Bourke_Jake_761273_FinalJournal by Jake Bourke

STUDIO AIR SEMESTER 1, 2017 JAKE BOURKE

STUDIO AIR JAKE BOURKE | 761273 | MEHRNOUSH SEMESTER 1, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: CONCEPTUALISING

A.O: INTRODUCTION

A.1: DESIGN FUTURING

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION

A.3: COMPOSITION GENERATION

A.4: CONCLUSION

A.5: LEARNING OUTCOMES

A.6: APPENDIX—ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1: RESEARCH FIELD

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT

B.5: TECHNIQUE—PROTOTYPES

B.6: TECHNIQUE—PROPOSAL

B.7: LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

B.8: APPENDIX—ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

C.2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

104

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

110

C.4: LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

126

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART A:

CONCEPTUALISING

A.0: INTRODUCTION JAKE A. BOURKE 20 Y/O

Currently, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m completing my third year of the Bachelor of Environments, majoring in Architecture & Property, with an aim to start a property development firm with a strong focus on sustainable design.

Although, my experiences in rural Victoria were not all limiting, the school I attended ran a terrific technical program, allowing me to study a certificate II in engineering as part of my VCE. In this subject I received a perfect score of 50, and the Premiers award for excellence. The skills learnt about fabrication in this program have been invaluable for architecture, allowing me to excel in the construction subjects of my degree.

My history with design began early on, from as early as age 11 I would draw nothing but floor plans, eventually designing large, intricate buildings using early versions of SketchUp. At age 15, I submitted a proposal to the local council for a new Skate park, complete with elevations, renders and a 3D model. This design was later used as a main point of reference in the construction of the new Skate Park.

Since beginning University, I have focused mostly on using physical models and hand drawing to communicate my ideas, so Rhino and Grasshopper are very new to me. My knowledge of digital architecture is very low, and I aim to expand this over the duration of this semester.

From this point onward, I tailored my studies to focus on achieving my goal of studying architecture. The main hurdle was overcoming the social and economic boundaries set by my rural public school to achieve a score which would grant me entry into Architecture at Melbourne University.

I am interested in the use of programming to achieve mathematically logical outcomes in architecture, and look forward to establishing a new and exciting skillset in this subject. I believe this is the future of architecture.

Project Example 1: Designing Environments - S1 2015 / SketchUp + Indigo Render 8

PROJECT EXAMPLE 2 STUDIO EARTH - S1 2016 PHYSICAL MODEL

A.1: DESIGN FUTURING

NAGAKIN CAPSULE TOWER

Kurokawa’s Metabolist tower is a key example of how architecture can be considerate of the future. It achieved this by utilising replaceable capsules, which could be removed and refurbished over time.1 This concept was extremely groundbreaking at the time, for the architect considered a life cycle system for the building, rather than the conventional buildand-leave approach. This revolutionary tower is extremely popular in architectural history discourse for its considerate approach to life cycle. In this week’s lecture, life cycle is a point of focus when considering how buildings can be sustainable. This project has likely influenced many Metabolists to consider the life cycle of their designs, and will do so into the future. Being built in 1972, the tower is now at a point where the pods should be replaced. This has not taken place and as a result the tower has fallen into a state of disrepair.2 This brings forth conversation about how it could have been designed to make the replacement of the capsules feasible. Tony fry discusses the issue of human responsibility for “sustainable modes of planetary habitation” and to reduce the speed of ‘defuturing’.3 Kurokawa’s design was perhaps one of the first to consider the future impacts of their design. This design not only considers the future, but uses prefabrication as a construction technique, allowing the building to be constructed quickly and with less energy than a conventional tower. These aspects make the Nagakin Capsule Tower an important contribution to sustainable architectural design. 1

[01]

"AD Classics: Nakagin Capsule Tower / Kisho Kurokawa", Archdaily, 2011 <http://www.archdaily.com/110745/ad-classics-nakagincapsule-tower-kisho-kurokawa> [accessed 2 March 2017]. 2

“ “ Archdaily, 2011.

Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics, And New Practice., 1st edn (London: Oxford, Berg, 2009), p. 6.

PROJECT: NAGAKIN CAPSULE TOWER LOCATION: TOKYO ARCHITECT: KISHO KUROKAWA YEAR BUILT: 1972 SOURCE: ARCHDAILY

[02]

A.1: DESIGN FUTURING

[03]

MICHAEL

SCHUMACHER

TOWER

This project is the unbuilt Michael Schumacher Tower, which utilises the benefits of grasshopper to generate space optimised snowflake-like floorplans, and a climate responsive smart façade. The team at LAVA utilised new technology to create a smarter building than the industry standard, which, if effective in practice could be many times more energy efficient and liveable than a standard cost approach development.1 This is achieved by utilising grasshopper’s extensions and optimising the smart façade to react to the environment.2 The design of this skyscraper caters to the modern taste for high rise living whilst utilising new technology to optimise the building. Although not particularly visionary in terms or building typology, this design can be regarded as sustainable. In reference to the lecture content, this building fulfils the need for greater urban density to counteract unsustainable urban sprawl. Perhaps computer optimised skyscrapers have the capacity to achieve greater sustainability than other building types due to the lower carbon footprint of those who live there. The use of a full length smart façade and optimised snowflake floorplan is aligned with Dunne and Raby’s idea of “Radical Design”. This design looks to fully utilise and experiment with materials and design technology to achieve the four P’s mentioned in “Speculative Everything”. Plausible, Possible, Probable, and Preferable.3 1

"MSWCT Snowflake Tower » LAVA", L-A-V-A.Net, 2008 <http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/mswct-snowflake-tower-2/> [accessed 2 March 2017].

"Laboratory For Visionary Architecture Snowflake Tower", Grasshopper3d.Com, 2009 <http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/albums/laboratory-for-visionary> [accessed 2 March 2017]. 3

Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, And Social Dreaming, 1st edn (MA: MIT Press, 2013), pp. 3-5.

PROJECT: MICHAEL SCHUMACHER TOWER LOCATION: ABU DHABI ARCHITECT: LABORATORY FOR VISIONARY ARCHITECTURE (L.A.V.A) YEAR BUILT: UNBUILT SOURCE: L.A.V.A

[04]

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION SPANISH PAVILION,

AICHI

The Spanish Pavilion utilises the computational aspects of grasshopper to create a building which has a unique façade, and an interior space which is organic in nature, to contrast the rectangular silhouette of the exterior. The pattern shown on the exterior could have taken far longer to generate using traditional methods. Although this method has been used to optimise the façade and generate interlocking sections (pictured at left), the computations used to treat the façade are limited, and by no means could they not be achieved without computational programming. The facade of this building could easily be a result of computerisation rather than computation, for example, a small series of modules similar to the set of 6 pictured at left could be modelled by distorting the inside points of 6 hexagons, offsetting them and adding depth. It is stated that these patterns are inspired by the hexagonal patterns present in Islamic art,1 therefore it can be deduced that the designer had a preconceived notion of how the façade should look, and simply used grasshopper and rhino to model it. This representational approach to design is in contrast with the ideas presented by Oxman & Oxman, who state that the “digital in architecture resides in the roots of architectural culture's attempt to divest itself of the representational”2. This statement is a theory well represented by the next precedent presented. 1"FOA · Spanish Pavilion", Divisare, 2006 <https://divisare.com/projects/272168foa-spanish-pavilion> [accessed 10 March 2017].

[05]

2 Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories Of The Digital In Architecture, 1st edn (Routledge, 2014).

PROJECT: SPANISH PAVILION LOCATION: AICHI, JAPAN ARCHITECT: FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHITECTS YEAR BUILT: 2005 SOURCE: FARSHIDMOUSSAVI 15

[06]

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION

VULCAN

PAVILION, BEIJING

[07]

The Vulcan pavilion is an example of computational design, which utilised the most efficient processes to create something that would be near impossible using conventional techniques. This pavilion not only utilises modern design techniques, but construction techniques also, as it is constructed using only 3D printing. 1 This practice re-defining construction technique has only become prevalent recently, alongside the advance of computational design, as traditional methods are far too labour-intensive to produce many computergenerated forms. By using a computational approach, the structure could be optimised along a set of parameters such as weight, light diffusion, air flow, etc., to achieve a more efficient product than previously possible. The architectural stage of “solution synthesis” mentioned in Kalay’s “Architecture’s New Media”2 is nearly completely outsourced to the computation in a design like this, which allows multiple iterations provided by the code to be evaluated by the designer to determine the best fit for the brief. This provides the ability to create hundreds of iterations of a design in a day, all reaching a complexity to the likes of which could years to draft by hand. The benefits in efficiency and form generation presented by computation are plain to see, and like mentioned in the lecture, are not any more “false creativity” than traditional methods of drafting. 1

"VULCAN: The World's Largest 3D-Printed Architectural Pavilion", Designboom | Architecture & Design Magazine, 2015 <http:// www.designboom.com/architecture/vulcan-beijing-design-week-bjdw-largest-3d-printed-architectural-pavilion-parkview-green-10-07-2015/> [accessed 10 March 2017]. 2 Yehuda E Kalay, Architecture's New Nedia, 1st edn (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), p. 11.

[08]

PROJECT: VULCAN PAVILION LOCATION: BEIJING, CHINA ARCHITECT: LABORATORY FOR CREATIVE DESIGN YEAR BUILT: 2015 SOURCE: 17

A.3: COMPOSITION/GENERATION

VOUSSOIR CLOUD, [09]

LOS ANGELES

The Voussoir Cloud installation utilises generative processes to achieve a cloud-like form, composed of only four shapes.1 Some literature mentioned in the lecture claims that generative architecture is a sign of the gradual reduction of “true creativity” in architecture. This claim may be supported by certain members of society, but one could argue that because a form such as the Voussoir Cloud is impractical to design without the aid of computation, that the architect’s creativity is expanded rather than limited. This comes without reducing the ability for an architect to design just as would have been the norm 300 years ago. By utilising algorithmic thinking processes, architects can simplify complex forms so that they can be “sketched” easily with the aid of programs such as Grasshopper. These thought processes are generative in nature; for example, an architect might think of a plane, a line and a point as separate components, but algorithmic thinking shows the plane as a product of the line, the line as an extension of the point, and the point as a product of co-ordinates. This likens architecture to a recipe, which can be followed using a “finite set of rules”.2 Although generative or computational architecture can be used to create unique forms, its limited in its architectural drafting capabilities. For many processes, traditional architectural software is much faster and less complicated. Using algorithmic thinking, it’s easy to imagine generative architecture progressing to the point where specific parameters will be input and a complete building will be generated based on these parameters. 1

Amy Frearson, "BIG's Bjarke Ingels Completes Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2016", Dezeen, 2016 <https://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/07/bjarkeingels-big-serpentine-gallery-pavilion-london-translucent-blocks-unzipped-wall/> [accessed 15 March 2017]. 2 Robert A Wilson and Frank Keil, The MIT Encyclopedia Of Cognitive Sciences, 1st edn ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999), pp. 11-12.

