abstract
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
conclusion
appendix
141
142
abstract
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
conclusion
appendix
docklands, london, UK
143
LONDON, UK The London Docklands are located geographically within a temperete climate
144
abstract
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
conclusion
tehran, iran
london, uk
appendix
northern iran
145
London Docklands
fig. 5.2.a: London, Docklands
INTRODUCTION Located in the east of London along a strong curve in the river Thames, are the Docklands (fig. 5,2,a). “The changes that have been made to the London Docklands in the past 25 years have been among the most striking and most dynamic developments in the world. The London Docklands Development Corporation (1981-1998) played a huge role in the area’s transformation, turning what used to be industrial wasteland into a vibrant area for commerce, residential life, and tourism.
source: TopSat consortium, copyright QinetiQ
The area of the Docklands is over eight and a half square miles, all of which have been affected by the new developments in businesses and transportation. The Docklands represent one of the largest concentrations of twentieth and twenty-first century architecture in the world, and with new projects in development now, it will continue to grow, benefiting not only the area but London as a whole (fig. 5.2.c).
146
abstract introduction domain methodology
fig. 5.2.c: London, Docklands 2010
However, in the post-World War II years, people began to see the decline and closure of docks around the world, and the docklands of London were no different. New technology, such as containerization and air transport had made the docks seem antiquated and no longer as useful as they once were. Many docks around this area were closed in the 1960s, leaving behind empty warehouses and creating a very uninviting environment.
conclusion
The history of the London Docklands is a dates back to the early 17th century when the first docks were built as a part of the East India Company. The number of docks began to grow, experiencing a boom during the 1800s (fig. 5.2.b). The Docklands reached their peak in the 1930s when over 100,000 people were connected to the Port of London through their jobs.
design scenario
fig. 5.2.b: London, Docklands 1899
appendix 147
fig. 5.2.d: derelict land, London Docklands, 1980’s
By 1981, 59.7% of lands and buildings that fell under the control of the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) were considered derelict, vacant, under-used, or unused. The area had experience a severe loss of jobs from 1978-1983, as the skills of the people in the area were not appropriate for new industries. The condition of much of the property in the Docklands was so bad that most investors did not wish to take a gamble on trying to develop this property. Plus, there was very little transportation between the Docklands and Central London, meaning that if the area was to be refurbished, investors would also have to pay for transportation improvements to make the area more accessible, a project that would tack on millions, if not billions, of pounds. The Docklands were in a downward spiral, and without intervention, the situation looked grim (fig. 5.2.d).
However, in 1981, hope came for the Docklands. The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was founded in the Local Government Planning and Land Act of 1980 with four primary goals: making the lands and buildings useful once more, encouraging new industry and commerce in the area, ensuring good housing and amenities for its residents, and creating a pleasant environment. Instead of relying on a grand plan for development, the LDDC instead focused on market-led development in order to be more flexible.
148
abstract introduction domain methodology
fig. 5.2.e: Canary Wharf development, 2000’s
design scenario appendix
As with the rest of the Docklands, the Canary Wharf development began as a primarily low-rise complex. Most likely in an effort to maximize floor space to entice firms to move there from the City, high-rise development was called for, despite the protestations of many, who claimed that high-rise development would be too visible, particularly from Greenwich Park. Regardless, it was decided that this new type of development would be situated directly above the Docklands Light Railway station in the center of Canary Wharf.� (Jenny McClain, Modern British Architecture, 2007)
conclusion
Perhaps the most iconic development in the London Docklands is the area known as Canary Wharf, on the northern end of the Isle of Dogs (fig. 5.2.e). Development of Canary Wharf began in 1982, with the conversion of an old warehouse into the television studio complex Limehouse Studios. This work was done in an attempt to revitalize the area by bringing in a different kind of tenant in this case, the television industry. In time, the Canary Wharf development would continue to grow and attempt to attract many different groups to its land.
