Part B

Studio 2Air 016 Daniel Zou

//studio air /2016 /daniel zou /finn warnock

‘The pencil and computer are, if left to their own devices, equally dumb and only as good as the person driving them.’ -Norman Foster

CONTENTS

Design Futuring

Part A.1 pg.8 //Metropol Parasol //Seed Cathedral

Part A.2 pg. 18 Design Computation

//Beehive Pavilion //Borad Museum

Part A.3 pg. 26 Composition/Generation //Beijing National Stadium //Stuttgart Research Pavilion

Conclusion

Part A.4 pg.34

Part A.5 pg.34 Learning Outcomes

Appendix

Part A.6

EPT

1

CONCEPT 2

COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE

N 1:400

ATION

BASIC BREAKDOWN

BUILT FORM

CIRCULATION

UR CUT

E

TOPOGRAPHY

ROOFTOP PERSPECTIVE

VERTICAL RELATIONSHIP

NATURAL AREAS

3

BOUNDARY

SITE PLAN 1:400 RESTAURANT PERSPECTIVE

ORIENTATION

CAFE PERSPECTIVE

BASIC BREAKDOWN

BUILT FORM

N

CIRCULATION

CONTOUR CUT TOPOGRAPHY

N

NATURAL AREAS

Fi g u re s 1 a n d 2 : M e l b o u r n e U n i v e r s i t y S t u d i o Wat e r : S t u d l e y Pa r k B o at h o u s e F i g u r e 3 : M e l b o u r n e U n i v e r s i t y V i s u a BALANCE lising Environments BOUNDARY

INTRODUCTION My Name is Daniel Zou and I am currently a third year architecture student studying at the University of Melbourne. “Terrified and excited� were the emotions I had as I graduated from high school in 2012. Unlike the majority of students who had dreamed of following a specific career path, I remember struggling to comprehend the decision that could determine what I did for the rest of my life. Half a year passed and it turned out a bachelor of Commerce and Business Information Systems wasn’t it. Still unsure of what to do, I took an extended period of time off university and explored different parts of the world. From places full of history to places with barely any, it was the architecture that defined a country for me. Structures built hundreds of years ago, still standing and giving me a glimpse of history and culture. I was mesmerised by the unique buildings that lay half way across the planet. As my traveling came to an end, my fascination with architecture continued to grow and I enrolled in the Bachelor of Environments with the intention of becoming an architect.

With no predispositions regarding style, I was catapulted into the design process with my first year at Melbourne University. Basic digital design became something that I felt was a necessity to learn and proved invaluable to my studios ever since. My knowledge of computational design is currently only limited to straight forward software that draft predetermined concepts.

However, design tools such as Grasshopper, that look at the manipulation of algorithms is completely unfamiliar.

Grasshopper is intimidating, yet by the end of this studio, I hope to be equipped with a new set of skills and widened perspective for tackling future design studios.

Figure 4: J端rgen Mayer,2011, Metropol Parasol

Figure 5: J端rgen Mayer,2011, Metropol Parasol (underside)

METROPOL PARASOL Residing at the heart of Seville, a defining structure stands monolithic and dramatic; juxtaposed against a cityscape rich with tradition and history. The Metropol Parasol is one of the largest timber designs in the world and one that epitomises the delicate relationship between the architecture and a cities cultural identity.

The Metropol Parasol was completed in 2011, filling a space previously unoccupied for nearly 30 years. This 30 year void damaged the cultural and economic fabric of Seville and as such, Seville needed something that could reignite the dwindling fire of a city in despair.

Inspired by the vaults of Seville’s expansive cathedral and the influenced by the existing trees in the square, Jürgen Mayer H wanted to create a “cathedral without walls.”

The Metropol Parasol carries the presence of a cathedral, but the appearance of something somewhat ‘galactic.’

This radical design encompasses “complex sculpturallike shapes… that computerised design and construction make possible, hence, no two parts of the Parasol are identical.” Implementation of such a formidable structure in the heart of the Old City saw a drastic change in the aesthetic footprint Seville. The design garnered intense criticism because many questioned its place in such a traditional location, however, Jurgen Mayer and Aru’s work epitomises the notion of a contemporary ‘spirit’ ‘dancing’ with historical and traditional space.