PROJECT: VOUSSOIR CLOUD LOCATION: LOS ANGELES ARCHITECT: IWAMOTOSCOTT YEAR BUILT: 2008 SOURCE: IWAMOTOSCOTT

[10] 19

A.3: COMPOSITION/GENERATION

SERPENTINE PAVILION, LONDON

The Serpentine Pavilion is an example of a complex structure which communicates clear algorithmic processes through its appearance. This structure uses fibreglass blocks in the shape of a brick wall, which is then pulled apart to create space. The theory of this building is juxtaposition, with the open blocks creating a seemingly light and transparent square form as the view from the side, and a solid, free-flowing view from the end.1

[11]

This design concept is simple yet beautiful, and is an example of how computational architecture can be utilised in a way which inspires creativity. This design utilises digital tools to create design opportunities.2 Although this design relies on simplicity as a point of interest, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the very simplicity that continuously arises in built computational architecture. The constraints imposed by the software used to generate computational architecture mean that very little complex computational architecture is built. Most completely computational architecture is limited to concepts or temporary pavilions.

[12]

"BIG | Bjarke Ingels Group", Big.Dk, 2016 <https://www.big.dk/#projects -serp> [accessed 15 March 2017]. 2

Brady Peters and Xavier De Kestelier, Computation Works: The Building Of Algorithmic Thought, 1st edn (Academy Press, 2013), pp. 8-13.

PROJECT: SERPENTINE PAVILION LOCATION: LONDON ARCHITECT: BJARKE INGELS GROUP YEAR BUILT: 2016 SOURCE: DEZEEN

[13]

A.4: CONCLUSION

[14] Frank Gehry’s sketch for the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao — Analogue form-finding

Part A explores the rise of generative architecture and parametric modelling, and how this allows architects to create forms never-before possible in mere minutes. These models are arguably the future of architecture, and can be a useful tool for form-finding and patternmaking. Part A also explored the effects computation has on design thought and practice. This advance in prominence of computational architecture has removed boundaries which we never even knew existed, and for this reason modern architectural literature has a strong focus on this subject.

Also noted is the possibility of utilising computation to achieve sustainability through structural and environmental optimisation plugins and programs, and through increasing prefabrication and utilisation of new technology such as large scale 3D printing. This exciting new skillset will soon be an integral aspect of all architectural practice, and can be seen emerging in specialist architectural firms worldwide, many of which have been referenced in this section of the journal.

Considering this, my design approach will attempt to expand the uses of computational architecture to provide design solutions for housing birds and fish in unison. This approach aims to increase biodiversity in the site, and create a computational design installation which not only is beautiful in form for enjoyment by humans, but is designed to solve a real issue. .

A.5: LEARNING OUTCOMES

Throughout the first 3 weeks of Architecture Studio: Air, I have become far more interested in the theories of sustainability as applied through computational architecture, and how complex issues can be solved or partially solved using codes and programming. The first lecture, in addition to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Design Futuringâ&#x20AC;? reading, was particularly inspiring and informative. This focus on sustainability and computerisation is important to the field of architecture now and will continue to be important into the future.

Exploring modelling using Grasshopper has also been an interesting exercise, and I feel as if I have picked it up quite well considering my limited background in computer modelling and parametricism. The benefits of computing are clear when comparing the time taken to create iterations in grasshopper versus my previously preferred method, sketching by hand. The complexity achieved in these quick iterations are unmatched by any conventional modelling method in a similar timeframe, which helps for creating a larger pool of choices and ultimately, correctly refining the form of a design.

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve also realised that computational architecture has suitable and unsuitable applications, just like any other architectural method. The built precedents studied in Part A show a clear pattern in forms and achievable designs, with focuses on preconstruction and using a small number of identical components to achieve complex forms. By the end of this subject, I hope to be able to model forms such as my digital artwork using Rhinoceros and Grasshopper.

Authors own digital sketch for a complex architectural form â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Analogue form-finding

A.6: APPENDIXâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;ALGORITHMIC SKETCH

The examples exhibited here are the 3D patterns created by extruding and altering a complex pattern created earlier in week 2, these were included because I feel that they best exhibit the generational nature of Grasshopper, more so than pervious exercises. I feel that these developments could be improved greatly with more knowledge of the program, and projecting such patterns onto a curved surface could create beautiful forms. These sketch-like patterns exhibit the ease of generating unique patterns in short periods of time, a great strength of computation. 1111

Iteration 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; altering the size of the origin grid and the number of lines

HES

Iteration 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; lengthening the size of the origin grid and the adding much more connections

Iteration 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; shortening the length of the origin grid and altering the points visible in the base pattern

PART B:

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1: RESEARCH FIELD

PATTERNING

The research field I have chosen to research further is patterning. This technique is strongly represented in nature, and I believe it works well with the other techniques in this subject. I would also like to experiment with biomimicry and performance based design. The technique of patterning can involve repeating a single object in an ordered manner to achieve a new form. This is often achieved by creating an array based on one form or a group of forms. These forms can be arranged in such a way that they link together to create a surface, or arrayed to create a striking composition. These forms can be altered in scale and arrangement to produce differing iterations. Ultimately though, a pattern must be able to be discerned as uniform in some way by the viewer.

Figure 01: Brendan Munroe, Black And Night, 2014.

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

DE YOUNG

MUSEUM The De Young Museum is an example of a building which utilises parametric design and computational patterning for the faรงade of the building. The laser-cut copper cladding holds a higher transparency ratio in certain areas by increasing the diameter of laser cut holes in the surface. This dynamic way of filtering light is claimed to replicate the partial and uneven shade of a trees canopy. Not only utilising laser-cutting, the faรงade features a series of dimples generated using computational methods and pressed into the material. These dimples are easily achieved utilising the high malleability of copper as a building material. This use of copper is not only for ease of construction, the facade is designed to be a striking bronze at first, but slowly oxidise to a green colour, and fade into the background of trees.1 1

"M.H. De Young Museum / Herzog & De Meuron", Archdaily, 2010 <http:// www.archdaily.com/66619/m-h-de-young-museum-herzog-de-meuron> [accessed 6 April 2017].

[02]

PROJECT: DE YOUNG MUSEUM LOCATION: SAN FRANCISCO, USA ARCHITECT: HERZOG DE MEURON YEAR BUILT: 2005 SOURCE: ARCHDAILY

[03] 33

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0 PROCESS The pattern on the faรงade of the de Young Museum in San Francisco uses a series of dimples to create a pattern over the surface, followed by a series of holes. The Grasshopper algorithm provided in the case study creates only these dimples and holes. The final parts may be added using Rhinoceros, as shown below. In practice, a much larger version of this algorithm may have been used to achieve the result pictured.

STEP 1: GRASSHOPPER CREATES BAKED HOLES AND DIMPLES ONLY

STEP 2: EXTRUDE HOLES & CREATE FLAT SURFACE BETWEEN DIMPLES

STEP 3: SUBTRACT INTERSECTIONS OF EXTRUDED HOLES TO CREATE FINAL SURFACE 34

[04]

PROJECT: DE YOUNG MUSEUM LOCATION: SAN FRANCISCO, USA ARCHITECT: HERZOG DE MEURON YEAR BUILT: 2005 SOURCE: ARCHDAILY 35

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 1 This species uses the original algorithm and focuses on altering parameters to achieve basic changes. As I altered these parameters I slowly began to understand how the algorithms components interacted.

ITERATION 1 ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS

ITERATION 2: HEIGHT OF DIMPLES EXTENDED FROM 0.2 TO 0.5

ITERATION 3: DIMPLE OPENING RADIUSINCREASED FROM 0.2 TO 0.4

ITERATION 4 INCREASE DIMPLE OUTER RADIUS FROM 0.5 TO 0.7

ITERATION 5: MINIMUM SIZE OF HOLES CHANGED FROM 0.02 TO 0.1, MAX SIZE FROM 0.04 TO 0.3

ITERATION 6: DIMPLE INNER AND OUTER RADIUS REVERSED IN SIZE

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 2 This species doubles the amount of spaces in each direction on the grid. Then using this dense grid, more drastic parameter alterations are experimented with larger changes in the form. During this experimentation species, I built upon the previous iteration to increase the diversity from the original form.

ITERATION 1 DOUBLE AMOUNT OF SPACES IN EACH DIRECTION ON GRID, EQUALISE DIAMETERS OF DIMPLES

ITERATION 2: DOUBLE HEIGHT OF DIMPLES, REDUCE INNER RADIUS TO 0.01 TO CREATE CONE SHAPES.

ITERATION 3: INCREASE HEIGHT OF CONE FROM 0.4 TO 1.0, INCREASE RADIUS TO 0.4

ITERATION 4 REDUCE HEIGHT OF CONE FROM 1.0 TO 0.2

ITERATION 5: INCREASE CONE DIAMETER FROM 0.5 TO 0.7 AND INCREASE HEIGHT TO 0.4

ITERATION 6: INCREASE HOLE SIZE BOUNDS FROM 0.02-0.04 TO 0.7-1.0

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 3 In this species, I saw the holes as underutilised, so I replaced the circle component with a line, and based the length of the line on a new image. I then used the end points of the lines as points for a surface using the SRFGRID component to create an undulating surface. Finally, I used this surface as the base surface for the separate dimple algorithm, and replaced the image in the dimple algorithm with the same image as used for the lines algorithm. Also changed bounds of dimples from (â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1 to 1) to (0.5 to 1.0) to make all dimples appear on top of surface.