149
BE
A/V
SA
H/L
42%
0%
23%
100%
0 0.32
5
UR RA/TA 0% 14% BE
A/V
SA
H/L
UR RA/TA 0%
100%
0%
52%
100%
0 0.29
BE
A/V
SA
H/L
5
BE
A/V
SA
H/L
27%
0%
UR RA/TA 0%
100%
26%
100%
0 0.28
UR RA/TA 0%
100%
5
16%
0% 0 0.19
A/V
SA
H/L
0%
100%
26%
100%
0 0.31
5
UR RA/TA 0% 8%
100% 37%
BE
18%
100% 5
BE
A/V
SA
H/L
100%
0%
42%
100%
0 0.08
range of ratio 32%
BE
A/V
SA
H/L 0 1.23 2.25
52%
UR RA/TA 0%
100%
0% 7% 16%
100% 5
27%
48%
BE
A/V
SA
H/L 0 0.46 0.86
UR
16% 27% 26% 0.19 0.28
0% 13% 18%
UR RA/TA 0% 23%
100% 100% 5
low-rise
UR RA/TA 0%
mid-rise
Amsterdam, The Netherlands evolved city Milton Keynes, UK planned city Docklands, London, UK high-rise
UR RA/TA 0%
BE
A/V
SA
H/L 0 0.23 0.28
UR
8% 26% 0.08
0%
36%
23%
40%
100% 100% 5
case studies range of ratio UR BE SA
14% 23% 0.29
42% 52% 0.32
BE SA
37%
BE SA
18% 42% 0.31
London, UK (existing conditions) range of ratio UR
150
BE SA
32% 7% 1.23
52% 16% 2.25
UR BE SA
27% 13% 0.46
48% 18% 0.86
UR BE SA
23% 23% 0.23
36% 40% 0.28
abstract
case studies
LONDON, UK high-rise
UR BE SA
0% 0% 0
14% 7%
16%
0.29 0.32
32%
42%
23% 1.23
2.25
52%
100%
52%
100% 5
domain
case studies
BE SA
0%
16%
0%
13% 18%
0 0.19 0.28 0.46
27% 26%
48% 37%
100% 100%
0.86
5
case studies
UR BE SA
0%
8%
18% 23%
0%
23% 26%
0 0.08 0.23 0.28 0.31
36%
100%
40% 42%
100% 5
design scenario
London, UK low-rise
case studies and selected site, range of ratio
methodology
London, UK mid-rise
case studies and selected site, range of ratio UR
introduction
case studies and selected site, range of ratio
BUILT ENVELOPE
If the other parameters were also to be used for this growth model, they would interfere too much with the continuity of the results. It would be hard to control the process because output is always compromised and the result is not entirely based on built envelope. Multi parameter optimization is simply too complex for this type of, already, complex generative design method. In the graph shown above the ranges of the ratios are obtained for each classification. These ranges are compared with the ranges of ratios obtained from the case studies that were analysed previously.
appendix
When prioritizing the built envelope parameter, it will be considered with density as a variable value. The relation between them will be utilised as a global output by local interactions. And it will also be
evaluated when combined with increasing density as output.
conclusion
For the developed growth model that will be applied to the docklands, the parameter BUILT ENVELOPE is prioritized. With London being geographically located within a temperate climate, with cold winters and not very sunny summers, most concern is about thermal energy or heat loss of urban morphology. The built envelope parameter measures the morphological surface area and is calculated as the square metre of the surface area, divided by the volume. It is used in conjunction with the density, which measures the cubic metre volume per square metre patch area.
151
“Once the world’s largest port, London’s docklands had become so desolate by the 1980’s that Stanley Kubrick used them as a backdrop for his Vietnam war film “Full Metal Jacket”. Thanks to government investment and private enterprise, the area is now a shimmering succes story.” (The Economist, february 5th-11th 2011)
152
abstract introduction domain
Canary Wharf methodology design scenario
Isle of Dogs
ISSUE
appendix
These two distinctly different types of morphology cause a conjoined density and overflow of energy. And while the Isle of Dogs is completely isolated between Canary Wharf and the river, it also takes up much costly space that mostly just consumes a lot of energy of which the costs have to be covered by individual households. The single storey low-rise morphology also offers little chance for mixed-use typology buildings to emerge. The polluted densities cause spatial problems in relation to the docklands.
conclusion
With this “shimmering success story�, one might argue and wonder what they mean? From a corporate and real estate point of view the Canary Wharf area is definitely a success story. But it remains still a question whether the high-rise developments do any good to the rest of the docklands concerning environmental and ecological aspects. Canary Wharf mainly consists of high-rise office buildings. They are out of balance with the rest of the Isle of Dogs that mainly consists of low-rise, small, family and terrace houses. Concerning energy production or consumption, this small scale, lowrise morphology is very inefficient.
153
compare
case studies
Canary Wharf and Docklands obtained built envelope % range from 3 patches
Amsterdam, The Netherlands BE
A/V
BE
A/V
0%
0%
23%
100%
52%
100%
BE
A/V
BE
A/V
0%
0%
26%
37%
100%
100%
BE
A/V
BE
A/V
0%
0%
26%
BE
A/V
BE
A/V
100%
42%
Milton Keynes, UK density ratio (Volume/Area)
ranges
100%
0%
0%
23% 26%
37%
100%
52%
100%
built envelope % (Surface area/Volume)
50
40
30
20
current situation 10
0 A1
B1
C1
D1
This graph measures the density in relation to the built envelope of the current situation in the docklands. The lower the density is, the higher the built envelope will be. This obviously is occurring in the low-rise part of the docklands. These values are also compared with the ratio ranges for the built envelope in Milton Keynes and Amsterdam. Amsterdam seems a reasonable target to reach for part of the built envelope in the docklands that is higher than the built envelope in Amsterdam. Unlike Milton Keynes, as a planned city, which is very energy inefficient with regards to its built envelope.
