paradigm shift from the allographic communication methods that define the way in which the profession works. The DLR Ten pavilion designed and constructed

by the Architectural Association’s Design Research Lab focuses on the design to fabrication process. This challenged the traditional work flow, whilst the University of Stuttgart’s Institute for Computational Design and Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ICD/ITKE) Research Pavilions between 2012 and 2015 look at material simulations and how that will affect the need for specialised fabrication methods being incorporated into the design modelling and development.

CAse Study : DLR ten pavilion The DLR Pavilion focused on celebrating and displaying the explorations of the Design Research Lab over the proceeding ten years of study. Sponsored by Reider, the brief called for the exploration of the use of FibreC cement panels in the field of architecture. Through the use of parametric and generative modelling software, the project team focused on the integration of conceptual, structural, material and fabrication properties in to the design process. The project team’s aim was to re-instate “architects as the nexus of the project team” (Dempsey, 2010, p.7). The main focus was to integrate the different design influences into the development process. The most influential aspect in terms of the advancing the architectural profession was the interaction between the design model and fabrication process. The project challenged the allographic communication method that has defined the architectural profession (Carpo, 2011), replacing the traditional design to fabrication process. In a traditional fabrication process, the design team would have created a set of drawings detailing the specification of the individual components from which the pavilion is constructed. Following this,

the fabricator would have produced the necessary drawings for the manufacture of the components, thus duplicating the work load and creating the potential for errors within the output. Through the integration of fabrication drawings into the design model, the design team assumed greater control over the outcome of the project. This can be seen in the design process when the integration of rubber gaskets between components was required. The development of the various gaskets was developed digitally and the resulting effect on the individual components was integrated into the fabrication material. This allowed the designers to efficiently adapt the design whilst still maintaining control over the whole process.

Figure 16: AA DRL Ten Pavilion

Clockwise from top left Figure 17: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2012/13 Figure 18: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013/14 Figure 19: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2015

assembly, the design team (with help from robotics input) took the projects from design conception through to completion.

Case study: ICD/ITKE research pavilions 2012-15 Following the leadership of Achim Menges, the Institute for Computational Design at the university of Stuttgart has been exploring the relationship between material properties and their deployment in the field of architecture. Using pavilions as the method of showcasing their research, previous projects have focused on the use of timber in a method similar to that of the DLR Ten pavilion. More recent projects between 2012 and 2015 have explored the use of “performative fibre-composite architectural structures using integrative design computation and fabrication” (Knippers et al., 2015, p.51). These three pavilions have developed methods for 3D printing lightweight carbon fibre structures through the use of parametric computation. Whilst the DLR ten pavilion challenged the traditional allographic production route, the design to fabrication process of the carbon fibre pavilions explored a further paradigm shift. Doerstelmann et al. (2015, p.65) suggests that the pavilions design process “represents a paradigm shift from traditional instruction-based fabrication towards behavioural robotic fabrication processes”. This shifting paradigm is as a result of the computational model becoming the source of the necessary simulations and code for the robotic fabrication (Knippers et al., 2015). This takes the level of control that the design has on the project beyond that of the DLR ten pavilion. Through eliminating third party fabrication and

Whilst the recent developments by the ICD/ITKE research pavilions explored new structural and design systems focus on pavilions, the capability of replicating the technology into larger scale buildings is yet to be explored. Knippers et al. stated that the recent developments have enabled the “exploration of a new repertoire of architectural tectonics”. This area of development could become extremely valuable when looking into emergency shelters, where the use of robots could be employed to provide essential shelters following disasters. The two case studies highlight how in order to realise the full potential of computational design it is essential that the traditional allographic drawing methods were challenged to ensure that communication between design and fabrication is not limited. This principle suggests that as the uptake of computational design is increased, there will be a greater shift in communication methods away from the allographic normality. This is a view shared by Alan Dempsey (2010, p. 7), the lead designer of the DLR Ten pavilion, who claims that “If we take this opportunity to discard obsolete institutionalised codes and retool our discipline we can take greater control over the projects we design.” This is potentially seeing the development of the architectural profession as a mixture of the allographic author of their work and a digital autographical crafts person who communicates with the latest fabrication technologies. Therefore, resulting in the empowerment of an architect with increasing influence and ownership over their designs because of the use of computational design as a design tool.