ITERATION 1 BASE SURFACE WITH LENGTH PARAMETERS BETWEEN 0 & 1 TO CREATE RISES IN WHITE SPACE OF SAMPLED IMAGE

ITERATION 2: DOUBLE HEIGHT OF DIMPLES, REVERSE POLARITY OF LENGTH IN BASE TO CREATE DIPS BETWEEN 0.5 & 0 40

ITERATION 3: INCREASE FLUCTUATIONS IN BASE SURFACE, CREATE CONE SHAPES FROM DIMPLE ALGORITHM

ITERATION 4 CHANGE PARAMETERS OF DIMPLE SO BASE AND TOP ARE EQUAL TO CREATE CYLINDERS, REDUCE SURFACE VOLITILITY

ITERATION 5: INCREASE TOP DIAMETER OF DIMPLE ALGORITHM TO CREATE INVERSE CONES, CONES IN DIPS = 0.6, ALL OTHERS = 0.3

ITERATION 6: MAKE CONES TALL AND SKINNY, TOP DIAMETER IS LESS THAN BASE. FURTHER REDUCED SURFACE VOLITILITY 41

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 4 In this species, I replaced the dimple algorithm with the original holes algorithm, in which I replaced the circle component with the polygon component, and extruded the polygon along the z vector to an altering degree. I think this had a successful result, although iteration number 3 had an unknown error in which the extrusions appeared mostly below the base surface.

ITERATION 1 BASE SURFACE WITH 0.2 EXTRUDED HEXAGONS ON RISES IN SURFACE WITH WIDTH BOUNDS BETWEEN 0 AND 0.15

ITERATION 2: REVERSE POLARITY OF BASE, LONGER EXTRUSIONS NOW IN DIPS OF SURFACE, WIDTH BOUNDS BETWEEN 0.01 AND 0.2 42

ITERATION 3: REVERSE POLARITY OF HEXAGONAL EXTRUSIONS SO MORE SPARSE IN DIPS AND THICKER ON RISES

ITERATION 4 REVERSE BOTH SURFACE AND EXTRUSIONS BACK, LENGTHEN AND THIN EXTRUSIONS

ITERATION 5: INCREASE MAX DIAMETER OF POLYGONS (NOW TRIANGLULAR) TO 1, MINIMUM REMAINS AT 0

ITERATION 6: INCREASE FLUCTUATION OF BASE BEYOND ORIGINAL BOUNDS TO 2, REDUCE MAX DIAMETER OF POLYGONS TO 0.1 43

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 5 This species is identical to the previous speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; iteration number 6, the only change is the input images used to dictate the form of the algorithm. This was mostly experimented with to find pleasing forms, but after the completion of this species, I realised that by using an image or grid of images that are repeatable in all directions, this could be used to prefabricate panels that mesh together perfectly. I like how this algorithm mimics the form of hot climate gorges, with the hexagons representing trees, which grow only in the shelter of depressions.

ITERATION 1 IMAGE SAMPLED IS AN EXPRESSIVE LINE DRAWING OF A FACE IN BLACK AND WHITE

ITERATION 2: IMAGE SAMPLED IS A MODERN COMPUTER GENERATED ARTWORK IN BLACK AND WHITE

ITERATION 3: IMAGE SAMPLED IS A HAND DRAWN PATTERN WITH MULTIPLE LINE WEIGHTS

ITERATION 4 IMAGE SAMPLED IS AN EXPRESSIONIST PAINTING OF A WOMAN DANCING

ITERATION 5: IMAGE SAMPLED IS A DRAWING OF A LOTUS FLOWER WITH A SMALL BORDER

ITERATION 6: IMAGE SAMPLED IS A LANDSCAPE OF TREES AND A MOONRISE

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0

SPECIES 6 This species samples the image from iteration 1 of species 5. On top of this, the height of the extruded polygon is related to the diameter of said polygon, so the wider a polygon is, the taller it is. This is achieved by linking the output of the image sampler, and multiplying it by means of a (1<3<6) slider to achieve a set of values to plug into the height of the extrusion. This creates an increasingly complex form.

ITERATION 1 HEIGHT OF POLYGON MULTIPLIED BY 3, DIAMETER BOUNDS 0—0.34, VOLITILITY OF BASE SURFACE BETWEEN 0-1.28

ITERATION 2: POLYGON CHANGED TO TRIANGLE, EXTRUSION THINNER AND TALLER, BASE VOLITILITY BETWEEN 0—1.58 46

ITERATION 3: REPLACE Z VECTOR EXTRUSION WITH Y VECTOR EXTRUSION, REDUCE VOLITARITY OF BASE SURFACE TO 0—0.3

ITERATION 4 REVERSE POLARITY OF BASE SURFACE, INCREASE VOLITARITY TO 0—1, CHANGE POLYGONS BACK TO HEXAGONAL SHAPE.

ITERATION 5: REPLACED Y VECTOR WITH CUSTOM DIAGONAL VECTOR., REVERSED POLARITY OF BASE SURFACE, THINNER POLYGIONS.

ITERATION 6: EXTREME VOLITARITY IN BASE, MUCH LARGER POLYGONS WITH 4X MULTIPLIER ON EXTRUSION LENGTH. 47

B.2: CASE STUDY 1.0 CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS ARGUMENT FOR CRITERIA

SELECTION CRITERIA [01] SITE & USE This design is situated in a park such as Alexandra Gardens, and is used as a public art space

[02] SITE USERS The users of this space will be pedestrians

[03] AESTHETIC The aesthetic of the site should relate to nature, and should be easily read from a distance, and should use a pattern that can be discerned by the average site user without knowledge of parametric design.

[04] EXPERIENCE FOR USER The user should be able to move through the site, and experience the pattern from angles at which they do not make sense. Only to move away from the site and make sense of the sites’ patterns once more. This means the depressions in the base surface must be 2 meters deep at most to fully envelop the average person.

[05] CONSTRUCTABILITY The site must be able to be built by moving soil and placing man made structures around the site. These must be able to stand easily without heavy reinforcement, and transport to the site. 48

The selection criteria I’ve used are outlined at left, I’ve chosen the iterations which best suit these 5 points. The iterations I’ve chosen are the most aesthetically pleasing, would create the most interesting experience for the user, and would be relatively simple to construct. My experimentation is based on creating an aesthetically pleasing and perhaps surprising result by means of altering connections and components, as well as values and inputs to components. These iterations were chosen for their satisfaction of the brief.

POSSIBLE USES / CONTRAST These iterations obviously stray heavily from the original design, and may be likened to a different use. The use I’ve proposed for the brief is a walkable landscape, which heavily contrasts the scale of the original, which could have fit into 1m3 , with these iterations perhaps needing a constraining box of up to 3000m3. The qualities of these designs are heavily different from each other, and the original.

REFLECTIONS ON CASE STUDY 1.0 This case study explored the benefits of grasshopper when used for generating ideas, and shows how easily a multitude of iterations can be generated from a base algorithm. These algorithms can become quite complex, and could take months with traditional methods.

SPECIES 5, ITERATION 1: AESTHETICALLY REPLICATES NATURE USING DEPRESSIONS AS GORGES AND EXTRUSIONS AS TREE-LIKE FORMS

SPECIES 4, ITERATION 1: OPTIMUM PATTERN READABILITY FOR USERS, EASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.

SPECIES 6, ITERATION 5: INTERESTING PATTERN FROM A DISTANCE, INTERESTING EXPERIENCE FOR SITE USERS IN SURFACE DEPRESSIONS

SPECIES 3, ITERATION 3: EASE OF FABRICATION AS ONLY TWO SIZES OF APPLIED FORM IN USE, ALTHOUGH RATHER LARGE. 49

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0

MIDDLE

FORK

The Middle Fork art installation by John Grade creates complex parametric forms through use of relatively uniform wooden components. These components are glued together in the shape of a tree. This is achieved by positioning the wood around a plaster cast of a 140 yearold Western Hemlock tree.1 These components are smoothed and sanded to highlight the natural curvature of the surface. The gaps in the wood both simplify construction, and create a sense of texture and lightness normally not associated with trees. This entire process is achieved without the aid of computerisation or computation, but, like trees themselves, can be accurately described using generative techniques. This project was exhibited in many cities, and in each city it was added to in size by the community of that city. 2 Encouraging community members to devote their time to help build such a project was designed to bring the community together and create bonds, figuratively and literally. The success of a project with no formal use is determined by its form, as well as the processes of generation. In both areas I believe this project succeeds. 1

"Middle Fork - A Parametric Tree Sculpture By John Grade", Urukia Magazine, 2016 <http://www.urukia.com/middle-fork-parametric-tree-sculpture-johngrade/> [accessed 2 April 2017]. 2

Middle Fork - John Grade Studio, 2015 <https://vimeo.com/117766008> [accessed 2 April 2017].

[05]

PROJECT: MIDDLE FORK LOCATION: WASHINGTON DC, USA ARCHITECT: JOHN GRADE YEAR BUILT: 2015 SOURCE: JOHN GRADE STUDIO 51

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0 PROCESSES UNDERTAKEN Prior to modelling this form, I visualised the process of creating this tree using generative techniques. I would begin with creating a trunk in similar form to that of the sculpture, then add the angular branches. After creating these surfaces, I would populate them with a grid of points (somewhat distorted), and create a series of lines extending from said points at a length determined by the dark areas on an image of tree-bark. I would find the end points of these lines and create a surface from points with increasing variation towards the base of the tree as seen in the middle fork example. Now with what resembles a tree, I could intersect discs through the tree to section in in its length, and finally add a pattern similar to the case study.

MODELLING THE TRUNK [1] There were very little hiccups in this process. I created a line the height of the tree, and created a point charge below it. I then associated the point charge with a series of concentric circles on the line by means of remapping the values, and lofted these to create a surface which mimics that of the middle fork project.

BRANCH GENERATION [2] The branches of this tree hold the bulk of the issues. To generate these branches in a similar fashion to the case study, with more branches towards the top of the tree, I divided the trunk of the tree into sections using a set of planes, then populated those areas with random points limiting the amount of points in relation to the point charge below the trunk. With a max of 4 points in areas with low charge, and 0 points in areas with high charge.

