Mancuso gianni 637278 finaljournal by gianni mancuso

STUDIO AIR 2015, SEMESTER 1, PHILIP BELESKY GIANNI MANCUS0 637278

FIGURE 1: COVERSHEET

Table of Contents

Oleg Soroko’s Parametric Bench

4 Introduction 5 Past Work 6 Preface 7 A1// Architecture as a Discourse 18 A2// Design Computation 28 A3// Composition Generation 38 A4// Learning Outcomes 39 A5// Conclusion 40 A6// Alogrithmic Sketches 49 B1// Research Field 52 B2// Case Study 1.0 58 B3// Case Study 2.0 69 B4// Prototype Development 74 B5// Technique Development 78 B6// Technique Proposal 82 B7// Learning Outcomes 83 B8// Algorithmic Sketches 88 C1// Design Concept 98 C2// Design Prototype 100 C3// Detail Design 105 C3// Final Design Proposal 118 C3// Design Amendments 124 C4// Learning Outcomes 125 C5// Conclusion

Introduction

Past Work My past work includes Studio work from Studio Water, in which the brief was to examine, analyse and interpret the work of a master architect, and then design a building using their architectural principles.

My name is Gianni Mancuso. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m a third year undergraduate student at the University Of Melbourne. I was born in Melbourne, and have lived here my entire life.

I think this studiio taught me how to analyse other works of architecture and understand how they think and create spaces. Technically, I learnt a great amount about how to use software like Revit, and how to produce 3d imagery and models. `

My interest in architecture is drawn from various areas of the profession - from the aesthetic to the highly technical construction aspect. I am fuelled by a desire to create built form that is evocative and creates an emotional response to its users - but also by a desire to create useful spaces that are efficient and creative in the way they foster human interaction. I have previous experience in CAD software such as AutoCad, Revit and limited experience in Rhino. I have adequate knowledge of using programs such as InDesign and the Adobe Suite. Parametric Modelling using Grasshopper is not something new to me - but it is something I have never done before. I am eager to explore the world of Rhino through Grasshopper. I am perhaps most interested in learning to develop large amounts of architectural possibilities with such ease. A massive interest of mine is to understand how a parametric form is feasible in terms of construction.

STUDIO AIR

“IF I was to realise new buildings, I should have to have new technique...” Frank Lloyd Wright

FIGURE 2: HEYDAR ALIYEV CENTRE ZAHA HADID

A1//Architecture as a Discourse Architecture has become much more than the simple concept of shelter - it has become an entity that embodies our culture, our values, our beliefs and our standards in a physical form.

“Much of what we know of institutions, the distribution

of power, social relations, cultural values, and everyday life is mediated by the built environment. Thus, to make architecture is to construct knowledge, to build vision. To make architecture is to map the world in some way, to intervene, to signify: it is a political act. Architecture, then, as discourse, discipline, and form, operates at the intersection of power, relations of production, culture, and representation and is instrumental to the construction of our identities and our differences, to shaping how we know the world.” 1 Dutton & Hurst Mann, 1996

The way we design in the present will change the way we live in the future - it will change our standards, our values, our patterns of behaviour and our culture. To build and form our environment around us is to dictate how we are going to live for years to come. I think it is the responsibility of the architect leading a modern practice to understand this - and to recognise that the spaces and deeper functions of the built environment (cultural, political) are just as important as the aesthetic. I think that modern architectural practices must understand that they are ‘map[ping] the world’1 - they are mapping the cultural values, the political values and the social values that are seen as important at present,. If architects can embody the values of our society in our built environment to a high quality then we will see true innovation. An architect must contribute positively to society and become an agent for innovation and change,.

“In the past, design was about the form and function of things. These features,

which were limited in space and time, could be delivered in a fixed form, such as a blueprint. In today’s ultranetworked world, it makes more sense to think of design as a process that continuously defines a system’s rules rather than its outcomes.”2 Thackara, 2005

There is an opportunity for architects, as sculptors and designers of the built world to innovate - to produce more than a blueprint. Designers must look beyond the what and how and delve into the WHY. Architecture can be defined as a method of sculpting the built environment to fulfill societal needs. It is vital to therefore ensure that as an architect you consider with utmost sincerity and importance the societal context you design within.

STUDIO AIR

The Sydney Opera House// Sydney Jorn Utzen

FIGURE 3: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE

STUDIO AIR

The Sydney Opera House// Sydney

The construction methods, in addition to the design methods are of vital importance in design futuring. A layperson - if not a professional, practicing architect will look at the Opera House in awe of the construction techniques (pre-cast concrete ribbed vaults) used. In this way the Opera House has brought a certain level of awareness of construction capabilities - from a world leading architect.

"It

This built form expanded future possibilities in the way off its scale and its innovative and ambitious design and construction. Architectural discourse has traditionally been about style5 - however the Opera House was a design futuring exercise because it transcended that concept through its form and its cultural impact.

Jorn Utzen

stands by itself as one of the indisputable masterpieces of human creativity, not only in the 20th century but in the history of humankind."3 Expert evaluation report to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 2007

The Sydney Opera House, designed by Swedish Architect Jorn Utzon embodies the innovation and creativity of modern architecture.

The built environment around the harbour has been completely revamped - as if the Opera House was an anchor point - stating that this is the cultural centre of Sydney. The site is still used in the same way but the experience has been multiplied - and will continue to multiply as this anchor point is re-inforced in the future. The theory used here is one of experimentation with different design processes. As a designer constrained in their ideation process, it would be difficult to imagine such as concept. The Opera House is the embodiment of ideation and fabrication - it shows innovation at both levels and the outcome is a cultural, global icon.

FIGURE 4: the unique design of the opera house in section.

The design - conceptually based on sails, was derived from Utzonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passion for sailing and the connection between sailing and the bay4. It is an Australian icon. The ambitious design of the Opera House is itself a contribution towards the field of architectural discourse. The cultural effect of the Opera House has been enormous - with the building becoming the icon for Australian architecture and an icon that brings Australia into global attention. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important to note how a building such as the Opera House can alter the fabric of a cityscape to such an extent. The key is the innovation in the process of design that has led to this.

Figure: 5 the unique construction method derived from the unique architecture

...Design futuring through bold ideation and construction...

Unorthodox methods such as those used by Utzon methods involving a liberated approach to form - i.e. one not hindered by practicallity and supposed construction constraints - explain why the building is so important culturally and socially. Something so innovative and on such a scale will define the city - if not the country indefinitely. The opera house projects the notion of Australia being a global identity - one that has the ability to use world leading architectural practices to complete innovative designs.

Figure 6: the original concept. reminiscent of frank gehryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s method - conceptualise and utilise technology to implement the design process

STUDIO AIR

One Central Park // Sydney Jean Nouvel, Patrick Bllanc & PTW Architects

Figure 7: One central park sydney

STUDIO AIR

One Central Park // Sydney

The architect Jean Nouvel has integrated two opposites and created an amalgamation of idealogies in living and design. One Central Park will pose questions to city dwellers: how can we integrate this greenery into our built form on all levels? How can we introduce a new dimension to dense city architecture?

Jean Nouvel, Patrick Bllanc< PTW Architects

The interesting thing is that the building itself, due to its heliostat and reflective capabilities - it can literally feed the natural environment around it due to the purposeful direction of sunlight. This is a design futuring proposition - to create buildings that will live off, and feed the environment around them.

“Landscape is architecture...Here we have

created a continuity, so the façade extends the park into the sky”6

Jean Nouvel

One Central Park is an innovative building and will contribute to the future of design and construction due to the bold proposition it makes: that we can live in a vertical, dense society and still ensure we retain greenery and nature in our society. It is an antithesis to the notion that a vertical city is associated with a lack of vegetation and nature. The sheer nature and ambition of this construction and design will ensure that One Central Park will influence skyscraper design for years to come.

This proposition could lead to the notion of buildings feeding off each others reflective capabilities. Why not utilise the sunlight reflected off of the large glass clad structures lining our city streets?

figure 8: how this building futures design through technology: feeding the city’s park by directing sunlight.

Perhaps the most advanced technology present in this design is the unique Heliostat that is hanging off a cantilevered section of the taller tower. The Heliostat is a means of providing sunlight to the nearby parks7. Not only did the Heliostat require immense engineering input, it also required large amounts of calculations to account for wind load and structural load, i.e. compression, bending, tension. This project is radical in the sense that is has proposed and fulfilled something that is incredibly difficult. It has succesfully combined two supposed opposites - lush gardens and greenery and the cold, barren skyscraper.

Figure 9: The green walls - bringing new green life into the city on a large scale.

Figure 10: The building from street level

“The plants will live as long as the residents want them to..”8

Matthew Dodds, PTW Architects

STUDIO AIR

A2//Design Computation “C

AD might conspire against creative thought […]” by encouraging “fake” creativity.9 Lawson (1999)

Design Computation is a mathematic, algorithmic approach to design. It involves setting parameters, within which our design is formulated - and any alteration of those parameters - be it slight or very large - will change the design. Design is reduced to a set of dependant relationships that can create an ability to produce thousands of different design possibilities. The idea of computing being implemented in design will have a wide range of possible outcomes. An interesting point is made when we consider how much of the our creativity is producing a design output - and how much belongs to the CAD, or design computation software we are using. It could lead to ‘designers’ producing forms and structures with no valid intent - but rather produced because it is easy to do so. It will require a balance between creative input to develop design through CAD and the use of computation - to ensure that we do not sacrifice the intent of design - which is often to meet a brief that has varying levels of intuitive/creative/logical input. The notion that design computation is still a ‘tool’ and remote from the design practice is in essence true. Firms often do not have the time or capital required to train employees to utilise design computation to its fullest extent. There are also constraints on the client side - with many clients seeking to lower costs through quick results and easily resolved designs. However this concept can be quite different as the scales of practices change. For example if a masters student from the University Of Melbourne with a high level of knowledge ran their own practice with design computation as their main ideation/design generation method - then perhaps it is feasible. On a larger scale for a firm employing 100 people, it would be difficult to run jobs using such techniques if most employees across the board do not have the skill base.

“D

esign computation is still only seen by many as ‘just a tool’ and remote from the real business of creative design [...]”.10 Frazer (2006)

Design using parametric/associative/dependent relationships between modelled 3d components is already prevalent and the industry standard, i.e. Revit. However in the future if the workforce is up-skilled through advanced computational education than perhaps it will become more feasible.

STUDIO AIR

“I

t is possible to claim that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that are supposed to free their imagination.”11

STUDIO AIR

Times Eureka Pavillion// Kew Gardens NEX Architecture// Marcus Barnett

Figure 11: Times Eureka Pavillion illuminated at night

STUDIO AIR

Times Eureka Pavillion// Kew Gardens

The image below outlines a similar process - with the intuitive/creative component left out. However architects NEX architecture articulate this process in an elegant manner - stating that the pavillion ‘extended on the design of the garden by analysing the cellular structure of the plants’13. This is a vitally important component of the design process and must not be left out at expense of the ability to generate thousands of forms and ideas at the click of a button., A design can be formed through computational methods yet it doesn’t guarantee that it will possess the substance and intuitive characteristics only gained through human idea generation and creativity.

NEX Architecture// Marcus Barnett

The Times Eureka Pavillion is a small scale example of how computational design can allow for advanced ideation and creation of forms that exhibit physical properties of natural forms. The Pavillion itself is a rectangular prism that is split up into sections and substructures that are derived from plants. This was achieved using parametric calculations to apply patterns and panels to a simple rectangular form. Not only does this allow for bio-mimicry on a larger and more efficient scale, but it allows for an easier construction/ production method due to the ease of splicing, splitting and cutting surfaces into easily produced segments.

