C
AN ARCHITECTURE BECOME MORE SUSTAINABLE THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS OF KINETIC AND RESPONSIVE STRUCTURES AND SKINS ?
JACK WEBBER FORD BA (Hons) ARCHITECTURE LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY 2012 word count-3296
“
Architecture that arises from and sinks back into fluidity, into the turbulance of a continually changing matrix of conditions, into an external and ceaseless flux-architecture drawing its sinews from webbings of shifting force, from patterns of unpredictable movement, from changes of mind, alterations of position, spontaneous disintegration and synthesis- architecture that transmits the feel of movement and shifts, resonating with every force applied to it, because it both resists and gives way- architecture to gain its poise (pg 40, Architectural Monographs No.22/Anarchitecture: Architecture is a political act, Lebbeus Woods, 1992, Academy Editions/ St Martins Press.)
�
c
ONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1-2
-ARCHITECTURAL PERMENANCE?
WHAT IS RESPONSIVE ARCHITECTURE
3-5
-DEFINITION -ORIGINS -PRINCIPLES
BONES AND STRUCTURE
6-8
CASE STUDIES -BUCKMINSTER FULLER -SANTIAGO CALATRAVA
SURFACE AND SKIN (FACADES)
9-11
CASE STUDIES -CHUCK HOBERMAN -ACHIM MENGES
ARCHITECTURE AS A LIVING ORGANISM
12-16
CASE STUDIES -JEAN NOUVEL Musee Du Quai Branly -MAKE ARCHITECTS Algae tower -THE PROTOCELL
CONCLUSION
17-18
1
Fig 1. Abandoned architecture. The architecture becoming obsolete. (online image) avaliable at: http://robertsantafede. files.wordpress.com/2012/04/robert-santafede-inert.jpg Accessed on 20/11/2012
2
Traditionally architecture is recognised as enduring, with permanence as the ultimate endeavour. To the extent where architecture is regarded as frozen music, the freezing of an generation, the expression of an age. (fig 1) Buildings tend to be designed as rigid, inert objects which results in an architecture with insubstantial relationships with environmental and social permutations. With the uncertain link between the building and its surrounding systems, architecture is unable to be fully sustainable. The current architectural model formulates buildings that are unresponsive to their environments; structurally inefficient and wasteful of resources. However in this modern day, with the rapidly expanding population in cities, increasing social transformations taking place and the ever growing subject of global climate change, our living environment is becoming progressively unpredictable. The theory of buildings being immobile structures, when everything around them is in a continuous state of alteration, is therefore in question. ‘Architecture can no longer continue in its Victorian ideals of existing as unsustainable habitats for humanity, it must evolve, adapt and change’. Armstrong(2009) (1) The following text is an exploration into the recently engaging subject of kinetic and responsive architectures in the built environment. The body of research examines the ramifications of architecture being responsive through kinetic translations of both structure and the skin (facade) but more importantly the benefits, if any, this has on making our buildings sustainable. The text also investigates the future of responsive architecture, asking whether architecture could one day be a living organism, part of the natural ecology by combining the structure and skin to symbiotically work in harmony.
3
Fig 2. Phillip Beesley’s hylozoic ground. (online image) avaliable online at: http://www.hylozoicground.com/Venice/. Accessed on 23/11/2012
4
Scaling
Translation
Rotation
Fig 3. Movement manifestation in responsive architecture Pneumatic
chemical
Magnetic
Natural
Mechanical
Fig 4. Catalysts for movement of responsive architecture
The common definition of responsive architecture, as described by many authors, ‘is a class of architecture or building with the objective of physically reconfiguring themselves to meet changing needs with variable mobility, location or geometry’. Sterk(2003) (2).
`
Movement
This perpetual change in the architecture is highly dependent on the application of kinetic movement of systems. The general manifestation of movement is that of Moving, scaling, translating and rotating (fig 3). The means by which a kinetic structure performs can be pneumatic, chemical, magnetic, natural or mechanical (fig 4). Responsive architecture demands external forces, either by human intervention or by environmental change in order to work. However the result is not a correspondingly direct reaction. Rather the inputs are processed by the inner logic of processors or material systems to produce a reflexive indeterminate kinetic. In contrast to responsive architecture there are simply environmentally reactive surfaces. Consider Ned Khan’s wind walls (fig 5) where networks of hinged disks work in harmony in response to wind to produce stunning visual effects. However the simple effect of these disks which create multi-directional patterns, allows little more than the effect of a vertical wall of rippling water. (Maloney,2011:26) (3).
