Bourke_Jake_761273_PartB 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 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

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]

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]

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]

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]