Jade 752875 air part a by Jade Tan

STUDIO AIR 2017, SEMESTER 2, FINN WARNOCK JADE TAN 752875

Table of Contents 4â&#x20AC;&#x192; A.0 Introduction 5 A.1: Design Futuring 6 Precedent 1.1 10 Precedent 1.2 14 A.2: Design Computation 16 Precedent 2.1 20 Precedent 2.2 24 A.3: Composition/Generation 26 Precedent 3.1 30 Precedent 3.2 34 A.4: Conclusion 35 A.5 Learning Outcomes 36 A.6 Algorithmic Sketches

A.1: Design Futuring

A.0: Introduction My name is Jade Tan and I am a third year architecture student. I am from Singapore and my interest in architecture developed from drawing and painting at a young age. I find that the most interesting thing about architecture is how interdisciplinary it is, and that unexpected conditions can lead to the best designs.

Studio Water Boathouse in section

Studio Water Boathouse in plan

Throughout my previous studies I have used both computational (Autocad, Rhino) and handdrawing/physical modelling to illustrate my work. However, I find that computational means have a lot of potential I have yet to harness, beyond communicating my ideas.Prior to the start of Studio Air, my impression of digital architecture largely revolves around curvilinear, expressionistic form, most notably those by Zaha Hadid, or Frank Gehry, who also engage with cutting-edge technology, such as using unconventional material as building skins. Through this course I hope to understand and explore the process of getting to such an outcome. To me architecture represents ideas and offering solutions to problems. It functions at the most fundamental level, as shelter and comfort, but at its best it also serves to make people think/feel in a certain way. In this sense I find that architecture continues to generate impacts on society and the environment, and is a process that never truly ends. Through the learning of generative design tools, we can perhaps carry out these ideas and design intents with greater accuracy and certainty that they can have their desired effect.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Throughout history, advancement of human civilization has been dependent on new technologies arising in response to new needs. However, the focus has always been on human needs and resulted in so much environmental damage that our way of life is no longer sustainable. Ironically now technology is also the answer, according to Tony Fry, to redirecting our future and prolonging human existence1. However, designers today cannot simply innovate, that is find alternative solutions to the kind at present, but have to do so in a way that opens discourse and brings design intelligence to other people. It has to make people think about how best to create new things, at lowest cost. With increasing exposure to what makes good, environmentally responsible design, can ‘defuturing’ be stopped and mindsets be radically changed. Dunne and Raby add on to Fry’s point that design should be thought-provoking, by highlighting how the discourse for design should have a plurality of ‘ideology and values’2 and not just style. Society is no longer preoccupied with modern architecture’s search for a universal language, but more with the practical and very pressing issue of how to secure a good future, which is subjective to various groups and their own sets of ethics and values. To be able to reconcile all of this is an added layer of thinking and paradigm-setting, not just challenging current mindsets but also speculating seemingly improbable futures and utopias. The human imagination and the ability to prefigure how one can create new things is the biggest asset our generation has, but it will be ineffectual without a constant cycle of questioning and evaluation about the value of what we design.

Ultimately, design today is not just a means to a temporary end, of stalling our rate of defuturing. Instead, it has to be some form of social or political critique in order to truly have a lasting impact and mobilize people to participate in the cause for sustainability. The first part of this journal will focus on how design has the potential to provoke thought and open discussion. It is only in this way that technology can be harnessed to its full potential, to not just prolong our current state but revolutionise and direct us towards designing differently. The following precedents have thus been chosen for their radical ideas and processes that challenged the norm, and also examine how they have continued to impact architecture today.