Fig 5. Ned Kahn, Brisbane domestic terminal car park (facade) (online image) avaliable at: http://www.uap.com.au/art/ infrastructure/brisbane-domestic-terminal-car-park. Accessed on 20/11/2012
This is the problem that we face with so called responsive architecture today. For many it is believed to have a highly aesthetic agenda without being at all sustainable and beneficial to us.
5
The term Responsive Architecture was created by Nicholas Negroponte. He proposed that responsive architecture is the natural product of the integration of computing power into built spaces and structures, and that better performing, more rational buildings are the result. Negroponte(1975) (4). The concept of architectural responsiveness arose from the work by Negroponte along with his team The Architectural Machines Group at MIT in the late 1960’s. His endorsement of cybernetics in the built environment initiated as a consequence of architectural rationalism and the infinite repetition of industrialized architectural forms in the built environment. Since then the domain of responsive architecture has expanded. Tristan d’Estree Sterk(2009) (5), head of The Bureau for Responsive Architecture has taken Negroponte’s conceptions of responsive architecture to a new level, taking into account the developments within the fields of machine intelligence. In short his hybridized model contains 3 principle parts: 1- The user input, which gives the users the ability to manipulate responsiveness which extends throughout the building. 2- Spatial responses that are used to control the partitioning and servicing of internal space. 3- A building that responds to the environmental loads.
6
Fig 6. Cencellous bones abstract form. (online image) avaliable online at: http://joshjung22.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive. html. Accessed on 23/11/2012
7 ‘I made up my mind . . . that I would never try to reform man—that’s much too difficult. What I would do was to try to modify the environment in such a way as to get man moving in preferred directions.’ (Fuller,1966) (6). This first category uses geometry change in structure implemented by simple and conventional mechanisms. These may include gears, hinges and pulleys, or even more energy intensive applications such as pneumatics and hydraulics. The effects of these systems allow the possibility of increasing square metres, creating shelter, transforming indoor to outdoor, etc.
Fig 7. Radiolarian mineral skeletons from nature (online image) avaliable at: http://www.nestlaboratory.com/images/ contentimages/51.gif. Accessed on 18/11/2012
One of the first architects to envision a responsive ethic in his structures was Buckminster Fuller. He recognised that one of the important drivers to achieve this form of architecture was the influence of systems in nature. ‘Nature’s structuring occurs according to the requirements of minimum energy, itself a function of the interplay between physical function and spatial constraints’. (Edmondson,1987:9)(7). Fuller utilised a general principle from nature; the concept of structures in tension instead of compression (fig 7). In studying natural systems and their self-stabilising patterns he created structures which were lightweight and transformable to be completely material efficient. Due to their inherent flexibility the structures that Fuller created could be transient in buildings of the future.
Fig 8. Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic dome structure. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/ buckminster.fuller. taken by Ryan Mallard. Accessed on 21/11/2012
In his book Tensile Architecture P. Drew(1979) (8) highlighted numerous ways in which Fuller’s structures could be manifested into buildings: ‘ variable geometry, adaptability to changes in use, demount ability, portability, re-use, empathy with landforms’ to name the most important. Although not directly kinetic, Buckminster Fuller’s structures were the epitome of sustainable responsive architecture. By creating lightweight and material efficient structures (fig 8) he enabled an architecture that could be engaged into various environments with ease. The ability for the lightweight structures to demount enabled them to be moved and configured to changes in urban programming. The constant reconfiguration that Fullers structures could endure enables a more lifelong architecture that can be recycled, be portable and change as society changes.