Herein lies the danger of computational design - as Kalay states that computers are ‘totally incapable of making up new instructions: they lack creative abilities or intuition’14. figure 12: The cellular plant structure from the inside of the pavillion.

The nature of such design is evidence that computers, defined by Kalay as ‘superb analytical engines’12 that never tire, can process and apply what we, the creative engines input, and generate an intuitive and creative outcome. The Pavillion is an example of this - albeit on a small scale. The computational design process combines the intuitive and creative aspects of the human brain with the powerful processing, logic and raw analytical power to produce a positive outcome that has solved the design ‘problem’ at hand.

For example a computer can’t look at a brief and interpret it creatively - only logically. If a brief was shown to an architect such as Norman Foster to design a house that was eco-friendly - and the same brief parameters input into a computer; the results would be worlds apart . Thus the balance lies in communication between the two; human intuition and computational logical/rationality. We can input ideas and parameters into a computer - such as a cellular structure of a plant, and allow the computer to panel it efficiently, and quickly over any surface or form. Only we must justify every decision we make along the way - and not allow the technology to control our design.

INTUITIVE/CREATIVE INPUT

REPEATED ITERATIONS

fIGURE 14: tHE DESIGN PROCESS OUTLINED - HOW COMPUTATION CAN PANEL GEOMETRY.

ANALYTICAL/LOGICAL PROCESSING THE ENGINE ‘

RESULT INTUITIVE FIGURE 13: A DIAGRAM OF THE COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN PROCESS (GIANNI MANCUSO)

CREATIVE LOGICAL STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

Birds Nest Stadium// Beijing, China Herzog & De Meuron

fIGURE 15: bIRDS NEST STADIUM

STUDIO AIR

Birds Nest Stadium// Beijing

The importance of design intent and recognition of a solid foundation of thought and research is incredibly important in undertaking computational design projects such as the Bird’s Nest Stadium. It is easy to take advantage of the huge degree of variability intrinsically associated with such design - but to ensure it has reason and foundation that is thorough and convincing is vital.

Herzog & De Meuron

The Bird’s Nest Stadium’s form and shape and design ideologies are what distinguishes it as a part of the built environment - not the fact that it is a result of a computational process.

The Birds Nest Stadium is an example of computational design on a much larger scale. Again, Architects Herzog & De Meuron have utilised computational design to optimise and generate a form loosely based on cultural values of the Chinese. The skin of the stadium is a perfect example of parametric architecture - an architectural style that is based on associations and dependant relationships between its internal components. In analysing this type of ‘digital design thinking’15, we come to understand that forms can be changed and altered at an instant and a complete project (supposedly) can be produced click after click. For example if Herzog & De Meuron disliked the direction of the ‘twig’ members forming the nest, or the overall curvature of the nest - they could tweak it with ease and produce options optimised to their liking. This is the nature of the new age of digital design thinking.

The underlying concept is that the capabilities of computational design must combine together with human intuition and creativity to form an architectural contribution to the built environment with solid and thorough design intent.

FIGURE 17: COMPUTATIONAL METHODS CAN INTERPRET NATURAL FORMS LITERALLY OR AESTHETICALLY WITH MUCH GREATER ACCURACY AND DETAIL.

fIGURE 16: THE FACADE STRUCTURE OF THE STADIUM. AN EXAMPLE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THE COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN PROCESS CAN EXPLORE.

The process of design in this particular project emphasises both the capabilities of human design and the capabilities of computational design. Only it is the human aspect that has taken a step back in terms of ‘doing the hard yards’ - instead it is the computer. For example generation of the external skin, optimised so it is semi- self-supporting, and easily fabricated, organised and transported onsite, would be an incredibly time consuming exercise. The power of computational design would not remove this excess time, but it would remedy it to an extent. The key in parametric architecture and computational design is having a high degree of ‘generative variability’16 and combining this with a solid design intent founded on research, intuition and creativity. It also encompasses the responsibility of ensuring complicated designs, such as the birds nest stadium are optimised structurally. fIGURE 18: tHE FACADE OF THE BUILDING ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT

STUDIO AIR

A3//Composition/Generation

“T he designer is setting the rules and parameters, with the computer doing the iterations. This gives designers more flexibility to explore designs, and we can make changes faster.”17

Ho Kao (2013)

The nature of introducing new technology into areas such as design is intrinsically associated with an influx of new ideas, methods, and design processes. The way in which we can generate a form for a simple house can be done with incredible ease - and we can construct virtual models of incredibly complex structures and change it rapidly. We as the designers ‘set the rules and parameters’ and allow technology to produce the ‘iteration’. We are ‘outsourcing’ part of the labour process to the computer, which as previously mentioned has much more powerful analytical power - and it doesn’t get bored. As a directing architect at Gensler Architects, Hao Kao outlines that this ability to produce rapidly will enable faster changes and provide more flexibilty19. This will remove the stigma associated with starting over again - and allow architects to feel free to abandon ideas in favour of what they feel is a better design. A better more flexible design generation process is thus created - and with that a more reliable, well designed end product.

“I

n any project, there are a million possibilities,”18 Matthew Pierce, 2013

Architectural form generation and composition generation is ultimately an exercise in vain if it is not actually practical in the physical world. A built form in the modern age has to responsibly designed and constructed - and through using computation and parametric software this can be achieved. Parametric capabilities extend to analysing how a building performs; and as a result a designer can sit down and generate a form and then analyse how it can be built, how much energy it can use, or how much light and ventilation it receives. The calculations are associative and are renewed every time the forms changes - even if the form is altered by 100mm. This in itself is a powerful tool for designers - well beyond the capabilities of a registered body implementing industry standards. It is also important to note that this tool can be applied to anything, whether it be a three room house or an airport. The ability to optimise will lead to architecturally aesthetic built form, which is responsible in its construction and in its function. This is the key to future design.

“A

nd while such technology is useful for formally complex buildings, even simpler forms should benefit from it”20 Gattegno & Kelly, 2013

STUDIO AIR

Shanghai Tower// Shanghai Gensler Architects

fIGURE 19: gENSLER’S SHANGHAI TOWER

STUDIO AIR

Shanghai Tower// Shanghai

It is also interesting to note that from a mathematical perspective - and a scripting perspective - a facade can be reduced to an algorithm23. An algorithm according to Wilson & Keil (1999) is a recipe, a method or a technique for doing something24. Therefore the facade of the Shanghai Tower has a recipe - one that has been tweaked over and over to ensure it meets not only performance requirement of the sustainable design intent - but the aesthetic qualities of the architectural design intent.

Gensler Architects The Shanghai Tower is an example of modern computational design. Designed by Gensler Architects, it was designed and then optimised using Grasshopper to ensure that it was responding to the wind loading correctly. In addition Gensler Architects state that ‘Sustainable design was at the core’ of the towers development 21. Gensler, in their publication about the tower, provide large amounts of information and details about the extent to which sustainable design has been achieved. These type of calculations can easily be produced with the right skill set and knowledge using computational design software and parametric software. In addition as the facade was tweaked and the shape oriented, the calculations and outputs would be altered - due the parametric, associative process.

The facade of the building, which is a separate curtain wall to the inner curtain wall was generated through use of computational design methods22. Computational design and parametricism, while being able to calculate performance and structural integrity against certain loads - can also be an incredibly powerful, and practical tool for designing façades,. The non structural emphasis is important (while a facade may need to be self-supporting it doesn’t necessarily need to support the structure itself), and because of this designers can use these techniques to generate façades with varied geometry and curvatures.

figure 20: THE FACADE OF THE TOWER - AN EXAMPLE OF HOW COMPUTATION CAN OPTIMISE A DESIGN CONCEPT BOTH AESTHETICALLY BUT ALSO PERFORMANCE WISE.

STUDIO AIR

fIGURE 21: The figure to the right demonstrates the scale of the development. It proves that computational design has a definite place in modern architectural practice.

STUDIO AIR

Lousi Vutton Centre// Paris Frank Gehry

FIGURE 22: lOUIS VUTTON CENTRE FOR CREATIVITY

STUDIO AIR

Lousi Vutton Centre// Paris Frank Gehry The Louis Vutton centre for creativity in Paris, France is an example of the bold creativity aligned not only with architect Frank Gehry, but an example of the capabilities of parametric and computational design. Buildings such as this emphasise how in the new age of architectural computation, architects are ‘developing digital tools which create opportunities in the design process, fabrication and construction” 25. The actual skin, or facade of the building, representing clouds is a separate physical component to the building. Together with the structure of the building, it forms a whole. Frank Gehry’s work quite often makes use of computational form generation - however it is important to note that there is always a design intent before entering into computation. The computational aspect of this project not only include the structure of the facade, but other factors easily measured; such as energy consumption and light penetration. When undertaking such complex designs using computerisation it can be incredibly useful to utilise computation to tweak the building to ensure it performs to industry standards - or even well above industry standards - like the Shanghai Tower. To the right is Frank Gehry’s original concept for the Centre’s design. It is a highly abstract sketch very open to the viewers interpretation. When this sketch and design intent was input into a computer, modelled at a rough level, the designers would have able to see new options, new designs which they couldn’t have seen before. Computation can take our notion of ‘abstract’ and produce a thousand more iterations that are even more abstract. The point is that computation can take design to a ‘higher intellect’ than that of the designer 26. This is not only in terms of generation of forms and compositions but also in terms of performance on various levels. Computation enables us as designers to step back and utilise the computers analytical power to pump out information and iterations at a high speed.

FIGURE 23: AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE DRAMATIC FORMS CREATED AND OPTIMISED THROUGH COMPUTATION

The introduction of such methods will have large ramifications on the industry. The notion that architects have gone from using software, to creating software27 is something that has occurred with the inception of architectural scripting programs. This ensures that architects can create their own parameters within their design instead of working within the parameters of software. The results of such architectural design can be seen in completed projects by world-leading practices led by architects such as Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid.

figURE 25: this IMAGE SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SKIN AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING.

FIGURE 24: THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. it OUTLINES THE ABILITY OF COMPUTATION TO LIBERATE AN ARCHITECT AND ALLOW THEM TO GENERATE MORE COMPLEX FORMS.

STUDIO AIR

A4// Learning Outcomes

A5// Conclusion The first assignment has taught me the difference between computation and computerisation. I think it has also taught me that computation must have design intent driven by human intuitiveness and creativity which is then input into a computer to produce iterations aligned (at least hopefully aligned) with your design intent.

The research based approach to Assignment A is an integral component of creating a thorough design intent. In the case of parametric design it is vital that you as a designer understand the capabilities of computation in design. I think from the first three weeks we have come to understand that there must be a balance between having clear intuitive input into your design - i.e. drawing from real life ideas and systems, and generating multiple forms through the easy, quick ability to generate forms and compositions in computations.

I have come to understand that computation not only hastens the design process - but alters it. It adds in a more enhanced process of continual iteration on a larger scale. It can also enhance our ability as designers to create more complex built forms - architecturally but also performance wise and structurally.

I think that discussing architecture as a discourse was an interesting way to begin the subject. It helped in outlining the political and cultural way in which architecture is becoming framed in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s society. Architecture is now becoming a practice in which responsible design - politically, culturally and environmentally is vital to a successful design. This encompasses all scales - from energy efficiency to the net societal gain/loss of a design.

I have built upon my knowledge of parametric design as an associative and dependent design technique. I think that the future of design - from what I have learnt in section A - is centered around computation and parametricism. The benefits of it in terms of responsible design on various levels are vast.

