AIR d esign s tudio journal Ha nna Morgan 338648
group 05 30048_ s emes ter1 2013
figure 1
CONTENTS PART A: EXPRESSION OF INTEREST: CASE FOR INNOVATION
PART B: EXPRESSION OF INTEREST: DESIGN APPROACH
01.01 architecture as discourse
02.01 design focus
01.02 computational architecture
02.02 case study 1.0
01.03 parametric modelling
02.03 case study 2.0
01.04 algorithmic explorations
02.04 technique development
02.05 Technique: Prototypes 02.06 Technique Proposal 02.07 Algorithmic Sketches 02.08 Learning Objectives and Outcomes
01.05 conclusion 01.06 learning outcomes
figure 2
“I don’t know why people hire architects and then tell them what to do” - Frank Gehry
ABOUT
My name is Hanna Morgan and I am in my final year of B. Environments, majoring in architecture. I chose the environments degree in the attempt that I could combine a joy of creation/ play with the satisfaction that I get from problem solving. “Air” will be my fourth design studio in my undergraduate degree. I have previously worked with google sketchup and AutoCad but have had no previous experience with Rhino or Grasshopper software. I do, however, love a good challenge!
Wyndam’s Western Gateway initiative calls for a compelling installation that can encourage further reflection beyond that at first glance. My journal documents an exploration of design ideas. I am making a proposal for an innovative architectural installation that responds to the dynamic flow of traffic, the brilliant transition between light and night and the natural surroundings. An exploration of architectural computation, particularly parametricism has been documented. Parametricism allows for an intelligent and never static creation of form.
Algorithmic design has the potential to challenge the Wyndam gateway space. It’s unique intelligence can spark thoughts about technology, form and how human beings respond to their environment.
“’Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky.’ There’s the old song about it. It’s a metaphor for what we’re being told: ‘Just stay in the box, kid, don’t muddy the water.’ Parents say it to their kids. Teachers say it. Schools do. And so people become immune to the sameness...it’s so common it’s accepted. We can’t imagine it any other way. It’s dehumanizing, and we don’t even notice it.” -Frank Gehry
01.01
ARCHITECTURE AS DISCOURSE Air’s week one lecture discussed architecture as a discourse. Discourse describes a conversation or debate about a process or thought. Discourse stems from ideas or actions that have driven change. It was mentioned in the lecture that this change could be either negative or positive. Regardless of the outcome, it is important that conversation is encouraged. I believe that architecture, or any form of art, can be deemed successful if either an expansion or suppression of the notion has sparked.
The discourse of architecture typically revolves around its formal gestures. The most topical conversation is based on the idea of architecture as a form of art. Like many of the visual arts, architecture materially represents social phenomena. The division in high and low culture means that discourse will often be extensive. Architecture is fashion, reflecting human innovation, direction and action. In pop culture, architecture is judged based on style. Buildings have to accommodate to changes in human preferences and ideas. Additionally, architecture as a symbolic realm and a spatial experience contribute to the extent of the discourse.
Everyone has an opinion on architecture. A building is a cultural symbol that is absolutely in your face. The first reading for week one- the definition of “algorithm”, mentions that architecture exists because of the client (Wilson, Robert and Frank). It is the consumption of the building that forms the discourse. When a building is produced, a client or the public’s reaction cannot always be anticipated. The discussion is largely based on whether the evolution of human needs, wants and desires has been metor challenged.
Greg Lynn’s article on “Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy” (reading 3) discusses that the upright nature of the human form has resulted in buildings having to be upright too. Architecture has always has to meet human needs in a practical (as well as symbolic, spiritual and social) way. Architecture today is complex, challenging the basic human need for shelter in a society caught up in aesthetics, speed and the need to improve. The discourse that revolves around a building has become a huge part of what architecture actually is.
figure 3
Library -Rem Koolhas Deconstructivism is a development of postmodern architecture beggining in the 1980’s. The style can be characterised by a fragmentation or distortion of a volume. Rem Koolhaas influenced deconstructivist architecture, embracing an expressive style of “controlled chaos”. His building, the Seattle Public Library, represents the potential for rethinking the composition of space.1 The library reflects an uncertainty linked with the digital age. New forms of storage and unique reading areas mirror new forms of reading and learning technologies that were challenging prior methods.
figure 4 The horizontality of traditional structures is challenged. The layering of horizontal forms takes Koolhaas and his consumers on a new architectural journey. There is no question that this building is radical. I believe, however that it reflects a social transformation. Libraries and public spaces need to stay contemporary. New methods in teaching and learning are accommodated in the details of the interior.
In the late 1980’s traditional urban space and obsessions with classical figuration was lost. Deconstructivism merged out of philosophical thought an debate about dissolution and distress. Rem Koolhaas’ Seattle Central Library expresses an assemblage of fragments2 held together by lines of force. Koolhaas’ library is important in the history of architectural discourse because of his response to representation through form. Koolhaas does not rely on the end result of a composition. Nor does he attempt to “keep up with appearances” through his use of public space. The library is an exploration of techniques and disassembly. Through this destruction of elements, a revolutionary form results.