“Redirection requires an ontological shift in the mode of being of the actor. The value of what one knows and does may have to be fundamentally altered.” Tony Fry

1 Tony Fry, Design Futuring, Sustainability Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Oxford International Publishers, 2009), p. 6. Conceptual models, Studio Earth 4

CONCEPTUALISATION

2 Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2013) p9 CONCEPTUALISATION 5

1.1_Shukhov Tower Location: Moscow, Russia Architect: Vladimir Shukhov Year: 1920 Function: Broadcasting Tower

Shukhov Tower is a radical project in steel structure engineering. Designed as a free-standing diagrid structure, it uses minimal steel so that it remains lightweight yet highly tensile. Subsequently, this technology has been reapplied in many highrise buildings, notably the Gherkin by Norman Foster and the CCTV Tower by OMA. Vladimir Shukhov contributed the ideas and the mathematical system of the hyperboloid, which refers to the geometric principle of a doubly ruled surface, where a hyperbola is rotated around its axis. The project can be compared to other Constructivists’ work at the time, hence in exterior form it may not be new, but the mathematical process was a vital innovation. Shukhov’s calculations reflect the beginning of a parametric approach, where each rod unit is part of a mathematical formula, or algorithm, and considering other parameters such as wind loads, construction assembly time and height of the tower, generated an overall homogeneous building shape. Each unit is thus interdependent on each other. However, the method is secondary. More importantly, the reason he had to make sure the design parameters were so closely interwoven was due to sheer necessity1; there simply was not enough steel to build a tower of its intended height if one were to place any elements that were not necessary, giving rise to its minimalist form. 3 The Shukhov Foundation, ‘Tower’, The Shukhov Tower(revised 2017) < http://shukhov.org/tower.html > [09 August 2017]

9 The tower is organized by discrete triangulated elements that confer structural stability. Yet the skeletal frame reduces material cost and total mass. Consequently, diagrids have become an image of sustainability, reflecting an optimal use of materials with high embodied energy whilst becoming a design feature, such as allowing wind and light to permeate. Necessity thus created a more innovative and long-lasting approach to design.

Shukhov experimented with his lattice structure form in several ways. With the aim of optimising its performance, soon after he deconstructed the standardised elements of the structure into a table format, and with this system quickly designed a new water tower, according to a client’s requirements in 25 minutes1. This aligns with today’s parametric approach of adding new parameters and generating new form. Thus, even though Shukhov was using standard, easyto-assemble units, each tower had a different appearance, as his method was not focused on the stylistic but on optimal structural performance.

The tower remains a landmark for technological achievement in Russia. The way that it informed parametric design represents a step forward for architecture and vitally questions the conventional way of designing at that time, which would have been more occupied with the final form of buildings than the process. It is perhaps why it remains relevant today, with many architects petitioning to keep it preserved. 4 Ian Volner, ‘Dissecting Diagrid’, Architect Magazine(revised October 25 2011) <http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/dissectingdiagrid_o > [09 August 2017]

The Swiss Re Building, or Gherkin also uses a diagrid pattern 8

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 9

1.2_Sky House Location: Tokyo, Japan Architect: Kiyonori Kikutake Year: 1958 Function: Residential Architecture

Kikutake was a key member of the Metabolists in the 1960s. Their movement was centred upon the idea that cities and buildings were not static, and can be compared to biological organisms that grow and evolve. In response to exponential population growth and urban problems in the post-war years, their movement became an experiment in prefabricated, modular architecture. Kikutake’s Sky House, was a prototype presented at the 1960 World Design Conference as proof of this concept. The Sky House was innovative and opened discourse about the conventional notion of a house. It was a small-scale approach, looking at how residential architecture can grow and change alongside changes in family size. It started a trend of buildings with a core of infrastructure and replaceable parts, giving the owners freedom to transform their spaces at will. The way that Kikutake approached the problems of urban density, subverting the norm of planning from a top-down to a unitary approach, truly takes a more insightful look at the way we live and embodies the complexity of society. It is a prime example of changing people’s mindsets by understanding their real needs and not assuming the homogeneity of modern life. 10

CONCEPTUALISATION

A single open plan living space is elevated above ground on four huge concrete piers, to resist seismic forces. The kitchen and bathroom units could be changed, and additional rooms like a children’s bedroom, called a “move-net”1 could be directly fixed onto the underside of the house. The house has undergone seven changes to accommodate changes in the size of the family. Despite the technological advancement, it was not as radical in form. Much of traditional Japanese architectural elements were retained, like the pitched roof and the engawa tradition, a verandah space acting as an intermediary space between exterior and interior. The singular open plan is entirely flexible and still can be reorganized using typical Japanese screens/shoji. The Sky House is an innovation not in form-finding but in programme. This perhaps shows a more effective way of challenging the status quo, of retaining some sense of familiarity alongside innovations in how the space could be used.