BRANCH GENERATION [3] I created point charges at 5 points inside the tree, using these charges as vector generation tools to create seemingly random, yet ordered angles for the branches to sprout from the outside of the trunk. The first branch extends out, and at its endpoint another branch is generated, once again using the point charges as vectors. This creates a growth-like structure, similar to that of the case study.

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0 ADDING VOLUME TO BRANCHES [4] To add volume to these branches, I used a similar system to the trunk. I created a line charge in the centre of the tree, and linked it to a series of concentric circles that run along the lines of the branches. To create smoother branches, I filleted the connection of the first and second section of the branch line. The main issue I ran into at this point was creating a solid link between the branches and the trunk, as the lofted circles intersected at angles to the trunk.

CREATING A LINK TO THE TRUNK [5] To link the trunk with the branches, I originally envisioned creating a shrink-wrap type surface around the structure, but after many hours of research and experimenting, I could not figure out how to do this. Eventually, I decided to extend the origins of the branches lines by a factor of â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2 and create pipes around them, I then joined the 3d branch and the pipes, and intersected them with the trunk to create solid intersections.

REâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;SECTIONING [6] Now that the form of this tree had been created, I decided to resection the final product once more to create a form similar to that of the case study. This iteration soon became my final, after realising that projecting an image onto such a complex set of surfaces as a whole was near impossible.

CONCLUSIONS What I visualised would take place was much harder to achieve in practice, being limited by coding difficulties and data trees, as well as my relative unfamiliarity with the programming environment. As well as needing the use of components that do not exist. Over time forms such as this will become more achievable, with increases in technology and new components and codes available for use. This final form looks similar to the case study, and could be potentially used as a basic mould for such a construction if 3D printed. If unconstrained by the original form, I would investigate creating an algorithm which can be made into a tree looping component with few inputs, so as to quickly generate unique trees.

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0

GENERATIVE DIAGRAM

[

CIRCLES LINE

[width of tree]

[height of tree]

SURFACE [faces of tree]

CIRCLES

POINTS [origin of branches]

[width of branches]

LINES [length of branches]

MODIFY

SURFACE

[texturize surface]

[faces of branches]

SECTIONS [further divide sections]

SPLIT [tree into sections]

BUILD GENERATE [wooden blocks]

FINAL PRODUCT

RECOMPOSE

[middle fork tree]

[sections into whole]

[create sections from blocks]

]

PROJECT: MIDDLE FORK RECONSTRUCTION SOFTWARE: GRASSHOPPER 57

B.3: CASE STUDY 2.0 SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES

The intricacies of this project were much more difficult to replicate than first imagined, one of the largest issues I found stemmed from the naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;sweeping curves of the shell. As this was crafted by hand without the use of computers, much more intricate algorithms may be necessary to remodel it using generative techniques. The main differences are the curvatures applied to the surface and the patterning which stems from the construction process. The benefits of my model as opposed to the original project relate to the modification potentialâ&#x20AC;Ś The original model was extended through laborious hand construction for each larger exhibition space, my grasshopper model can be extended in seconds by simply altering inputs to the components. Once refined to include the exterior fluctuations and pattern, the level of efficiency of my technique would far surpass the original, albeit losing nearly all of its heart in the process.

[06]

PROJECT: MIDDLE FORK LOCATION: WASHINGTON DC, USA ARCHITECT: JOHN GRADE YEAR BUILT: 2015 SOURCE: JOHN GRADE STUDIO 59

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION / SPECIES 1 This section will focus on developing the Middle Fork project from its final state in Case Study 2.0 in a similar manner to the development in Case Study 1.0. The algorithm which has been created to replicate the tree structure will be modified and tested to develop a series of ‘species’ which will serve as proposals for a final set of successful designs. The purpose of this development is to demonstrate the abilities of computation in developing complex iterations in situations with intense time pressure. These iterations can take from as little as seconds to create, and share little, or no resemblance to the original project within minutes.

ITERATION 1 ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS

ITERATION 2: POINT CHARGES DICTATING VECTOR OF BRANCHES WEAKENED 60

ITERATION 3:

ITERATION 7:

INTERSECTING PLANE ADDED DEPTH

POINT CHARGE DICTATING TRUNK RADIUS MOVED FROM â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1 TO 20 IN Z AXIS

ITERATION 4:

ITERATION 8:

LOWERED NUMBER OF DIVISIONS USED TO GENERATE TRUNK

BOUNDS OF TRUNK DIAMETER REDUCED TO 0.4-5.0 FROM 2.0-7.0

ITERATION 5:

ITERATION 9:

INCREASED NUMBER OF EXTRUDED INTERSECTING DISCS FROM 6 TO 19

LENGTH OF BRANCHES INCREASED BY 50%

ITERATION 6:

ITERATION 10:

REDUCED NUMBER OF DISCS TO 9, SHARPENED BRANCHES TO POINTS

BRANCH VECTOR NO.2 REPLACED WITH Z-AXIS VECTOR

B.4: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 2 Species 2 focuses on expanding the parameters of the definition, and adding new components into the definition to achieve surprising and elaborate results. These results begin to look less like a tree and more like an animated explosion, drawing similarities between the natural outward growth of each.

ITERATION 1 PLUG VECTOR USED FOR BRANCHES INTO SECTIONING DISCS

ITERATION 2: CHANGE EXTRUSION VALUE OF SECTIONING DISCS

ITERATION 3:

ITERATION 7:

CHANGE MINIMUM TRUNK DIAMETER TO 5

CHANGE SECOND SECTION OF BRANCHES VECTOR BACK TO THE DEFAULT POINT CHARGE

ITERATION 4:

ITERATION 8:

CHANGE SECTIONING DISC VECTOR BACK TO DEFAULT

DUPLICATE SECOND SECTION OF BRANCHES, CREATE THIRD BRANCH

ITERATION 5:

ITERATION 9:

CHANGE SECTIONING DISC VECTOR TO CUSTOM ANGLE

REDUCE SIZE OF TRUNK BY 30%

ITERATION 6:

ITERATION 10:

THICKEN SECTIONING VECTORS TO 2.4 FROM 0.3

MOVE TRUNK POINT CHARGE FROM 30 TO 13 ABOVE THE ORIGIN IN THE Z-AXIS 63

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 3

Species 3 continues to experiment with the addition of parameters, and components. One new set of components is a collection of curves found by evaluating a surface. The surface is built from the end points of the branches using the “surface from points” component. These curves are evaluated to find the centre-point, then this point is used as point charges. In the next species, the surface will be evaluated in more depth.

ITERATION 1 ADD SECOND TRUNK POINT CHARGE, SHARPEN BRANCHES TO A POINT

ITERATION 2: ADD A SECOND SET OF EXTRUDED SECTIONING DISCS AT AN ALTERED VECTOR ANGLE 64

ITERATION 3:

ITERATION 7:

CHANGE LINE CHARGE FOR DIAMETER OF BRANCHES TO POINT CHARGES

EXTRUDE BY A LARGER FACTOR IN THE Z AXIS

ITERATION 4:

ITERATION 8:

EXTRUDE THE FACES OF THE BREP IN THE Y AXIS BY 1

EXTRUDE FACES IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE CUTTING SECTION

ITERATION 5:

ITERATION 9:

EXTRUDE THE FACES BY A FACTOR OF 2

INCREASE EXTRUSION BY A FACTOR OF 3

ITERATION 6:

ITERATION 10:

CHANGE EXTRUSION VECTOR TO THE Z AXIS

REMOVE SECOND CUTTING DISC SET TO MAKE A SMOOTHER COMPOSITION 65

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 4 Species 4 utilises the surface aforementioned as a base for further development, this surface is explored to finds its latent potential. This surface may yield results completely different to those of the previous species, and I hope that some new and exciting results may be generated. I have experimented with my main field of interest—charges and distances as bounds for lengths and diameters, these tools can be used to yield interesting results.

ITERATION 1 USE END POINTS OF BRANCHES FOR A SURFACE FROM POINTS

ITERATION 2: SPLIT LIST OF END POINTS USING THE SIFT COMPONENT TO CREATE 2 SURFACES 66

ITERATION 3:

ITERATION 7:

CHANGE SIFTING INPUTS, REMOVE SECOND SURFACE

TURN SURFACE INTO BREP, CUT USING PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED CUTTING SOLIDS

ITERATION 4:

ITERATION 8:

CHANGE RANDOM GENERATION SEED FOR THE TREE BRANCHES

FIND SURFACE THAT DOESN’T CURL OVER ON ITSELF—COULD BE FLATTENED IF NEEDED

ITERATION 5:

ITERATION 9:

CHANGE SIFTING INPUTS, REINSTATE SECOND SURFACE

POPULATE SURFACE WITH POINTS RELATIVE TO A POINT CHARGE AND CREATE CUTTERS

ITERATION 6:

ITERATION 10:

FIND A RANDOM SEED WITH A WIDE SILHOUETTE, REMOVE SECOND SURFACE

ALTER DIAMETER OF CUTTERS BASED ON DISTANCE TO POINT 67

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 5

Species 5 focuses on abstracting the original design methodology whilst retaining the inputs from the original tree, creating geometry which is near impossible to replicate. This shows how the formula can grow and evolve into different forms with manipulation and addition of data. Although not necessarily beautiful, this species shows how the data from the tree can be utilised for alternative measures.

ITERATION 1 SHOW CUTTING BREPS WHICH REFERENCE SPECIES 5’S PLANE GEOMETRY

ITERATION 2: USE ENDPOINTS OF TUBES AS POINTS FOR 3D VORONOI CELLS 68

ITERATION 3:

ITERATION 7:

CULL CELLS IN VORONOI COMPONENT TO CREATE INTERESTING GEOMETRY

INTRODUCE BOUNDING BOXES TO THE CUTTING GEOMETRY, OVERALAY ONTO VORONOI

ITERATION 4:

ITERATION 8:

CHANGE CULLING PATTERN TO REDUCE LIKENESS TO A BOX

SUBTRACT THE VORONOI SURFACE FROM THE BOUNDING BOXES

ITERATION 5:

ITERATION 9:

CULLING PATTERN ALTERED FURTHER

HOLLOW OUT CENTRE OF BOUNDING BOXES USING ORIGINAL PIPES

ITERATION 6:

ITERATION 10:

PATTERN ALTERED ONCE MORE, DECIDED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE

BEND THE ENTIRE SET OF GEOMETRY AROUND AN ARC.