The introduction of computation into architecture has led to a new aspect of design. It allows us to step back and be more intuitive, creative and solidify our design intent while a computer creates iterations through our inputs. I will input a lot of these learning outcomes into the next phase of the studio - specifically my new-found belief that while computational design has endless compositional possibilities - there must be solid, thorough reasoning to every curve, every line or every opening. I want my design to have different layers of meaning, different layers of intuition and creativity - represented through computational means. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to be caught up in an ability to generate forms - I want to make informed decisions for my design and once I have solidified design intent (and design ideals) - then experiment with compositional generation framed by my intent.

STUDIO AIR

A6// Appendix

OPTION 4: Combining Definitions

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

The main algorithmic sketch for A1L: Design Futuring is a combination of two definitions. The base shapes were generated through the duplication of a single definition - and then the alteration of the second definition to produce a second shape,.

The task in week 1 was to create a definition in Grasshopper of 8 points, 2 polylines and a loft - that formed a simple extruded shape. The key was to alter the positions of the point coordinates placed through Grasshopper - and thus generate different forms from the 8 points.

The shapes were merged and formed a hybrid. The final form was produced by baking only necessary surfaces into Rhino.

This task was a small, rudimentary snapshot of how definitions through Grasshopper can generate a huge amount of design possibilities. It showed how design computation can help in the process of ideation - as it allows the creation of multiple design possibilities which would have been incredibly difficult to create with different methods. It also opens up the possibilities of random design mistakes - as you can so easily make an error in your definition or change a value that generates a form that you would have never thought of or aimed for.

OPTION 1 Learning Outcomes:

A simple manipulation of three sets of coordinates.

The main learning outcome for this sketch task was how Grasshopper acts as a parasite on Rhino. We create definitions and then data is input into Rhino to form the geometry. The associative/dependent relationship is a result of the parasitic nature of Grasshopper - inputs and values change easily and the geometry is not formed in Rhino until we ‘bake’ it.

OPTION 2

In relation to my sketches - perhaps it would be better to create two definitions of geometry and then use Grasshopper to remove the intersecting geometry.

A more complex structure. points dragged into the inverse of their original position to create an hourglass figure.

OPTION 3 A form generated through altering one slider’s max value to a higher amount than the others.

STUDIO AIR

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

This weeks algorithmic sketches covered making a definition that had a lot more variables than the previous one. The concept was to create a forest of ‘tubes’ on a landscape. The process involved commands such as Loft, Cap, and various others such as Multiply,, Circle, and ListLength. The core concept was splitting the groups of points to allow for varied and random heights.

OPTION 3 Option 3 is a randomisation of the vector XY positions - thus the tubes are projection towards the randomised positions of the vector.

The key was to also experiment with different variables by making them random. The X,Y coordinates, XY Vectors, Radius, and point distribution were the factors that we could alter. This produced random ‘forests’ that all looked different.

OPTION 1 Option 1 is the first step in the sketch task - it is the base sketch with only varied heights.

OPTION 4 Option 4 is the randomisation of height, radius and vectors. I increased the point distribution along the lofted curve surface - and the result was a lot more randomisation.

Random Sketch: The sketch to the right is a Varanoi3d command - where I created a shape in Rhino and then distributed random points within it in Grasshopper, and divided it into polysurfaces . I then baked it and deleted surfaces to create holes.

OPTION 2 Option 2 is a variation of not only heights but also radius of the tubes.

STUDIO AIR

FIGURE 16: Homesthetics, “Chinese National Stadium in Beijing”, Last Modified 1/10/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://cdn.homesthetics.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Chinese-National- Stadium-in-Beijing-%E2%80%93-The-Bird%E2%80%99s-Nest-Stadium-homesthetics-8.jpg

References IMAGES:

FIGURE 17: New England Narrow Road, “Birds Nest”, Last Modified 11/03/2011, Accessed 14/03/2015, https://newenglandsnarrowroad.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/birds-nest-8x10-photo-poster.jpg

FIGURE 1: Oleg Soroko, “Parametric Bench”, Last Modified 15/07/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://www.archello.com/en/product/parametric-bench

FIGURE 18: Amazon, “Beijing China, Birds Nest”, Last Modified, 20/11/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// s3.amazonaws.com/everystockphoto/fspid20/11/13/43/8/beijing-china-birds-1113438-o.jpg

FIGURE 2: Heydar Aliyev Centre, “Heydar Aliyev Centre” Last Modified 11/03/2014, Accessed 13/04/2015 http://www.heydaraliyevcenter.az/

FIGURE 19: IdeasGN, “Shanghai Tower Gensler”, Last Modified 20/5/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.ideasgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shanghai-Tower-Gensler-001.jpg

FIGURE 3: Hpeterswald, “Sydney Opera House at Sunset”, Last Modified 14/04/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House#/media/File:Sydney_Opera_House_at_Sunset.jpg

FIGURE 20: Andrew&AnnMarie, “Shanghai Tower”, Last Modified 1/7/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Tower#/media/File:Shanghai_Tower_July_2014_-_1.jpg

FIGURE 4: Architect Magazine, “Sydney Opera House Renovation”, Last modified 14/06/2013, Accessed 13/04/2015, http://www.architectmagazine.com/Images/406653201_ SydneyOperaHouseUtzonRenovation_01_tcm20-2077281.jpg?width=600&amp;404=404.png

FIGURE 21: Gensler Architects, “Building Section”, Last Modified 22/12/2010, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Shanghai_Tower_12_22_2010.pdf FIGURE 22: The Guardian, “Louis Vutton Center”, Last Modified 17/10/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://static. guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/17/1413542021824/France---Louis-Vuitton-Fo-014.jpg

FIGURE 5: Architectural Review, “Sydney Opera House Under Construction”, Taken 1966, Accessed 13/03/2015, https://serendipityproject.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sydney- opera-house-under-construction-from-architectural-review-march-1966.jpg

FIGURE 23: CanardPC, “Louis Vutton Center For Creativity”, Last Modified 10/11/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://tof.canardpc.com/view/9c4b2ff2-835d-4613-a090-e86b2fb2cbd5.jpg

FIGURE 6: Jorn Utzen, “Sydney Opera House Concept”, Last modified 14/03/2014, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://2. bp.blogspot.com/-1vOllUfmU3M/T8Cx3RR_CSI/AAAAAAAAAf0/nEoBL4HBeKc/s1600/Red+Book+sketch+1958.png

FIGURE 24: Frank Gehry, “Louis Vutton Concept Sketch”, Unknown, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://www.fondationlouisvuitton.fr/content/flvinternet/en/l-edifice/_jcr_content/content/columncontrol_ e160/rightG484/gallerysinglethumbna.flvcrop.980.5000.jpeg

FIGURE 7: Murray Fredericks, “One Central Park Sydney”, Last modified 15/11/2014, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://www.thegeneralist.com/places/jean-nouvels-giant-mirrors-and-vertical-gardens/

FIGURE 25: AAS Architecture, “Foundation Louis Vutton”, Last Modified 12/11/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http:// aasarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/Fondation-Louis-Vuitton-pour-la-creation-by-Frank-Gehry-12.jpg

FIGURE 8: CPSdney, “One Central Park Heliostat”, Last Modified 15/09/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bG1HmvnFpPQ/maxresdefault.jpg FIGURE 9: Murray Fredericks, “Central Park Sydney Facade”, Last modified 14/03/2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/54245770c07a80548f00007f_one-centralpark-jean-nouvel-patrick-blanc_ajn_ptw_sydney_ocp_murrayfredericks_facadedetail-530x842.jpg FIGURE 10: CPP, “One Central Park Sydney”, Last Modified 15/11/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// www.cppwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1Central_building_Broadway_Sydney-1.jpg FIGURE 11: Nex Architecture, “Times Eureka Pavillion”, Last Modified, 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.nex-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/G2V5123_flattened_edit-web.jpg FIGURE 12: Nex Architecture, “The Times Eureka Pavillion”, Last Modified 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.bustler.net/images/news/the_times_eureka_pavilion-nex_and_marcus_barnett_08.jpg FIGURE 13: Gianni Mancuso, “Diagram of Computational Design Process”, Last Modified 15/03/2015 FIGURE 14: Nex Architecture, “Design Process”, Last Modified 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// www.bustler.net/images/news2/the_times_eureka_pavilion-nex_and_marcus_barnett_06.jpg` FIGURE 15: University Of Southern California, Taken 16/8/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// arch-pubs.usc.edu/malaysia/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/IMG_2638_39_40.jpg

STUDIO AIR

CITATIONS: [1] Dutton, Thomas A. and Lian Hurst Mann, eds (1996). Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), p. 1

[23] [24] 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

[2] Thackara, John (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), p. 224

[25] [26] [27] Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15

[3] [4] Sydney Opera House , (2015), History Of The Sydney Opera House, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about/house_history_landing.aspx [5] Leach, Neil, ed., (1997). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge), p. xiii [6] Nouvel, Jean, (2015), The Birth Of One Central Park, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.centralparksydney.com/live/one-central-park/architecture-and-design [7] [8] De Manincor, John, (2015), One Central Park Sydney, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://architectureau.com/articles/one-central-park/ [9] Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179 [10] Frazer, John H. (2006). ‘The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization’, in GameSetAndMatch II: The Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. by Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers), pp. 208-212 [11] Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx [12] Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 5 [13] Nex Architecture (2011), Times Eureka Pavillion, Last Modified 2011, Accessed 14/03/2015 [14] Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 6 [15] [16] Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 3-4 [17] [18] [19] [20] Areif, Alison, (2013), New Forms That Function Better, Modified 31/7/2013, Accessed 14/02/2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/ [21] Gensler Architects, (2010), Shanghai Tower Design Update, Last Modified 2010, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Shanghai_Tower_12_22_2010.pdf [22] Areif, Alison, (2013), New Forms That Function Better, Modified 31/7/2013, Accessed 14/02/2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/

STUDIO AIR

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

image: morfotactic 2d parametric pattern

STUDIO AIR

B1// RESEARCH FIELD PANELISATION “[F]rom universal testimony of travellers it would appear, that there is scarcely a people, in however early a stage of civilization, with whom the desire for ornament is not a strong instinct.” 1

Panellisation is the design technique of breaking up a surface into smaller components which still form an overall surface. It can be used in a structural manner, and also in an ornamental/ sculptural manner. There are immense possibilities of breaking up a surface with this technique. The method of panellisation allows the construction of more free-form buildings - as large curved surfaces can be fragmented into smaller components 3. This has led to an influx in free-form buildings that can often be seen to be more ornamental or sculptural rather than being seen as something that is a structure. The desire for designers to create aesthetic and highly ornamental buildings can be fully achieved with panellisation. I think that panellisation allows buildings to take on a new meaning. We can push buildings to the limit with free-form, wildly curved structures and thus achieve the goal of creating a form, or structure that is more than just a building, but a building with a highly ornamental, sculptural appearance. It changes the way we design - rather than a building being decorated by ornamentation - the building as a whole is an ornament. A building can become something much more than a simple rectangle enclosure.

“[T]he definition of ornament is a difficult one, and at different moments in history it has designated much more than mere surface decoration. Ornament is by all accounts a slippery term, tied to the differences between applied arts and high arts,existing in the shifting spaces between simple functionality and aesthetic pleasure, migrating between the frivolous expressions of decadent superficiality and the manifestations of society’s moral condition. Put simply, if there a discrete meaning for ornament, it is in all cases a historically specific definition.” 2

A building can encompass so much more than it could previously - as a the designer has the ability to innovate and push the limits of structure to fit the needs of not only aesthetics but of things like natural light and energy efficiency.