5 Mark Mulligan, ‘Kiyonori Kikutake: Structuring the Future’ Places Journal (revised November 2015) < https://placesjournal.org/article/kiyonorikikutake-structuring-the-future/> [09 August 2017]

In pink: new additions to the house at different years. The topmost shows the movenet protruding from under, eventually becoming bigger and covering up the entire open corridor at the base of the house

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

On right: modular units are employed in the Moriyama House Below: The same boxy geometry, and articulation of clean lines between the Sky House and Moriyama House. Both are experimental in examining spatial flexibility.

The Sky House epitomizes the fundamentals of flexibility and plug-in modules. The shift away from compositional imagery to technological innovation and programmatic adaptability has subsequently informed other Metabolists like Kurokawa (Nagakin Capsule Tower) and more recently, in contemporary architects like SANAA and Sou Fujimoto who are reviving unit-based design strategies. Nishizawa and Sejima’s Moriyama House1 utilizes units for domestic purposes and units which are more generic in their function to allow for spatial flexibility, placing the emphasis on the empty space between units. This reflects the long-lasting impact of Sky House and metabolism in Japanese contemporary architecture, to provoke thought about alternative ways of designing to better suit changes in urban life.

‘Unlike the architecture of the past, contemporary architecture must be...capable of meeting the changing requirements of the contemporary age...’ Kiyonori Kikutake

CONCEPTUALISATION

6 ArchintoJapan, ‘Moriyama House’ ArchintoJapan (revised November 24 2014) < https://archintojapan.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/moriyamahouse/ > [09 August 2017]

CONCEPTUALISATION 13

A.2: Design Computation This next part focuses on the potential of parametric modelling. Parametric modelling refers to the design of associative relationships between components, essentially creating rules that can be freely changed to derive differentiated iterations. It is a computational system, which supplements human creativity through immense recalling and processing capacity. As such, the stages of design as outlined by Kalay, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and communication can occur simultaneously and outcomes simulated in real time. The benefits of this for architecture are seemingly endless. Computation gives us more time to experiment and more flexibility to adapt our ideas. This usually means more freedom to explore the range of solutions generated by parameters which too can be adjusted. Asides from flexibility, there is more time freed up from this process which can be spent on optimizing the final outcome and reducing human error. Additionally, computation is infinitely more precise in calculations, and can derive methods of fabrication that are more efficient and in itself elegant. However, there can be exceptions to this rule-based system. According to Kalay, there are two methods of solution synthesis, puzzle-making and problem-solving1. The former refers to trial and error to generate new combinations in response to an unclear design goal that evolves along with the design process. The latter refers to having known and well-defined design goals and generating a solution in a predictive manner, having already had some idea of the characteristics of a satisficing solution. Parametric modelling by nature means that the initial goals/constraints are already set. This could end up being a limitation. How do we know we are not eliminating outcomes that could be better in the long run? Ultimately the designer must be conscious of the kind of parameters he is establishing and the consequences of his decisions.

7 Yehuda E., KalayArchitectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), p16 CONCEPTUALISATION

In addition, computation has sparked a shift towards developing the performative capacity and material tectonics of buildings rather than their composition. This links to the previous section, where it was discussed that designs are expected to have environmental sensitivity. Computation as a tool has helped to refine this process of climate responsiveness through intense material optimization. According to Oxman, the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;symbioticâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; processes of computation, such as integrated simulation software like Grasshopper directly mirrors the evolutional process of nature, which is an immense pool of knowledge that can be translated to architecture1. Computation thus provides more opportunity to explore material and brings it back to the forefront of architecture, in ways that better respond to volatile environmental conditions and may be the answer to building resilience. The following precedents examine the climate responsiveness of outcomes generated by computational means. They discuss the benefits of using parametrics and how they have affected the design process. They exemplify how computation to a large extent allows for a great deal of creativity and spatial expression, through the convergence of well-set parameters and an intricate balance of controlling the extent of computation used, so as to not completely give up control over the design process.