E1
F1
G2
H3
individuals
Ultimately, the values for built envelope from Amsterdam are just a target compared to the Docklands. The part of the Docklands that exceeds the range of Amsterdam is of most interest and will be focused on from the start. Where Amsterdam will be from the year 2050 is not clear. But it will certainly have grown a lot in terms of expansion, rather than densifying with more high-rise morphology.
154
climate abstract introduction
low rise 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
mid rise
classiďŹ cations
fig. 5.2.f thermal energy, heat loss through built envelope
domain
high rise
conjoined density methodology
surface area x m2 volume x m3
surface area x m2*3 volume x m3*6 hybrid condition spatial variation >varied classifications
will generate spread built envelope /density ratio lower
design scenario
built envelope ratio DECREASE
social variation >varied program
TARGET
So the more surface area in relation to volume a building has, the more inefficient it is in terms of thermal energy loss. When increasing the building volume (or increasing the building density), the surface area increases proportionally less.
The spatial aim is to generate a hybrid model with the use of the three given classifications. In this temperate climate the low rise is inefficient. And the high-rise in not an ideal solution either when it dominates or over shadows by conjoining the low-rise morphology. The graph above shows how the classifications are divided. A more ideal solution for a balanced thermal energy flow would be a combination of mid-rise with high-rise with a little bit of low rise.
conclusion
Building envelope releases or loses heat in temperate climates (fig.5.2.f).
appendix 155
156
abstract
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
STRATEGY
conclusion
appendix
157
road network and tube lines
green parks
current morphology
connections abstracted from network consisting of: -tube lines -main roads -subroads
geography Enterprise zone
river and docks
Isle of Dogs distinction between two different zones: -Isle of Dogs -Enterprise zone
ABSTRACTED LAYERS The docklands current situation is analyzed with the use of a threedimensional digital model. The different layers that can be abstracted from this model, regarding environmental, ecological, geographical and social/ spatial aspects, will be used for the strategy. They each will provide data that can be input for parameters in the design process. Some of them consist of variable data and others will give constant data, depending which aspect they refer to.
When using this input data, a logical measurement must be considered first. For each layer an appropriate measurement ensures a valid output value that can be used in relation with new input for evaluations.
158
G
H
F
D
E
A
abstract
rectangular gird projected on the site
C
B
1 2 3
4
5 6
introduction
site current condition
H
D
E
A
1 2 3
C D
G
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
design scenario
44 individual patches are separated each consisting of variable and constant data
5
methodology
A
F
4 6
B
E
domain
grid cuts through geography avoiding morphology
G
F
C
B
GRID APPLICATION Each individual patch now contains of a unique set of data that relates back to the previously discussed layers. This data will change throughout the design process. And much care has been taken over recording this change of data.
conclusion
After abstracting the various layers, a rectangular grid is projected onto the digital three-dimensional model of the current situation of the docklands. To ensure the grid does not cut through existing buildings, it will adapt to the pattern of the morphology. The graph above shows how that changed or rationalized the grid.
appendix
This will cut out and separate 44 unique individuals each with its own individual piece of geography.
159
INPUT
REQUIREMENTS for local, spatial modifications
GENOME
OUTPUT
2
3
4
PARAMETERS A for global, spatial organisation, affecting energy indicators
B
Enterprise zone
1
tube station
C D Isle of Dogs
Eroad connection
the two different zones give each individual a constant value and require different local rules
E4(-X) location in grid
selection count
% zone UP
24m
high rise
36m
36m mid rise
24m
low rise
6m
classification on river - park # connections + # tube stations density ratio % built envelope
a local variable that requires the individual to go one classification up when altered with local rules
river
the VARIABLE amount of connections is counted in F each patch of the grid -road connection = 1 -tube station = 10 G site coverage 25 % density x*4 H site coverage 25 % density x
site coverage 50 % density x*2
variable in each individual -building density ratio: VOLUMe / (site)AREA
surface area x m2 volume x m3
surface area x m2*3 volume x m3*6
park
a local constant value that requires the individual to be altered diferently if it is located on park or river
variable in each individual -built envelope %: SURFACE AREA / VOLUME
GENOME STRATEGY Each individual is given a genome, which consists of two sets of parameters. One is for local input and the other is for global output. Local input is always seen a requirement for local rule modifications, that will have an effect on the global output. And therefore the global output is seen as values for global, spatial organization, affecting the parameters related to energy (built envelope and density).