1 Seattle Central Library, Archdaily, http://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/, February, 2009. 2 Curtis, W, Modern architecture since 1900, Phaidon, 1996, First Published 1982.
figure 5
figure 6
Walt Disney Concert HallFrank Gehry The Walt Disney Concert Hall is considered a major cultural symbol of Los Angeles. It is the most monumental of Los Angele’s concert halls; production costs being estimated art around $265 million.1 Gehry’s dynamic disturbance of space revolves around a machine aesthetic. A stainless steel clad, curvaceous façade marks its initial appeal for the consumer. What I believe marks this building as unique are its structural components that are hidden beneath a remarkable exterior. Tree trunk- like columns support the system, whilst driving lighting and air conditioning to the main lobby. Gehry achieves structural integrity; whilst adding his own personal touch and notes of symbolism. That, combined with a user-friendly interior and an overall dynamic façade, no doubt causes a stir amongst the public.
This is a notion that Le Corbusier had introduced in regards to the built environment’s place in modernity. The Walt Disney Concert Hall is a large-scale project that’s discourse stems from its dynamic interpretation of walls, lights and floors.1 This very deconstructivist style, of course, makes the public feel uncertain about the direction of architecture. Suspense and uncertainty in design and style that Gehry achieved during his career has definitely challenged and influenced his contemporaries. 1 Michael Noll, A, The Myth of the Walt Disney Concert Hall , http://soundandstructure.com/ archives/433, 2011.
figure 7
Frank Gehry steps out of the mundane with this incredible composition. Whether or not the concert hall has had a negative or positive public response, Gehry has challenged previous thoughts on technique and form. There is no doubt that Gehry changed the direction of architecture. Aerospace software was used in the creation of this unique form.2 This allowed for an explosion of convex and concave planes throughout the form. Gehry has taken the idea of a building as a machine for living to it’s extreme. 1, 2 Discover LA, Walt Disney Concert Hall: A Los Angeles Cultural Icon, http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/ walt-disney-concert-hall-los-angeles-cultural-icon, 2012.
figure 8
figure 9
01.02
COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE
Computerization: “entities that are already conceptualised in the designer’s mind are entered, manipulated or stored on a computer system”1. Computation, on the other hand, is where the computer becomes the creative force. By relying soley on computation, the “designers creativity is limited”2. Computational programs have been designed to free the designer’s imagination3. It is important that during the design process, we experience real life situations, explore materiality and tactility. We can limit ourselves to the “thoughts” of the computer. In doing this, we can forget what exists outside the digital world. Designers who are fixed soley on computational solutions can be ignorant to a real life uncertainty. This unpredictibility relates to structural failure, time pressures, 1,2,3 Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. 11-20.
figure 10
Parametricism is a style of architectural computation that has developed over the past 15 years.1 Its’ roots are in mathematics, where added entities can easily be altered. Parametric design calls for the rejection of a fixation on the final solution. Parametric design is an example of a method that celebrates a new found freedom for possible results. It allows for dynamic transformations of form using mathematical controls. When i was first introduces to parametric design i saw it as a lazy way of being creative. I felt that dragging objects onto a grid and using a slide tool to alter coordinates and form was cheating. After playing with grasshopper (a parametric algorithm editor for the rhino software) my thoughts immediately changed. Being creative, after all, is about breaking down rational processes and techniques. This is exactly what parametric design does. Architecture is not just “art” because of it’s external constraints that must be solved. Algorithmic programs are opening up the possibilities for creativity because of a coding system that is based on creative acts. 1 Schumacher, P, Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20-%20A%20New%20Global%20Style%20 for%20Architecture%20and%20Urban%20Design. html, London 2008.
Or2The beautiful or2 architectural installation (opposite page) is an enermous chandelier that acts as a shading device. This cutting edge structure was developed using parametric software. Parametric software has made possible a precise mapping of polygonal segments.1 The installation employs photo-reactive technology. During the day time Or2 is a tree-like shading device. At night time the structure is illuminated in beautiful hues of orange and pink. I believe that Or2 is a great example of algortihmic possibilities. Without parametricism, the precise control of dimensions would be difficult to achieve. The use of light-weight materials is also made possible. Photo-reactive photochromic polypropylene is the major material used for the project.2 Or2 is a rejection of traditional technique. Mathematical presision is not limiting creativity in this example. It is opening up opportunity for unique form and material. The unorthodox form and material have resulted in a brand new exeprience for the public. 1 Klemmt, Christopher, SOFTlab, Or2, http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2013/02/07/or2/, 2013. 2 Furuto, A, Contemplay Pavillion, http:// www.archdaily.com/258929/the-contemplay-pavilion-drs-farmm/, 2012.
figure 11
Contemplay pavilionThe second example of parametric innovation is the contemplay pavilion designed by students from the Mcgill University in Montreal (right). The form is a möbius strip. The composition would usually require a large number of similar yet unique components, in order to resolve its continuously changing curvature. However, the project team wrote a customised program in grasshopper1 effieciently and effectively creating the illusional formation. Grasshopper and other parametric programs are allowing us to explore the manipulation of the curve, as shown in this project.