The Metropol Parasol brought about a museum, a farmers market, multiple bars and restaurants underneath and inside the parasols. This extensive additions reinvigorated Seville declining cultural spirit, proving that the Metropol Parasol becomes far more than a footprint in the fabric of Architecture, but a national identity which carries the spirit of a wonderful city.

studio

air

Figure 6: J端rgen Mayer,2011, Metropol Parasol (underside)

Figure 7: Thomas Heatherwick, 2010, UK Pavilion at

Expo

8

Figure 8: Thomas Heatherwick, 2010, UK Pavilion at Figure 9: Thomas Heatherwick, 2010, UK Pavilion at

Expo Expo (Close up of Optic Fibres)

9

LONDON PAVILION In 2010, at the Shanghai Expo, Thomas Heatherwick showcased the London Pavilion to the world. The pavilion combined both experimental technology and innovative thinking to produce a timber structure pierced 60000 times with Optic Fibre rods that danced with the wind.

Beyond the hypnotising surface and through a culmination of technology and practice, the London Pavilion straddles the gulf between revolutionary and ridiculous design.

The ambitious design, sometimes called the ‘Seed Cathedral,’ is achieved by using 3D Computer Modelling that precisely measured where holes were drilled to insert the rods. Sixty-thousand slender and transparent fibre optic rods, each encasing one or more seeds at its tip, were then inserted into the timber structure. These rods illuminate the interior during the day and glow at night whilst the wind also generates gentle movement to create a halo effect - ultimately forming ‘a delicate connection between the ground and the sky.’ Heatherwick and others intended to create an ‘atmosphere of reverence and… a moment of personal introspection in a powerful silent space,’ yet it does much more. Its unusual exterior truly challenges the preconceived ideas of architecture, generating a sense of awe at the sheer magnitude of its eccentricity.

COMPUTERS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS In the digital world of design, how has design changed for the better?

The connotations associated with ‘computation’ needs to be rectified because it undermines the significant benefits it brings to the architectural design process. Too often is the notion of computation mistaken for computerisation. Computerisation refers to the ‘automation’ of something whereas computation is an act or ‘process of’ - more specifically, a calculation. The unfair presumption that architecture in the digital age has become impersonal and insincere stems from the incorrect belief ‘creativity’ is automated. In fact, it is these computer generated outcomes that ignite the minds of designers because it allows them to visualise something they couldn’t before. For example, taking a parametric image, a process of analysis, synthesis and evaluation produces a conceptual design. It becomes evident that computers harbour unique advantages to aid a designer but creativity still stems from the human mind.

The emergence of a digital age has transformed the architectural design process, redefining traditional roles and embracing a more holistic approach to design. The symbiosis of both computers and humans ultimately creates a seamless flow of communication between this ‘analysis, synthesis and evaluation.’ As more information is generated, more people become involved, disregarding the traditional notion of a ‘master builder.’

Figure 10:

Diller Scofidio + Renfro, 2015, Broad Museum

Figure 11: Diller Scofidio + Renfro, 2015, Broad Museum (close up)

‘The versatility of this rapid prototyping supported the timely resoltuion of many complex geometric conditions’ The Broad Museum is a contemporary design which challenges the presence of the Walt Disney’s Concert Hall. Its’ defining characteristic is the honey comb structure which acts as a ‘veil’ draping over a concrete ‘vault.’ The challenge designers had to face during the conceptualisation of the Broad Museum was the hundreds of different uniquely curved shapes. ‘Building and replicating the front oculus from a parabolic curve would need a product that was flexible and versatile to adapt to this design shape.’ The team utilised computational software to ‘ synthesise ‘geometric information for each panel in three-dimensional computer models first.’ As such, the construction team was then able to easily transport this data and create a set of instructions that helped build the final product. For computers, the innate purpose of them is to analyse and follow programmatic instructions. As an architect, the process of design begins with the analysis of constraints,

Diller Scofidio + Renfro, in conjunction with construction teams, were able to compute a solution via virtual materiality without compromising aesthetic hierarchy - epitomising a clear benefit of design computation.

The whole process is accelerated because instead of drafting numerous concepts, iterations are created and analysed saving a tremendous amount of time.

Figure 12:

Diller Scofidio + Renfro, 2015, Broad Museum (interior)

Wolfgang Buttress, 2015, The Hive (interior) Figure 13:

‘We do not necessarily compromise the design but rather enhance the overall performance.’