STUDIO AIR

Proposition 3:

“ rue beauty results from the repose which the mind feels when the eye, the intellect and the affections, are satisfied from the absence of any want”4 Proposition 10:

“ armony of form consists of the proper balancing, and the contrast, of the straight, the inclined, and the curved”5 Proposition 8:

“ ll ornament shall be based upon geometrical construction”6

STUDIO AIR

FIGURE 2: VOLTADOM FROM THE EXTERIOR SHOWING THE OCULI AND THE WARPED FORM OF THE PANELS

B2// RESEARCH FIELD PANELISATION CASE STUDY: VOLTA DOM, SKYLAR TIBBITS VoltaDom is an installation in a corridor in buildings 65/66 in MIT’s campus. The design intent of the project was to create an installation that was reminiscent of the vaulted ceilings of historical cathedrals and buildings7. The vaulted forms are produced from randomly placed cones on a surface - and then trimmed at the top so that the ‘oculi’ provide opportunity for light penetration. The cone intersections are trimmed to form the vaults. The project has a huge amount of possibilities in terms of developing the definition. Variables such as the panelling method, random distribution, density of the distribution of points, and size of the oculi are avenues that can be explored. Something such as panelling method could be interesting - to see how the method of distributing the geometry will effect the joins, the geometry, the apertures and the overall effect. In addition the distribution of the geometry on a different overall form could be interesting, perhaps if the panel was applied to a vertically oriented form - and could this ideology be applied to an actual habitable structure - even as a facade? I think that in my iterations I will change things such as panelling approach - to break the definition and also see how different geometries can be applied in this definition.

Another important concept brought forward by this design is the intent to push the notion of ‘surface panels’ and what they are in the broader architectural sphere. This is achieved by using a complex shape to break up and panel a surface. The complex interactions between the panels create a form that is different from every angle. No single panel is the same due to the random distribution of points and thus the random distribution of the open cone geometry. In terms of the materiality, the form is panelled in what appears to be a plastic surface panel. The joins are comprised of panels which fix each individual panel together. This seems to be the very difficult component of the project - ensuring that all the joins can actually be manufactured. The double-curved surface ensures that there are even more challenges to overcome when manufacturing a project such as this.

FIGURE 1: VOLTADOM FROM THE EXTERIOR

FIGURE 3: VOLTADOM FROM THE INTERIOR

STUDIO AIR

ITERATIONS//

DENSE

LOOSE

PATTERN

HEIGHT

FORM APPLICATION

MAPPING GEOMETRY

STUDIO AIR

ITERATIONS//

SELECTED ITERATIONS

The selection Criteria for this matrix includes the qualities of; having an ability to be applied to a building as a facade, having apertures that can allow a large amount of light that also has a unique lighting effect. In addition the criteria called for geometrical assemblies that would create an interesting facade effect - one that alters how people would view the structure from the outside from any angle, internally and externally.

Voronoi pattern applied to vertically oriented form

I think these iterations were more successful than the others as they exhibited most of these qualities. For example the first iteration selected is essentially the VoltaDom structure rotated to be vertical. All of a sudden we see the surface panelling in a different light and see how it can be applied to other structures as a facade. This selection if further developed into an actual facade concept for a building would bring those same interesting effects produced in the MIT VoltaDom, and translate them into a habitable building. This could be applied to an apartment - and the definition could be altered to produce oculi (in this case the habitable windows) that are larger on the external wall of a living room and smaller on the external wall of a room requiring less light such as a bedroom or a bathroom. The VoltaDom concept could thus be applied to buildings as a facade treatment rather than limited to a installation. This could be particularly easily applied to apartments with a concrete structure - as the surface panels would only form the infill component of the overall building - which is non-structural.

The second iteration was a different panelling technique and involved placing a geometry (hexagon) regularly on a divided surface. This has capability to be utilised on site as a grid-shell type of structure - one that is self-supporting or semi self-supporting. It would allow huge amounts of natural light to penetrate and some of the holes to be filled in with glass or other material to provide some proper enclosure. This iteration has lots of potential as a pavillion of some sorts that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t require full enclosure or to be fully habitable.

hexagonal pattern applied regularly to surface

The third iteration is the random application of a closed cone to a vertically oriented structure. This could once again form the facade of a building, with the gaps between the geometry being the apertures for light to penetrate. It could be applied to a building as a facade wall, i.e.. non structural, and it can be made with lightweight materials. cone shape applied irregularly to vertically oriented form

hexagonal shape applied regularly to vertically oriented form

STUDIO AIR

The final iteration is the hexagonal geometry applied regularly to a vertically oriented surface. This is something that can be readily and easily applied to a pavillion or a facade. The surface is broken up into extruded hexagons and creates apertures that are easily adapted to windows or openings for natural light. The lighting effect on the internal of the structure would be an interesting effect. The method of fabrication would be difficult and the hexagons would have to be straight and not curved to ensure that they can be built into a structure.

STUDIO AIR

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0// DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION// HONG KONG, L.E.A.D.

The Dragonskin Pavillion is a standalone structure exhibited in Kowloon Park, Hong Kong. It is an innovation in architectural art installation 8 that explores a variety of spatial, lighting, tactile and material relationships9. The installation is an example of how computational design effects the design and construct process. Innovative techniques in manufacturing and design allowed this structure to be produced using a new material with a large degree of flexibility called post-formable Grada Plywood10.

FIGURE 5: EXTERNAL VIEW OF THE DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION SHOWING ITS LIGHTING EFFECTS

The method of fabrication is an example of how computational design and technology such as CNC is providing designers with a larger pool of tools to draw from. For example the construction process of the installation was to cut squares of pre-heated plywood and then bend them into shape through pressing them into a mould created using a CNC router13.

The installations innovation comes from the both phases of design and construction. Using 3D modelling software the panels where prepared and the joins cut out. In addition the computational design software calculated the specific locations of the cut joins to ensure the shape of the pavillion fit into the design intent: to create a porous, tactile and evocative, yet ‘hesitant’11 structure. The design intent involved creating a form that hesitantly revealed its interior - through the filtering of light out of the ‘scales’.

The capabilities of fabrication are increased drastically through computation - as seen by the diagram to the right numbering all the panels. The ease of construction and overall effectiveness and efficiency provided by such technology allowed the designers to fulfil their design intent. I think that the installation itself is an evocative structure - with a sculptural feel to it. I think that the structure is not hesitant in revealing itself, but more openly evocative. The light filtering through gives the impression the structure is almost alive. I think that the project was successful in using 3D modelling technology to achieve its design intent - and I also think that the materiality of the structure plays an important part in the achievement of its design intent. The softness of the material combined with the filtered light really blur the lines between structure and ornament.

The installation aims to blur the lines between a structure and a ‘structurally defined ornament’12. The panellisation of a curved surface - in essence what has been done - introduces a highly repetitive form that can appear to be sculptural rather than appear to be a formal enclosure, The repetitive panellisation and the frictiongrip style of fabrication allows the structure to filter light to the external - and illuminate the installation in a formidable manner.

FIGURE 7: DIAGRAM OF THE ASSEMBLY METHOD http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/ wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331304130building-order-scheme-383x500.jpg

FIGURE 4: EXTERNAL VIEW OF THE DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION STUDIO AIR

fIGURE 6: INTERNAL SHOT Showing THE FRICTION JOINS

STUDIO AIR

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0//

1. SURFACE FROM CURVES The first step was to attempt to create a surface similar to that of the actual pavillion.

DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION// HONG KONG, L.E.A.D.

2. Divide surface with surface frames. Surface frames was used because it found the normal and divided the surface into a grid of U/v values at the same time.

REVERSE ENGINEERING PROCESS The Dragonskin pavilion proved a difficult structure to reverse engineer. The main concept that was difficult to implement was the creation of separate panels that intersected - rather than creating panels that were associated to a box or a certain panel.

This approach was used rather than the approach of dividing a surface into u/v points, finding curve points and drawing the complex shape into the panel. It was also favoured over other panelling tools such as box morph which proved to be useless. Surface frames was the simplest option to use as the panels did not need to be varied in size or height - and only relied on the normal direction along the surface. FIGURE 8: EXTERNAL VIEW OF THE DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION

The regularity of the surface frames command ensured that as long as the u/v coordinate division was similar to the size of the bounding box - the intersections would work.

Attempt 1 is detailed below - it included dividing a surface into u/v points and using the curve points from the resulting isotrim function to create curves. This required manipulation of the curve points and then subsequently a rail 2 revolve function. It was deemed a dead end after realising that the shapes would be drawn within the isotrim panel - i.e. within the four points of the panel. Thus they would not be intersecting.

3. Create the panel A panel was created using a flat square surface as a bounding box. This was moved onto all the points placed into the centre of the surface panels The original panel created was created by in a similar method as proposed in the original attempt. However in this instance the panels were made to intersect as they were not confined by the curve points of the isotrim function,

4. The base point of this panel was mapped to the centroid of the surface panel. This was key in ensuring the panels intersected - and could be joined through the same friction method used in the actual pavilion.

5. The geometry was tweaked in rhino once the correct scale was determined and the form was altered to appear more alike the original definition, - any non-intersecting pan els were corrected through manipulating control points of curves in rhino.

FIGURES 9-14: PLAN VIEWS/ELEVATION VIEWS OF THE PAVILLION

STUDIO AIR

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0// DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION// HONG KONG, L.E.A.D. The Dragonskin definition was an interesting definition to attempt to reverse engineer. The underlying principle of the definition is to have a regular panel applied to a surface to create the overall whole. I think the reverse engineered definition has a few differences - namely the shape of the panel didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t end up being the correct shape. The shape in the actual structure is a sort of distorted diamond. The shape of the panel used is too curved and not straight enough,. In addition the overall form of the pavilion was similar - however the interaction of the bottom panels with the grounds surface was wrong. This could have been fixed by using a surface to the trim the extra part of the panels which are supposed to be semi-panels at the intersection of the structure and the floor.

FIGURE 15: ORIGINAL STRUCTURE VIEW 2

FIGURE 16: ORIGINAL STRUCTURE VIEW

If the original form was to be unconstrained I would develop it into more of a structure/enclosure. It would be interesting to see how a much larger structure would appear with similar panellisation. This panelling technique perhaps is limited to smaller structures - and maybe to create a larger structure the way in which the panels are fixed to each other would change or even be attached to an inner skin/support structure. The larger form would be an interesting avenue to explore - as we could explore if the structure retains its ornamental/sculptural feel.

fIGURE 17: The reverse engineered definition 1

STUDIO AIR

fIGURE 18: The reverse engineered definition 2

STUDIO AIR

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0// TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT//

ORIGINAL FORM

DENSE

LOOSE

INCREASE HEIGHT

DECREASE HEIGHT

ATTRACTOR 1

ATTRACTOR 2

SPHERE

ENCLOSURE

ORIGINAL FORM

CLOSED PYRAMID

OPEN PYRAMID

STUDIO AIR

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0// TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT// ORIGINAL FORM

DENSE

LOOSE

INCREASE HEIGHT

DECREASE HEIGHT

ATTRACTOR 1

ATTRACTOR 2

SPHERE

ENCLOSURE

SPHERE

VOLTADOM OPEN CONE

HEXAGON

OUTCOMES:

SELECTION CRITERIA:

The outcomes of the Dragonskin iterations are seemingly positive. The Definition was flexible to a certain degree and could be applied to many forms, with equally as many geometries. The key point with this definition was the scale of the surface divisions compared to the scale of the mapping geometry. The bigger the difference the more the intersections between the geometries would differ. For example the loose iterations required larger surface divisions and thus there were larger geometries input. Perhaps another interesting outcome was that different geometries intersect in vastly different ways - especially if they are curved. For example the VoltaDom Species and the Sphere species would be difficult to fabricate with conventional materials - i.e. plywood, timber - and would require some sort of steel frame. Conversely an approach such as that taken with the construction of the actual Dragonskin Pavillion - which involved a pre-fabricated mould which created the required curve from a flat material. I think the most successful species were the hexagonal species, and the open triangle species - as they both contain easily constructed geometric apertures. I think a simple surface ornamentation will actually prove to provide a stronger degree of complexity in relation to the overall form. Perhaps an overly complicated ornamentation will convolute the actual form and dictate the form actually produced.