On right: modular units are employed in the Moriyama House Below: Kalay states there is a constant negotiation between puzzle making and problem solving. With computation we get to the intersection much faster and easier.

8 Rivka Oxman, Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p1-6 The usual way that design solutions are generated, by going through different breadth and depth options. In generative design software, these outcomes can all be simulated and observed instantly, and individual outcomes modified.

CONCEPTUALISATION 15

2.1_Phases Shift Park Location: Taichung, Taiwan Architect: Philippe Rahm Year: 1958 Function: Urban Park

Philippe Rahm’s approach to design inverts the paradigm for most architecture, which is solid form. Instead, Rahm is primarily concerned with the design of climate itself, manipulating ‘air’ and its constituents, creating what he calls ‘meteorological architecture’. In this way, his work can be said to be more sustainable than most, because he embraces the conditions of the natural environment, and frames the whole project around these circumstances right from the beginning1. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) systems were essential for the preliminary design stage of this project, which is the use of software to visualize how a gas or liquid flows and how it affects objects as it flows past.

in heat, the second variation in humidity and the last in the intensity of air pollution. They are then overlaid, and the random overlaps create a diverse range of experiences1 that give the user freedom to explore, depending on the time of the year.

Computation is used to derive three climatic maps. From these maps differences between areas in terms of humidity, temperature and pollution can be observed and augmented in subsequent design. For instance, areas that are already naturally cold and dry will become even cooler. Each map corresponds to a specific atmospheric parameter and its variation of intensity throughout the park. The first map corresponds to variation

10 Jillian Walliss, Heike Rahmann, Landscape Architecture and Digital Technologies (New York: Routledge, 2016), p. 51

Using CFD to map based on humidity (above) and temperature (below). 9 Rajagopal Avinesh, ‘Philippe Rahm: Climate as Architecture’, Metropolis Magazine (revised November 2014) < http://www.metropolismag.com/cities/landscape/philippe-rahm-climate-as-architecture/ > [09 August 2017]

CONCEPTUALISATION 17

In this precedent, computation is extensively used to generate randomness. The randomness is a precursor to interesting ways of organizing space. In addition, computation helps to visualize what is not visible to the human eye, conditions that should be designed well to fulfill the basic purpose of architecture, which is to provide comfort for human activity and interaction. Computation, through the combination of several parameters, has managed to design experience, which goes beyond typical two-dimensional drawings and static models. A major shortcoming of previous landscape design strategies, was that predominantly using diagrams and planning maps often assumes what happens to the site resulting from the design, and may not consider actual results which have closer ties to dynamic performance. Climatic cooling devices that are modelled and regulated computationally.

This project also shows how computing can be used not just for form-finding or form-making, but also govern the programme. Instead of how ‘form follows function’, here the different functions depend on the conditions on these climatic maps. Sport is placed in areas of low pollution and indoor activities reserved for hotter areas. As such, it emphasizes actual performative capability and responsiveness to the environment1. The concept of designing climate is not new, as Rahm explicitly mentions that he used Olmsted’s Central Park in New York as a precedent, of a green land that helps to filter the air2. However, the introduction of computers has enabled tighter engagement with precise parameters, like humidity, temperature, pressure, and not just arbitrary considerations, such as where to plant trees to create shade and cooling. Consequently, Rahm has been able to use artificial machines, like his Antycyclone devices that blow cool air, to control these parameters, which arguably are more effective in increasing the performative potential of open space, to provide a clean filter for urban settings. This is because the machines themselves can also be computationally programmed in their installation.