The intricate and stunning structure of the Beehive Pavilion demonstrates the advantages of using computation in the design process. The immersive sensory experiences is achieved through the construction of individual aluminium components. Computer Aided Design played a crucial part in the conception of this structure. For such a complex looking facade, the assembly of the Beehive Pavilion is considered ‘low tech,’ the computational assistance for parameters would have proven invaluable in reducing the time of construction and the time of conceptualisation - by being able to visually witness iterations and deciding upon them. The ‘evaluation step’ created a variety of different outcomes which ultimately resulted in a 32 horizontally layered structure of ‘chords, rods and nodes. This is generated through an algorithm that considered multiple constraint that proved tedious, but not impossible, for the architect to handle. The beehive is a fundamental example

of a designers ‘vision’ being made structurally feasible through the ample communication between different levels within the new design process. It makes information easily accessible and comprehensible, all without jeopardising creative intuition.

The new era of architecture sees the domination of Digital Design within the design process, however each element conceived is not without purposeful thought.

The greatest advantage computed design encapsulates is the ability to surprise and stimulate architectural thinking and pushing for discourse further.

Figure 14:

Wolfgang Buttress, 2015, The Hive (Exterior)

GENERATIVE DESIGN AND FALSE CREATIVITY Does computation impose negatively on creativity?

The unfair assumption that creativity within the digital age of architecture is ‘false,’ correlates heavily with the transition of top-down composition to bottom-up and emergent architecture. Generative architecture is a design tool which utilises a set of rules or an algorithm to generate multiple iterations of a concept. These changes in the pragmatic design process, often connote a sense of unintentional conceptualisation. However, as previously explored, the opposite is true, computation allows the designer to extend beyond the initial ability and visualise - thus inspire to generate more complex designs. In many ways, computational tools are merely a simulation of the construction sequence, outlining all the potential constraints and calculating the different outcomes of an equation. Nevertheless, it also embodies the experience and the creation of meaning which posses both advantages and disadvantages.

Figure 15:

Herzog & de Meuron + Ai Wei Wei, 2007, Beijing National Stadium

The Beijing National Stadium was designed by Herzog and De Meuron Architekten in collaboration with Ai Wei Wei for the 2008 Olympic Games. It’s strikingly visual surface is reminiscent of ‘Birds Nest’ cuisine, traditionally associated with notions of luxury and prestige because it is consumed only on special occasions. As such, the stadium is often coined ‘the Birds Nest’ because of this visual connection. Its footprint within the architectural world is unmistakeable, but nevertheless, it serves a far more important purpose - in demonstrating the benefits of using computational design.

The exterior shell of the stadium is a lattice of steel that serves to portray a sense of elegance and uniqueness, but is also entirely structural. Traditional stadium designs utilise cantilever roofs, however, this platform would prove to be too uninspiring, resulting in a ‘revolutionary’ method of stadium design.

This new concept would have posed challenging for the natural properties of steel, thus the use of computational data was pivotal

Figure 16: Figure 17:

Herzog & de Meuron + Ai Wei Wei, 2007, Beijing National Stadium Herzog & de Meuron + Ai Wei Wei, 2007, Beijing National Stadium

in the success of the building. A predetermined concept was generated using generative modelling which ‘allows us to factor in intellectual forces many time more powerful than the human mind’ - more specifically, the points of weakness were strengthened by placing another beam or column within the facade. As such, with the help of precise calculation, no beam or column is randomly placed, instead each one is critical to the structural integrity of the stadium. ’Combined with other new technologies such as real-time rendering and 3D printing, parametrically enabled rapid prototyping amounts to a new way of performing architectural design’

Time and Time again, Stuttgart’s Research Pavilion has proven radical in its design and construction. The visual element of the structure highlights the degree to which generative design can expand the ‘tectonic possibilities of architecture.’ The geometry is unusual but always captivating. Aesthetically it embodies a stark contrast with common structures of the same purpose, yet structurally it maintains the benefits of precision calculation and reacts to constraints such as ‘public space.’ This particular research pavilion demonstrates how the computational synthesis of ‘structural parameters and the complex reciprocities between material, form and robotic fabrication can lead to the generation of innovation.’ Furthermore, this pavilion was a correlation between ‘multi-disciplinary team of biologists, paleontologists, architects and engineers.’ highlighting the difference between tradition and new design processes.