The site at Merri Creek is one with huge amounts of ecology, both from the river and from nearby parks. It is a haven for natural systems in the midst of the City of Melbourne. The chosen site also is relatively dark and has an abundance of open space. Thus a selection criteria derived very loosely from initial site analysis would include the ability of the chosen panel to become part of a dynamic garden wall - which embeds the structure into the ecology and natural systems of the site. Another key of the selection criteria is for the chosen panel system to splay light up unto the form itself. This requires a large aperture that light can penetrate. The panel must create an interesting lighting effect on its own form and also on the surrounding natural systems. The panel must evoke a sense of awe and appreciation of the overall form - even when applied across an entire form.

STUDIO AIR

The key in this phase is to ascertain whether a panel geometry will be evocative in terms of lighting effect on the surrounding area and the form - as well as whether it can physically combine with the natural systems and ecology of the site.

STUDIO AIR

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENTATION

PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT #1

EXPECTATIONS: The preface of this experiment is to determine whether the chosen 4 iterations fulfill the aims of the selection criteria in physical form and not solely in ideology and appearance.

Prototype #1 met expectations in terms of the ability to be adapted into a dynamic, illuminated greenwall. The lighting effects were as expected as the light was not only trapped by the interior of the panel but also splayed outwards and illuminated its surrounds. The depth of the panels aided in capturing as much light as possible and this could be a consideration taken into the further development of the technique.

ITERATION #1: Decreased Height Iteration (SPECIES: OPEN TRIANGLE) tHIS ITERATION IS EXPECTED TO BE QUITE TIMID AND TAME IN ITS LIGHTING EFFECT. iT IS EXPECTED THAT THE STRUCTURE WORKS WELL.

However in terms of structure the friction grip panels were very difficult to fabricate. Not in terms of the individual panels but in terms of connecting the vertical strips of panels. Horizontally the panels were relatively easy to construct.

ITERATION #2: Decreased Height Iteration (SPECIES: HEXAGON) tHIS ITERATION IS INTERESTING, AND IS EXPECTED TO have a profoundly interesting lighting effect - however i expect the structure may not be overly suited to a green wall

ITERATION #3: Enclosure Iteration (SPECIES: OPEN TRIANGLE) this iteration is more aggressive and evocative in terms of its appearance and i think it will move forward into its lighting effect. the structure is expected to be fairly solid and work well when integrated with a green wall.

ITERATION #4: Enclosure Iteration (SPECIES: HEXAGON)

the green wall component will sit inside the panel. vegetation will sit inside these panel therefore the panels must be deep enough to hold vegetation and strong enough to be structurally efficient. This prototype has the correct form, lighting effect and an appropriate panel shape - but not the right fabrication technique.

this iteration is expected to be overly lit up and perhaps have a not so interesting lighting effect. tHE STRUCTURE IS EXPECTED TO HOLD UP WELL AS IT IS STRAIGHT LINES AND POINTS - RATHER THAN CURVES.

STUDIO AIR

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT #2

PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT #3 Prototype #2 was successful in achieving a lighting effect that would create a form that illuminates itself as well as the surrounds. The form is perhaps less aggressive than the previous prototype - and the lighting effect will thus be less aggressive. However similar problems were experienced while constructing this prototype - as it was difficult to connect the vertical strips of panels. If the panel system is to hold a garden wall/ vegetation than it the structural system and the method of panellisation will have to altered.

Prototype #3 was incredibly successful in achieving a dynamic and interesting lighting effect. The weaving hexagonal panels created a panellisation pattern that will illuminate the surrounding area in an evocative and powerful manner, It differs from the previous prototypes and the Dragonskin Pavilion itself in that its lighting effect is not so hesitant but aggressive, While the lighting is interesting perhaps overly aggressive lighting in the sensitive, quiet and natural surrounds at the Merri Creek site will not be appropriate. In addition my design intent is to have the lighting be more of a passive contributor to the overall architectural and sculptural experience. The form will be a combination of passive and aggressive and combine with the dynamic illuminated green-facade to create an evocative experience.

STUDIO AIR

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT// PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT #4

Prototype #4 was perhaps the least successful in my opinion. The panels were to chunky and didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fit together as well as expected,. The lighting effect of the previous prototype was lost, despite the base geometry being a hexagon that was simply extruded. Structurally and in terms of creating a dynamic illuminated green-facade - this prototype was a failure.

STUDIO AIR

B5. TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT// FURTHER DEVELOPMENT// MATRIX #3

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

OUTCOMES:

SELECTION CRITERIA:

The above matrix is the exploration of a new species - which panels the surface in a different and more efficient method. The surface is divided up and then from the isotrim curves, point are generated and a panel drawn within those points. This panelling method was the one ignored earlier to achieve the friction joins for the Dragonskin Pavilion, however as I progress into my technique development, this new method is more appealing. The ease with which normal joins can be created is a massive benefit of this type of panelling. In addition it is much easier to use attractor points to dictate height, of the panels. The panels of these iterations are more easily constructed and have a geometry that will splay light onto the panels itself - as well as the surrounds without detracting from the space too much with aggressive lighting. The panels also are able to implement a greenfacade in combination with the illumination effect.

The selection criteria for the fourth prototype and the technique proposal involves similar but more refined requirements from the last selection criteria. Thus the criteria focuses on how well the panels illuminate, self-illuminate, if they can carry planting, if they are evocative (and not overly exaggerated./aggressive), if they are easily constructed and whether they can be easily adapted to the chosen site (a curve/bend in the river). The selection criteria entails adaptability to the site - for example a positive iteration will be able to respond to the site on all angles and not just on the interface that is seen by passers-by or superficial visitors.

similar iterations - shows flexibility

STUDIO AIR

B5. TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPE//

This prototype was an important learning experience going forward with panelling. I learnt that a substructure will be necessary to ensure the facade is able to stand up and produce the intended effect. The dynamic, self-illuminating form I am searching for has to also function as an actual habitable building. Therefore the separation of the facade and structure, along with internals is something to look at going forward. The lighting effect was good, however the card chosen to make the prototype probably let me down in that it was too thin. However the apertures of the panels captured light as expected.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT// PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT 2.0 EXPECTATIONS: The preface of this experiment is to determine whether the chosen iteration is succesfull in achieving the criteria set out in the selection criteria.

Thus one important learning outcome was to seperate facade and strucure, albeit with facade relying intrinsically upon the structure.

ITERATION #1: 3xsurface panel This iteration is quite evocative in its overall form and the distribution of panels. The panel height is controlled by a control point that divided the amplitude by a certain value to alter the height gradually as the distance between the reference point and the normal amplitude increase, The distribution of panels is done in a relatively normal density, when compared with the previous dense/loose iterations. this can be changed/altered to suit the site to ensure the form is not overly intrusive in the natural landscape. However this also may be a point of design - having the panels and panel height culminate at some point relative to the site, such as a bend in the river. This is easily applicable with attractor points.

This prototype was also good in learning about how the panels of the facade will connect with each other. My panels were rudimentary - perhaps a little too rudimentary. They werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t cut using the card cutter. Perhaps to achieve more accuracy in fabrication this will be an important step. In addition this prototype has taught me that the material used on the actual panels has to be soft and warm - to work with the light penetrating from the panel apertures. This will interact better with the surrounding nature and ecology.

I expect this prototype to be successful, in both its structure and its ability to fulfil the design intent of an illuminated, dynamic, green-facade.

STUDIO AIR

B6. TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL// The technique I am proposing is to use panelling to divide a free-form surface derived from the surrounding environment into smaller repetitive, but varied components. The overall design intent is to create a free-form building that sprawls across the land, following the natural systems and topography. This includes and mainly refers to the winding nature of the Merri Creek and its sprawling ecological systems/subsystems. The design intent of the panels is to break up the surface and splay light gently out onto the surrounding areas, and also selfilluminate the varied and sculpturally panelled facade. This geometric panelling system is aimed at providing a stark contrast from the natural free-form of the land and its systems. There are two main components of the initial design intent - to create a free-form building that resembles the natural systems around it, and the division of that surface into a geometric, illuminated facade.

RENDER VIEW OF SCULPTURE

RENDER VIEW OF ARCHITECTURE

Figure 18/19: THE MAIN SOURCES OF INSPIRATION FOR THIS DESIGN, GREENFACADE, LIGHTING, AND THE AMALGAMATION OF SCULPTURE AND ARCHITECTURE. OVERALL SITE PLAN

The third design intent is to combine the previous concepts. Where the form intrudes upon the original ecological systems - the systems will intrude upon it. This will be achieved through a partial greenfacade; where the vegetation sits within and sprawls out of the panels closest to the river. Using this technique, the overall proposal can be summarised as a glowing form, sprawling across the landscape and into the ecological systems of the area. iSOMETRIC VIEWS

iSOMETRIC VIEWS

STUDIO AIR

B6. TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL//

The proposal is in fact a skin that effects how the viewer perceives the building. From one angle it appears to be emerging from the ground, covered in greenery yet at the other end it appears to be a defined architectural form. This is the relationship I want to explore - the degree to which a viewer perceives the form as sculptural as opposed to as an actual piece of architecture. I want to ensure that the form appears to be connected to the ground it sits upon, I want its snaking form to appear as if it is emerging from the ground and following the rivers curve before reaching its climax.

FRONT ELEVATION

The greenery will assimilate the structure with its surrounding environment, playing on the viewers perception of what the structure is even more-so than previously. The Greenery will achieve this blurring of perception all the while combining the structure with the ecology of the surrounding, sensitive natural interface.

SIDE ELEVATION

Possible challenges that lie ahead for this design direction and technique proposal include how to create a solid structure, perhaps a steel substructure that supports the building. In addition challenges include how the skin interfaces with the internal lining - and how the green-facade is structurally implemented. The green-facade could possibly limit the materials used for the skin panels. Perhaps a natural composite is required, especially as timber is the preferred material of choice due to its softness when light hits it. Possible changes to design and form could include stronger exaggeration of the sprawling and emerging metaphors mentioned above. A possible direction is to make the skin twist as if the form is writhing and thus create a more evocative, sculptural form.