1 Furuto, A, Contemplay Pavillion, http:// www.archdaily.com/258929/the-contemplay-pavilion-drs-farmm/, 2012.
figure 12
01.03
PARAMETRIC MODELLING “Relies on both sides of the brain (analytic and creative) to produce solutions to problems that cannot be solved with one faculty alone” - Kalay Yehuda in Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design
figure 13
Case study 1: Green Void Architects- LAVA Located- Sydney Year- 2008 Materials- Nylon/Lighting Size- 300 sq. metres
The tensile form stretches lightweight materials to their limits. This reduction in material usage, construction and installation time, lowers the project’s overall cost.1
Green Void is an architectural installation that plays with the tensile strength of materials. A membrane stretches across the walls, ceilings and floors of Sydney’s Custom House. The design is derived from natural form. The LAVA team attempts to create more with less.1
Making more with less has, in this case, provided a transportable work. It is easily installed and reusable. This project is screaming with sustainable design solutions.
The computer model for Green Void is an exploration of how systems evolve naturally. The project is a great example of abstraction. It is not simply abstract in the sense that the aesthetic has elements of vagueness. It is also abstract in the way that the base form could generate a myriad of alternatives.2 The form is an exploration of both materiality and structure. A design team has managed to solve their design intent through exploration. This exploration is made possible with computer scripting programs. The LAVA team uses sailmaking software to further explore the limits of material manipulation. Their design intent, creating more with less, is achieved with the precision that accompanies mathematical constraints that are provided through certain software. 1 Green Void Preject, http://www.l-a-v-a. net/projects/green-void/, 2008. 2 Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48.
The project’s credibility as being a piece of architecture has been questioned. What purpose does the work fulfil? Is it not simply an aesthetic form? I would say that project is architecture. If it is not architecture, it definitely serves a place in architectural discourse. The Green Void structure blurs the boundaries between art and architecture. The work is achieving well-defined goals set by the client and the architectural team. These goals are based around spatial experience and structural efficiency. The work may not be housing 100 people but it does challenge material, structural and spatial norms.
1 Pohl, E, Green Void/Lava, http://www. archdaily.com/10233/green-void-lava/, 2008
.
figure 14
figure 15
figure 16
Case Study 2: Carpenter Centre Puppet Theatre Architects- Pierre Huyghe and Michael Meredith Located- Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials- Polycarbonate panels The puppet theatre is a temporary construction built for Le Corbusier’s Visual Arts Centre. The designers drew inspiration from “eggs, seeds, tumors, alien spacecrafts and Le Corbusier’s brain”.1 The concept could inspire exciting new architectural techniques for the Gateway challenge. Parametric programs assisted in the formation of 500 teselating elements.2 Plastic polycarbonate panels are braced, forming the organic moss-capped structure, The piece comments on traditional grandeous theatre designs.
figure 17
Parametric design has allowed for the creation of a form that may not have been realised otherwise. The efficiency of materials and construction accompany the parametric techniques. The later introduction of constraints, however (in this case the form was limited to a particular space) highlight the setbacks of parametricism. Once a form is realised, it can be difficult to decode and alter. 1Bellostes, Judit, Puppet Theatre at Harvard’s Carpenter Centre, http://cubeme.com/blog/2009/07/07/puppet-theater-at-harvards-carpender-center/, 2011.
2 Gewertz, Ken, Harvard Gazette Archives, http://www. news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.11/01-huyghe. html, 2007.
figure 18
01.04
ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS
Disney tow er E x p loring lof ting
group 05 Hanna Morgan, Ma r c h 2013
The week 1 readings discussed algorithms. An algorithm, in reference to computation, can be described as “a recipe for telling a computer what to do”.1 The week one Grasshopper task embodies this idea of algorithmic processing. The lofting technique has been used to create a tower out of simple curves. This technique is a integral to the projects discussed earlier in the journal. It is a very basic technique of parametric design. It may be simple, but it provides a great foundation for the exploration of surface texture and the connection of components. The tower is constructed out of the curves of the faces of cartoon characters. These unique 2D shapes are then lofted to create surface and form. The images on the previous page show the original shapes and how a new form has been created. The translusent sketches allow us to further see the shapes and contours of the lofted form. There are 4 towers in total in this disney tower.
1 Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil eds(1999) in The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (London: The MIT Press) pp.11-12.