B.4: TECHNIQUE—DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR

SUCCESS

ARGUMENT FOR CRITERIA

SELECTION CRITERIA [01] SITE & USE This design is situated in Batman Park, and must act as a community invoking art sculpture, which will attract tourists to the underutilised space.

[02] SITE USERS The users of this space will be pedestrians

[03] AESTHETIC

The selection criteria I’ve used are outlined at left, I’ve chosen the iterations which best suit these 5 points. The iterations I’ve chosen are the most aesthetically pleasing, would create entice the most viewers to visit the site, take into consideration the cost to benefit ratio. Although these aspects are important, these iterations are mostly chosen based on what I’ve found to be the most visually appealing.

The aesthetic of the site should be respondent to the environment, and aim to be bold, to attract pedestrians. The site is also able to be viewed from the south side of the river, and must be aesthetically engaging for the large amount of foot traffic on Southbank near the Casino. This constraint means that the sculpture must be relatively large.

POSSIBLE USES / CONTRAST

[04] EXPERIENCE FOR USER

REFLECTIONS ON CASE STUDY 2.0

The user should be intrigued by the sculpture, and should be able to recognise its likeness to organic forms such as trees. Its growth and generation must be reflected in its form.

I did not expect to reach such different outcomes throughout the generative process, and with larger knowledge of grasshopper techniques, more creativity was possible. These outcomes showed me just how much was possible with generative architecture—and in particular charges and distance based algorithms which loosely replicate natural processes, such as branches growing towards the sun, or rotting holes closer to groundwater on fallen trees.

[05] CONSTRUCTABILITY As the sculpture has no moving parts or technology, the cost to benefit ratio depends largely on the ease of construction, so this must be taken into account. 70

The use of these designs are almost strictly limited to sculptural uses, as was the original case study which they were based upon. These main difference is that this sculpture is to be placed outside, and therefore must respond to the potentially harsh environmental conditions that Melbourne can produce.

SPECIES 3, ITERATION 3: REMINISCENT OF BOTH EXPLOSIONS AND TREES, INTERESTING FORM, SECTIONAL FORM ALLOWS FOR PREFABRICATION.

SPECIES 3, ITERATION 10: STILL RETAINS TREE LIKE FORM, HAS DEPTH SO COULD POSSIBLY BE FREESTANDING. FORM ‘GROWS’ SEMI-ORGANICALLY.

SPECIES 4, ITERATION 9: INTERESTING FORM, CURVATURE NOT UNLIKE A HUMAN, WITH POETIC AND ELEGANT EXTRUSIONS, EASE OF CONSTRUCTION FROM PLANARITY

SPECIES 5, ITERATION 9: EASE OF FABRICATION, COULD ENVISION THIS FORM HANGING FROM WIRES JUST AS THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY DID. 71

B.5: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROTOTYPES APPLICATION

At the beginning of the prototyping stage, each member of the tutorial group was asked to collaborate with other team members to create a group response, whilst satisfying each of our own design briefs. My group consists of Jackson Zeng & Olivia Zuccala, and through our discussion we have arrived at the idea of a parametric pavilion in Batman Park. I aim to integrate my previous work with point charges and distance based algorithms into this process to ensure it responds to the environment. The form we aim to achieve will respond to the trees on the site, and create openings to these trees.

PROCESSES

The panels will likely have to be triangular to account for the complex geometry. Inside these panels we have decided to create windows, which will be sized to respond to the sun, to reduce direct sunlight, and enhance the amount of diffused light. For this same reason, there will be extruded window frames, with longer extrusions at angles likely to receive more direct light. This effect will be enhanced by the placement of the openings against the foliage of trees, which will naturally diffuse light. To the right I have created a diagram outlining the anticipated formulation and construction process for the pavilion.

Two similarly sized assembled sections held together with bridging brackets

Third section added const

[

VAULT

CIRCLES

MAP [height / position of trees]

BORDER

[% height of tree]

[pavilion footprint from tree circles]

POPULATE [form with planar triangles]

LASER CUT [faces of triangles]

PRESS [fit window framing and glass/perspex]

tricted using biscuit joints

REMOVE

EXTRUDE

EXPORT

[window framing]

[numbered flat sections]

[holes for windows]

ASSEMBLE [use biscuit joints]

CNC CUT

LASER CUT [window framing]

GROUNDWORK

[brackets for joints from aluminium]

[create pavilion form]

[lay down strip footing on site]

CUT [glass to fit into grooves in framing]

ASSEMBLY [on site assembly and completion]

Extruded window components added, pressed into the opening space

]

B.5: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROTOTYPES FABRICATION ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS

The triangular faces of this design could be constructed from a range of materials, on this page I have ventured to explain the reasoning for which I have chosen wood. I have achieved this by listing available materials and eliminating them based on a set of selection criteria. I have also discussed construction techniques associated with these materials.

[01]

This page aims to show my decisions leading up to the choice to use a three piece grained wood construction method as opposed to a range of other choices. The construction of the model commenced after these choices were made. The concept models worked well in practice, with the exception of the joining brackets, which experienced delamination during the building process. For this reason I have argued the use of aluminium in place of wood for this component. This issue is demonstrative of the importance of prototyping to inform the design process. This page is structured as an eliminative process, replicating the actual process used for the generation of ideas when thinking through the process.

METAL

Subsets: Steel, aluminium, copper, iron, coated composites, etc. Construction: Single pieceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;laser cut or CNC milled. Pros: High strength, less prone to deterioration, easy to connect faces Cons: Heavy, low visual impact, costly as raw material.

[02] WOOD Subsets: Redwood, cedar, pine, plywood, etc. Construction: Single piece / three piece with biscuit joint. CNC, laser cut, or hand cut components. Pros: High visual appeal, adequate strength, cheap raw material, easy to cut, lightweight. Cons: assembly of three piece face requires human construction, time cost, possibility of wood rot.

[04] PLASTIC / OTHER Subsets: ABS plastic, glass, concrete, etc. Construction: Single piece, 3D printed, casting, etc. Pros: Lightweight (plastic), weather resistant. Cons: Not financially feasible (3D printing), low tensile strength (concrete, glass), etc.

CONSTRUCTION

OTHER COMPONENTS

MATERIAL CONCLUSION

CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSION

Wood is the most suitable material, as the strength to weight ratio is highest and it is the most aesthetically pleasing. These qualities ensure that the structure can uphold to the loads from above, and attract visitors.

The three piece construction brings an air of elegance to the construction, which is far more important than cost, mostly because the exterior of the pavilion is the main component and also the main decorative element. Which is used to attract viewers.

[01]

SOLID

Suitable materials: Plywoodâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as the material needs to resist tension in all directions, only laminated materials with cross directional grains are suitable for this. Pros: High strength, extremely cheap, fast to construct, lower cost than three piece. Cons: low visual impact, unimaginative.

[02] THREE PIECE Suitable materials: Redwood, cedar. These materials are most suitable because they resist rot, and are strong in tension. The three piece construction allows for strength comparative to plywood, as the sides are all optimised for the strength of the grain. Pros: High strength, interesting and beautiful, imaginative outcome and detailing. Cons: Slow to construct and expensive.

WINDOW/WINDOW FRAME CONSTRUCTION These components will replicate the elegance of the face material construction. Using a beautifully grained wood as the window framing, and traditional single pane glass, carefully cut to size. These finishes could be described as computational artisan. A true talking point, importantly, something which may gain traction online, further advertising use of the park in question.

CONNECTION CONSTRUCTION The connections must be strong, light, and resist delamination, for this reason I have chosen to construct these from aluminium, as opposed to wood shown in the model. The wood experienced delamination, due to low tensile strength against the grain. Aluminium can be CNC milled to work perfectly in this application.

B.5: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROTOTYPES STRUCTURAL DETAILS The diagram on page 75 outlines the process of construction for this project, although does not go into detail about how the structure will perform. The loads are transferred through the panels and the aluminium brackets into a shallow reinforced concrete strip footing to distribute the loads into the foundation. The structure was originally intended to be watertight, but at this point will remain with gaps in between the panels, allowing for a lessened wind load. The extruded window frames not only decrease the chance of direct sunlight penetration, but allow the main panels to flex without the possibility of cracking the glass as demonstrated in the diagrams adjacent. The aluminium brackets angle will be exported using Grasshopper to a CNC milling machine., which will also engrave a reference number relating to the panels it connects to.

Aluminium CNC Bolted Bracket Section

Section of component, showing no compression

Reaction under compression, showing unharmed glass.

Section of structure showing strip footing

B.6: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SUMMARY In this pavilion, my main outcomes I am looking to achieve relate to responding to the site, so I have begun by creating a basic model of the site in Rhinoceros. This site importantly includes estimated tree heights, which will be used to create the base geometry of the pavilion. The pavilion is to be created by vaulting the flat base shape into the air using the Kangaroo plugin, to create an interesting parametric 3D form. This form has triangular panels over the surface, and windows (or openings) in the centre of these panels. These panels are calibrated to respond to the environment, with shading and light filtering components which alter in relation to the position of the sun. These panels are designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight, but retain as much diffused light as possible. The possible use of the site is as a public event space, used to house events such as small markets and art exhibitions. Although the space is marketable as a multi use event space, most of the time the interior will have communal seating and community invoking activities, such as oversized chess and table tennis, allowing for maximum use of the site by pedestrians.

[07]

SITE AERIAL IMAGE LOCATION: BATMAN PARK 79

B.6: TECHNIQUEâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL PROCESS

The first stage of this process is my responsibility, and involves creating a flat mesh which responds to the trees in the area, I achieved this by mapping the heights and positions of the trees, importing them into grasshopper, and creating a set of circles with radius a fraction of the height of the tree. I then created a line between the centres of the trees, and offset it inwards using a slider. The next step was to create a single line, by using the intersection component kit. This left me with the line pictured above, which I populated with triangular lines, and passed on to Jackson to be given form using the Kangaroo Physics plugin.