Personal design project - Poiesis Whilst the Poiesis research project was not constructed, the use of parametric design software allowed for the exploration of an alternative design to fabrication process through the use of scale models. Through varying scale models the use of the digital design model was tested. This proved that the same information can be used to efficiently to models from different mediums. When creating models at 1:2 and 1:10 which explored the fabrication of the individual modules, the communication method was allographic CAD drawings. The difference in the design to fabrication process in this instance was the automated generation of the required allographic drawings from the parametric design model. As recognised in the DLR Ten case study above this allowed for any changes to be automatically updated on the drawings, reducing the need to revisit work already done. This proved useful during the modelling phase when the tolerances associated with the laser cutter were not correct for the 1:10 Scale model. Instead of redrawing 150 individual component pieces to match the tolerance, a value was changed in the design model and the updated fabrication information was exported. This allowed for full control over the end product through the design model, ensuring all information was stored in one place. The automation in the production of drawings was also beneficial when exploring the models at the different scales, reducing the amount of work to get different variations.

Had the project been taken to construction, it would have required the interaction with robotics for the fabrication as in the ICD/ITKE research pavilion. Due to the steel construction and non-planar modules, the use of robotics would have created a more time effective, cost effective and accurate end product than the use of human labour. In order to achieve this robotic interaction, there would have to be an information flow similar to that of the ICD/ITKE research pavilion and not the end allographic output that was needed for the scale models. As the design process utilised a parametric model the required information will be extractable in the correct format. This process would allow the designer to collaborate with the fabricator to produce the required information without the need for duplicating the fabrication data. This once again puts the designer in greater control of the end product as there is a decreased chance of errors. As with during the design phase the use of parametric software has its benefits, although this requires an investiture in knowledge. In order to allow the development of the design to fabrication process it is important that the designer either knows about or has specialist involvement in the fabrication methods.

33C

29B

35C

23A

27B

21A

17B

19B

37C

31B

25A

39C

33B

37B

15A

35B

13A

31A

11A

29A

27A

39B

33A

11C

17A

10A

37A

21C

35A

15C

13C

19A

23C

25C

39A

12A

17C

14A

19C

21B

27C

16A

23B

18A

29C

11B

31C

25B

20A

13B

33C

29B

35C

17B

23A

27B

15B

21A

19B

37C

31B

25A

39C

33B

37B

15A

35B

13A

31A

11A

29A

27A

39B

33A

11C

17A

10A

37A

21C

35A

15C

13C

19A

23C

25C

39A

12A

17C

14A

19C

21B

27C

16A

23B

18A

29C

11B

Figure 22: Fabrication drawings taken from design model

15B

Figure 21: Final 1:10 scale model

Figure 20: Fabrication of 1:10 scale model

Clockwise from top right

31C

25B

20A

13B

Interaction

resides in the relationships between things, rather than as attributes to things” (2016, p.41). Two of Minimaforms’ projects which demonstrate this aims are the installations Memory Cloud and Petting Zoo. Whilst both different in nature, both share the aim of promoting user interaction with the installations and society around them.

Creating interaction The use of computational design tools within the Parametricism movement has allowed for the advancement of both design and manufacturing techniques within the architectural field. However, one of the main criticisms of the avant-garde style is the social response of most designs. In a changing society where technological and social interaction, both digital and physical is at the forefront of activity, architecture appears unresponsive to the issue. Whilst discussing the problems and critiques of Parametricism, Schumacher states that in order to be considered as the best global practice focus must be on “social performance if the movement is to mature” (Schumacher, 2016, p.10). In order to achieve this there must be focus on the interaction between those using the spaces and the object that define them. Without this, the design methods are solely focusing on the issue of form finding. Through his work at the AA DLR and his practice Minimaforms, Theodore Spyropoulos has been attempting to utilise the computational design tools to create the interactions between space and user. Using the knowledge gathered as director of the DLR, many of Spyropoulos’ work at minima forms explores how architecture and installations can interact with themselves and the humans around them. When discussing the aims of his projects Spyropoulos stated that the main goal is to “construct a behavioural synthesis were complexity

Top to bottom Figure 23: Petting Zoo at the Barbican by Minimaforms Figure 24: Memory Cloud by Minimaforms