Figure 18: ICD-ITKE University of Stuttgart, 2013, Stuttgart Reasearch Pavilion Figure 19: ICD-ITKE University of Stuttgart, 2013, Stuttgart Reasearch Pavilion Figure 21: ICD-ITKE University of Stuttgart, 2013, Stuttgart Reasearch Pavilion

Conclusion

The pivotal message that should be gathered from Part A is the notion of the ambiguous line that sits between computation and computerisation. With the exponential advancement of technology, traditional architectural design processes havent provento be obsolete, but merely inefficient. In Design Futuring, we saw how radical architecture could potentially changed the discourse of what we thought possible. In design computation, the benefits of computer aided technology helped simplify matters that would ultimately take too long to do manually, it also touched upon the idea that technology in the design process should not be considered detrimental to creativity, but rather an enhancement tool for it. Finally in Composition/ generation, I highlighted the benefits of building a concept from the bottom up which allows us to navigate through the numerous constraints with ease and embrace digital computation as a new medium for creativity My design approach for this studios brief would begin with the exploration of shapes and different algorithms to produce geometries that I would initially find difficult to visualise. Then choosing the ones that captured my design intention the most and elaborate on it until a final outcome has been reached.

Learning Outcomes

In terms of learning outcomes, I found algorithmic computation to be challenging as it was a large shift from how I approach design. The struggle to understand certain terms hinders my ability to create the image I picture in my head, however, I’m then able to explore different outcomes that potentially surprise me. Perhaps this would have allowed me to approach previous design projects with more courage and produce a more radical result. Obviously Grasshopper becomes somewhat infuriating because of the steep learning curve that it has but with time I hope to gain solid foundation of knowledge and easily generate concepts for future projects.

Appendix

The algorithmic sketchbook is a great tool to explore and catalogue the different outcomes produced by grasshopper. In particular, these iteration caught my attention the most because of how simple the algorithm was to understand in relation to how complex the outcomes appears to be.

The Voroni sketch is definitely the simplest, however it resonates with me the most because it was practically what I tried to achieve during my Studio Earth as the ‘mass’ section. I struggled with producing the final result in rhino however with very few components, grasshopper was able to produce a cleaner and more efficient version.

The second sketch is of attractor points and ‘move away’ commands. i particularly enjoyed looking at the attractor point iterations because it was the first time i had used mathematics to create a visual piece. Learning to understand ‘distance’ and ‘division’ but more specifically how these interact with each other to give the result of this sketch was fantastic. without a doubt generative design can rapidly reduce the amount of time calculating constraints and with these last few weeks i have witnessed first hand how they could have improved my previous designs.

References Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12 Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1–16 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York:Routledge), pp. 1–10 Marcus Fairs, UK Pavilion at Shanghai Expo 2010 by Thomas Heatherwick - more images ( April 4th 2010) <http://www.dezeen.com/2010/04/04/uk-pavilion-atshanghai-expo-2010-by-thomas-heatherwick-more-images/> [accessed 17 March 2016].

Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15 Rowan Moore, Metropol Parasol, Seville by Jürgen Mayer H – review ( Wednesday 27 January 2016) <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/mar/27/ metropol-parasol-seville-mayer-review> [accessed 10 March 2016]. http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/national_stadium/

studio

air

CRITERIA AND THE DESIGN THE

What is new and how has it changed?

A design criteria can be viewed as a set of goals that must be achieved in order to construct a successful design outcome. In traditional design processes, the ‘conditions’ are often satisfied comfortably, but they are analysed, selected and tested in a manner more segregated than that of a new design process. Woodbury’s reading typically emphasis the importance of computation modelling as a ‘dynamic approach’ that creates relationships between these ‘conditions.’ These relationships become pivotal because it allows a change in one component to directly affect and influence every other subsequent component — demonstrating a ‘collectively evolving’ approach rather than a culmination of solutions. This method rejects the notion of arbitrary elements to produce a design that is holistic and justified. Ultimately, the introduction of parametric modelling has given architects the tools to better understand the initial criteria and as a result produce better designs.

B1 STRIPS AND FOLDING

Strips and Folding as the primary focus for a design criteria is in many ways motivation to push beyond the boundaries of classical geometric shapes. The exploration of this technique paves the way for radical design because its has the innate ability to be manipulated in such a way that challenges the preconceived ideas of space and structure. Strips and folding is a process in which long sheets of flexible material are cut and bent to achieve intricate results. The final outcome often embodies characteristics of ‘fluidity’ and ‘dynamism’ which is interesting because this contradicts the common characteristic associated with structure.