The second stage of this process was Jacksons responsibility, and involved using my mesh and control points to with complex algorithms in the Kangaroo Physics plugin to pull the roof into the air. This is done using simulated springs, which ensure that the form is optimised structurally and will preform with an even distribution of load. Originally, the form incorporated squares, so he ventured to test for planarity and optimise the structure whilst doing so, but in the end my processes favoured triangular forms. These triangular forms also create a stronger structure once completed, so there was very little reason to avoid them.

The third stage of formulation is the incorporation of the window structures. For this section, I designed the opening algorithms, and the framing algorithms using remapped distance to point algorithms. Olivia analysed the sun paths and created an algorithm to respond to the sun using the ladybug plugin, but as we do not have a system which can actively respond to the weather, we chose to use my distance algorithm to simulate the sun in one position, for example the winter equinox at midday. The windows respond to this single point, and as a result allows a small amount of sunlight penetration year-round.

B.6: TECHNIQUE—PROPOSAL PROPOSAL REFLECTION

This design utilises relatively basic algorithms to respond to the site in innovative ways. This response has achieved in acknowledging the sites existing features, and responding to these whilst achieving the requirements of the brief. This design responds to all aspects of the brief, and brings with it a refined and interesting concept with “computational artisan” construction, in which traditionally labour intensive and decorative woodworking procedures are undertaken by computers, and assembled by humans. There are drawbacks to the development, such as the limited shelter provided by the non-watertight structure, although I believe this choice was necessary to retain the elegant and simple construction method whilst resisting wind loads.

SITE AERIAL IMAGE / SUPERIMPOSED PAVILION LOCATION: BATMAN PARK 83

B.7: LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCO Formation of a sound brief is important for idea generation, although I believe it is important to not be too specific as this may stifle creativity, for this reason I have specifically created very broad brief for each of my case studies, and the range of forms Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve deemed successful reflects my open approach to choosing which of the iterations fulfils these criteria.

My research into computational design have guided ests from originally being interested in gridshells formative structures, to using coding and generative ture to explain and make sense of natural forms, an to alter my thought process in regards to not just arc but all aspects of life.

Throughout this subjects duration, I have built my skills in visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling from what was a very basic understanding at the commencement of this subject. The capabilities of these skills for idea generation are extensive and my expanding knowledge will no -doubt prove useful in future ventures in architecture. My skills in presentation have drastically improved, alongside my general computer knowledge and digital fabrication skills.

I believe the future of architecture lies in the manip coding and generative techniques. It is not difficult t a future where a program is fed a series of constrain floor plate constraints, desired purpose and h strictions, and can generate thousands of iteration hesitation. The program could even be trained to fi which the architect likes as to retain artistic direction presence. The opportunities are daunting and endles

I believe my process moving through Section B has been clear in its evolution, and I have successfully made the case why I have researched and developed the skills I have, and how these have been applied to the group development. These processes are underpinned by my research and analysis of precedents, and research into algorithmic thinking and modelling in section A.

At this point, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m capable in the field of parametric d generative techniques, and can generate a range of f time. My strengths lie in finding seemingly organi generate form.

My knowledge of data structures, computational geometry, and my ability to visualise the way in which a structure could be generated have improved greatly. Mostly, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m interested in the link between generative architecture and real-world phenomena, and how these complex natural forms can be replicated using code.

Pictured at right: Sketches furthering my exploration in Case Study 01

OMES

d my inters and pere architecnd allow it chitecture,

It can be seen that my focus has been on these organically generated forms using point charges and distance calculations to determine which values may appear. I find these methods to have the most interesting results, as they fit nicely with the themes which I have been striving to use such as organic replication and the undertones of biomimicry in pattern.

pulation of to imagine nts such as height rens without find forms n in lieu of ss.

Overall section B has channelled my learning process into a far more refined path, and guided me to develop a set of skills which compliment my interests. The group aspect of this section was most challenging, as not all of our interests lined up, so we were forced to develop a project which utilised a variety of methods.

design and forms with ic ways to

B.8: APPENDIXâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;ALGORITHMIC SKETCH I created an algorithm which uses thought processes far above those that can be feasibly imagined by humans without the aid of technology. I used image sampling and graph mapping as well as field charges to create a series of artful lines that originate from culled points on a projected surface. These iterations show how the algorithm can produce beautiful expressions. These forms are so expressive of the powers of generative design that Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve used them as the thematic images throughout this journal.

HES

PART C:

DETAILED DESIGN

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT INTERIM REFLECTION The critique focused on utilisation of-, rather than response to– the site, the site response element of the design was not found to be in need of review, although the design lacked a reasoning for it’s large scale, and had no mention of use. This lack of use brought about other issues, such as the need for a solar analysis without a use for the site. These questions brought up in the critique guided our development in a new direction. Another main point of contention, was the difficulty of using triangles as a base shape for the pavilion— the issues which arose from this was the nature of these triangles in this pavilion to be of contrasting scale, impacting the readability of the solar analysis by creating larger openings on larger panels, as the openings are scaled to the panel, not on a linear scale. To combat these issues, we rethought how the pavilion was structured, whilst keeping the same base concepts as constraints. Two other issues mentioned in the critique were the method of construction, and the purpose of the design, which were both noted to be unclear in nature.

KEY ISSUES 

Scale



Site Use



Solar Response



Purpose



Constructability

SITE RESPONSE ONE SUPERIMPOSED PAVILION LOCATION: BATMAN PARK 91

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT REVISING

SCALE

Upon receiving feedback in the tutorial presentation, our group met to discuss site response and context. One issue we found within our previous design, was its inability to respond to the human scale. To realise the true size that would suit the site, we revisited the site and discussed the placement and scale. We settled upon utilising the area directly north of the barbeque area, and having a much smaller space overall.

Changing the scale of the site did not come without its issues. The number of trees which could be used as reference points to determine the form was lessened with a smaller floorplate, and therefore the form and readability of the site response was altered in the process of downsizing. We believe it is possible to respond to the site, whilst lowering the site area and inputting less trees.

This change was completely necessary, as the scale of the original pavilion design was not fit for any use we had identified within the site, and only acted to reduce the utility of the site, by reducing open green space often used for sporting practice.

Trees referenced before and after scaling, dark grey represents the new scale.

Original scale represented using

PROS

CONS



Less wasted space



Site response outcome lessened

Easier to construct



New form required

Allows room for sports on open green space



Visibility from Southbank lessened

orange, revised scale using blue.

Site visits allowed for a new perspective on scaling and use.

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT SITE USE The use of the site was one of the largest issues found with the prior design, this large pavilion was designed simply for the sake of designing something. In reality, its only achievement was to reduce site utility for those who chose to use the site for sport. A weak argument was made for attracting people to the underutilised site, but a critical thought about what would be achieved by actually visiting the site was not realised. For this reason, the site had to be lowered in scale, and redesigned to incorporate more than a parametric shading system.

Figure 01 - Southbank Street Performer

In analysing the site through frequent site visits, we were able to determine that many street performers who perform on Southbank (across the river) practice in this space. Other uses include; walking dogs, playing ball sports, barbeques, yoga sessions, and use as a meeting place. Our goal was to enhance these uses, or at least not impact them negatively. To do this, we decided to alter the form of the pavilion to create an emphasized stage in the centre, with smaller seating and leisure activities around the perimeter. This stage would be an opening in the pavilion, creating a ring-like form.

Man barbequing in Batman Park, a

EXISTING

INTRODUCED



Street performance practice



Central focal point for performance



Dog walking



Barbeques

Optimally shaded surrounding area to relax or practice



Ball sports



Yoga sessions

Increased seating for barbeque area

adjacent to proposed site locality.

Site plan mock up showing central opening for performance platform.

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT SOLAR RESPONSE The application of a solar response algorithm which was aesthetically pleasing and effective in providing level shading across the pavilion was an aspect which drove much of the aesthetic choices for the pavilion, somewhat equal in nature to the trees on the site. An issue that we found with the previous form for the pavilion was the use of triangles, coupled with the dramatic cutaways around the trees. Whilst extremely easily read by site viewers as responsive to the site, the use of triangles and the nature of the form required triangles in hugely varying sizes. Not only did this reduce the effectiveness of the solar response, but brought with it detailing and construction difficulty. To combat this issue, Jackson proposed a new method of producing the structure, with a series of 3 lines dictating the shell surface. This surface could then have a set of uniform hexagonal pods placed onto it, followed by a formula which created perfectly planar extrusions to a point, and facilitated the use of the solar response. My site response algorithm had to be completely remodelled, using four trees as a starting point to influence the form of the lines used to create the surface. This method will be further discussed in the section dedicated to site response.

The change from triangles to hex pods fixed the issues with pod size disparity, allowing for a better implementation of the extrusion to a point code, and the solar analysis response. This change also allowed Jackson to explore the programming of hexagonal pods— a subject which has been an area of interest. The new solar response increases the opening by moving a cutting plane towards the base surface in relation to the numerical output of the solar analysis completed by Olivia, this plane intersects with the standardised extrusion to point code applied to the hexagons on the surface. The top of the extrusion to point is then removed using the cutting plane to create an opening responsive to the sun.

OUTCOMES 

Perfectly planar



Much more refined code



Facilitation of solar analysis



Lessened site responsiveness



Hexagonal pods

Original model showing large fluctuation in triangle size and therefore underperforming.

Revised iteration showing the new hexagonal pods with similar scaling between pods

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT SITE RESPONSE

With tree inputs limited to four trees after rescaling the pavilion, a new method of responding to the site was required. To achieve this, first we must understand the nature of the new form. Three base curves are required to shape of the pavilion. These curves are then divided into a a set number of points to create a second set of curves, this second set is then lofted to create the surface form. At this point, Jackson and Olivia take over, to populate the surface with hexagons, and manipulate these hexagons to create radiation-responsive forms. The first step to creating the form is plugging in the location of the four trees, then averaging the location of the northernmost two trees, so there are three reference points overall, this allows the form to flow more smoothly, as the opening between these two trees would be too narrow to create something large enough for human entry. A set of smooth closed curves are then created using non-parametric tools, and the outermost forced to run through points generated slightly inwards from the tree trunks. This creates clearance for the trunk depth of the tree, with a larger distance from the top two trees. Using the points from the trees on the outer ring, 3 more points are found in the centre of the distance between each point. These points will be the height of the openings. The inner ring is divided by finding the northernmost, and southernmost points using a closest point component, and then dividing the two halves again. The middle ring is set at 3m high for the ceiling.