REAR ELEVATION

PROPOSED SECTION

STUDIO AIR

B7. LEARNING OUTCOMES//

B8. APPENDIX// ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

This component of the course was much more difficult than the previous as it required much more application of the knowledge learnt about Rhino and Grasshopper. I think that I learnt a great deal about the capabilities of algorithmic design. Specifically the ease of producing hundreds of iterations. The simplest of commands in Grasshopper can change the entire design proposal in an instant. This is perhaps the most beneficial aspect of algorithmic design. It provides users with a huge array of design possibilities. Personally in terms of the chosen design direction, I learnt an immense amount. The learning was forced upon us in order to produce numerous iterations. I think that perhaps the first case study was unnecessary and that it would have been more beneficial to work on the reverse engineering process first up. This way we could really fine tune that and then work on the design proposal with more relevant knowledge about our chosen design direction. I think an area that was not necessary was the use of Grasshopper to prepare analysis of the site. I think letting students use their own method would have equally as beneficial as it shows how the use of parametric design and computation is compatible with some more traditional methods of design/analysis. I think that a massively important learning outcome was how this contemporary method of design can be used in a day-to-day basis. The incredible freedom it provides with free-form surfaces, panelling, form-finding is incredibly useful. I think that it also taught me that while this method of design is incredibly useful in certain areas of design it is not so much in others,. For example in developing a skin/ facade, this design technique has immense possibilities. It can be easily brought into other programs such as Revit through exporting cuts of the geometry/skin. I think while this component of the course was the hardest so far, and pushed you into the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;deep-endâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (especially if you have no prior experience) it will provide a foundational experience/understanding of computational design.

STUDIO AIR

References

CITATIONS:

IMAGES: [1] Jones, Owen (1856). The Grammar of Ornament (London: Day and son), p. E13 TITLE: Morfotactic, ‘2d Parametric Pattern’, last modified 2012, Last Accessed 19/04/2014, https://morfotactic.wordpress.com/category/parametric-design/

[2] Rose, Peter Isaac (2004). The Dispossessed:An Anatomy of Exile (Amherst, MA:University of Massachusetts Press), p. 261

FIGURE 1: SJET, ‘VoltaDom Exterior’, last modified 2011, accessed 20/04/2015, http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html

[3] Hambleton Daniel, Howes Crispin, Hendricks Jonathan, Kooymans John, (2009), Architectural Challenges, http://www.glassglobal.com/gpd/downloads/ArchitecturalChallenges-Hambleton.pdf

FIGURE 2: Penny Camberville, ‘VoltaDom’, last modified 8/5/20111, accessed 20/04/2015, https://www.flickr.com/photos/acidgalore/5705657144/

[4] [5] [6] Jones, Owen (1910, original publication: 1856). The Grammar of Ornament (London: Bernard Quaritch), pp. 5, 6

FIGURE 3: Unknown, ‘VoltaDom Interior’, last modified 2012, last accessed 20/04/2015https:// c1.staticflickr.com/3/2577/5701612763_4e4fd6bf57_b.jpg

[7] Tibbits, Skylar, (2012), Last modified 2012, Last acessed 21/04/2015, http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] “Dragon Skin Pavilion / Emmi Keskisarja, Pekka Tynkkynen & LEAD” 10 Mar 2012. ArchDaily. Accessed 22 Apr 2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=215249>

FIGURE 4: LEAD Architects, ‘Dragonskin Exterior’, last modified April 2012, Last Accessed 21/04/2015, http://www.l-e-a-d.pro/Research FIGURE 5: Emmi Keskisarja, ‘Dragonskin’, last modified 2012, last accessed 20/04/2015, http://www.emmikeskisarja.com/dragonskin/ FIGURE 6: ArchDaily, ‘Dragonskin Pavillion”, last modified 2012, last accessed 21/04/2015, http://ad009cdnb. archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331304083-8-pekka-tynkkynen-528x351.jpg FIGURE 7/8: LEAD Architects, ‘Building Order Scheme’, Last modified 2012, Last accessed 21/04/2015, http:// ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331304130-building-order-scheme-383x500.jpg FIGURE 9-14: Gianni Mancuso, ‘Dragonskin Reverse Engineered Definition’, Created 21/04/2015. FIGURE 15: LEAD Architects, ‘Dragonskin Pavillion’, last modified 2012, last accessed 21/04/2015, http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27fn5tQTr1rpdp2bo1_500.png FIGURE 16: LEAD Architects, ‘Dragonskin Pavillion’ Last modified 2012, Last Accessed 21/04/2015, http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27fqj5jeT1rpdp2bo1_1280.png FIGURE 17-18: Gianni Mancuso, ‘Dragonskin Reverse Engineered Definition’, Created 21/04/2015. FIGURE 19: Emmi Keskisarja, ‘Dragonskin’, last modified 2012, last accessed 20/04/2015, http://www.emmikeskisarja.com/dragonskin/ FIGURE 20: Murray Fredericks, “Central Park Sydney Facade”, Last modified 14/03/2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/54245770c07a80548f00007f_one-centralpark-jean-nouvel-patrick-blanc_ajn_ptw_sydney_ocp_murrayfredericks_facadedetail-530x842.jpg

STUDIO AIR

PART C// DETAIL DESIGN

cover: morfotactic lab logo [1]

STUDIO AIR

C1// DESIGN CONCEPT Interim Reflection

The interim design presentation and the subsequent criticism has given me various components of my proposal to work on. These points included relating my design to the chosen site and site analysis in a stronger more convincing manner, as well as proving that such a panelling system can in fact be constructed. In relation to the first point, a good starting point is to parametrize the data and information gathered in the initial site analysis. This can be done through the use of control points in certain areas to map the strength or density of ecology, or even the amount my design intrudes upon this ecology. In addition control points can map out the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meandering form, and the resultant curve from those points can help to assimilate the design with the site. The criticism that the design appeared to simply be dropped on the site means that I have to go back to the drawing board and create a sprawling form derived from things such as the curvature of the river. In relation to structure - the main aim is to reduce to panels to a cladding system - rather than a structural system. This would entail designing an internal structural system of struts or trusses to support the internal open space and the panels above. The panels would be fixed to this structure, or even solely comprise of sheets of material fixed a steel substructure.

The structure I am looking to build is a combination of arches and horizontal elements to create the form. The arches will be trussed up and this will provide the support for the open space below and the panel system above. The images to the left are some precedent images of truss systems. The connection types used in truss systems can vary - and often the joint types are bolted or welded. In addition - the type of truss I specifically want to mimic is the bowstring truss - which is often used for arched bridges. It is supported on the two ends and is trussed up in between the top chord and the bottom chord. I think this can be adapted to suit the arched form of my proposal.

figure [2] welded steel truss

figure [3]: the bowstring truss with truss webs in a pratt formation. Supported on either end.

figure [3] welded steel struss support

figure [4]: bowstring truss

figure [4]: the bowstring truss in practice - a bridge with two supports and an arch as the top chord. Note no vertical truss members. can be adapted.

figure [5]: bowstring truss bridge STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

THE chosen site presents a large amount of open space as well as a dense ecological system. The desne ecological system provides the opportunity to have the proposal interact in several ways with the system, and in different areas. The first ecologocial system is the river - its form and its natural systems. The second is the ecological systems surrounding the river - i.e. the embankments. Then there are the increaibgly less important systems as you step away from the river banks. The proposal interacts with several kayers of these systems. THE chosen parameters to implement from the site within grasshopper are the form of the river and the topography. The topography influences the form in a massive way - considering it sprawls across ninety metres. the control points directly from the curve of the river. manipulated into the form below - with inspiration from the movements of a snake.

PUTTING THE SITE INTO PARAMETERS: THE form of the proposal is determined by a set of control points which were originally placed along the form of the river. The points are then manipulated into any desired form to produce the final proposed form. THE height of the panels is determined by a single control point that is placed at the bend in the river. This ensures that the panels on the proposed structure are emphasising the qualities of the site, i.e. the bend in the river. THE site analysis diagrams on the following page emphasise the areas of interest - specifically the ecology around the river.

STUDIO AIR

REFINED PROGRAM INTENT

PREVAILING WINTER WIND

The program, or intention of my design can be split into two main components - the sculptural, and the architectural. Under sculptural comes the external and aesthetic impact the structure will have on bystanders from any angle, whether it be from across the river, on the top of the hill or on the bike path. The desired sculptural impact is drawn from the precedent The Dragonskin Pavillion. My design emulates it in trying to blur the boundaries between what is sculptural and what is habitable. The form of the design is a sprawling, snake-like form, which hesitantly reveals its internal function as it almost aggressively juts towards the river. The exaggerated spikes on its back at this point give the sense that the form doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to reveal its internal functions - and defensively attempts to withdraw from human contact. The sculptural element aims to emphasise a mysterious snake like form, emerging from the river, hesitantly, if not reluctantly revealing its function, and then slinking away into the river.

PREVAILING SUMMER WIND

BUILT FORM/TYPE OF SPACE

RIVER ECOLOGY

GENERAL ANALYSIS

The architectural component is of vital importance in my program. I aim to create a gallery, or a community engagement centre, where everybody in the community of all ages can visit and learn about rich history and culture about the Merri Creek, its native people and ecology. The aim is to provide schools and educational facilities a new avenue to educate children through excursions to this facility.

CAR/PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC

The function of this centre is not a set function. It can vary from being a display centre for Aboriginal Art, to an empty hall in which children can listen to stories, lectures, and interactive displays about the history of the Merri Creek. In a combination of these two intents - and to further blur the lines between what is habitable and sculptural - the structure will be something children can climb over in certain areas. TOPOGRAPHY

OPEN SPACE

SITE ANALYSIS DIAGRAMS THESE DIAGRAMS REPRESENT INFORMATION FROM THE SITE IN A VISUAL MANNER - WHERE THE STRONGER THE RESPECTIVE COLOUR IS - THE STRONGER THE RESPECTIVE QUALITY BEING LOOKED AT IS. THE MAIN REASONS FOR CHOOSING THIS SITE INCLUDE THE OPEN SPACE, THE RIVER BEND, THE LOCAL ECOLOGY, AND THE PROXIMITY TO BUILT FORM AND HUMAN PRESENCE. THESE ALL PLAY A VITAL PART IN THE DESIGN INTENT AND IN THE PROGRAM. GENERAL ECOLOGY

HUMAN/AMBIENT NOISE

STUDIO AIR

C1// DESIGN CONCEPT TECHNIQUE DIAGRAM

BREP EDGES

PLACED ALONG RIVER CURVE

INTERIM RHINO MANIPULATION

TYPICAL PANEL STRUCTURE

END POINTS

DIVIDE DOMAIN ISOTRIM

SITE/FORM CURVES

SOLID INTERSECTION

CAP HOLES

POLYLINE FROM 2 POINTS PIPE

LOFT CURVES

LIST ITEM PANEL SKIN OFFSET CURVE FROM POINTS

POINTS (26)

CIRCLE ON POINTS (5)

CAP HOLES

CIRCLE (5) TRIMMED WITH TOPOGRAPHY

SURFACE PREP.

POLYLINE FROM 4 POINTS

BOUNDARY SURFACES

POLYLINE FROM 4 POINTS

BOUNDARY SURFACES

POLYLINE FROM 4 POINTS

BOUNDARY SURFACES

RAIL CURVE SWEEP WITH 5 CURVE SECTIONS

DECONSTRUCT BREP (FACES)

FORMS THE TOPOGRAPHY

SURFACE (F)

DIVIDE DOMAIN

ISOTRIM

U: 50

LIST ITEM

POLYLINE FROM 2 POINTS

AREA

SURFACE CLOSEST POINT

EVALUATE SURFACE

AMPLITUDE

DIVISION (G)

100

POINT

DISTANCE

TYPICAL CHS CONNECTING TRUSSES. DIAGONAL AND HORIZONTAL WITH JOINTING

END POINTS

V: 8

INPUTTING SITE INFORMATION INTO RHINO/GRASSHOPPER HAS ALLOWED THE PROPOSAL TO BE INTERGRATED WITH THE SITE ON A MORE HOLISTIC LEVEL. IT PHYSICALLY SPRAWLS ALONG THE LANDSCAPE AND FOLLOWS THE TOPOGRAPHY.