The lofting of curves is a technique that would show innovation in an architectural installation designed for the Gateway Project. It is a very explorational technique. The lofted form has unlimited possibilities and never has an end result. This is the advantage of working with the lofting object in Grasshopper. The curves can be easily manipulated to create exciting and challenging forms. The lofted “tower” bridges a gap between nature and technology. An organic form has evolved from a highly technological process. The form makes a comment on the typical modern “tower”. The tower supports my case that a parametric design could challenge the every day spatial experience at the Wyndam Gateway. The dynamic forms produced by algorithmic programming spark thought about built and natural form. This would contribute to the discourse that surrounds the architectual profession.
01.05
01.06
Conclusion
Learning outcomes
The exploration of algorithmic software will be the basis for the creation of a design for the Wyndam City Gateway Project.
Learning about the theoretical and practical sides of architectural computing has challenged any initial expectiations that I had. My experience over the past 4 weeks has been eye opening and exciting. Studying projects that were developed with parametric software has changed my ideas on designing and creativity.
Parametric and algorithmic explorations can start a conversation through the creation of something that is not yet realised. Parametricism is a new approach to design that can change the direction of architecture. Innovative forms and structural systems can challenge the expectations of the architect, client and viewer. Dynamic transformations of a form are created by the manipulation of controls. Infinite variables can be explored to form a truly unique geometry. This challenges conventional design processes. My design approach will discard any expectation of the final solution. Nothing in life can simply be “solved”. It will accomodate the ever-changing dynamism of technology and nature. The architectural installation will be used as a tool for discourse. A challenging form can spark ideas in the person who is experiencing it. This is the purpose of my parametric piece.
I went from believing that computers were limiting the creativity of the designer. I felt that parametric software, in particular, encouraged “cheating” to get an end result. I now see the positives of an algorithmic approach to design. I believe that it is a freeing process- with exploration being at the centre. Knowledge on parametric techniques has changed the way that I view architectural design. The Or2 project is one project that has inspired me to create something that challenges architectural norms. It is sustainable in its minimal use of materials, shading and lighting abilities, transportability and efficiency. It is also a unique form that investigates the distinctive divide between the built and natural environments.
Feedback Part 1: Hanna, ×
Journal looks really good. Great layout/ graphics
× Discussions of ‘Architecture as Discourse’ and ‘Parametric Modelling’ are very convincing × ‘Computing in Architecture’ needs revisiting. You are too focused on a parametric approach at this stage. Instead perhaps you should discuss the two approaches to ‘Computing in Architecture’ as introduced in Stanislav’s lecture. E.g. Computerisation vs Computational approach (re-read the Kosta Terzidis reading) × Language and grammar is generally good however gets a bit lazy in some areas e.g. capital ‘i’s × Algorithmic Explorations could be improved (Disney tower is a bit simplistic). However good discussion of how they relate to your argument. ×
Ensure you have referenced thoroughly
×
Strong Conclusion and link to EOI
×
Overall a really good start
“The new primitives are animate, dynamic, and interactive entities—splines, nurbs, and subdivs—that act as building blocks for dynamic systems” - Patrik Schumacher
02.01
DESIGN FOCUS Geometry An exciting stream of parametric design is geometric manipulation. A simple geometry can be transformed; can be intersected with other surfaces and challenge a conventional understanding of architecture through limitless exploration. Geometric explorations cover techniques such as mesh extraction, relaxation and find forming, the form of geodesics and parametric manipulation of elliptical and hyperbolic paraboloids. Firgure 19 is an example of a paraboloid. Figure 20 shows a lattice framework that can be formed with geodesics.
figure 19
Parametric geometry as an exploration of form is both valid and interesting. In response to the gateway project competition, a geometric installation will challenge conventional thought about design. Geodesics, in particular, present a solution to both aesthetic and structural challenges. The geodesic framework can offer unlimited possibilities for form. The framework can be manipulated to compliment the landscape, stretched, relaxed and extracted. This framework also lends itself to lightweight materials. A geodesic design can therefore be sustainable and structurally efficient.
figure 20
figure 21
figure 22 •
An example of a parametric geometry is the Smart Geometry’s Gridshell. A “4-day workshop at Smart Geometry 2012 focused on the design and construction of a wooden grid shell using only straight wood members bent along geodesic lines on a relaxed surface”1. The Gridshell is a formfinding structure that presents both the simplicity and strength of parametric geodesics. The issues of constructability and design economy have been answered through this geodesic investigation. 1 Matsys Design, SG2012 Gridshell,
http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/ sg2012-gridshell/, 2013.
The framework prospect “minimizes the variation of elements”1. It is simplifying the entity to develop a structural system. Parametric design provides the information for solving the engineering involved in construction. A geodesic form inspired by the Gridshell would be very interesting. These evolving forms can be as dynamic as the freeway itself. To compliment a freeway that exists in an ever-changing landscape, an installation integrating technology, mathematics and organic growth would be valid. 1 Gmelin, S, Complex Geometry in Ar-
chitecture; Simulation design tools, http:// www.gmelin.li/PhD/category/parametric_design/, 2011.