The heights of the centre points on the outer ring are determined by a distance from point algorithm, with the point in the far north. The algorithm forces the more distant numbers to be larger, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve reparameterized this to mean the southernmost points are higher, this opens the pavilion up to the river, and closing it more to the noisy and unsightly train line. For contrast, the inner ring runs a reversed version of this same algorithm so the northern point is taller than the southern point. The way the pavilion is formed allows the trees natural curvature to flow up and over the pavilion, with the curves accepting the form of the trees.

At right: Plan view showing the key points used for manipulation of the form, as well as a southern elevation of the linework.

Tree reference points Height extent points Grounding points

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

[

MAP [height/position of trees]

DESIGN METHOD

DIVIDE

[outer line/ between tre

The design itself acts in the same way that our group is structured; In stages. Stage 1: Jake - Site response and creation of base geometry.

Stage 2: Jackson - Planarization and application of geometry to surface. Stage 3: Olivia - Solar radiation analysis and application to design. Stage 4: All - Refinement of design / collaboration. The diagram at right explains this process in more detail, as well as beginning to explain the process used for fabrication and construction.

An important point to remember when reading this folio is that my team members work is much more complex than I present. The work that Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve completed is explained in much greater detail than the work of my team. The team has areas of expertise which allow us to work collaboratively, sometimes without understanding the work of each other. This collaboration has allowed our design to be multifaceted with very little expertise on the use of Grasshopper.

100

Three main stages of form, base linework, surface, and th

INTERSECT

CIRCLES [Larger for top trees]

/midpoints ees]

[move the outer line to touch circles]

CREATE [Three closed lines for border]

DIVIDE CLOSEST [point on inside line to north and south]

he finished product.

[inner line/midpoints between north/south]

LIFT [north/south points on inner - higher at north]

LOFT [new perpendicular curves]

CREATE [cutting plane as offset hex from surface]

REMOVE

LIFT [middle line up to three meters]

LIFT [midpoints on outer - higher at south]

CREATE

[three new curves rom points]

[perp. curves across the three curves]

APPLY

EXTRUDE

[hexagonal geometry to lofted surface]

[hexagons to a point]

PLUG IN

CUT

[exported values from solar analysis]

[extruded hex cells using solar analysis]

[geometry to begin creating components]

101

[closest to trees on outer line]

CREATE

EXPORT

[top sections of extruded hexagons]

POINTS

ASSEMBLY [on site assembly and completion]

]

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

RETHINKING

CONSTRUCTION

The feedback received in the critique highlighted the need for a more resolved construction methodology, including revised prototyping and inclusion of factors such as ground treatment and fitout. The main construction hurdle for this project is the connection between the angled panels. This has been the largest issue with construction, as we intend to make the shell strong enough to be entirely load-bearing, without any external frame. We believe this is possible with the use of suitable materials, due to the accuracy of computer construction. By using computational methods, tolerances for the building process are much lower, and if everything fits together perfectly, providing there is no material failure, the structure should be able to support its own weight. The main issue will be material strength, and achieving an adequate strength to thickness ratio. The structural engineers advice will easily be plugged into the pavilions algorithm to alter material thicknesses .

102

To successfully fabricate the structure on site, a simple booklet with the joinery key can be generated for use by the builders. The most difficult part of construction will be supporting the structure while it its incomplete, as this will require extensive scaffolding. The process will begin at ground level, and move upwards evenly, this will allow the building to meet at the top and ensure all of the footings are in the correct position. The footings will be reinforced pad footings at each of the five points that the structure meets the ground. Transportation to site will be simple, because of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;flatpackâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; nature of the design. The faces of the pavilion will be laser cut, engraved with their assembly code, and packaged ready for transport. The angled joins will be either manufactured or altered by robotics to ensure an accurate angle. Pictured at top right: an example of the layout used for laser cutting, the same example used for the final detail model.

[

COLLECT [face information from model]

LAY OUT [faces in order on plane]

ANALYSE LASER [cut the faces ready for transport]

PACKAGE [finalised components for transport]

[angle information for joint fabrication]

LAYOUT [components for preliminary assem.]

103

NUMBER [panels using a coded system]

CUSTOM [fabricate joins using robotics]

ASSEMBLY [on site assembly and completion]

]

C.2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTY

PROTOTYPE 1

CONNECTION

Double bolted bracket join: This double bolted bracket join has very little surface contact with the face, utilising a face plate, rear plate and bolt, this example was strong, but I believe it is unsightly and heavy, two aspects which rule it out for use in the final design.

PROTOTYPES

The prototyping stage is designed to test the different construction methods we have proposed to determine which methods are worth exploring further with a larger section of the model. The connections are tested mostly, as we have determined that a laser cut panel will be the most efficient method of creating the panels earlier on in the design process. The panels will be made of cross laminated bamboo board, as this material is aesthetically pleasing, weather resistant, relatively light, sustainable, and resistant to stress in both directions due to its cross laminated construction. The connections tested here are all able to be constructed easily, and can be modified to include the angles of their connection from the grasshopper script. This allows the structure to be built quickly and easily. What we believe is most efficient and beautiful will be utilised in the construction process.

104

YPES

PROTOTYPE 2

PROTOTYPE 3

Double gang nail join: The gang nail is an impressive joining technique, because it is easy to install, and can be premade and bent to shape by robots. This joinery style uses two strip gang nails on the outside, and two on the inside, this provides optimum strength.

Long gang nail join: This is a refinement of the double gang nail, covering the same amount of area on the face, in a more elegant manner, the process for installing this involves nailing 5 inside joins while laid flat, and then folding into place before securing the others.

105

C.2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTY

PROTOTYPE 4

PROTOTYPE 5

Angled biscuit join: The angled biscuit join is the most unobtrusive joinery technique, and involves simply cutting biscuit slots into the panels, followed by metallic biscuits and glue. This would create solid hexagons, but would be far too difficult to complete on site, and the joins between hexagons would not have time to dry while constructing.

Angled finger join: This join is beautiful, but requires glue to complete, a process which is very difficult to complete on site. Due to the time glue takes to dry, this is a beautiful solution, but was far too inefficient for use on this project.

106

YPES

PROTOTYPE 6 Slotted bracket join: The slotted bracket join is a recurring prototype idea from part B, although further refined for use in this prototype, this join is bulky, heavy and requires gaps to operate. Adding slots could help, but the amount of space needed on the face is too high. Four images are shown of this prototype to show the clamping design.

107

C.2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTY

REFINING PROTOTYPES

SCHEME PROTOTYPE 1

SCHEME PROTOTYPE 2

The first scheme prototype utilised a hinged connection which was bolted to the surface, and then welded solid once at the correct angle, although low on cost, the time cost of welding each hinge would be immense, and the hinges would be prone to rusting if left untreated after welding. Another issue with this method is that while welding, the metal may become distorted from the heat and change angles. The issues with this concept far outweighed its positive aspects.

The prototype which would soon become the final design due to its suitability for mass production and clean aesthetic, can be likened to a taped seam on a rainproof jacket. The connections will be â&#x20AC;&#x153;sewnâ&#x20AC;? together with reinforced gang nail plates (detailed at right). These plates will be engineered to look smooth on the outside, and will be positioned on all inner connections, and either all outer connections, or only the connections between hex cells, depending on advice from a structural engineer.

108

YPES

[

EXPORT [angle information from model]

DESIGN [new connection algorithm]

SEND LAYOUT [connections on file]

ENGRAVE [connection code into each connection]

[data to engineering shop for billet milling]

LAYOUT [components for preliminary assem.]

ALTER [connections using angle and GH]

CUSTOM [fabricate joins using robotics]

ASSEMBLY [on site assembly and completion]

Section of connection, showing two engineered gang nail plates joining two faces.

109

]

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

110

FINAL TECTONIC MODEL THREE HEX PODS: 1:10 SCALE 111

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL TECTONIC MODEL

The final detail model expresses the way which the structure will be builtâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;including the gang nail seams on the exterior. The interior uses a much messier joinery method, but will be painted white when complete, which will cover the seams and make the interior form difficult to read.

112

113

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

114

FINAL SCHEMATIC MODEL BATMAN PAVILION: 1:100 SCALE 115

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

SCHEMATIC

MODEL

The final schematic model expresses the way that the structure interacts with the site, which is my area of expertise. I believe this model is far more expressive than the detail model for the purpose of this journal.

116

117

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

118

119

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

120

121

SITE PLAN RENDER BASE IMAGE SOURCE: NEARMAP

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL DESIGN FEATURES

OPTIMISED SHADING The solar analysis completed by Olivia ensures that the inside space of the pavilion is sufficiently shaded for optimum light throughout the year.

ENHANCED VIEWS The site response algorithm created increases the openings on the southern side, to enhance the views towards the Yarra river and Southbank. The northern side has lower openings to reduce views of the train line and apartment buildings, these openings remain high enough to view the green space surrounding the site.

DESIGN APPEAL The parametric design of this pavilion is new to the area, and is designed to act as a posterchild for parametric architecture in Melbourne, hopefully introducing the practice to future architects and increasing the prevalence of the architectural style.

122

PUBLIC SPACE A main goal for this pavilion was to increase the functionality of the space, this has been achieved by increasing the paved area, adding seating and providing a stage in the centre of the pavilion as a focal point. These outcomes will likely see the area being used more and more by the public.

REVISED SEATING The additional seating in this space will provide a space for pedestrians to relax whilst enjoying the views out to the park and river, or whilst observing an impromptu poetry reading or music performance in an intimate, yet exposed and casual setting. The form of the pavilion really lends itself to sheltering those who wish for nothing more than relaxation.