8
Adopting Buckminster Fuller’s rationale, other modern architects look to nature to exploit different geometries and movements in their buildings. Santiago Calatrava is an example of an architect who implements kinetics into his structures based on natural mimetic properties. His works at The Milwaukee Art Museum (fig 9) define his interests in animalistic form and movement in architecture. The structure of a spanning Brise-soleil made of 72 steel fins which protrude over the glazed reception area incorporates fins ranging from 26 feet to 105 feet in length with the tapered structure reminiscent of a birds wingspan.
Fig 9. Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee art museum (online image) avaliable at: http://www.arcspace.com/architects/ calatrava/milwaukee_art_museum/. Accessed on 20/11/2012
The motorized ‘flapping “wings” of the Milwaukee Art Museum offer a slow motion image of a bird taking off from the ground’ (Goldhagen,2006:6) (9) (fig 10) which allows the temperature and ventilation of the interior to be controlled via sensors or user manipulation. However these changes are far from self sustaining and environmentally responsive. In fact they rely heavily on fossil fuels for the structural mobility making it an unsustainable and un-responsive structure.
Fig 10. Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee art museum in motion (online image) avaliable at: http://mystylemycity.blogspot. co.uk/2011/01/fashion-inspiration-art.html. Accessed on 19/11/2012
The use of Kinetics in Calatrava’s work is no doubt visually breathtaking and provides stunning links in the study of skeletons, circulatory systems, skins and organisms. However rather than being bio mimetic and taking inspiration from the systems in nature, Calatrava directly copies form and movement in a biomorphic way which does not improve the structures sustainable performance. ‘In fact the total energy it would take to power the “wings” of the structure would most likely outweigh the benefits of creating shading inside the building...When in motion, these buildings must consume more energy than others thrice their size’. (Goldhagen,2006:6) (10). Calatrava demonstrates that It is simple to create automated systems that move in buildings, but with this movement comes huge energy considerations which can, most of the time, overshadow the purposes of having them in the first place.
9
Fig 11. Original facade model of Bahr towers, Abu Dhabi. Completed during AD3.1 2012.
10
This second category explores responsive surfaces which move in relation to environmental fluctuations. At present, this type of responsiveness is the most common in architecture with most architects today trying to regulate solar gain, ventilation and water shortages. Recently the architectural surface has been shed of its load bearing functions due to the implementation of frames which has imposed an ethic of experimentation and adjustment in architectural skins. ‘I think there is an imperative for innovation – climate change is a big one...Embedding a building or façade with physical intelligence – this is the future.’ (Hoberman, 2010:205) (11). Fig 12. Hobermans Strata system. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.hoberman.com/portfolio/audenciaprovincial.php?rev= 0&onEnterFrame=%5Btype+Function%5D&myNum=3&category=&p rojectname=Audiencia+Provincial. Accessed on 20/11/2012
Chuck Hoberman and Hoberman Associates specialize in transformable design, the development of products , structures and environments that adapt in relation to the environmental conditions. Architecture has a great influence on the sustainability of society. Both the materials and the operation are important. For example, why should blinds be made the same way they were hundreds of years ago? They are parts that affect energy savings related to air conditioning and heating. (Hoberman,2001) (12).
Fig 13. Translation of hexagonal components
Hoberman’s design solutions incorporate computation with smart material connection to successfully produce adaptive facade structures. His range of design’s over the years have highlighted him as the most forward thinking modern designer of his time.
Fig 14. Dappled light through a trees canopy.
The Audiencia de Provincial Law Courts in Spain designed by Foster and Partners implements Hoberman’s adaptive facade systems. ‘The strata system (fig 12) is designed to constantly rearrange and reorganize itself’ (Peters, 2010) (13) via kinetic, motorized, folding translations of the hexagonal shades over the triangular grid (fig 13). This direct response to the suns movement ‘effectively controls the amount of sunlight, avoiding overheating’. (Otani, 2009) (14). Its effect of dappled light through a tree canopy (fig 14) softens light to make it more useful in office spaces. The control of light in the space has allowed 30 percent energy savings through cooling.
11
It is clear that architectural responsive kinetics are no doubt expanding and improving in the light of technological advancements in sensors and clever pattern geometry but there is still a focus on using energy intensive systems to do so. For these skins to develop, more natural processes which involve material properties to initiate movement must be explored.