02.02
CASE STUDY 1.0- GEOMETRY
-3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -move original curves (R)
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -twist original curves (R)
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -scale original curves (R)
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -alter division points for frame
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -twist arc (R) -swap point of curves
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -twist arc (R) -swap point of curves -different scales for curved forms (R)
-multiple curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component to form framework -twist arc (R) -swap point of curves -different scales for curved forms (R) -explosion of form through arc alteration (R)
-3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component -alter divion of points with number slider
-3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component -alter divion of points with number slider -extension of curves (R)
-3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component -alter divion of points with number slider -mesh through curves -3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component -alter divion of points with number slider -mesh through curves -collapse meshed surfaces
-3 curve division -branch extraction -arc formation -surface loft -geodesic component -alter divion of points with number slider -mesh through curves -collapse meshed surfaces -twist curves/ arcs (R)
02.03
CASE STUDY 2.0- CANTON TOWER
figure 23
Grasshopper forum definition manipulation
- rectangle component - cull elements - rotate component - loft surface - polyline vertex points - mathematical subtraction - fillet sharp corners - twist slider - number slider to form geodesics
Previous Algorithm - rectangle component - cull elements - rotate component - loft surface - polyline vertex points - mathematical subtraction - fillet sharp corners - twist slider - number slider to form geodesics .............. What I did? - alter twister slider (1) - altered distance between points (2) - change heights of rectangular forms - applied mesh surface - collapsed mesh
02.04
TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT
1.
2.
4.
7. 1. Random positioning of 3 curves 2. Lofting in grasshopper- very basic 3. Changing curve location in rhino
3.
5.
6.
8. 4. Adding curves- discovering worm-like form 5. Additional curves- referencing to one curve in grasshopper caused confusion in lofting in an orderly way 6. Referencing individually- continued “confusion� in form
9. 7. Correctly ordering curves in grasshopper 8. changing curve size and location in rhino 9. rotating curves, providing a twisting effect
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
10. A more desired discovery 11. 3 curves divided into 10 points, 10 arcs between, Acs lofted, Geodesic curves applied, Curve Integers: list 1: 10, list 2: 10 Shift list: list 1: 1, list 2: 10 12. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-6 13. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-8
14. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-11 15. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-13 16. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-15 17. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 1-5 and 10-15
18. Parameters above copied and applied to curves 5-9 19. Parameters above copied and applied to 3 new curves in a different formation 20. Curve Integers: list 1: 10, list 2: 50 Shift list: list 1: 1, list 2: 10 Parameters above copied and applied to 3 new curves in different formation 21. Curve Integers: list 1: 10, list 2: 50 Shift list: list 1: 10, list 2: 5 new curve formation
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
22. Curve Integers: list 1: 10, list 2: 20 Shift list: list 1: 8, list 2: 2 new curve formation 23. Parameters above copied and applied to 3 new curves in different formation Change in curves lofted 24. Change in curves lofted. Number slider changing size of original curves 25. formation twisting of original curves in rhino
26. twisting of original curves in rhino removal of lofting to form mesh 27. 3 curves divided into 10 points, curve division to create points, geodesic curves applies, lofting new between curves 28. 3 curve, curve division applied, tree explosion, arc component, rebuild arc geodesic curve applied to form 29. .. twist 3 curves in rhino- changing from circles to unique forms
30. copy form, apply mesh geometry 31. copy forms, apply mesh geometry 32. twist entire form 33. 3 curve divided into 10 points. Tree data exploded, arc component and rebuild arc to create curves Geodesic curve applied to lofted result with intermediate w-shaped curve with closed loft option
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
34. Parameters above copied and applied to 3 new curves in different formation, SDivide (U= V= 8), polyline and exoskeleton created (r= 2) 35. Parameters from 33. copied and applied to 3 new curves in different formation. Curve Intergers, List 1= 15 List 2= 20 36. Shift Intergers: List 1= 8, List 2= 10, SDivide Intergers: U List= 10, V List= 12 , Exoskeleton frame: R= 1.5 37. Paramaters copied and applied to 3 new curves, Curve Intergers: List 1= List 2= 10, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 15, Exosk. r= 1.0
38. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 25, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 15, Exosk. r= 1.0 39. List 1= 15, List 2= 40, Shift Intergers: List 1= 5, List 2= 10, SDivide Intergers U= 10, V= 17, Exosk. r= 1.2 40. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 10, V= 17, Exosk. r= 1.2 41. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 10, V= 17, Exosk. r= 1.2
42. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 9, Exosk. r= 1.5 43. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 9, Exosk. r= 1.5 44. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 12, Exosk. r= 1.0 45. Curve Intergers: List 1= 20, List 2= 52, SDivide Intergers U= 12, V= 9, Exosk. r= 2.0
46 46. 3 curve divided into 10 points. Tree data explode, arc component and rebuild arc to create curves Geodesic curve applied to lofted result. Curve Intergers: List 1= 7, List 2= 70, SDivide Intergers U= 12, V= 9, Exosk. r= 2.0
47.