BREP EDGES

SURFACE

POLYLINE FROM 2 POINTS PIPE

BAKE

DIVIDE DOMAIN

CURVES (G)

ISOTRIM

OFFSET (-1)

LIST ITEM

LOFT

OFFSET

BREP EDGES

CAP HOLES

SOLID INTERSECTION

END POINTS

DIVISION

POLYLINE FROM 2 POINTS PIPE

0.6

CAP HOLES

SOLID INTERSECTION

DIVIDE DOMAIN

BY EVALUATING THE NORMAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL PANELS CREATED THROUGH ISOTRIM - IT ENABLES MORE COMPLEXITY IN THE DESIGN THROUGH HEIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL PANELS. AT A CERTAIN POINT - WHERE THE PHYSICAL CONTROL POINT IS PLACED - THE HEIGHT OF THE PANELS CLIMAXES. THE TECHINCAL CONCEPT IS MOVING A POINT ON THE SPECIFIC LIST TO A CERTAIN POINT ALONG THE NORMAL OF THE PANEL DETERMINED BY A SPECIFIC AMPLITUDE.

USED TO DETERMINE HEIGHT OF PANELS ON SKIN OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE

EVALUATING NORMAL OF EACH PANEL

ISOTRIM LIST ITEM OFFSET TYPICAL VERTICAL/ DIAGONAL STEEL CHS - WITH JOINTING

STUDIO AIR

CAP HOLES

STUDIO AIR

truss system thick (500mm to 1000mm trusses). Form major support for panels and create the form of the structure.

C1// DESIGN CONCEPT

Image 1 details the truss and beam system. It is a one way rigid system and one-way braced system. the panels sit on the top of the trusses and span across the segments outlined on the previous page. This system can be likened to a portal frame type structure - however more complex due to the load of the panels as well as wind loads etc.

FABRICATION DIAGRAM horizontal segment connections form main connections between the segments. also main support for panels in combination with trusses.

The aim for the fabrication of the structure is to create easily constructable segments which when put together form the overall form. In doing so the building can be easily documented and constructed. Parts can be easily numbered and thus easily fabricated. This also allows for off-site fabrication and on-site assembly. This will speed up construction time and allow for efficient construction. the diagram below outlines how the building will be cut into sections. Each segment will consist of the same construction techqniques and elements - which slight variation to create the overall curving form. This allows for the simplification of the construction and design process. joint elements can be figured oiut according to a single segment and then repeatedly applied to the rest of the structure through parametric techniques.

There are 50 different sections similar to the above isolated section. This simplifies the structure in a way that allows for easy documentation. This is a fabrication concept that can be applied to various different structural techniques within each segment. It outlines parameters to work within when designing the structural system. In fact this concept can be likened to actual construction sequencing techniques used within the industry. It allows a definitive start point and pre-fabricated segments can be assembled and attached on site following that specific sequence.

brace system brace the portal frame structure. form secondary supports for the panels.

The structural concept for the proposal is to have a one-way braced system and a one way rigid system. This is a system entailing a mixture of welded and bolted (flexible connections). Image 1 is an isolation of a proposed structural system that divides the surface into sections based on the isotrim functions curve end points. This creates a structure directly correlated to the panel in a parametric manner. Image 1 is the main structure - with rigid connections to create the thicker trusses and flexible connections to create the horizontal elements connecting the segments. Image 2 outlines a bracing system concept drawn from the isotrim curve end points. It braces the structure and supports the panels spanning across the trusses.

STUDIO AIR

C2// TECTONIC ELEMENTS/PROTOTYPES

[1]

The first prototype was aimed at testing a truss structure and how strong it was in terms of taking the weight of the panels. The prototype proved that it was definitely able to take the weight of the panels. It was tested through the application of the panels and a substructure onto the model. This added weight to the panels and thus tested the strength of the system. The trusses detailed in image 1 show the composition of the system that will be repeated 49 more times with slight variation. It consists of simple trusses that forrm an arch. The depth of the trusses was made to be particularly deep (800mm) to ensure that the weight of the panel (material + structure) could be supported with no issues. If glass is to be used in the opening of the panel the extra weight of glass will need to be carried as well. In addition it was aimed at testing the efficiency of construction and the overall stability of the one-way rigid and and one-way braced system. The system proved to be more stable as the model was built. For example the trusses were relatively unstable - yet when there were bracing elements tying the two trusses together they were very strong. The bracing elements are shown in images [2] [3] and [4]. The bracing elements consist of the diagonal components - as well as the horizontal components.

[2] left [1]

[3] Right

Another component of the prototype testing was the lighting component. LED strip lights were stuck on the underside of the struts connecting the trusses. The purpose of this testing was to determine whether the panel design was retaining lighting in the correct manner and splaying light in the correct manner. The tests where succesfull as the panels retained light specifically very well. This is shown in image number [4] below. The light is captured by the panels and illuminates the form.

[2]

A downside of this prototype is that the planar elements of some of the components is very difficult to deal with when even a slight miscalculation can mean a panel doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t sit correctly or on the right angle. The structure relies on all structural elements to form the shape as well as forming support. Thus a slight variation over 50 segments and 450 panels could mean the form built is completely different to the designed form. There are a variety of solutions to such an issue specifically the use of tubular sections rather than planar sections. For example in terms of steel construction the use of circular hollow sections could be adopted rather than the use of rectangular or square hollow sections.

[3]

The manner in which the light was splayed from within the panels was also very succesfull. This is shown in image [3]. The panels splay light in an evocative manner. The panels become softer when light is splayed over them and the harsh, aggressive edges are lost. Image [3] was taken as if from the perspective of a prospective visitor walking past in the night. Thus thAe test can be deemed succesfull as it shows how the lighting effects are not overly aggressive and overt - but rather timid and evocative from the perspective of the prospective visitor.

[4]

[5]

STUDIO AIR

C3// DETAIL DESIGN 1

6/7

THIS DIAGRAM EXPLAINS THE STRUCTURAL COMPOSITION AND FABRICATION METHOD OF A SINGLE STRIP OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. iT BEGINS WITH THE FABRICATION OF BOTH THE TRUSSES. tHE SQUARE HOLLOW SECTIONS FORMING THE TOP AND BOTTOM MEMBERS ARE SHOP-WELDED AND PRE-FABRICATED. THE ENTIRE TRUSS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE PREFABRICATED. THE SECOND AND THIRD STEPS INVOLVED WELDING THE CYLINDRICAL PLATES TO THE SUPERSTRUCTURE OF THE TRUSS. THIS IS DONE FOR THE VERTICAL STUDS AND THE DIAGONAL BRACING STUDS. tHE CIRCULAR HOLLOW SECTIONS FORMING THE STUDS ARE THEN FITTED INTO THE PLATES TO FORM THE OVERALL TRUSS WITH INFILL STRUCTURE. 3 THE NEXT PHASE INVOLVES ATTACHING THE TRUSSES TO EACH OTHER, FIRSTLY BY WELDING SIMILAR CYLINDRICAL PLATES ON TO EACH TRUSS - AND THEN FITTING CIRCULAR HOLLOW SECTIONS INTO THE PLATES. THIS FORMS THE BASIC STRUCTURE AND GIVES THE STRUCTURE ITS SHAPE. THE NEXT STEP IS THE BRACING OF THE STRUCTURE WITH SIMILAR TECHNIQUES. THE LAST STEP IS THE WELDING OF THE PANEL STRUCTURE CONNECTIONS - AND THE SUBSEQUENT STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS AND THE CAPPING JOINTS. CAPPING JOINT FOR PANEL STRUCTURE

4 11/12

13 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUSSES

STUDIO AIR

100

STUDIO AIR

101

C3// DETAIL DESIGN The shortcomings of the model include the lack of detailing in terms of jointing systems. This is a vital component of the structure and perhaps cannot be explored at such a scale. A new model must be made at a different scale, perhaps at 1:10. By enlarging a component of the model it will be easier to explore the jointing systems. To weld the entire structure is not an adequate exploration of a jointing system - and as such the one way brace/rigid system will be adopted

the main diagonal strut - bracing the segments and providing secondary support for the panel structure.

the main horizontal support for the panels - as well as the connecting member between segments.

the horizontal members of the truss - perform the same function as the diagonal members.

THe diagonal member forming the truss - supports the weight of the panels and creates the uninterrupted open space below

[2] [1]

STUDIO AIR

102

STUDIO AIR

103

C3// DETAIL DESIGN JOINT 7

JOINT 3

JOINT 4

Model #2 aims to explore the connection types of the actual structure. There are 7 different types of joints that comprise a cell of the segment. The 7 types of joint are repeated throughout the entire structure - to a total of 400 times. The only difference is that slight variation between the joints that will ultimately determine the form of the structure.

JOINT 5

JOINT 6

The physical model was a successful experiment and is the final model. It represents the reduction of a complex panelling system into a lightweight framing system - one that can be repeated to form a much larger structure.

JOINT 1

JOINT 2

JOINT 1

JOINT 2

JOINT 3

JOINT 4

STUDIO AIR

JOINT 5

104

JOINT 6

JOINT 7

STUDIO AIR

105

The overall form epitomises the darting movements of a snake combined with the meandering nature of the Merri Creek. The combination forms an evocative, laterally undulating form that hugs the topography. It rejects the human built form, noise and circulation to agressively dart towards the river and in doing so hesitantly reveals the space within. It hesitantly reveals its internal function as it repels human contact - much like the common brown snake. The soft, textured wooden panels create a warm, natural look that blends in with the natural landscape.

C3// DESIGN PROPOSAL: THE METAPHOR Upon rejecting human presence the form darts back into the wilderness. Much like a snake darts back into the bushes.

The snake-like form emerges from the river embankment and sprawls across the landscape.

The aggressive panelling exaggerates the movement of the proposal at the peak of its rejection of human form and presence.

STUDIO AIR

106

STUDIO AIR

107

CITY OF MELBOURNE

C3// DESIGN PROPOSAL

MERRI CREEK GREEN BELT

CERES COMMUNIITY PARK

BRUNSWICK EAST PRIMARY SCHOOL

MERRI CREEK GREEN SPACE (GOLF COURSE)

PROPOSED STRUCTURE

STUDIO AIR

108

STUDIO AIR

109

C3// DESIGN PROPOSAL THE DESIGN IS FURTHERED FROM THE CONCEPTUAL STAGE BY CREATING A FORM THAT RELATES STRONGLY TO THE ECOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. THE FORM OF THE PROPOSAL IS DERIVED FROM THE MOVEMENTS OF A SNAKE - PARTICULARLY THE BROWN SNAKE AS IT CAN BE SEEN ALONG PATHS SUCH AS THIS DURING CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR. THE FORM LATERALLY UNDULATES IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO THE BROWN SNAKE SEEN BELOW. IT SHIES AWAY FROM HUMAN CONTACT AND AGGRESSIVELLY REACTS TO THE PRESENCE OF HUMAN BUILT FORM AND PRESENCE AS IT NEARS THE BIKE PATH.

IN TERMS OF SITE INFORMATION - THE PROPOSAL IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WITH RELATIVELY LARGE AMOUNTS OF OPEN SPACE - AS IT ALLOWS THE UNDULATING FORM TO SPRAWL AND INTERRUPT THIS SPACE. IT ALLOWS THE NARRATIVE OF THE FORM TO PROGRESS - AS A SNAKE-LIKE FORM REACHES OUT TO CLOSE TO HUMAN FORM AND RETRACTS AGGRESSIVELY BACK INTO THE WILD. THE FORM NATURALLY HUGS THE TOPOGRAPHY JUST AS A SNAKE WOULD HUG THE GROUND BENEATH IT. NOT ONLY DOES THE FORM RETRACT FROM HUMAN FORM AND PRESENCE (TRAFFIC, BUILT FORM,) BUT ALSO NOISE/. IT RETREATS FROM A SPACE/PATH WITH A HIGHER DEGREE OF HUMAN NOISE AND BACK INTO THE NATURAL ECOLOGICAL RIVER SYSTEM - SURROUNDED BY AMBIENT NATURAL NOISE.