A substantial knowledge of materiality is paramount for successful utilisation of this field.

It is the unification of structural and material information that demonstrates the true benefits of parametric design. New opportunities arise as aesthetic quality becomes heavily reliant on the functionality of the chosen material.

The Botswana Innovation Hub is a good example of Strips and Folding that accentuates the fluidity of this technique.

Figure 24: SHOP Architects, 2011, Botswana Innovation Hub

SEROUSSI PAVILION<< BIOTHING W H AT M A K E S I T I N T E R E S T I N G ?

CASE STUDY 1

The Serioussi Pavilion is a structure that is borne out of electromagnetic fields which are a result of ‘self modifying patterns of vectors.’ Essentially the unique system of strips are created using the logic of attraction and repulsion, but more innately, it is a reaction to a specific condition which gives the complex shapes and system. This concept of a structure being generated through a culmination of different elements imposed upon a ‘base,’ is what makes the Serioussi Pavilion unique. The pavilion captures an instance of an invisible network and gives a visible representation of that instance through the strips and folds. The understanding of how this project works means exploring non physical elements that potentially influence design, going beyond thinking of architecture as structure but as a space manifested via a systematic reaction.

Through parametric tools such as grasshopper, the plan of the pavilion navigates away from the traditional design process, ‘it is a dynamic blueprint closer to musical notation… [with] deep ecology of imbedded algorithmic and parametric relationships.’

Figure 25: BIOTHING, 2007, Seroussi Pavilion Figure 26: BIOTHING, 2007, Seroussi Pavilion

SPECIES 1 C I R C L E M A N I P U L AT I O N

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 3

GRAPH MAPPER

SPIN FORCE

SPECIES 4 SINE FUNCTION

SPECIES 5 POINT CHARGE+SPIN FORCE

SPECIES 7

GRID BASE

SPECIES 6

PA R A B O L I C C U R V E

1

2

3

SELECTION

CRITERIA

The first component of the selection criteria is “Exploration of Shape.” This is used to determine how far the parametric modelling has pushed the original design. By looking at the complexity of some iterations, the best ones are those that challenge the idea of familiarity.

Secondly, “buildability” is another key component when choosing the better iterations.

Even though parametric design has tremendously made fabrication easier, it does not eliminate everyday limitation such as gravity.

The ability to physically build the a structure is paramount because we hope to transform virtual infromation into reality. The final componenet is “effect/ambience.” Begin to look at how these complex shapes would feel within an office meeting room. Would the strips create a onmious sensation or a pleasant one?

Could the structure stimulate creativity or is it a distraction? Does this structure have the ability to effectively illustrate the narrative.

DESIGN

POTENTIAL

1. Distortion in the Bezier curve combined with changing the multiplication value to negative produces this interesting shape. The shape further explores the 3D elements of the biothing and seems very mimetic of something found in nature.

2. By applying the Vector forces to a grid, creates a ‘hairy’ exterior, similar to the Seed Cathedral. The structure itself would be easy to construct because of its stable core but further development could see the Field vector systems applied to more complex and interesting ‘bases.’

4

3. Spiral forces used instead of point charges to create the fluidity of this iteration. This one manages to capture a much more softer and relaxing efffect compared to iteration 2.Building this would prove extremely difficult but highly impressive.

4. Changing the graph mapper to a parabolic curve created a complex ‘jellyfish’ like structure that would be useful in pushing the material properties to the limit. It’s reason for being in the selection criteria rest heavily on its exploration of the vertical component as opposed to a horizontal . The effect garnered is one that curiosty and this has the potential to stimulate creativity.`

Figure 27: ICD-ITKE University of Stuttgart, 2010, Stuttgart Reasearch Pavilion

,

The ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 is a continuation of ‘material-oriented computational design’ and is a pivotal example in highlighting the benefits of parametric modelling in regards of strips and folding. The defining characteristic of the pavilion is the bending plywood strips that weave and interconnect - generating a ‘nest-like’ structure that accentuates the physical properties of the birch plywood. The aesthetic qualities of the structure is a pure derivative of varied external forces of the physical element. This concept reiterates the changing design criteria of computational design because the structure is a reaction to a specific condition applied to it and a direct response to another parameter. Visually, the pavilion is arguably mundane but it is a structure that evolved from a collective set of parameters making it tremendously holistic and successful in what it set out to achieve.