Fig 15. Responsive surface structure undulating. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012
Fig 16. Responsive surface structure flat. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012
Achim Menges who is the head of Emergent Design at Stuttgart University has long believed in natural material systems which respond to environmental stimuli. His research into ‘Responsive Surface Structure’ (fig 15) highlights the possibilities of using wood laminate on modern facades. The wooden facade uses the relative humidity of the air to change the geometry of the surface. In turn the manifestation of porosity allows the introduction of cross ventilation. ‘This high level of integration of form, structure and material performance enables a direct response to the environment with no need for additional mechanical or user control’. (Menges2006) (15). Before these technologies can be applied to building skins there must be in depth research into the extent of their possibilities. One thing to note about responsive materials is that they are unpredictable and may incur indeterminate responses. After all, every place, climate and environment is different, and like humans, materials are all unique. Materials in the future will have to be programmed with parameters of deformation thus allowing a predictable set of circumstances to arise which would sustainably improve a building. In the case of the response surface structure parameters had been applied: for example the ratio of thickness, length and width of the veneer wood. This means that ‘the surface only swelled orthogonally in relation to the surface (fig 17). The innate material capacity of the developed component integrates humidity sensor, change actuator and porosity control element.’ (Menges2006) (16), which shows that even naturally responsive materials are now fusing with technology to further improve responsiveness.
Fig 17. Responsive surface structure swelled. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012
12
Fig 18. Branching morphogenesis. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/branching-morphogenesisbg.jpg Accessed on 20/11/2012
13
In the preceding text, many of the responsive architectures studied were based on organic forms, structures and processes. The term ‘Organic architecture’ promotes ideals of an integrated connection to nature, yet does not accommodate the incorporation of ‘living materials’ inside of the built environment. Many of the architectures highlighted in the recent text fall victim to Rachel Armstrong’s concept of architecture becoming an inert object. The movement and kinetic processes involved in modern architecture today still result in a ‘one way energy transfer from the natural environment to the built environment’ (Armstrong,2009) (17). Therefore despite the overlying principles which are merely just ‘a lipstick that graces the gorillas lips’ (Spiller,2011:21) (18), the reality is that the proposals manifest into little more than energy intensive organic forms. Recently architects have incorporated ‘living materials’ into Architecture. Living materials provide indigenous benefits over inanimate materials through their ability to respond and react to their environment, transform and transfer energy and to be ecologically sustained and recycled back into the environment. ‘It is only recently that we have begun to abstract and wield organisms’ properties into animate materials.’. (Mitchell,2009) (19). Mitchell notes that ‘architects are now increasingly adopting biological concepts such as self emergence, morphogenesis and homeostasis’. In doing so Spiller (1998) (20) argues that these technologies will ‘drastically change our environment’ causing a ‘re-articulation’ of our architecture. Society will have to readdress what is ‘real’ and what is ‘alive’.
14
In the simplest of terms living architecture could be aided by the inclusion of green facades. Those at Jean Nouvel’s Musee Du Quai Branly in Paris (fig 19) provides simple yet effective cooling for the building in the hot summer months. The application of such green facades allows cooler airflow for streets and buildings. ‘Above this, the porous facade capability allows natural filtration, which can alleviate problems with carbon dioxide and toxin levels in cities, whilst soft plant matter can aid acoustic absorption’. (Watts,2003:81) (21). These simple and logical solutions to improving sustainability offer a platform for our built environment to respond. However more avantgarde uses for living matter are emerging in the built environment. Fig 19. Jean Nouvel, Musee Du Quai Branly, Paris. (online image) avaliable at: http:// inhabitat.com/vertical-gardens-by-patrickblanc/ Accessed on 8/11/2012
‘For the future, one can imagine using plants not just to clad buildings, but to create the whole structure’. (Watts,2003:81) (21).
15 ‘An ideal architecture is one that you can plant a seed having programmed it with all the information it needs to grow itself in an environment where it can organically seek out and connect with the resources it needs. Through its lifetime it would remain responsive to its surroundings and adjust accordingly to the demands and needs of its human inhabitants. The end of the life cycle of architecture would then come when it’s no longer responsive to human activity and becomes an inert, skeletal structure, possibly decaying into the ecosystem to be recycled by its progeny.’ Armstrong (2008) (22).