11 Wahliss, Rahmann, Landscape Architecture, p.52 12 Avinesh, ‘Philippe Rahm’ 18

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 19

2.2_Hygroskin Pavilion Location: France Architect: Achim Menges Year: 2013 Function: Pavilion

The Hygroskin Pavilion is a biomimetic design, employing nature’s mechanism of responding to climate, which is ingrained in the material of the biological organisms. The project thus requires no extraneous controls and responds automatically along with environmental changes. The project draws inspiration from the moisture-driven movement in spruce cones, which has a bilayer structure of tissue. The outer layer expands when moisture levels increase, while the inner layer remains stable, causing the cone’s scales to open or close1.

The apertures respond to humidity levels ranging from 30 to 95 percent.

CONCEPTUALISATION

In this project the design process has changed from basic form-finding, to deriving the maximal utility of materials. Computing enabled manipulation of material behaviour and not just geometric shape to allow for stretching of performative capacities of known materials like timber. The project is a simple box with a skin embedded with climate responsive perforations. The wood envelope absorbs moisture and this changes the distance between the microfibrils of the cell tissue to cause the shape change in the openings. This envelope is computationally derived from the elastic bending behaviour of thin plywood sheets, followed by a 7-axis robotic manufacturing process following the coded configurations of each panel. The idea that such computation brings out is how traditional materials like timber can be explored in alternative ways. But importantly, the whole project is computationally derived and manufactured. 13 Daniel Hudson, ‘achim menges developes hygroskin and hygroscope’, Desgin Boom Magazine (revised April 2014) < https://www.designboom.com/ architecture/achim-menges-developes-hygroskin-and-hygroscope-biomimetic-meteorosensitive-pavilions-4-14-2014/ > [09 August 2017]

CONCEPTUALISATION 21

23 Computation in this case also helps to make it easier to form precise geometry of the individual panels as well as customized joints. The accuracy of this system was verified by comprehensive laser scans which revealed an average deviation of less than 0.5mm between the computationally designed model and the actual geometry of the final built form. The project shows how it is feasible to integrate computationally derived algorithms into material itself, which could mean a shift in industry towards developing similar materials instead of employing several other control strategies for ventilation and daylighting, such as machine-controlled louvres, which could lead to more cost savings1. At the same time, the box remains both lightweight and rigid showing how computers help to ensure optimal usage of limited resources.

Hudson, ‘achim menges’

The openings respond to relative humidity changes within a range from 30% to 90%, regulating the rate of light coming through. As a result, the internal space varies constantly in terms of illumination and openness, creating different experiences that are generated from the delicate and subtle differences in the air1. The outcome of the project is perpetually changing, but the algorithm remains the same. The rulemaking process may seem formulaic, in this case fixed parameters leading to fixed outcomes. It is possible that the experience of being in this space over time could become quite predictable. However, Menges by not controlling too many parameters allows for some degree of freedom. For instance, the way that the sun shifts throughout the day varies alongside the changes in humidity, and the temperature outside the box also varies. These allow for more unexpected experiences within the box. Beyond merely fulfilling parameters of an adaptive skin, the passive opening and closing of the apertures interacts with other onsite conditions to create a variety of experiences, which shows how ‘design keeps on designing’.

The panels are irregularly configured, sent to a robotic arm to be manufactured in a sandwich panel form.

15 Achim Menges, ‘HygroSkin: Meteorosensitive Pavilion’, achimmenges. net (revised 2013) < http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5612 > [09 August 2017]

The robotic arm fabricates highly precise finger joints, not possible to be done by hand.

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 23

A.3: Composition/Generation Thus far we have discussed the increasing role of algorithmic thinking and its transformative impact on design practice, shifting the emphasis towards process rather than outcome. Designers have increasingly adapted to new technology which explicitly states each step of the design that enables the easy modification of the steps/ rules back and forth in their sequence. This is an important feature of generative design. While parametric modelling codes a response to a given constraint, generative design takes it further and helps to order each of these responses to form a feedback loop. Generative design is recursive, each output becomes anotherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s input and this generates more unexpected design outcomes. In this way it is an evolutionary approach, by deriving several outcomes and picking the most optimal. According to Peters, a benefit of generative design is how it enables us to deal with more complex problems by setting up more relationships between the constituents of a design1. It is a highly evaluative process, as each iteration, or combination of responses between parameters is tested and analysed for their performative capacity. The predictive capacity of generative design simulates real world interaction between architecture and humans, allowing architects to better create meaning in the space. Peters elaborates that this sophistication of 3D simulation is best applied in large scale projects, thus providing a means by which architects can speculate more ambitious designs and continually push limits of structure and performative capability.