CASE STUDY 2

B3 “FORM IS DIRECTLY DRIVEN AND INFORMED’

RESEARCH PAVILION 2010

REVERSE ENGINEER

CASE STUDY 2

The reverse Engineering of the ICD/ ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 can be dissected into 5 components.

Beginning with base geometry of 3 circles, each circle will serve as the start, middle and end of the strip.

These circles are arranged to meet a specific height/radius that is visually accurate to the given project.

Dividing these circles into and even number of points to later connect via a interpolate component

: Arrange the list items to specify the point on circle (1) to connect to point on circle (2) and so on and then manipulating the list to select every second line via Cull Patterning.

Using the results for the cull patterning, apply a graph mapper to accurately and systematically change the shape of the line.

Finally for

the

Offset and Loft final outcome.

PARAMETRIC

DIAGRAM

cirlces

radius

height

move divide curve

number of points

EXPLODE TREE LIST ITEM

DATA MANIPULATION

I N T E R P O L AT E CHOOSE EVERY SECOND GRAPH MAPPER

WIDTH OF STRIPS

R OTAT E LOFT

box

Changable parameter

A

N

A

L

Y

S

I

S

The most obvious similarities between the reverse engineer and the original is that the visual Strips and Folds are mimetic of each other. However, the final outcome of my algorithm is one that does not utilise the primary focus of material performance. It is instead dervied from the superficial manipulation of points in 3D space. The advantages of my method is that I have a greater control of the physical appearance of the pavilion, yet an even greater downfall is my lack of abillity to construct it in the real world.

In ect, tion

future development of this projI hope to implement material informato directly influence the design outcome.

Species 1

Species 2

Species 3

Species 4

Species 5 SPECIES 6

TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

Species 8

Species 6

Species 7

SELECTION

CRITERIA

These iterations have all got a stronger emphasis on the first component of the selection criteria. Each one is more towards the radical side of aesthetics which increases issues with buildability but nevertheless ignites a sense of curiosity through design and construction. I believe that curiosity can stimulate the minds in a creative manner and this would prove fitting for the design specifications. Combining the parametric algorithm of Seroussi Pavilion and elements of attractor points, the iterations here are a result of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;collective evolutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - directly effected by previous components. As such, these iterations harbour the intrinsic benefits of computational modelling. Even so, this selection is still extremely underdeveloped and with a greater knowledge of Grasshopper, there is the potential to implement materialistic properties and fine-tune the design process to be more efficient.

B

PROTOTYPE

B5

TIMBER

thinking about materialisation

PROTOTYPE 1

Our first prototype was one that looked at the performance of a a particular timber. By laser cutting a thin piece of veneer, we tried to manually twist it to resemble the previous iterations, however due to the extreme extent of the bending and the incorrect direction in relation to the grain - the prototype failed. Many factors caused it to fail, however we believe that the scale and direction of the grain are the biggest ones. We gathered that if the laser cutter were to cut strips that would â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;unrollâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to fit double curvatures, more timber would be at the points of weakness.

PROTOTYPE 3

PROTOTYPE 2 Our second Prototype looked at the circular frames that came in different sizes and whilst being rotated and give the spiral effect. This prototype was again a failure because we didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take into consideration the thickness of the strips.

However through all these failed prototypes, the polypropalene sheet used to cut out the individual strips maintained the correct shape we wanted to achieve and is much more efficient to construct. .

PROPOSAL C R E ATI V IT Y S H OU L D N E V E R B E L I N E AR

FORM FINDING

B6

What backs they

What are the conceptual and technical achievements of your technique?

Our

design proposal is one that captures and demonstrates the concept of ‘Change+Flow.’ The structure itself is a series of cylindrical tubes of timber strips manipulated in a way that emphasises a reaction when a condition is imposed upon it. Through this logic of attraction and repulsion our ceiling is able to explore non physical elements such as ‘the process of thought,’ and give a visual representation through structural form.

Strips and folding proved to be a greater demonstrator of this concept than the properties of panelling because of its innate ‘organic/naturalistic quality.

What about

is innovative your design?