Case study: Minimaforms

Perhaps the most the most significant difference is the level of real-time interaction that the two of them portray. The first of the projects, Memory Cloud focuses on a communal interaction, where the public space is utilised to create a communication method between those inhabiting the space. The smoke and projectors allow users to communicate through projected messages sent via mobile phones. This produces an anonymous interaction between the user and the visual message produced. On the other hand, Petting Zoo creates an interaction between a machine and an individual. This is a more physical interaction than the Memory Cloud. The physical interaction responds to the user’s presence as opposed to the data provided by the user. This concept of human-machine interaction has also been explored by artist Madeline Gannon through her project Mimus. Using an industrial robot, the installation aims to respond to users with the intention of “visitors to momentarily forget that this is a machine and see it more as a living creature” (Atonaton, 2016). This responsive nature of Petting Zoo and Minimus provides the greater potential to the architect when aiming to design a space that can respond to the users to create “multiple possibilities rather than singular solutions” (Spyropoulos, 2016, p.41).

installations is critical in the development of parametric design software’s appeal to architects and designers. The use of parametric software has mainly been successful as a form finding and fabrication tool, with little realisation of the interaction potential. However, in order to progress and win over critics it is important that these principles of interaction demonstrated be realised on a building scale. Only then will Parametricism achieve the social interaction to which Schumacher (2016) and Spyropoulos (2016) desire. When defining Parametricism one of Patrik Schumacher’s agendas was for “parametric responsiveness” where “architectural environments possess an inbuilt kinetic capacity that allows those environments to reconfigure and adapt” (2009, p.17). This does not appear to have materialised unlike his desired for smooth differentiated surfaces. Current kinetic interventions within architecture have been limited to adaptive building facades. This means that the building is interacting with the environment, not the users to which Schumacher desires. Should the installations by Spyropoulos be scaled up and developed within a buildings fabric, then the kinetic interactive building environment may well be achieved.

The upscaling of the lessons learned in these

Personal design project - Poiesis Throughout the design process, the poiesis pavilion project aimed to create interaction between the user and the pavilion. This in turn intended to educate the user to the dance form of ballet. Through the utilisation of the Grasshopper and Rhino, the steps taken in the design process created interaction between the ballet dancer and the end installation. The final design then encouraged the interaction between the pavilion and the user encouraging them to re-enact the dancerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s moves. As a result, the interaction was through the creation of a static form: be there no direct response or interaction with the user. The design process could have looked at creating greater interaction with the end user through kinetic movement. Through understanding the relationship between the recorded ballet dancer and the positioning of the user, the pavilion could have employed this kinetic movement to encourage the user to replicate the moves. Considering this would have created a true interaction between the installation and the user as in the case study Petting Zoo. The lack of kinetic interaction in the proposal was not because of the limitation of the parametric software but a conscious design decision. Implementing a kinetic installation would have been a significant design challenge but with personal research into the scripting methods, the software would have been able to facilitate the process. When pursuing large-

Clockwise from top left

scale interaction into buildings the software does not appear to be a limiting factor. The limitation is having the physical technology to implement the ideas discussed on a larger building scale as opposed to the smaller pavilion/installations focus to which research into interaction is focusing on.

Figure 25: Diagram of data capture process Figure 26: Abstract of capture ballet movement Figure 27: Analysis of captured frames

Conclusion

Through analysing the catalytic effect of parametric design tools on the areas of design, fabrication and interaction the changes caused become apparent. All three areas have been effected by the rise of parametric design, although some more than others. Within the areas of design and fabrication, the change has been instant, redefining how we approach and communicate during the design process. The area of interaction however, has had relatively little change in relation to the others. This however, offers the most potential for development in the future. The analysis of the case studies and issues facing parametric design highlights that there is more to parametrics than the style to which Schumacher (2016) allures. The development of parametric software such as Grasshopper has provided a tool with which architects and designers can push the boundaries of design possibilities. In a digital age, the software allows architects to replicate the work of pioneering architects such as Frei Otto. Whilst Frei Otto focused on lightweight tensile structures, the use of parametric software allows architects the flexibility to focus their design development on a specific outcome. Hopkins Architects and Zaha Hadid Architects evidenced this through the two case studies discussed. Despite the stated benefits of utilising parametric design software, many architects and designers are reluctant to use

