Part b mancuso gianni 637278

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

image: morfotactic 2d parametric pattern

48

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 49

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.

50

CONCEPTUALISATION

Proposition 3:

T

“ 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:

H

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

A

“ ll ornament shall be based upon geometrical construction”6

CONCEPTUALISATION 51

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

B1// 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.

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

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.

FIGURE 3: VOLTADOM FROM THE INTERIOR

52

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 53

ITERATIONS//

DENSE

LOOSE

PATTERN

HEIGHT

FORM APPLICATION

MAPPING GEOMETRY

54

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 55

ITERATIONS//

ITERATIONS//

SELECTED 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 doesn’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

56

CONCEPTUALISATION

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.

CONCEPTUALISATION 57

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.

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 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 4: EXTERNAL VIEW OF THE DRAGONSKIN PAVILLION 58

CONCEPTUALISATION

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

fIGURE 6: INTERNAL SHOT Showing THE FRICTION JOINS

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 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.

FIGURE 7: DIAGRAM OF THE ASSEMBLY METHOD http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/ wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331304130building-order-scheme-383x500.jpg CONCEPTUALISATION 59

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

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.

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.

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

60

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 61

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 didn’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

62

CONCEPTUALISATION

fIGURE 18: The reverse engineered definition 2

CONCEPTUALISATION 63

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

64

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 65

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.

66

CONCEPTUALISATION

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.

CONCEPTUALISATION 67

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

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.

68

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 69

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

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.

70

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 71

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT// PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENT #4

Prototype #4 was perhaps the least successful in my opinion. The panels were to chunky and didn’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.

72

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 73

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

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT//

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

74

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 75

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 weren’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.

76

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 77

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

78

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 79

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

80

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 81

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 ‘deep-end’ (especially if you have no prior experience) it will provide a foundational experience/understanding of computational design.

82

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 83

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

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

84

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 85