Fig 20. Protocells at 6 weeks old. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 19.
It is possible to overcome sustainability by becoming a physical part of the ecosystem. One of the systems being incorporated into architecture is metabolism, which defines a set of chemical reactions that happen in living organisms to maintain life processes, live and reproduce, maintain their structures and respond to their environment. The future of responsive architecture is delving into the creation of synthetic metabolic materials to replace the antiquated, energy sapping traditional materials like concrete and wood. Rachel Armstrong notes that “we are now able to understand biological processes from a bottom up approach that revolutionises the future potential of responsive architectural design” Armstrong(2008) (23). In her quest to find the perfect bio-architectural material Rachel Armstrong is developing ‘The Protocell’ (fig 20) which she claims is more promising than the established methods such as applying bio mimicry to materials, or using green facades. The Protocell envisages a more far reaching solution; ‘becoming more than environmentally friendly, a benign state of being-but environmentally remedial, active and sub-verse’. Spiller, Armstrong (2011) (24).
Fig 21. Protocell fatty acid membrane. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 23.
In a joint venture with Christian Kerrigan, Rachel Armstrong is developing the hybridized material for use inside of the built environment. The Protocell is a simplified cell made from two molecular components: The first is a RNA (Ribonucleic acid) replicase; present in all living cells, it catalyses the replication process and stores genetic information. The second is a fatty acid membrane for protection (fig 21). Although it sounds simple the Protocell is capable of growth, replication and evolution; ‘It can only be described as ‘living’’. Armstrong (2008) (25).
16
One of the properties of the Protocell is its ability to sustain materialistic change. On a study in the laboratory the Protocell was able to extract carbon dioxide from the air and in doing so create a solid carbonate shell on its exterior (fig 22).
Fig 22. Protocell growing carbonate shell. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 23.
Fig 23. Protocell coagulation. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ ted/2010-09/01/ted-fellows-rachel-armstrong. Accessed 20/11/2012
Fig 24. Protocell forming around foundations in Venice. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www. wired.co.uk/news/ted/2010-09/01/ted-fellowsrachel-armstrong. Accessed 20/11/2012
From this Armstrong proposed its potential use in stabilising the city of Venice (fig 23). Envisioning its material deformation process to somehow stop the ancient city from sinking, the Protocell would grow a synthetic reef beneath the city which would petrify the city’s foundations due to its adaptation to a limestone structure (fig 24). Not only would this stop the flooding and sinking problem in Venice, it would attract a local marine ecology back into the area. Instead of architecture being an ecological block, it would instead reinforce the ecology of the area, harmonizing the built and natural environments. However perhaps the most important property of the Protocell- is its ability to be programmed. For example it could be programmed to move towards or away from light, which is one of the environmental parameters which architects have to design for. Architects in the future will be able to apply custom material properties to the Protocell to make it efficient in its locality. Armstrong notes that with the aid of such materiality, Architects’ are able to defy local constraints. ‘As the technology will be terrestrial’ (Armstrong, 2009) (26) it means that it is not exclusive to first world countries. The Protocell can be applied to many cultures, environments, climates to be fully responsive as a system rather than parts. The Protocell not only responds to the environment, it depends on it. ‘Protocells don’t function to create idealized architecture, they function to interpret the full spectrum of the processes they encounter in the real world’. (Spiller, 2011) (27)
17
Fig 25. Test tube architecture?. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/ datablog/2012/jan/24/chemistry-club-lobbyingdata. Accessed 20/11/2012
18