the design tool. Schumacher (2016) believes this is due to the marginalisation of the architectural style among critics. On the other hand, Mark Foster Gage (2016) believes the iconic style of Zaha Hadid has resulted in Parametricismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s marginalisation due to their formalistic approach. This prevents people from using the software out of fear of being branded as part of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Schumacherian Parametricismâ&#x20AC;? (Gage, 2016, p.131). This is a strong negative for the parametric design movement as current focus has mainly used a formalistic approach. Parametrics has been marginalised as a result of failing to show its true potential as a design tool and not as a style. In the same way in which developments in technology has allowed for the advancement of design, technological developments have opened up new fabrication methods in architecture. The concurrent developments have been a catalyst in allowing university research projects to explore new methods of design. These developments have challenged the traditional design to fabrication process and provided the architect with greater control over the final product. The University of Stuttgart research pavilions highlight how new fabrication technologies and parametric design tools can challenge the traditional process. When using the robotics for construction, the fabrication information and process is incorporated into the design model by the architect. This means the architect becomes further involved in the design to fabrication process. Whilst this may prove beneficial for research pavilions where the process is small scale, many of these technologies under development are not scalable. This means that many of the fabrication benefits of parametric design have not been realise on a larger scale. Thus restricting the potential for parametric design software to empower the architect through the design to fabrication process. Unlike design and fabrication, the area of interaction has not been drastically effected by the emergence of parametric design software. That is not to say that it will not in the future. Under the guidance of Theodore Spyropoulos, the Architectural Association DRL has

seen an increase in the number of projects focusing on social interaction. This research will eventually filter into the professional environment. Projects such as Petting Zoo explore how interactions between humans and machine are possible but currently lack the technology to implement this within the building fabric. The parametric software does provide the capabilities to create an interactive environment. However, from personal experience with the primary research, the knowledge and technology of ways to implement this are currently lacking. This may be the consequence of interactive architecture having not been explored to the level that fabrication technology has in research programs. Should the topic of interaction be researched in greater depth, it provides the perfect opportunity for both parametric design tools and Parametricism as a style to distinctly change the course of architecture. Through the analysis of my personal design project as primary research, many of the issues discussed previously presented themselves. Each of them in their own way have the potential to change architecture because of the employment of parametric design software. Perhaps the greatest potential for change appeared not in relation to the three subject areas, but the use of the software itself. In order to produce the outcome of the final design, my understanding of the parametric design software Grasshopper needed developing. This highlighted the benefit of open-source software to the designer. The vast collection of tutorials available on the internet helped me develop my scripting skills, although the additional plug-ins developed by other users allowed for the streamlining of the process. When utilising others inputs to the software, is this challenging the authorship of the design process? When talking about the Albertian paradigm, Mario

Carpo (2011) talked about the importance of authorship to the architect. This is a principle which still applies today and is shared by architectural theorist Antoine Picon with the statement “authorship has become a widely recognised prerogative of the architect” (2016, p.40). If authorship still bears great significance to the architect’s principles, does the open-source sharing nature of the parametric software pose as a threat to this? If an architect uses a script or plug-in created by somebody else to design his project, who becomes the true author of the design? Fok and Picon believe that due to the increasing nature of the open-source communities there is a growing concern over the issue: “whereas authorship used to be the main concern of the architect, ownership is becoming a more and more central question” (Fok and Picon, 2016, p.8). In his article ‘The Black Stack’ Benjamin Bratton (2014) discusses the idea of the anonymity that the internet possesses. Whilst it may appear that a source of script or data has come from one user or IP address, the true extent of personal involvement cannot be attained. Does this user/source have authorship or ownership over the information provided? The question of ownership that is emerging within architecture has the potential to change the whole way in which the architectural profession operates and brands themselves. Picon sums up the true potential impact of the situation in the statement “ownership might prove even more drastically impacted than authorship” (Picon, 2016, p.41). In his article ‘Parametricism 2.0’ Patrik Schumacher (2016) talks about the need to rebrand and redefine Parametricism in order to win over critics. However, it appears that the biggest obstacle facing parametric design rolling out across architecture as Modernism did, may well be “Schumacherian Parametricism” (Gage, 2016, p.131). Parametric software as a

design tool provides much more potential than the fluid forms to which it is recognised. The current understanding of the softwareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential is ever changing as new technologies and understanding emerges. As a design tool not a stylistic guide, parametrics offers the architect a new way to design. It gives them greater control and integration into the design to fabrication process and allows for the exploration of architectural visions that were previously unthinkable. With the correct guidance and patience, parametric design tools have the potential to revolutionise the architectural discipline with the architect at the centre of the change.