The output ‘connections’ is a variable value that can also change due to local rule modification because within the road network, the subroads are not fixed and they can be adjusted to the resulting densified morphology of the individual patch. In the diagram above it is shown what the parameters are and what the relating data consists of. The variable data will change throughout the process of design through local rule adjustments with a global selection.
5
160
abstract
volume 216 m3 surface area 180 m2 set 4
BE: 83% introduction
set 2
domain
set 1
set 3
INCREASE density ratio / DECREASE built envelope %
applied alteration / to what? cluster replacements copy - move: to all
rule set 2
SLOW / SLOW
copy - move - rotate: selected or neighbour
rule set 3
FAST / FAST
copy - move - rotate: selected
rule set 4
FASTEST / FASTEST
scale up - copy - move: selected
LOCAL RULES Other rules applied are: -Towers at main road and river -Keep park buildings as low as possible -New buildings must be adapted in form to neighbouring buildings -There is a limited building distance to be defined
appendix
Local rule sets are used to modify the individuals where appropriate. Depending on the data in the genome’s requirements input, different rule sets can be applied for different paces of densification and decrease of built envelope. Simple alterations are applied to the existing morphology of the individual in order to alter the output data. The main rule is to modify the individual to such extend, that it will go one classification up.
conclusion
SLOWEST / SLOWEST
design scenario
rule set 1
methodology
rules
161
GENOME
INPUT variables
requirements
LOCAL RULES
sets
set 1
Enterprise zone Isle of Dogs
% zone
set 2 high rise
classification
mid rise low rise
set 3
on river - park river park
LOCAL RULE APPLICATION The diagram above shows the way the system works. The input requirements (local values) each contain variable data. The diagram above shows which input value belongs to which local rule set. Once it is clear which rule set has to be applied, the individual can be modified with the simple alterations belonging to the rule set.
set 4
162
abstract
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
Primitives
Population 4
1 classification up
Population 1
Modified with local ruleset according to requirements in genome
Remaining individuals join modified ones in next population
introduction
Neigbour with lowest density selected and modified with neighbour rule
Neigbour with lowest density selected and modified with neighbour rule
Modified with local ruleset according to requirements in genome
Population 5 1 classification up
1 classification up
Neigbour with lowest density selected and modified with neighbour rule
Neigbour with lowest density selected and modified with neighbour rule
Population 2
domain
Modified with local ruleset according to requirements in genome
Modified with local ruleset according to requirements in genome
Population 6
1 classification up
methodology
Neigbour with lowest density selected and modified with neighbour rule
global configurations of the generations throughout the algorithm Population 3
Modified with local ruleset according to requirements in genome
current situation
1
2
stage 2
3
4
5
next 3 generations for OPTIMIZING AND GROWING
weakest individuals will be selected and modified together with neighbour with lowest density
fittest individuals will be selected (NOT MODIFIED) and their neighbours with highest built envelope will be modified
APPLIED ALGORITHM Stage 1 is for generating variation in the population and optimization of the spread of density. Stage 2 is developed in order to let the growth model optimize and grow from successful (measured with output data) locations in the grid.
appendix
The proposed algorithm that will be applied to the growth model consists of two stages, each with three generations. After the first stage, an evaluation will be done to see how the parameter configuration had an effect on the built envelope when densifying with the local rule sets. Depending on the global selection, each generation has a different amount of individuals suitable for modification. The remaining individuals are placed back next to the modified ones in the next generation.
conclusion
3 generations for generating VARIATION
6
design scenario
Neigbour with lowest density selected
stage 1
163
40
60 50 40
30
connections
50
Built envelope %
built envelope
density
60
density
Built envelope %
connections
STAGE 2 built envelope
STAGE 1
30
20
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
+
20
Density 10 0
30 20
30
20 40
50
10 60
-
60 50 40 10
+
30 20
30
20 40
Network connections
50
-
10 60
Network connections
selection
1 neighbour with LOWEST DENSITY is selected
modified with different ruleset
selected
2 neighbours with HIGHEST BUILT ENVELOPE are selected
to connect different densities and prevent conjunction
modified with different ruleset
selected (not modified)
to grow from succesful locations and optimize built envelope
neighbour rule
RANKING AND SELECTION In stage 1 the global selection graph tool is used to rank and select with three parameters values: -LOW density -HIGH built envelope -HIGH amoutn of connections (these values make the individual WEAK AND SUITABLE for modification)
In stage 2 the global selection graph tool is used to rank and select with three changed parameters values: -HIGH density -LOW built envelope -HIGH amoutn of connections (these values make the individual FIT AND NOT SUITABLE for modification and therefore they will remain the same)
The neighbour with LOWEST density will be selected and modified as well, but then not ‘one classification up.
The two neighbours with HIGHEST built envelope will be selected and modified.