The approach is one that mimics the intrinsic principles explored in both Research Pavilions (2010/2013) and the Serioussi Pavilion. This design embodies meaning in every aspect of its visual form.

From the width of the strips to the bending of rows, no element of its conception is arbitrary because it is a direct reaction to a specific parameter. This notion is one that clearly highlights the benefits of computational modelling.

Conceptually, We have the ability to clearly illustrate our design narrative; ‘Creativity should never be linear.’ The centre of the structure will consist of the most complex patterns because this is where ideas collide as people collaborate, influencing the ones own designerly thinking.

Technically, the components which make up the structure are very primitive. Individual strips and inserted into circle tubes that are rotated to give a spiral effect. There is no complex mechanisation so the construction is very achieveable.

are its drawand how can be overcome?

Material performance is one aspect that needs to be considered in the further developments of our design. Previous prototype test showcased the fragility of timber veneer, however further elaboration showed that laser cutting across the grain will be a huge factor that determines success in constructability.

Joints would also need to consider the thickness of the material however our group have questioned the importance of such a joint system and have explored different methods.

Finally, with great emphasis on the benefits of parametric modelling, future design should take more control over the light and shadow characteristics, more specifically having the table and television clear and undisturbed by distracting light.

Preliminary Render

B7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

The qualities and characteristics of contemporary architecture differs across the world but how do we determine what constitutes architecture as interesting? For many, it is argued that the clear distinction between structure and space is key elements in highlighting the qualities of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;goodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design, however, what truly characterises interesting architecture is the avenue that it leads to. Interesting architecture is exploring how the world would be if it were free from the conventional limitations of everyday life, pushing design beyond the preconceived boundaries and capturing the design borne through both intent and surprise.

The completion of Part B was an extremely challenging task but at the same time extremely rewarding. Since the completion of Part A, my knowledge of Parametric modelling and designedly thinking has developed greatly to encompass the vast array of useful tools.

Previous studios have been fairly straightforward in regard to interpreting a given design brief but with the digital age of design, a much longer process took place when coming up with the proposal. Understanding the key elements of precedents and how they interact in a parametric system allowed my group to come up with much ‘fuller’ proposal that wasn’t typically fragmented. I was able to comfortably reason with each decision.

Arguably the best element to come out of Part B is the ability to visualise structures and forms that I could not perceive without computational tools.

A greater understanding of 3D design is also gathered by looking at vectors and breps which allowed students to comfortably dissect contemporary architecture projects whilst understanding the basics of 3D space. More specifically the iteration of both Case study 1 and Case study 2 surprised me with the level of complexity and ease. Once a basic understanding of parameters were garnered I was easily able to produce numerous iterations that could be further fine tuned in a matter of seconds. These tools truly highlight the benefits of computational modelling because I can easily juxtapose this part of the design process with previous studios to see how much easier it is to come up with variations. Nevertheless, it was very easy to get carried away with the iterations and this inevitably blurs the lines between human creativity and the automated creativity. It is a very polarising notion to some yet for me, I believe that the greatest designs are ones that push the preconceived boundaries of structure. The process of iterative design can therefore achieve this by ‘surprising’ us with visual representations that border on the avant garde.

Another successful learning objective to stem from Part B is that I am able to comfortably utilise the tools and machines in the fabrication workshop. This is a huge concept to me because it cuts out so much time during the physical making of the model. I have already used this new knowledge in other classes.

A great experience was had as we prepared and presented our interim presentations. Having never worked in a group for a design task, I was able to witness the ups and downs of collaborating with people who have different ideas. As a result, our design proposal was informative and complete with elements from various fields of contemporary architecture (strips and folding/ Biomimicry). This interaction is a prime example of the developing design process’ within the digital age - having a multidisciplinary answer to a design brief.

APPENDIX

A single iteration that encompasses all the elements I learnt in Part B (series, vector forces and remapping)

REFERENCES Woodbury, Robert F. (2014). ‘How Designers Use Parameters’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (London; New York: Routledge), pp.

153–170 Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo, eds (2006). The Function of Ornament (Barcelona: Actar), pp. 5-14 Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 56-61 Kolarevic, Branko and Kevin R. Klinger, eds (2008). Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture (New York; London: Routledge), pp. 6–24 Kolarevic, Branko (2014). ‘Computing the Performative’, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, pp. 103–111