48.
47. 3 curve divided into 10 points. Tree data explode, arc component and rebuild arc to create curves Geodesic curve applied to lofted result. Parameters copied and applied to 3 new curves. Curve Intergers: List 1= 7, List 2= 70, SDivide Intergers U= 7, V= 15, Exosk. r= 2.0
48. 3 curve divided into 10 points. Tree data explode, arc component and rebuild arc to create curves Geodesic curve applied to lofted result. Parameters copied and applied to 3 new curves. Curve Intergers: List 1= 7, List 2= 70, SDivide Intergers U= 20 V= 20, Exosk. r= 3.0
Yehuda E. Kalay, in the article, “Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer- Aided Design” describes the “solution synthesis”1. This design phase captures the formation of possible solutions to a problem. Kalay describes this process as being non-rational and intuitive. The solutions that are explored are often incomplete and may not logically address any requirements. The 48 Grasshopper explorations shown above depict this search for a solution. This matrix presents numerous “sketches” or ideas. These ideas are not fully developed. Rather, they present 48 explorations produced with the knowledge that a problem exists, but without the aim that a single, refined solution needs to arise.
members in Group 4. The first 10 Images depict a search for a desirable form. We looked at the Canton Tower for inspiration for the creation of a worm-like form. A long structure with limited surface area is very compatible with structural tension. These tensile members, when produced with an elastic material, can be easily manipulated to produce breathelike movement. The images that I produced (images 23-33) explore how this worm-like form may contract and inflate when tensile elements are pulled or released. The final 15 images depict an application of a surface mesh or framework. This framework can be simplified to maximise material and structural efficiency without losing aesthetic appeal. The future of materials and sustainability are two themes that follow current conversations about the direction of contemporary design.
The 48 perspectives provided in the matrix were produced by all of the group 1
Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25.
02.05
TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES Janet Echelman Janet Echelman creates suspended fabric sculptures. Her public installations embrace humble crafting techniques and modern technology1. Echelman strives to challenge a harshness that exudes in traditional city environments. Echelman works with volumes of billowing fishing net in the hope that she can soften the static surroundings. The installations have been the collaborative effort of lace makers, acoustical engineers and NASA scientists2. Echelman refuses to limit her creative potential as well as the scale and impact of her forms. In Water Sky Garden, 2009, Echelman works with painted galvanized steel rings, TENARA Architectural fibre net, red painted cedar and lighting techniques3 (figures 24, 25 and 26).
This fluid sculpture has inspired a new direction for the Wyndam Project proposal. The form breathes effortlessly with wind and reacts to rain and light1. The performance qualities are extremely compelling. It is rare to witness a something so immense mimicking a pulsation that is typically associated with natural forms. Applying this quality of movement to one of the 47 explorations would make for a more intriguing design.
1 Intoform, Is it a Bird, Is It a Plane?- Janet Echelman, http://intoform. wordpress.com/2011/10/04/is-it-a-bird-isit-a-plane-janet-echelman/, 2009. 1 Brown, Patricia, Architectural Digest, http://www.architecturaldigest.com/ architecture/innovators/2012/artist-janet-echelman-sculptures-article, 2011. 2 Brown, Patricia, Architectural Digest, http://www.architecturaldigest.com/ architecture/innovators/2012/artist-janet-echelman-sculptures-article, 2011. 3 Intororm, Is it a Bird, Is It a Plane?- Janet Echelman, http://intoform. wordpress.com/2011/10/04/is-it-a-bird-isit-a-plane-janet-echelman/, 2009.
figure 24
figure 25
figure 26
Prototypes Making physical models added another layer of complexity to our design. Having the ability to manipulate the parameters and planes by hand gave some interesting results. Contacting and expanding the form through the relaxation and extension of tensile members could be simulated in the Kangaroo plugin for Rhino. Kangaroo can simulate the pulsating expansion and retraction that was inspired by Janet Echelman. The tangible forms informed material and engineering solutions. One particular model that stood out was one made from pipe cleaners, wire and string. We loosely modelled a simple form that we had explored in Rhino. We went from a static form to realising the possibilities of tensility, elasticity and animation.
The long elements of piping represent the lofting of a surface. They are then woven with wire hooks that act as flexible joints for the bisecting string elements. The string had to be tied to nearby surfaces to prevent the model from collapsing. The direction of the strings changes the positioning of the structure. This is important to consider for the final structure. Pulling on the string changes the overall shape of the surface. The Ends of the piping can be twisted to simulate the twisting motion achieved in the Canton Tower. The positioning of the hooks changes the geodesic-style surface. Threading the string in different directions through the hooks will alter this “mesh� and also change the tension of particular members in the form. Without exploring this physical model, we would have less of an understanding of material and forces.