164
abstract
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
URBAN GROWTH MODEL
conclusion
appendix
165
CURRENT SITUATION global configuration stage 1
low rise 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
mid rise
high rise
classiďŹ cations
individuals selected according to 3 parameters Built envelope %
1
60
selected individuals
neighbours with lowest density
50
A5
A4
40
D5
E5
F2
E2
C
F6
F5
D
G3
F3
G4
F4
G6
G5
H5
H4
30 20
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
30 20
30
20 40
50
10 60
2
3
4
5
6
A B
E F G H
Network connections
From here is the start of stage 1 of the algorithm
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
166
A3 -Enterprise 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 2 + Tube St. 2 -Density 2 V/Area -SA/Volume 14%
A4 -Enterprise 60% -Low rise -Conn. 2 -Density 0 V/Area -SA/Volume 0%
A5 -Enterprise 99% -Low rise -Conn. 9 + Tube St. 1 -Density 0,43 V/Area -SA/Volume 27%
A6 -Enterprise 94% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 3,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 15% -On river
B1 -Isle of Dogs 96% -Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 2,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 19% -On river
B2 -Enterprise 91% -Low/High rise -Conn. 11 -Density 21,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 8%
B3 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 2 + Tube St. 2 -Density 45 V/Area -SA/Volume 8%
B4 -Enterprise 66% -Low/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 16,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 8%
B5 -Enterprise 66% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 7 -Density 3,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 26%
B6 -Isle of Dogs 54% -Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 7,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 20% -On river
C1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 8,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On river
C2 -Enterprise 69% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 10 + Tube St. 1 -Density 11,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 13%
C3 -Enterprise 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 9 + Tube St. 2 -Density 22,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 11%
C4 -Enterprise 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 7,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 15%
C5 -Enterprise 60% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 9 -Density 4,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On river
D1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 0 -Density 8,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 26% -On river/park
D2 -Isle of Dogs 76% -Low/Mid/High rise -Conn. 10 -Density 5,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On park
D3 -Enterprise 100% -Low/Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 10,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 15%
D4 -Enterprise 96% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 7,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 17%
D5 -Isle of Dogs 85% -Low/ Mid rise -Conn. 15 -Density 3,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 28% -On river
D6 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 4,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 35% -On river
E1 -Enterprise 74% -Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 5,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 18% -On river/park
E2 -Isle of Dogs 52% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 6 -Density 2,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 31% -On park
E3 -Enterprise 74% -Mid rise -Conn. 5 -Density 6,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 15%
E4 -Enterprise 63% -Mid rise -Conn. 12 + Tube St. 1 -Density 5,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 17%
E5 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 11 -Density 2,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 30%
E6 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 3,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 24% -On river
F1 -Isle of Dogs 88% -Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 3,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 32% -On river
F2 -Isle of Dogs 96% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 14 -Density 4,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 27% -On river
F3 -Isle of Dogs 97% -Low rise -Conn. 8 -Density 2,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 34%
F4 -Isle of Dogs 95% -Low rise -Conn. 3 + Tube St. 1 -Density 2,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 27% -On park
F5 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 8 -Density 1,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 38% -On park
F6 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 15 -Density 3,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 31% -On river
G2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 6 -Density 3,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 27% -On river
G3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 17 -Density 3,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 31%
G4 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 11 + Tube St. 1 -Density 1,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 41% -On park
G5 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 5 -Density 3,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 27% -On park
H3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 9 -Density 4,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 25% -On river
H4 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 12 -Density 4,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 25% -On river
H5 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 5 + Tube St. 1 -Density 2,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 32% -On river/park
domain
A2 -Enterprise 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 2 -Density 9 V/Area -SA/Volume 12%
introduction
A1 -Enterprise 59% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 8 + Tube St. 1 -Density 6,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 19% -On river
abstract
CURRENT SITUATION individuals stage 1
methodology design scenario conclusion
H6 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 5,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 25% -On river/park
appendix
selected individuals neighbour with lowest density
G6 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 21 -Density 2,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 32% -On river
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
POPULATION 1 modified individuals stage 1
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected neighbour
G H
selected individuals A5-1 -Enterprise 99% -Low rise -Conn. 9 + Tube St. 1 -Density 4,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 11%
F2-1 -Isle of Dogs 96% -Mid rise -Conn. 15 -Density 8.4 V/Area -SA/Volume 21%
G3-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 20 -Density 8,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 22%
D5-1 -Isle of Dogs 85% -Mid rise -Conn. 10 -Density 11,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 16% -On river
A4-1 -Enterprise 60% -Low rise -Conn. 2 -Density 0 V/Area -SA/Volume 0%