However, there are also some drawbacks of relying on generative design. The design is largely dependent on definable parameters, but in architecture, some of the less tangible aspects of light, circulation, or interactivity cannot be easily engineered or defined. In the process of trying to formulate algorithms into a manner that can be communicated to the computer might distort the view of the problem itself, as designers might be tempted to only consider aspects that can be encoded, which can be the most irrelevant elements. Sometimes, designers need to select parameters such that they do not conflict. Various parameters and constraints are always interacting in an algorithm, and designers must be able to prioritize. To do so they must have sufficient knowledge in manipulating the software and being able to design the software such that it can evaluate which outcomes are best. As Peters states, at present where architecture is beginning to shift from paper to computers, the use of generative design is still not completely integrated into design practice, which could present a limitation for the system1. Generative design has vast potential but only if it is used in the correct way. Often such design and its resultant curvilinear and organic forms have been lauded for their futuristic, stylistic qualities. However, using it only as a new kind of aesthetic defeats the purpose of using such a system, which is to solve problems and break down their complexity.

Peters, (p.15)

16 Brady Peters, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2 (p. 10) 24

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 25

3.1_The Elbphilharmonie Location: Hamburg, Germany Architect: Herzog & de Meuron Year: 2017 Function: Concert Hall

The Great Concert Hall of the Elbphilharmonie seats more than 2,000 visitors in a sculpted, organic space. The walls seem to be carved out, giving the impression of a rocky cave. They are in fact 10,000 individual acoustic panels, made of gypsum CNC cut plates, each one containing millions of “cells” of varying dimensions, created to reflect and absorb soundwaves within the space. Each cell ranges in diameter and is curved to scatter sound in balanced reverberations across the entire auditorium. The method has roots in traditional concert halls, where elaborate, neoclassical detailing too creates uneven surfaces that has the same diffusing effect, reflecting a new take on conventional acoustic treatment techniques through the superimposition of algorithmic modelling. Herzog & de Meuron collaborated with acoustician Yasuhisa Toyota to create the algorithm for the panels1. Toyota first created an optimal sound map based on the room’s layout and geometry. Panels lining the back wall would logically need deeper and bigger grooves to absorb echoes, while ceiling surfaces could use shallower cells. Herzog & de Meuron also contributed their design preferences, requiring the carved skin to be consistent throughout the room to maintain their aesthetic appeal. Comfort was also a consideration, such as the tactile quality of the panels, so panels within arm’s reach had to have softer grooves. The acoustic and aesthetic considerations made up parameters that could then be input for an algorithm, alongside other dimensions such as sound data.

18 Elizabeth Stinson, ‘What happens when algorithms design a concert hall’, Wired Magazine (revised December 2017) < https://www.wired. com/2017/01/happens-algorithms-design-concert-hall-stunning-elbphilharmonie/?mbid=social_fb > [09 August 2017] 26

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 27

Foam cut model

The use of parametric modelling was instrumental in generating the countless design variations for each panel. This was not possible to do by hand drawing. The control over the design stops at the algorithm, after which the computer is responsible for generating billions of outcomes. This not only saves time, but also generates outcomes that are more original and intricate.

Parametric design is merely a tool. After all, the computer can maximise efficiency and precision of construction techniques but parameters must be definable. The key aspect of human sociability and experience in architecture would still be intuitive and such a sensibility would take years of training and practice, not simply replaced by algorithms.

However, there is a limitation to parametric generation that Herzog and de Meuron have been conscious of. They were not overtly reliant on the computer for their designs, but also created large scale cardboard study models and sculpted and carved voids manually1, using a combination of different methods. The underlying motivation was a keen understanding of the intricacy and complexity to designing a building, where spaces must be designed from inside out, sensitive to the experience of travelling through the spaces. In this way, the architects do not completely give up control over the design process.