precursors to the Parametricism manifesto’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 30–35. Carpo, M. (2011) The alphabet and the algorithm. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carpo, M. (2016) ‘Parametric Notations: The birth of the nonstandard’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 24–29.

bIBLIOGRAPHY

ATONATON (2016) Mimus. Available at: http://atonaton.com/ mimus (Accessed: 20 November 2016). Authority, O.D., Architects, H., Engineering, E., BDSP, Associates, G., Jones, P.B., Buchanan, P. and Finch, P. (2011) The London 2012 Velodrome, Hopkins architects: Hopkins architects; expedition engineering; BDSP; Grant Associates. Edited by James Pallister. London: The Architects’ Journal, Emap Inform. Bhooshan, S. (2016) ‘Upgrading computational design’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 44–53. Bratton, B.H. (2014) The black stack. Available at: http:// www.e-flux.com/journal/53/59883/the-black-stack/ (Accessed: 6 December 2016). Buchanan, P. and Mollard, M. (2012) Zaha Hadid’s Aquatics centre versus Michael Hopkins’ Velodrome. Available at: http:// www.architectural-review.com/zaha-hadids-aquatics-centreversus-michael-hopkins-velodrome/8633443.article (Accessed: November 2016). Burry, J. and Burry, M. (2010) The new mathematics of architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. Burry, M. (2011) Scripting cultures: Architectural design and programming. United Kingdom: Wiley, John & Sons. Burry, M. (2016) ‘Antoni Gaudí and Frei Otto: Essential

DeLanda, M. (2016) ‘Parametrising the social’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 124–127. Dempsey, A. and Obuchi, Y. (eds.) (2010) Nine problems in the form of a pavilion. United Kingdom: Architectural Association Publications. Doerstelmann, M., Knippers, J., Koslowski, V., Menges, A., Prado, M., Schieber, G. and Vasey, L. (2015) ‘ICD/ITKE research pavilion 2014-15: Fibre placement on a pneumatic body based on a water spider web’, Architectural Design, 85(5), pp. 60–65. Doerstelmann, M., Knippers, J., Menges, A., Parascho, S., Prado, M. and Schwinn, T. (2015) ‘ICD/ITKE research pavilion 2013-14: Modular Coreless filament winding based on beetle Elytra’, Architectural Design, 85(5), pp. 54–59. Fok, W.W. and Picon, A. (2016) ‘The ownership revolution’, Architectural Design, 86(5), pp. 6–15. Frazer, J. (2016) ‘Parametric computation: History and future’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 18–23. Gage, M.F. (2016) ‘A hospice for Parametricism’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 128–133. Glynn, R. and Sheil, B. (eds.) (2013) Fabricate: Making digital architecture. Canada: ABC Art Books Canada Distribution. Hensel, M. (2004) Emergence: Morphogenetic design strategies. Edited by Michael Weinstock and Achim Menges. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley, John & Sons. Iwamoto, L. (2009) Digital fabrications: Architectural and material techniques. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Knippers, J., La Magna, R., Menges, A., Reichert, S., Schwinn, T. and Waimer, F. (2015) ‘ICD/ITKE research pavilion 2012: Coreless filament winding based on the morphological principles of an Arthropod Exoskeleton’, Architectural Design, 85(5), pp. 48–53.

86(2), pp. 8–17. Spyropoulos, T. (2016) ‘Behavioural complexity: Constructing Frameworks for human-machine Ecologies’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 36–43.

Kolarevic, B. (ed.) (2005) Architecture in the digital age: Design and manufacturing. London: Taylor & Francis. Latour, B. (2008) A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Available at: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/112DESIGN-CORNWALL-GB.pdf (Accessed: 17 October 2016). Leach, N. (2009) ‘The limits of urban simulation: An interview with Manuel DeLanda’, Architectural Design, 79(4), pp. 50–55. Leach, N. (2016) ‘The culture of the copy’, Architectural Design, 86(5), pp. 126–133. Menges, A. (2012) Material computation: Higher integration in morphogenetic design architectural design. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. Menges, A. (2016) ‘Computational material culture’, Architectural Design, 86(2), pp. 76–83. Picon, A. (2016) ‘From authorship to ownership: A historical perspective’, Architectural Design, 86(5), pp. 36–41. Rahim, A. (ed.) (2002) Contemporary techniques in architecture. United Kingdom: Wiley-Academy. Schumacher, P. (2008) ‘Parametricism as style - Parametricist manifesto’, 11th Architecture Biennale. The Dark Side Club, Venice, London: . Available at: http://www.patrikschumacher. com/Texts/Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm (Accessed: 2016). Schumacher, P. (2009) ‘Parametricism: A new global style for architecture and urban design’, Architectural Design, 79(4), pp. 14–23. Schumacher, P. (2016) ‘Parametricism 2.0: Gearing up to impact the global built environment’, Architectural Design,