E2-1 -Isle of Dogs 52% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 6 -Density 4,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 21% -On park
F3-1 -Isle of Dogs 97% -Low rise -Conn. 4 -Density 4,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 22%
E5-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 10 -Density 4,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 19%
G4-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 13 + Tube St. 1 -Density 6,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 21% -On park
H5-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 5 + Tube St. 1 -Density 6,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On river/park
F6-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 15 -Density 9,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 19% -On river
G6-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 18 -Density 8,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 21% -On river
F4-1 -Isle of Dogs 95% -Low rise -Conn. 3 + Tube St. 1 -Density 2,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On park
H4-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 10 -Density 6 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On river
F5-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 6 -Density 2,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 26% -On park
G5-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 5 -Density 4,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 22% -On park
neighbour with lowest density ratio
selected individuals
neighbour with lowest density ratio
168
abstract
GENERATION 1 global configuration stage 1
introduction domain
low rise 25 20 15 10 5
high rise
mid rise classiďŹ cations
Built envelope %
1
60
selected individuals
neighbours with lowest density
50
A1
B2
40
A3
A4-1
E4
F4-1
C
F2-1
F1
D
G3-1
G2
G4-1
G5-1
G6-1
F6-1
H5-1
H6
30
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
30 20
30
20 40
50
10 60
3
4
5
6
A B
conclusion
20
2
design scenario
individuals selected according to 3 parameters
methodology
0
E F G H
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
appendix
Network connections
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
POPULATION 2 modified individuals stage 1
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected neighbour
G H
selected individuals A1-1 -Enterprise 59% -Mid/ High rise -Conn. 8 + Tube St. 1 -Density 19,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 12% -On river
A3-1 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 2 + Tube St. 2 -Density 21,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 11%
F2-2 -Isle of Dogs 96% -High rise -Conn. 13 -Density 16 V/Area -SA/Volume 16% -On river
G3-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 14 -Density 17,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 14%
B1-1 -Isle of Dogs 96% -Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 3,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 17% -On river
A4-2 -Enterprise 60% -Mid rise -Conn. 2 -Density 11,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 9%
F1-1 -Isle of Dogs 88% -Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 7,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 18% -On river
G2-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 3 -Density 5,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 21% -On river
E4-1 -Enterprise 63% -Mid/ High rise -Conn. 8 + Tube St. 1 -Density 16,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 12%
G4-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 13 + Tube St. 1 -Density 11 V/Area -SA/Volume 15% -On park
H5-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 5 + Tube St. 1 -Density 10,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 18% -On river/park
G6-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 17 -Density 17 V/Area -SA/Volume 15% -On river
F4-2 -Isle of Dogs 95% -Low rise -Conn.1 + Tube St. 1 -Density 2,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 20% -On park
G5-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low rise -Conn. 5 -Density 5 V/Area -SA/Volume 20% -On park
H6-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Low/Mid rise -Conn. 0 -Density 6,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 17% -On river/park
F6-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 15 -Density 11,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 15% -On river
neighbour with lowest density ratio
selected individuals
neighbour with lowest density ratio
170
abstract
GENERATION 2 global configuration stage 1
introduction domain
low rise 25 20 15 10 5 0
classiďŹ cations
Built envelope %
1
60
selected individuals
neighbours with lowest density
50
A5-1
A6
40
C2
D2
F6-2
F5-1
C
G4-2
F4-2
D
H5-2
G5-2
30
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
3
4
5
6
A B
conclusion
20
2
design scenario
individuals selected according to 3 parameters
methodology
mid rise
high rise
E F
30 20
30
20 40
50
G
10 60
H
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
appendix
Network connections
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
POPULATION 3 modified individuals stage 1
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected neighbour
G H
selected individuals
neighbour with lowest density ratio
C2-1 -Enterprise 69% -High rise -Conn. 7 + Tube St. 1 -Density 33,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 11%
A5-2 -Enterprise 99% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 9 + Tube St. 1 -Density 16,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 9%
G4-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 8 + Tube St. 1 -Density 32 V/Area -SA/Volume 10% -On park
H5-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 5 + Tube St. 1 -Density 35,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 10% -On river/park
F6-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 14 -Density 38,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 9% -On river
D2-1 -Isle of Dogs 76% -Low/Mid/High rise -Conn. 9 -Density 9,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 16% -On park
A6-1 -Enterprise 94% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 6,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 12% -On river
F4-3 -Isle of Dogs 95% -Mid rise -Conn.1 + Tube St. 1 -Density 11,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 12% -On park
G5-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 5 -Density 11,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 14% -On park
F5-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid rise -Conn. 6 -Density 7,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 18% -On park
172
abstract
GENERATION 3 global configuration stage 1
introduction domain
low rise 25 20 15 10 5 0
methodology
mid rise
high rise
classiďŹ cations
60
selected individuals (not to be modified)
neighbours with highest BE
50
B3
A3-1
C3
C2
C1
D2-1
F6
E6
F5-2
C
G4
G3-2
H4-1
D
H5
G5-4
H6-1
Built envelope %
40 30
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
2
3
4
5
6
A B
conclusion
20
1
design scenario
individuals selected according to 3 parameters
E F
30 20
30
20 40
50
G
10 60
H
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
173
FROM THIS POINT THE ALGORITHM CONTINUES WITH STAGE 2 The selection criteria changed in order to select the fittest individuals. Only the neighbours with the highest % built envelope will be modified. This is to densify from succesful locations while optimizing the % built envelope.