The research undertaken in this paper demonstrates the possibilities of applying a responsive strategy in architecture through the incorporation of kinetic structure and skins. The investigation into the independent elements of the architectural makeup has enabled the sustainability of such processes to be explored and contrasted. Analysing these layers has indicated that architecture of the future will need to respond to the fluctuating needs of the user and environment via holistic and integral self sustaining processes. However does the incorporation of responsiveness in architecture need to embrace kinetics? On many occasions the text has highlighted how movement of the responsive systems has had a detrimental effect on the buildings energy use. It is surely possible to develop a responsive architecture without it being physically animate. For example Rachel Armstrong proposes the use of the Protocell on a limestone block. Imagine how the properties would change if the surfaces were in conversation with the atmosphere. Maybe it could extract carbon dioxide and in turn grow, self-repair and evolve. Even on a small scale a static, responsive architecture must be embraced. The text also identifies the rapidly emerging factor of bio-technology in architecture which synthesizes structure and skin. Although this technology is in an infant stage it is beginning to establish itself in architecture. While the realization of synthetic life in architecture could undermine our architectural methodology, it could define our sustainable integrity and redefine the very notion of architecture. ‘Technology is at a cathartic movement, its relationship to the natural world is becoming less parasitic and more symbiotic’.(Spiller,1998:160) (28). Architects should continue to be aware and develop new responsive technologies in architecture to respond to the future problems. A new acquaintance to artificial life may yet relieve the corruption that is plaguing the built environment. It is my belief that in order for architecture to progress it must converge the 3 governing trends experienced in this text. A building must harmonize the use of smart material technology and embedded computation; it must have a sustainable imperative to respond to environmental conditions; and it must have established natural systems which respond metabolically. “The living world can provide for most of our needs, we only need to harness it” (Watts,2008:78) (29).
19
B
IBLIOGRAPHY
Books & Journals
Websites.
Armstrong, R, 2008, Bsign, Chichester, Wiley Academy.
Achim, M, 2006, Department of Form Generation and Materialisation (Prof. Achim Menges) Steffen Reichert, HFG Offenbach University of Art and Design, Germany, 2006-07 Hyperlink (http://www. achimmenges.net/?p=4411). Accessed 28/10/2012
Armstrong, R, 2008. Designer Materials for architecture, In Cruz, Marcos & Pike, Steve. Architectural Design vol 78, Neoplasmatic Design, Chichester, Wiley Academy. Burry, M,J, 2012. The New mathemeatics of architecture, Thames and Hudson, London. Drew, P, 1979, Tensile Architecture, Granada Publishing Ltd, London. Edmonstone, A, 2007, A fuller Explanation: the Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller, Cambridge Mass, Birkhauser. Fox, M, Kemp, M, 2009, Interactive architecture, Princeton architectural press. Lynn, 1999, Animate Form, New York: Princeton Architectural Press Maloney, J, 2011, Designing Kinetics for Architectural Facades, Routledge, Oxon. Negroponte, N. (1975). Soft Architecture Machines. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press(2) Edmonstone, A, 2007, A fuller Explanation: the Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller, Cambridge Mass,Birkhauser. Pearson, David, New Organic Architecture, 2002, London, Gaia. Salazar, J, MVRDV, VPRO, Olafur eliasson, 2001, surroundings surrounded, essays on space and science edited by Peter Weibel. Schulz.B.2000, The Reichstag: The parliament building by Norman Foster, London: Prestel Verlag. Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. (14) Armstrong, R, 2008, Bsign, Chichester, Wiley Academy. Spiller, W, 1998, Digital Dreams, London: Ellipsis London ltd. Tzonis, A, 1999, Santiago Calatrava- The Poetics of Movement, Thames and Hudson, London. Woods, L, 1992, Architectural Monographs No.22/Anarchitecture: Architecture is a political act, Academy Editions/ St Martins Press. Zuk, W, 1970, Kinetic Architecture, Reinhold, University of Michigan.