19 Oliver Wainwright, ‘We thought it was going to destroy us’ … Herzog and De Meuron’s Hamburg miracle, The Guardian (revised November 2016) < https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/nov/04/hamburgelbphilhamonie-herzog-de-meuron-a-cathedral-for-our-time > [09 August 2017] 28

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 29

3.2_Fibrous Tower & House The following experimental projects is another example of biomimicry, based on skeletons. It uses an algorithmic design method, by considering ornamental, structural and spatial qualities of skeletal structures as parameters. The variety of ways in which the same idea can be applied according to different situations and contexts reflects the versatility of using generative design. Furthermore, this example shows how generative design has been exploited to explore structural performance. In Fibrous Tower, the shell itself is load bearing, so each floor can be column free. The eventual form is carefully tested out, modelled and refined through generative design modelling to maximise the structural capacity of a thin concrete shell like this. With a hollowed out form, it is inevitable that the nodes should be larger at some points to accommodate more loads. These parameters feedback into the generative model. Several iterations were made, and with more added parameters, Kokkugia came up with a shell that is detached from the inner core to give a stronger external expression as well1. For instance, over the length of the tower, the shell thickens to create small spaces for vertical gardens, and varies the amounts of light passing through. Therefore, generative design can enhance both structural and ornamental aspects of a high-rise building like this. Another benefit of generative design is that it can be directly integrated with fabrication and manufacturing, so that designers have a stronger case for their designs to be built, if they can use the software to explore how exactly to build it. Despite the complexity of its form, the manufacturing process for this precedent is designed for the conventional framework technique of pouring concrete into molds. This ensures that the design is still buildable with current technology. However, generative design allows designers to configure codes that can be sent to robotic arms that accurately laser cut foams to form the concrete molds for the intricate exoskeletal structure.

Location: China Architect:Kokkugia Year: Function: Tower

20 Roland Snooks, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Speculative Project 2008, Fibrous Tower 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, kokkugia, (revised 2012) < http://www.kokkugia.com/fibrous-tower-2 > [09 August 2017]

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 31

33 Fibrous House Various iterations yield thread like structures, that also resemble human tissue.

However, a possible limitation is that not every designer is capable of this delicate negotiation between structural, aesthetic and performative parameters. In this case, the same form elegantly targets each parameter as a homogeneous whole. These qualities are ingrained in the very exoskeletal frame. Yet in most projects, such parameters can be conflicting and not easily unified in a single form, requiring other controls or even having to forgo some parameters. The flexibility of generative design is shown through the same exoskeleton idea applied in a different typology of the house. This time the strands follow the same logic, but are not as organized in form, becoming instead a dense mass, using the intertwining network to provide structural strength1. The strands accommodate multiple parameters in an organic, homogeneous way. According to Kokkugia’s principal architect, Roland Snooks, ‘what is redundant for one is optimal for another’, thus one output becomes another’s input. The disorderly strands are redundant for form and geometry but in turn give it structure, so that the generative design successfully negotiates competing factors.

21 Roland Snooks, ‘Fibrous Hous’, kokkugia, (revised 2012) <http://www. kokkugia.com/fibrous-house > [09 August 2017]

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 33

A.4: Conclusion These precedents have reflected how algorithmic design has become increasingly indispensable in the design proccss. This is especially so in projects that aim to increase performative or material capabilities, and are significant for their attempt to address issues of climate and sustainability. Unlike conventionally, where one would need to design plans, elevations and sections to show relationships, a Grasshopper model shows all of these in real time, immensely reducing the time and human error of these projects. However, the precedents are also highly specific, and suited for particular contexts. It is counter productive to use too much parametric modelling, because that could upset the balance between the parameters. In this way, such systems cannot truly replace human creativity, because it is still the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role to decide how best to use them, what kind of parameters to select, and the components to organize them with. It merely makes the prefiguration of how the outcome would be like far more explicit, so that architects can freely make modifications at any time.