appendix
Network connections
1
2
3
4
5
6
POPULATION 4 modified individuals stage 2
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected (NOT MODIFIED) neighbour
G H
selected individuals (NOT MODIFIED) 2 neighbours with highest built envelope A3-2 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 2 + Tube St. 2 -Density 38,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
C1-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 0 -Density 12 V/Area -SA/Volume 18% -On river
G3-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 14 -Density 35,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 10%
G5-5 --Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 21,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 11% -On park
F5-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 15,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 14% -On park
C3-1 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 9 + Tube St. 2 -Density 40,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 9%
D2-2 -Isle of Dogs 76% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 8 -Density 23,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 11% -On park
H4-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 15,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 14% -On river
H6-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 0 -Density 17,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 13% -On river/park
E6-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 1 -Density 20,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 13% -On river
174
abstract
GENERATION 4 global configuration stage 2
introduction domain
low rise 20 15 10 5 0
classiďŹ cations
60
selected individuals (not to be modified)
neighbours with highest BE
50
A3
A2
A4-2
B3
B2
B4
C3
C4
D3
C
G3
F3-1
H3
D
F6
F5-3
G6-2
Built envelope %
40 30
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
2
3
4
5
6
A B
conclusion
20
1
design scenario
individuals selected according to 3 parameters
methodology
mid rise
high rise
E F
30 20
30
20 40
50
G
10 60
H
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
appendix
Network connections
175
1
2
3
4
5
POPULATION 5 modified individuals stage 2
6
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected (NOT MODIFIED) neighbour
G H
selected individuals (NOT MODIFIED) 2 neighbours with highest built envelope A2-1 -Enterprise 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 2 -Density 25,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 10%
B2-1 -Enterprise 91% -High rise -Conn. 11 -Density 40,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
C4-1 -Enterprise 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 0 -Density 21,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 10%
F3-2 -Isle of Dogs 97% -Mid rise -Conn. 4 -Density 15,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 13%
F5-4 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 22,7 V/Area -SA/Volume 12% -On park
A4-3 -Enterprise 60% -High rise -Conn. 2 -Density 28,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 8%
B4-1 -Enterprise 66% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 34,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
D3-1 -Enterprise 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 21,1 V/Area -SA/Volume 12%
H3-1 -Isle of Dogs 100% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 15,4 V/Area -SA/Volume 14% -On river
G6-3 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 13 -Density 30,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 10% -On river
176
abstract
GENERATION 5 global configuration stage 2
introduction domain
low rise 20 15 10 5 0
methodology
mid rise
high rise
classiďŹ cations
Built envelope % 60
selected individuals (not to be modified)
neighbours with highest BE
50
A3
A2-1
A4-3
40
B3
B2-1
B4-1
C3
C2-1
D3-1
C
F6
E6-1
F5-4
D
G3
G2-1
H3-1
30
Density 10 0
60 50 40 10
2
3
4
5
6
A B
conclusion
20
1
design scenario
individuals selected according to 3 parameters
E F
30 20
30
20 40
50
10 60
G H
selection of individuals for next generation’s modifications with local rule sets
appendix
Network connections
177
1
2
3
4
5
POPULATION 6 modified individuals stage 2
6
A B C D E F
global organisation in previous selection result selected (NOT MODIFIED) neighbour
G H
selected individuals (NOT MODIFIED) 2 neighbours with highest built envelope A2-2 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 2 -Density 44,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 8%
B2-2 -Enterprise 91% -High rise -Conn. 11 -Density 51,9 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
C2-2 -Enterprise 69% -High rise -Conn. 7 + Tube St. 1 -Density 43,6 V/Area -SA/Volume 10%
G2-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 3 -Density 27,2 V/Area -SA/Volume 10% -On river
F5-5 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 5 -Density 32,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 10% -On park
A4-4 -Enterprise 60% -High rise -Conn. 2 -Density 45,8 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
B4-2 -Enterprise 66% -Mid/High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 53,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 7%
D3-2 -Enterprise 100% -High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 28,5 V/Area -SA/Volume 11%
H3-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 7 -Density 35,3 V/Area -SA/Volume 11% -On river
E6-2 -Isle of Dogs 100% -High rise -Conn. 1 -Density 31 V/Area -SA/Volume 11% -On river
178
abstract
GENERATION 6 global (FINAL) configuration stage 2
introduction
low rise 20 15 10 5
high rise
mid rise
6
domain
0
classifications low rise 20 15 10 5 0
5
mid rise classifications low rise 20 15 10 5 0
4
mid rise
high rise classifications low rise 25
methodology
high rise
20 15 10 5 0
high rise
3
mid rise classifications low rise 20
10 5
2
0
high rise
mid rise classifications
low rise 25
design scenario
15
20 15 10 5
1 high rise
mid rise classifications
appendix
The final generation has a succesful result regarding the spread of classifications. Spatially, this means that a hybrid model is generated with a combination of an equal amount of individuals in both high rise and mid rise.