Armstrong, R, 2009, Metabolic Materials, TED conference, Oxford, July, Video Hyperlink: http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_ architecture_that_repairs_itself.html. Accessed 30/10/2012 Fuller, B, 1966, Dymaxion Man- The visions of Buckminster Fuller. (Online) avalibale at: http://www.newyorker.com/ reporting/2008/06/09/080609fa_fact_kolbert?printable=true#ixzz15 zDgWfxn. Accessed 11/9/2012 Goldhagen, S, 2006, SANTIAGO CALATRAVA’S MOMENT. For the Birds Avaliable online at: http://www.sarahwilliamsgoldhagen.com/ articles/for_the_birds.pdf. Accessed 14/8/2012 Hoberman, C, 2002, Architecture and urbanism. Avaliable online at: http://www.hoberman.com/news/2010_a+u.pdf. Accessed 20/10/2012 Otani, K, 2009, from transformable design to adaptive design. avaliable online at: http://hoberman.com/news/axis_2009.pdf. Accessed on 28/10/2012 Peters,T, 2010, Chuck Hoberman: Designs Transformations, mark magazine, no 29, pg200-205 avaliable online at: http://www. hoberman.com/news/Mark_Magazine_December2010.pdf. Accessed 26/10/2012 Sterk, T, 2003, Building upon Negroponte: A Hybridized Model of Control Suitable for Responsive Architecture, eCAADe, Austria. Avaliable online at: (http://www.orambra.com/negroponte/ sterkECAADE_03.pdf, 01. 2009). Accessed 25/9/2012 Sterk , T, 2003, Using Actuated Tensegrity Structures to Produce a Responsive Architecture, ACADIA, The School of The Art Institute of Chicago, USA. Avaliable online at: http://www.orambra. com/survey/~usingActuatedTensegrity/media/sterkACADIA_03.pdf. Accessed 25/9/2012
20
Imagery. Fig 1. Abandoned architecture. The architecture becoming obsolete. (online image) avaliable at: http://robertsantafede.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ robert-santafede-inert.jpg Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 2. Fig 2. Phillip Beesley’s hylozoic ground. (online image) avaliable online at: http://www.hylozoicground.com/Venice/. Accessed on 23/11/2012 Fig 3. Movement manifestation in responsive architecture Fig 4. Catalysts for movement of responsive architecture Fig 5. Ned Kahn, Brisbane domestic terminal car park (facade) (online image) avaliable at: http://www.uap.com.au/art/infrastructure/brisbane-domesticterminal-car-park. Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 6. Cencellous bones abstract form. (online image) avaliable online at: http://joshjung22.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html. Accessed on 23/11/2012 Fig 7. Radiolarian mineral skeletons from nature (online image) avaliable at: http://www.nestlaboratory.com/images/contentimages/51.gif. Accessed on 18/11/2012 Fig 8. Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic dome structure. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/buckminster.fuller. taken by Ryan Mallard. Accessed on 21/11/2012 Fig 9. Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee art museum (online image) avaliable at: http://www.arcspace.com/architects/calatrava/milwaukee_art_museum/. Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 10. Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee art museum in motion (online image) avaliable at: http://mystylemycity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/fashioninspiration-art.html. Accessed on 19/11/2012 Fig 11. Original facade model of Bahr towers, Abu Dhabi. Completed during AD3.1 2012. Fig 12. Hobermans Strata system. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.hoberman.com/portfolio/audenciaprovincial.php?rev=0&onEnterFrame=%5Btype+ Function%5D&myNum=3&category=&projectname=Audiencia+Provincial. Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 13. Translation of hexagonal components Fig 14. Dappled light through a trees canopy. Fig 15. Responsive surface structure undulating. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 16. Responsive surface structure flat. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 17. Responsive surface structure swelled. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4411 Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 18. Branching morphogenesis. (online image) avaliable at: http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/branching-morphogenesis-bg. jpg Accessed on 20/11/2012 Fig 19. Jean Nouvel, Musee Du Quai Branly, Paris. (online image) avaliable at: http://inhabitat.com/vertical-gardens-by-patrick-blanc/ Accessed on 8/11/2012 Fig 20. Protocells at 6 weeks old. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 19. Fig 21. Protocell fatty acid membrane. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 23. Fig 22. Protocell growing carbonate shell. scanned from- Spiller, N, Armstrong, R, Architectural Design, vol 81-Protocell Architecture, March/April 2011, Wiley Academy. page 23. Fig 23. Protocell coagulation. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ted/2010-09/01/ted-fellows-rachel-armstrong. Accessed 20/11/2012 Fig 24. Protocell forming around foundations in Venice. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ted/2010-09/01/ted-fellows-rachelarmstrong. Accessed 20/11/2012 Fig 25. Test tube architecture?. (Online image) avaliable at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/24/chemistry-club-lobbying-data. Accessed 20/11/2012