PAVILLION A FORM GENERATION
Triangle base unit and set of curves.
Lofted surface and twisted surface boxes.
Base curves undergo sweep2 rail command.
Lofted surface and radial curves generated.
Lofted surface broken down into triangle base units.
PAVILLION B FORM GENERATION
Cylindrical ‘lenses’ created that change in shape and orientation based on a point.
PAVILLION C FORM GENERATION
Set of curves lofted into a surface.
Geodesic curves and interpolated curves generated and offset.
Offset curves lofted to generate strips.
PAVILLION A
PAVILLION B
PAVILLION C
REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS
2.3A How are your models different from outcomes that mght come out of using other software programs? They can be easily edited and changed via their parameters which leads to increased efficiency when designing and also potential generation of interesting geometries. 2.3B Why did you select your base unit? For sketch A, the idea was to fit triangular units that would morph to twisted surface boxes, thus creating a variety of triangle sizes and also patterns. For sketch B, the circles were imagined as camera lenses with variable apertures that shrink and move according to where the subject is in the structure. For sketch C, the geodesic and interpolated curves that were generated were already very interesting, thus resulting in an offset and loft to create strips that form a curvy grid structure. 2.3C Do you prefer your pavilions ‘whole’ (ie. before you broke your smooth lofted surfaces down into discrete base units) or after? I think I preferred Pavillion A to remain as a whole since the resulting morphed triangles were less desirable than expected. Part of this can be attributed to the unreliability of the algorithm used which can create strange morphed shapes when certain geometries and surfaces are too complex. However, with Pavillion B and C, I think they look better broken down to their discrete base units. Pavillion B conveys the concept strongly and the patternation as well as the ‘tracking’ algorithm works fantastically. Pavillion C has a curved grid resulting from the offsets and algorithms; it creates an interesting space within it’s shelter. 2.3D Did this process of breaking the pavilions into base units dramatically change their architectural language? I think that with Pavillion A and C, their architectural language remains largely unchanged. Both still represent some sort of surface that extends to form a shelter. Each individual element combine together to form the final shape. At most, it forms a facade for an existing pavillion structure. With Pavillion B, the feedback mechanism that influences the orientation and shape of the ‘lenses’ appear to be a new form. While the initial shape is still that of a shelter, the active movement of the lenses means the structure can take on more roles than just a shelter. It could form openings when people move near the edge or project images to a viewer wherever he/she goes.