02.06
TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL The investigation of an expansive sculptural installation has ignited new ideas for technique. A more refined and realistic solution was proposed with the prototype show in figures. It was clear that the unique qualities of flexible and expansive joints were worth emphasising further. This was achieved through the use of more compatible materials- tubing, elastic bands and wire. Rather than moving the longer elements, we developed the circles that form the lofted surface. Plastic tubing was moulded into circles through the application of heat. Rubber bands were thread through the circles to give them their elasticity. After simulating the “lofting� between these circles with wire, a form was realised that could breathe, with the manipulation of these elastic shapes. This contraction and expansion is what is innovative in the design. It challenges the static nature of traditional sculptures. Intelligent engineering of a pumping system will be needed to make this sculptural form breathe in real life. One idea would be to construct a pumping device that contains a one-way valve. The one- way valve allows for the one- directional entry of gas. When applied to the proposal, this pumping system would connect to the circular elements and be used to inflate the overall form.
If the pump was a flexible tubing that ran under the freeway, traffic flow would be the deciding factor on how this project would “breathe�. The flexibility of bitumen means that this proposal is plausible. Flexible fabrics and membrane-like materials that exist today could bring this project to life. It would also mean that the project would keep with contemporary design techniques. The billowing form could spark an idea about the future of architecture in the Wyndam city commuters. The dynamic form is as captivating as an unseen living form. If it is contracting and expanding with the density of traffic, another layer of meaning is added. If there were to be a traffic jam, the form would stay in an expanded state. These concepts are all food for thought for those on the freeway.
The drawbacks of this idea are the representation and resolution of the form with parametric software. Parametric programs are much easier to use when geometry has not already been defined. We will have to be open to changes in the overall aesthetic when modelling it with Grasshopper, Kangaroo and Rhino software.
02.07
ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES
The 3 algorithmic sketches capture the structural efficiency of the geodesic framework. Stripping a strucure down to its bare foundation allows for an honesty in materiality. A computational approach to design has allowed us to realise a structurally effiecient form very quickly. We were able to alter parameters and twist certain members to produce a desired aesthetic. Unfortunately the sketches represent something static. Software such as Kangaroo will need to be implemented in order for us to demonstrate an application of movement to these frames.
02.08
LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES The feedback given in the mid semester presentation was very constructive. One point that was raised was that our idea required further development in order to be refined enough for fabrication. It was mentioned that our presentation was built around the themes of “breathe”, “dynamism” and “movement”. We had not considered however how this would be engineered. Suggestions for improvement included: • The consumption and excretion of carbon. This would be achieved through the development of high-tech engineering solutions. This relationship with carbon would fit well with a pulsating movement as well as make for an innovative idea. The absurdity of this concept gives an alternative to the way things are. The concept has potential to spark a debate about a possible future. This future goes beyond to technology and design to a shift in social and cultural systems.
• Considering positive social influences that architecture can have. For example, safe injecting rooms. We discussed keeping up with social values and conversation i.e., sustainable design. However, it was suggested to us that we changed our thinking to give our sculptural installation a unique and unusual purpose. • Refining our concept down to one distinct message. We had many workable ideas; however trying to combine them may have caused confusion in our presentation. To refine the design further, we have developed a means for making our form “breathe”. Research and sketches on a one-way valve pumping system are displayed on the following page.
Learning Objectives and Outcomes Objective 1. By openly discussing the limitations of our design we were able to make a strong proposal for the Wyndam project. Our case for proposals was supported with sophisticated prototypes that simulate an emotional affect that may arise when observing our larger scale design. The individual affect that is conjured by the compelling form contributes to architectural discourse. This makes for a powerful case. Objective 2. Objective 2 relates to Kalay’s description of a “solution synthesis” in the article “Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer Aided Design”. This solution synthesis1 captures a formation of possible solutions to a problem.
1 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New
Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25.
The variety of design possibilities provided in the Grasshopper challenges and matrix of explorations capture this method of problem solving. A plethora of techniques, joint solutions and aesthetic proposals have arisen from this generation of possibilities. Objective 3. The digitally-fabricated physical prototypes and digital models contribute to an extensive body of solutions for an evocative sculpture for the Wyndam City Project. Several processed physical forms were developed and tested against physical forces, lighting and loads. As a group we created more than 10 designs that investigate geometry, fabrication, materiality and physical forces. Objective 7. The grasshopper challenges, the Canton Tower reverse-engineering
project and several manipulations of developed definitions demonstrate an ability to deconstruct data flow within Grasshopper. Objective 8. Computational techniques have been demonstrated throughout the journal. The matrix in B4 displays a repertoire of algorithmic explorations. The weekly Grasshopper challenges are evidence of an evolution in the understanding of algorithmic software. Earlier iterations capture a limited knowledge of parametric programs and plugins. The reverse engineering project displays this grasp on the algorithmic process. Being given the final solution and working backwards to determine a definition is demonstrated in this reverse engineering task.