Figure 8 – London Olympics Velodrome – Hopkins Architects Image can be accessed at: http://www.hopkins.co.uk/ projects/3/131/

List of illustrations Figure 1 – London Olympics Velodrome – Hopkins Architects Image can be accessed at: http://www.hopkins.co.uk/ projects/3/131/ Figure 2 – London Aquatics Centre – Zaha Hadid Architects Image can be accessed at: http://www.zaha-hadid.com/ architecture/london-aquatics-centre/# Figure 3 – ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2015 – University of Stuttgart Image can be accessed at: http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=12965 Figure 4 – Petting Zoo at the Barbican by Minimaforms Image can be accessed at: http://minimaforms. com/#item=petting-zoo-barbican-centre-london Figure 5 – Memory Cloud by Minimaforms Image can be accessed at: http://minimaforms. com/#item=memory-cloud-detroit-2 Figure 6 – AA DRL Ten Pavilion Image can be accessed at: https://www.dezeen.com/2008/04/09/ cspace-pavilion-by-alan-dempsey-and-alvin-huang-2/ Figure 7 –Frei Otto: Precursor to Parametricism - Olympic Stadium Image can be accessed at: http://www.archdaily.com/109136/ ad-classics-munich-olympic-stadium-frei-otto-gunther-behnis ch/5037ffa328ba0d599b000823-ad-classics-munich-olympicstadium-frei-otto-gunther-behnisch-photo

Figure 9 – London Aquatics Centre interior – Zaha Hadid Architects Image can be accessed at: http://www.zaha-hadid.com/ architecture/london-aquatics-centre/# Figure 10: Lightweight cable structure of Velodrome roof under construction. Image can be accessed at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ pictures/980x653fitpad[31]/3/1/0/1343310_100315_ODA_ MDA_AC_063_HI.jpg Figure 11: Heavy steel roof structure of aquatics centre under construction. Image can be accessed at: http://images.adsttc.com/media/ images/5015/54a7/28ba/0d02/f000/0dcd/large_jpg/stringio. jpg?1414488047 Figure 12 – Sectional comparison of Velodrome and Aquatics Centre Image can be accessed at: https://www.architectural-review. com/buildings/zaha-hadids-aquatics-centre-versus-michaelhopkins-velodrome/8633443.article Figure 13 – Visualisation of recorded dancing data - Personal Design Image Figure 14 – Manipulation of recorded data - Personal Design Image Figure 15 – Abstract image showing build-up of pavilion Personal Design Image Figure 16 – AA DRL Ten Pavilion Image can be accessed at: https://www.dezeen.com/2008/04/09/ cspace-pavilion-by-alan-dempsey-and-alvin-huang-2/ Figure 17 – ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2012-2013 – University of Stuttgart Image can be accessed at: http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=8807

Figure 18 – ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-2014 – University of Stuttgart Image can be accessed at: http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?tag=researchpavilion2013-14 Figure 19 – ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2015 – University of Stuttgart Image can be accessed at: http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=12965 Figure 20 – Fabrication of 1:10 scale model - Personal Design Image Figure 21 – Final 1:10 scale model - Personal Design Image Figure 22 – Fabrication drawings taken from design model Personal Design Image Figure 23 – Petting Zoo at the Barbican by Minimaforms Image can be accessed at: http://minimaforms. com/#item=petting-zoo-barbican-centre-london Figure 24 – Memory Cloud by Minimaforms Image can be accessed at: http://minimaforms. com/#item=memory-cloud-detroit-2 Figure 25 – Diagram of data capture process - Personal Design Image Figure 26 - Abstract of capture ballet movement - Personal Design Image Figure 27 - Analysis of captured frames - Personal Design Image