A.5: Learning Outcomes

This studio has made me more aware of the potential advantages of using algorithmic design. It is not just learning to use a software, but having a new mindset when it comes to design process, to be more critical of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;briefâ&#x20AC;? or parameters set and their relationships. It also forms the basis for computational forms to be translated into the real world, and expands the possibilities of the imagination. The techniques in generative design could have been applied to my project for a pavilion in Herring Island, where specific conditions of the site such as the level of sunlight received can inform the intersection of moveable surfaces to allow for the change in the spaces that are hidden and the way that light interacts with the underground. Further experimentation with geometry beyond simple planes can also be explored in Grasshopper, and potentially increase the interactivity between spaces.

Studio Earth Pavilion for Secrets

As such, an appropriate design approach would be to create a site responsive work using simple, quantifiable parameters. To address the non-quantifiable, one would first have to break it down into potential factors that can be defined as input. Alternatively the element of randomness could provide more freedom for the work to evolve alongside changes in its surroundings, and potentially lead to new discoveries. Either way, algorithmic design is a powerful tool to creating organic solutions that are more integrated into their environment, as well as generating beneficial side effects for non-humans, which would help alleviate the destructive side of architecture.

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 35

A.6: Algorithmic Sketches

Attractor Points

Grid Shell, interior view

Voronoi

Box Morph + Attractor Points

CONCEPTUALISATION

Loft + State Capture

CONCEPTUALISATION 37

References

The Shukhov Foundation, ‘Tower’, The Shukhov Tower(revised 2017) < http://shukhov. org/tower.html > [09 August 2017]

Stinson, Elizabeth ‘What happens when algorithms design a concert hall’, Wired Magazine (revised December 2017) < https://www.wired.com/2017/01/happens-algorithmsdesign-concert-hall-stunning-elbphilharmonie/?mbid=social_fb > [09 August 2017] Wainwright, Oliver ‘We thought it was going to destroy us’ … Herzog and De Meuron’s Hamburg miracle, The Guardian (revised November 2016) < https://www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2016/nov/04/hamburg-elbphilhamonie-herzog-de-meuron-a-cathedral-for-our-time > [09 August 2017]

Volner, Ian, ‘Dissecting Diagrid’, Architect Magazine(revised October 25 2011) <http:// www.architectmagazine.com/technology/dissecting-diagrid_o > [09 August 2017]

Snooks, Roland ‘Speculative Project 2008, Fibrous Tower 2’, kokkugia, (revised 2012) < http://www.kokkugia.com/fibrous-tower-2 > [09 August 2017]

Mulligan, Mark, ‘Kiyonori Kikutake: Structuring the Future’ Places Journal (revised November 2015) < https://placesjournal.org/article/kiyonori-kikutake-structuring-thefuture/> [09 August 2017]

Snooks, Roland ‘Fibrous Hous’, kokkugia, (revised 2012) <http://www.kokkugia.com/ fibrous-house > [09 August 2017]

Fry, Tony, Design Futuring, Sustainability Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Oxford International Publishers, 2009). Dunne, Anthony, Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2013)

ArchintoJapan, ‘Moriyama House’ ArchintoJapan (revised November 24 2014) < https://archintojapan.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/moriyama-house/ > [09 August 2017] Oxman, Rivka, Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014) Kalay, Yehuda, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004) Walliss, Jillian, Heike Rahmann, Landscape Architecture and Digital Technologies (New York: Routledge, 2016) Avinesh, Rajagopal ‘Philippe Rahm: Climate as Architecture’, Metropolis Magazine (revised November 2014) < http://www.metropolismag.com/cities/landscape/philipperahm-climate-as-architecture/ > [09 August 2017] Hudson, Daniel ‘achim menges developes hygroskin and hygroscope’, Design Boom Magazine (revised April 2014) < https://www.designboom.com/architecture/achimmenges-developes-hygroskin-and-hygroscope-biomimetic-meteorosensitive-pavilions-4-14-2014/ > [09 August 2017] Menges, Achim, ‘HygroSkin: Meteorosensitive Pavilion’, achimmenges.net (revised 2013) < http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5612 > [09 August 2017] Peters, Brady ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2 38

CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCEPTUALISATION 39