References- text Bellostes, Judit, Puppet Theatre at Harvard’s Carpenter Centre, http://cubeme.com/ blog/2009/07/07/puppet-theater-at-harvards-carpender-center/, 2011. Brown, Patricia, Architectural Digest, http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architecture/ innovators/2012/artist-janet-echelman-sculptures-article, 2011. Curtis, W, Modern architecture since 1900, Phaidon, 1996, First Published 1982. Discover LA, Walt Disney Concert Hall: A Los Angeles Cultural Icon, http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/walt-disney-concert-hall-los-angeles-cultural-icon, 2012. Furuto, A, Contemplay Pavillion, http://www.archdaily.com/258929/the-contemplay-pavilion-drs-farmm/, 2012. Furuto, A, http://www.archdaily.com/321480/or2-project-wins-good-design-award-orproject/, 2013. Gewertz, Ken, Harvard Gazette Archives, http://www.news.harvard.edu/ gazette/2004/11.11/01-huyghe.html, 2007. Gmelin, S, Complex Geometry in Architecture; Simulation design tools, http://www. gmelin.li/PhD/category/parametric_design/, 2011. Green Void Preject, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/, 2008. Intoform, Is it a Bird, Is It a Plane?- Janet Echelman, http://intoform.wordpress. com/2011/10/04/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-janet-echelman/, 2009. Klemmt, Christopher, SOFTlab, Or2, http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2013/02/07/ or2/, 2013. Lynn, Greg (1998) “Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy”, in Fold, Bodies and Blobs: Collected Essays ed. by Greg Lynn (Bruxelles: La Lettre volée), pp. 169-182. Matsys Design, SG2012 Gridshell, http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/sg2012-gridshell/, 2013. Michael Noll, A, The Myth of the Walt Disney Concert Hall , http://soundandstructure. com/archives/433, 2011. Pohl, E, Green Void/Lava, http://www.archdaily.com/10233/green-void-lava/, 2008. Schumacher, P, Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, published in AD Architectural Design - Digital Cities, Vol 79, No 4, July/August 2009 http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20-%20A%20New%20Global%20Style%20for%20Architecture%20and%20Urban%20Design.html, London 2008.
Seattle Central Library, Archdaily, http://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/, February, 2009. Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. 11-20. Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil eds(1999) in The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (London: The MIT Press) pp.11-12. Woodbury, Robert F. and Andrew L. Burrow (2006). ‘Whither design space?’, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20 , 2, pp. 63-82. Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48. Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25.
References- images figure 1-Furuto, A, Or2, http://www.archdaily.com/321480/or2-project-wins-good-design-award-orproject/, 2013. figure 2- Or2 close up, http://www.designbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/or2-solar-powered-chandelier-by-orproject_1_f9CoP_69.jpg, 2013. figure 3- Frank Gehry sketch, http://fangamer.com/forum/Fan/Forum/16659, 2007. figure 4 and 6- Library by Koolhas, http://www.designverb.com/2007/07/13/seattle-library-by-koolhaas/, 2007. figure 5Koolhas library, http://www.flickr.com/groups/pritzkerprize/discuss/72157623312046538/, 2010. figure 7 and 9- Reynier, J, Walt Disney Concert Hall, http://www.fotopedia.com/items/ biqlgnjpprlri-9KD6oTfyY3s, 2010. figure 8- Burgess, O, Walt Disney Concert Hall, http://www.classicalite.com/articles/769/20121102/walt-disney-concert-hall-play-host-works-bartok-tchaikovsky-smetana-laphil-nutcracker-swan-lake.htm, 2013. figure 10- Or2, http://plusmood.com/2010/06/or2-at-the-london-architecture-festival-orproject/or2_orproject_plusmood-1/, 2010. figure 11 and 12- Contemplay Pavillion, http://www.architravel.com/architravel/papernews/contemplay-pavilion-completes, 2012. figure 13- Pink Chandelier, Perceptive Light, http://perceptivelight.com.au/tag/pink/, 2012. figure 14- Green Void> Lava, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/, 2008. figure 15 and 16- Green Void/ Lava, http://www.archdaily.com/10233/green-void-lava/, 2008. figure 17 and 18- Puppet Theatre at Harvard’s Carpenter Centre, http://cubeme.com/ blog/2009/07/07/puppet-theater-at-harvards-carpender-center/, 2011. figure 19- The Paraboloid, Harvey Mudd College Department of Mathematics http://www.math.hmc.edu/~gu/curves_and_surfaces/surfaces/paraboloid.html, 2013. figure 20- Geodesics on a triaxial ellipsoid graphic lib, http://geographiclib.sourceforge. net/1.29/triaxial.html, Doxygen, 2012. figure 21 and 22- Matsys Design, SG2012 Gridshell, http://matsysdesign. com/2012/04/13/sg2012-gridshell/, 2013. figure 23- Canton Tower Image, Netherlands, http://gztvtower.info/, 2013. figure 24, 25 and 26- Janet Echelman’s Water Sky Garden, http://www.echelman.com/ portfolio/olympicoval/rooimgs2.html, 2010.