conclusion
0
179
number of individuals 30
low rise
mid rise
high rise
25
20
15
10
5
generations current
1
2
3
EVALUATION OF CLASSIFICATIONS
180
This graph shows the evaluation of spatial change through the amount classifications, spread over the number of individuals in each generation. In stage 1 there is a much stronger decrease of low-rise. This is because of the global selection parameters setting. So in the first three generations, mainly the individuals with the low rise were selected and modified together with their neighbours. In stage 2, slowly the pace of increase of mid and high-rise slows down. This is because of the building height rule. It restricts going higher at some point. It is visible in the graph where the two clasÂŹsifications meet equal amounts. As for the spatial change it caused, it is clear that with the increase of mid-rise and high-rise there is more space for combining program and creating mixed use development. That will enhance the social interactions between different users and increase the opportunity for community life to emerge.
4
5
6
abstract
density ratio (Volume/Area)
built envelope % (Surface area/Volume)
introduction
25
20
domain
15
10
methodology
5
generations
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
design scenario
current
EVALUATION OF DENSITY AND BUILT ENVELOPE
appendix
However, there is a limit to this. As is visible in the graph, in stage 2 both the increase of density and the decrease of built envelope, reduce. This means that after a certain amount of generations, the resulting change will become less radical. After an evaluation of the results of the third generation, a tipping point for the built envelope value has started to occur. From the beginning of the second stage, the density kept increasing it value, while the built envelope stayed the same, especially from the fourth till the fifth
generation. This has to do with the fact that high-rise doesn’t offer an ideal solution with regards to the built envelope. Therefore the midrise will balance this out by increasing its number of individuals. This is done with the second stage’s neighbour rule; the already successful (high-rise) selected individuals are not modified. But their neighbours with a high percentage of built envelopes are. Then the question only remains: what if the neighbour already has a lot of high-rise? This will come down to common sense while modifying it. Also the more mid-rise is added, the better the relation is between the increase of density and the decrease of built envelope.
conclusion
The numerical values of the density and built envelope through the six generations are as predicted. While the density increased, the built envelope decreased.
181
density ratio (Volume/Area)
built envelope % (Surface area/Volume)
50
current situation 40
revisiting the output by comparisation of the resulting output with the input
30
20
10
0 A1
B1
C1
density ratio (Volume/Area)
60
D1
E1
F1
G2
H3
individuals
Milton Keynes, UK built envelope
built envelope % (Surface area/Volume)
Amsterdam , The Netherlands built envelope
GENERATION 6
50 40 30 20 10 0
A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
F1
G2
H3
individuals
CONCLUSION To evaluate the final generation, the density and the built envelope for each single individual are compared with their values in the current state and at the same time they are compared with the target values for built envelope from the case studies. Wherever in the grid there was a low density, it is now significantly higher, with a much lower built envelope. And also important is the fact that there is now a much more varied distribution of density over the whole generation. This is because of the first stage’s parameter value selection configuration. The main issue with the current state was that it caused a conjoined density. There was a spatial imbalance, which caused an energy flow pressure. After generating the proposal globally with local rules and keeping record of each step and evaluating the results, its improvements are very visible and its deficiencies present themselves
with an opportunity to adjust. These adjustments can take place in the local rules and in the selection criteria (these are the ‘fitness’ criteria of the algorithm). This so called engine that comprises the whole system can be seen as a metabolic growth model that improves itself by trial and error. This whole design process was one of those trials (experiments) And all the evaluated deficiencies can therefore be an input for a next run of the algorithm. It is difficult to compare a future proposal with a city like Amsterdam in its current state, regarding built envelope as an energy indicator, since the evolution is based on very traditional rules with no high rise. In many mature existing cities and also to-be-newly-built cities this is something that will have to change if we want to accommodate the expected population growth by 2050 or later.
182
abstract
PROPOSED DESIGN
introduction
domain
methodology
design scenario
conclusion
appendix
183