HUMAN BUILT FORM

SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CONCEPT - THE FORM AIMS TO HESITANTLY REVEAL ITS INTERNAL FUNCTION. IT DOES SO THROUGH ITS LATERAL MOVEMENT AND THE OBSCURED SITELINES CREATED FROM THIS. FROM A CERTAIN POINT OF THE SITE IT APPEARS AS IF THE PROPOSAL IS SIMPLY A SCULPTURE - AND IT DOESN’T SEEM TO BE HABITABLE.

MERRI CREEK

OPEN SPACE

GREEN SPACE

AS POTENTIAL USERS REALISE THAT IT IS A STRUCTURE THAT IS HABITABLE THEY CAN EITHER VISIT OR KEEP WALKING. NOT ONLY IS THE BROWN SNAKE AN INSPIRATION FOR SUCH A FOIRM - BUT ALSO THE LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE MERRI CREEK ITSELF PROVIDED INSPIRATION.

BIKE PATH NOISE

figure [6] brown snake

figure [7] dragonskin pavillion

STUDIO AIR

110

STUDIO AIR

111

C3// DESIGN PROPOSAL: THE PROGRAM The aim of the program is to provide a boutique educational experience - available to anybody - a passerby or primary school students. The educational experience will extend to the broader community - but focus mainly on the Merri Creek and its local ecological, natural, and human history. The museum/gallery experience will not be limited to anything. One month it may be an interactive display for primary school students from the local area - and the next it may change to a formal display of local indigenous art. It aims to educate and inspire the local community to get together and celebrate the communities culture and history - as well as the natural beauty of the site combined with the evocative sculpture of the proposal.

The program aims to bring primary school students out of the ordinary classroom experience to provide an interactive educational experience that will imprint the history of the site and its people. The site is in close proximity to CERES and there is potential for a link in the two educational experiences - one that teaches about the ecology of the project - and the other focuses on the Merri Creek and its histories.

figure [8]: precedent internal area

figure [10]: regular classroom

figure [11]: ceres connection

figure [9]: precedent internal area

STUDIO AIR

112

STUDIO AIR

113

RIVER INTERACTION PARKLAND

PLASTERBOARD

PARKLAND

AGGRESSIVE MOVEMENT GLASS

OPEN SPACE

COMPOSITE TIMBER PANELS

CLOSEST POINT TO HUMAN CONTACT

POWDERCOATED BLACK STEEL

GALLERY SPACE CLASSROOM

TIMBER COMPOSITE

PATH RIVER INTERACTION

FULLY GLAZED ENTRANCE

FLOOR PLAN STUDIO AIR

114

STUDIO AIR

115

C3// DESIGN PROPOSAL The design proposal of the internal space is to provide an environment that is isolated from the harsh form of the exterior - one that is in fact a contrast. The internal space will aim to appear smooth, and calm as opposed to the exterior. The source of natural light is the cavernous opening that eventuates as the form sprawls back towards the river. Art work will be presented in the volumous gallery space, and the space will be used by students in a boutique museum, educational experience. The floor will match the exterior panels and the walls will be a minimal plasterboard finish. The volumous space will provide opportunity for students (and any type of visitor) to freely wonder around the space and observe the different pieces of work/displays on exhibit.

STUDIO AIR

116

STUDIO AIR

117

C3// DESIGN AMENDMENTS

The major alteration from the above internal render is a definitive break from original design intent - however it in fact adds to the proposal in a very beneficial way. Instead of having an interior starkly contrasted to the exterior - the new proposal puts forth the concept of an interior that directly contributes to the exterior effect - and vice versa. The new proposed interior features deep reveals that filter light into the structure at day - and out of the structure at night. The exterior combines with the interior to more effectivelly fulfill the design intent of hesitant and subtle illumination of the structure and its natural surrounds. It also provides greater natural light into the volumous space.

STUDIO AIR

118

STUDIO AIR

119

C3// DESIGN AMENDMENTS The image below visually outlines the softness of the light that penetrates the skin of the proposal. It is not harsh or overt - but subtle. In comparing this lighting effect to that of model #1 - it is an improvement. The deep reveals help to soften the light - which was an issue in model #1 - as it was perhaps too harsh to achieve the desired subtlety and hesitance. Overall the final crit. session was very helpful in achieving the desired design intent. It helped in creating a stronger connection not only between the precedent and the proposal - but the proposal’s exterior and interior aesthetic appearance and intent. The design is more rounded with the proposal’s aesthetic function linked internally an externally.

The final design crit. session was very helpful and helped to refine the proposal in several ways. Firstly the main issue picked up was that the connection between the Dragonskin Pavillion and the proposal was lost due to the elimnination of any gaps in the panels. Previously the proposal had the interior completely blocked out from the exterior - except for the main entrance. However the amended proposal, as shown in the render above creates deep penetrations in the skin of the proposal. The result is a deep reveal which filters light out into the external environment in a softer manner. The criticism of the thickness of my structural system was considered - however I think a new effect was stumbled upo with the deep reveals. It creates a threadlike connection between the external and interior environments - as they are connected but not directly.

The subtle light splays up the timber clad metal frames.

The deep reveals also help to filter more light into the interior gallery space. The filtered light is of a softer quality due to the reveals. The reveals will be created simply through lightweight boxing with a lightweight non-structural steel framing system. The open panels strengthen the connection between the proposal and its inspiration - the Dragonskin Pavillion. The soft, filtered light doesn’t aggressively illuminate the natural surrounds, instead hesitantly reveals parts of the external structure as well as the nearby natural environment.

the illuminated proposal isn’t overtly obstructive of the natural enviornment - it isn’t harsh and doesn’t provide too much unnatural illumination

STUDIO AIR

120

STUDIO AIR

121

C3// DESIGN NARRATIVE

STUDIO AIR

122

STUDIO AIR

123

C4// LEARNING OUTCOMES Studio Air has been thorough in teaching how to make a case for a proposal on various levels. Firstly it has taught me to make a case for my proposal on a parametric, computational level as well as an artistic, graphical level. Complexity in the definition of the proposal is a way in which I have learnt to make a compelling case for a proposal. I think Studio Air has been effective in teaching how to to deal with Studio feedback, from both studio members as well as the Studio leader and any guest critic. The interim crit. session was perhaps more useful than the final crit. presentation - due to the timeline and the inability to produce something too far removed from the final. The interim crit. session was perhaps more useful because it provided a clear definitive direction for us to go in with the ability to utilise tutorial and lecture resources more readily. I think a massive learning outcome was to take advice and criticism and turn it into something useful and productive. Studio Air was also thorough in helping to develop a computational technique, or a repetoire of techniques. However the main obstruction to fulfilling absolute potentional in this learning outcome was perhaps some tasks that may have been superfluous and could be eliminated. However as a whole it was a massive learning experience and fulfilled learning outcome in terms of developing a technique that was then applied in a proposal as well as in a physical sense - through models.

C5// CONCLUSION Studio Air has been an immensly difficult learning experience. I found it quite bizarre that in an architecture subject we did not once pick up a piece of tracing paper or a pencil and sketch. However the subject has taught me a vast amount about the capabilities of computational design and when it can be used. I have learnt that computational design is more applicable than I previously had thought.

The most difficult learning outcome was translating a virtual model to a physical model through digital fabrication. It required an in depth understanding of the model - and the nuances of the geometry being used. I think while the subject encourages a large amount of iterations in the design phase - this can allow a designer to lose focus on the reality of the situation and thus the constructability of the iterations can decrease. However it was probably the most difficult component of this subject - in terms of developing a proposal that is considered architecturally innovative - as well as ensuring it can be constructed in reality. I also think that this learning outcome can be quite confusing- as the reality of construction at 1:20, 1:10 and 1:1 is vastly different in terms of material behaviour, physical construction and jointing.

In all honesty I had previously thought computational design to be restricted to bespoke, highly design-orienterd activities. I have come to understand through the research phase and the project phase that it is applicable in various areas of architecture- and not only for aesthetics but for evaluation of performance in a structural sense and also in an environmental and thermal sense. I think that there are various skills that could be developed more in the years to come, however I think that the outcomes achieved in my proposal reflect a definitive improvement in the skill of compuational design from the interim to the final. I think there are areas of improvement to be made if I am to use these techniques in the future - for example in using the actual Rhino interface to develop architectural drawings.

I think the overwhelmingly important learning outcome of this subject is the ability to understand when such computational techniques are relevant and applicable. I think that in order to implement these techniques on an industry wide scale there must be a clear definition of where they are effective and efficient as opposed to other means of design. One area that such computational techniques can be used readily is facade development. However it is yet to be discovered where the use of such computational techniques are of use in the design of townhouses or similar development (on an efficient and effective level).

The learning outcome of developing vast amounts of design options and iterations - and then comparing them through matrices and comparative analysis was fulfilled. It was fulfilled through development of various iterations of a design proposal that ultimately led to a more informed design. I think while this was a good learning experience and outcome it was perhaps overstated in importance. I think that while huge amounts of options is beneficial to a degree - it may not be efficient and necessary.

STUDIO AIR

124

STUDIO AIR

125

part C// REFERENCES/CITATIONS Figure [1] : Morfotactic labs “morfotactic lab logo”, Last modified 2012, Accessed 12/06/2015, https://morfotactic.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/render_5_logo.jpg

figure [2]: Bosscher design, “Truss image”, Modified, 2010, Accessed 11/06/2015, http://www.bosscherdesign.com/cadfab/images/truss_lg.jpg

Figure [3]: Architecture media, “welded Truss”, Modified 2009, accessed 11/06/2015, http://media2.architecturemedia.net/site_media/ media/cache/13/61/136101fa0ad848a0f1f09e44f8dbd09a.jpg Figure [4]: Unknown, “bowstring truss”, Modified 2009, Accessed 11/6/2015, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/ Bowstring-truss.svg/800px-Bowstring-truss.svg.png

Figure [5]: Luwsas, “Newark Dyke”, Modified 2008, Accessed 12/06/2015, http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/newark_dyke_600.jpg Figure [6]: unknown, “brown snake”, modified 2007, accessed 12/06/2015, http://upload. wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Eastern_Brown_Snake_-_Kempsey_NSW.jpg figure [7]: Unknown, “dragonskin pavillion”, modified 2011, accessed 12/06/2015, http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27frxNq441rpdp2bo1_1280.jpg Figure [8]: North news, “Shanghaii art museum’, modified 2012, accessed 12/06/2015, http://en.northnews.cn/2012/1113/972381_8.shtml

Figure [9]: unknown, “open gallery space”, modified unknown, accessed 12/06/2015, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 GcRKX2loo9VCBHr6yr6FwItQI-qrFzOXVCriVh-0-AlXDegmJl4_pg

figure [10]: MOrris, kathleen, “unknown”, modified 2008, accessed 12/06/2015, http://primarytech.global2.vic.edu.au/category/english/page/2/

figure [11]: fillipa, colleen, “we love ceres”, modified 2014, accessed 12/06/2015, http://www.15trees.com.au/2014/ceres/

STUDIO AIR

126

STUDIO AIR

127