SITE RENDER COMPLETED BY JACKSON ZENG EDITED BY AUTHOR 123

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

124

FINAL SCHEMATIC MODEL BATMAN PAVILION: 1:100 SCALE 125

C.4: LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCO Critique feedback: The critique mostly consisted of questions about the construction method and the ability of the building to stand up under wind loads. The panel also didn’t like the use of bulky connections.



The presentation given in the critique was underdeveloped and for that reason, unsuccessful. We have ventured to better express our views in this journal.

Building 3D models, 3d printing, laser cutting, these amples of my exploration with three dimensional part C. My diagramming skills have drastically improv

Overall the critique was unsuccessful, and motivated us to work harder on the final submission.



Prospective development: If we were to continue developing this project, we would look into developing a frame to help support the structure. As well as consulting a structural engineer to get recommendations. Learning objectives:



Objective 1. “interrogat[ing] a brief” by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering

Part C required constant revision of the brief to add increased utility to the site, whilst increasing the validity of the design in the meantime. This brief was extremely open, so it left us with many options.



Objective 2. developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration;

I believe our grasshopper algorithm has achieved this. By creating a file which is seamless and responds to modification well. It allowed us to alter the form of the pavilion until we arrived at a form which we agreed was successful. The prototyping stage also demonstrates an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities.

126

Objective 3. developing “skills in various thr sional media” and specifically in computation try, parametric modelling, analytic diagram digital fabrication;

Objective 4. developing “an understanding o ships between architecture and air” through tion of design proposal as physical models phere;

I believe this learning objective was formulated onl credit to the ‘elemental’ theme with the architectur however, I was forced to consider the design on the any other architectural design proposal which is n conceptual. The inclusion of site response and sol mance demonstrates an acute awareness of the site.



Objective 5. developing “the ability to make proposals” by developing critical thinking and ing construction of rigorous and persuasive a informed by the contemporary architectural d

I believe I’ve been able to do this quite well for some is my largest strength in architecture. This subject ha me room to practice my persuasive argumentative for projects, but the subject and the content itse taught me any skills related to this practice.



Objective 6. develop capabilities for concept nical and design analyses of contemporary arc projects;

Part c has required me to be critical of my own wor that reason my analysis capabilities have enhanced. T

OMES

ee dimennal geomemming and

are all exl media in ved also.

of relationinterrogain atmos-

ly to bring re studios, e site, as in not purely lar perfor.

a case for encouragarguments discourse.

e time, this as allowed discussion elf has not

tual, techchitectural

rk, and for The

inclusion of contemporary projects was limited to part A, but projects have been viewed and used for inspiration in passing for the parts B & C.



Objective 7. develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming;

I believe I understand the grasshopper environment quite well, I’m able to mentally map out how a definition would work, and then construct it quickly. The programming and computational thought processes taught by grasshopper as a program are the main takeaways for me from this subject.



Objective 8. begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application

I have a personalised repertoire of computational techniques, and I am constantly expanding this each time I code. This program combined with my mental strength in visualisation allows me to visualise the results and then find the components which achieve the desired effect. For this reason, I’m suited to using this program, and learn quite quickly. Project knowledge: This project has taught me the complications and procedures associated with computational design, and has taught me complex computational modelling and production techniques that are necessary to remain competitive in the architectural workforce. Although the skills learnt in this class will likely never be used, as I never plan to practice architecture, I find it interesting to have learnt them, and explored the depths of computational design. I also strongly believe that the team I was working with will go on to be very successful, as their architectural skills are strong and they both have excellent work ethic.

127

IMAGE REFERENCES

PART A 01 - Nagakin Capsule Tower, 2016 <http://media3.architecturemedia.net/site_media/media/ cache/91/53/915344f26618d1b1396f3546740b11ac.jpg> [accessed 8 March 2017]

02 - Nakagin Capsule Tower, 2011 <https://architizer-prod.imgix.net/media/1470286864930stringio.jpg? q=60&auto=format,compress&cs=strip&w=1080> [accessed 8 March 2017] 03 - Michael Schumacher Tower, 2008 <http://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55f6/fccc/adbc/01b8/7c00/03d5/ slideshow/080926_concept-of-the-tower.jpg?1442249906> [accessed 8 March 2017] 04 - Michael Schumacher Tower, 2008 <http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/dubai/ michael_schumacher_tower_lava041208_2.jpg> [accessed 2 March 2017] 05 - Spanish Pavilion, 2017 <http://spanish-pavilion-expo-2005-haiki-aichi.html> [accessed 8 March 2017] 06 - Spanish Pavilion, 2017 <http://spanish-pavilion-expo-2005-haiki-aichi.html> [accessed 8 March 2017] 07 - Vulcan Pavilion, 2015 <https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c5/4f/61/ c54f61d2d31530c9aed7dbbc3aa0f7da.jpg> [accessed 8 March 2017]

08 - Vulcan Pavilion, 2016 <https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/ thumbor/5U1wcxCpPgxIiAwEs_k2GJIHMgE=/0x3:670x506/1400x1050/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/ image/47871145/VULCAN-largest-3D-printed-architectural-pavilion-BJDW-beijing-design-week-designboom-101.0.jpg> [accessed 8 March 2017] 09 - iwamotoscott, 22/24, 2008 <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD> [accessed 14 March 2017] 10 - iwamotoscott, 1/24, 2008 <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD> [accessed 14 March 2017] 11 - London | Serpentine Pavilion 2016 By BIG, 2016 <https://b6c18f286245704fe3e905e2055f4cd9122af02914269431c9f6.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/8143680_london--serpentine-pavilion-2016-bybig_tc3d40d5.jpg> [accessed 14 March 2017] 12 - London | Serpentine Pavilion 2016 By BIG, 2016 <https://b6c18f286245704fe3e905e2055f4cd9122af02914269431c9f6.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/8143680_london--serpentine-pavilion-2016-bybig_tc3d40d5.jpg> [accessed 14 March 2017] 13 - Serpentine Pavilion, 2016 <http://www.metalocus.es/sites/default/files/metalocus_big_serpentine_pavilions_05.jpg> [accessed 14 March 2017] 14 - Gehry, Frank, Sketch Of Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, 2017 <https:// moreaedesign.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/2006_sketches_of_frank_gehry_014.jpg?w=700> [accessed 15 March 2017]

128

PART B 01 - Munroe, Brendan, Black And Night, 2014 02 - De Young Museum Elevation, 2017 <https://

lh3.googleusercontent.com/94Ecuh2BYhzKgbtZ7D5brTBhMYkM83oGsgtC3qYYiKRQh0LPsiluYexR4aS8ULFobJrueqh_EbvzeB If7OeydBJyfEHbxst8bOq819Q655QCKXPCWxRPgcUNtg> [accessed 6 April 2017] 03 - De Young Museum, 2017 <http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1261425737-0439781349.jpg> [accessed 6 April 2017] 04 - Herzog & de Mueron, De Young Museum, 2008 <https://farm1.staticflickr.com/40/79604239_c931b08a9c_o.jpg> [accessed 25 March 2017] 05 - Blunt, Ron, Middle Fork - John Grade, 2015 <http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/online/wonder/grade.cfm> [accessed 2 April 2017] 06 - Blunt, Ron, Middle Fork - John Grade, 2015 <http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/online/wonder/grade.cfm> [accessed 2 April 2017]

07 - "Photomaps By Nearmap", Maps.Au.Nearmap.Com, 2017 <http://maps.au.nearmap.com/> [accessed 26 April 2017] PART C 01 - Southbank Street Performer, 2017 <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1O6SAqh4mTA/maxresdefault.jpg> [accessed 4 June 2017]

129

TEXT BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART A



"AD Classics: Nakagin Capsule Tower / Kisho Kurokawa", Archdaily, 2011 <http://www.archdaily.com/110745/adclassics-nakagin-capsule-tower-kisho-kurokawa> [accessed 2 March 2017]

 

"BIG | Bjarke Ingels Group", Big.Dk, 2016 <https://www.big.dk/#projects-serp> [accessed 15 March 2017] Dunne, Anthony and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, And Social Dreaming, 1st edn (MA: MIT Press, 2013), pp. 3-5



"FOA · Spanish Pavilion", Divisare, 2006 <https://divisare.com/projects/272168-foa-spanish-pavilion> [accessed 10 March 2017]



Frearson, Amy, "BIG's Bjarke Ingels Completes Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2016", Dezeen, 2016 <https:// www.dezeen.com/2016/06/07/bjarke-ingels-big-serpentine-gallery-pavilion-london-translucent-blocks-unzippedwall/> [accessed 15 March 2017]

  

Fry, Tony, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics, And New Practice., 1st edn (London: Oxford, Berg, 2009), p. 6 Kalay, Yehuda E, Architecture's New Nedia, 1st edn (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), p. 11 "Laboratory For Visionary Architecture Snowflake Tower", Grasshopper3d.Com, 2009 <http:// www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/albums/laboratory-for-visionary> [accessed 2 March 2017]



"MSWCT Snowflake Tower » LAVA", L-A-V-A.Net, 2008 <http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/mswct-snowflake-tower-2/ > [accessed 2 March 2017]

 

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, Theories Of The Digital In Architecture, 1st edn (Routledge, 2014) Peters, Brady and Xavier De Kestelier, Computation Works: The Building Of Algorithmic Thought, 1st edn (Academy Press, 2013), pp. 8-13



Wilson, Robert A and Frank Keil, The MIT Encyclopedia Of Cognitive Sciences, 1st edn ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999), pp. 11-12



"VULCAN: The World's Largest 3D-Printed Architectural Pavilion", Designboom | Architecture & Design Magazine, 2015 <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/vulcan-beijing-design-week-bjdw-largest-3d-printed-architectural -pavilion-parkview-green-10-07-2015/> [accessed 10 March 2017]

130

PART B



"M.H. De Young Museum / Herzog & De Meuron", Archdaily, 2010 <http://www.archdaily.com/66619/m-h-deyoung-museum-herzog-de-meuron> [accessed 6 April 2017]



"Middle Fork - A Parametric Tree Sculpture By John Grade", Urukia Magazine, 2016 <http://www.urukia.com/ middle-fork-parametric-tree-sculpture-john-grade/> [accessed 2 April 2017]



Middle Fork - John Grade Studio, 2015 <https://vimeo.com/117766008> [accessed 2 April 2017]

131