STUDIO AIR_JONATHAN LONG by Jonathan Long

STUDIOAIR J

N A

JONATHAN LONG (582898) TUTOR: CHEN

INTRODUCTION

PROFILE & BACKGROUND

JONATHAN LONG

I am currently doing my first semester of my third year (2014) of Bachelor of Environments degree, majoring in Architecture at the University of Melbourne. I was born in Malaysia, and I graduated from VCE at Scotch College Melbourne. My parents are in the building industry as well, back home in Malaysia. During my summer break in 2012, I worked at my parents’ company which was building a shopping mall at that time. With this golden opportunity in hand, I had the chance to experience practical work, apart from just the theories and knowledge that I acquired during my course at university. I was given this chance to learn the practical ways of building construction, which differs (to a certain extent) from architectural ideas. When I entered University, I was so sure that Architecture was what I really wanted to do, and love doing. I started learning Autodesk Revit and AutoCAD when I was in my first year in the University of Melbourne. I gained more knowledge and experience in these two software as I progress through my degree. I have no prior knowledge nor experience in Rhinoceros 3D and its plug-in, Grasshopper. My journey of knowledge and learning with Rhino 3D and Grasshopper shall begin this semester, 2014. I wish to learn different ways of designing and I believe that it will change the way I design. “Computational versus computerising”.

VISION

With regards to the project brief, we need to design something that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. I want to design a building or an installation that is flexible, regenerative, uses recyclable materials, and has an educational approach. My project should be interactive whereby users are able to interact with it and have a relationship with my project. It should be able to create awareness and become and attraction for users surrounding the site. Furthermore, the materials used should be easily available, cheap, durable, recycled and recyclable. These materials should not be defuturing, but it should be design-futuring. It has to have minimal environmental impact, and ecological footprint. Finally, my project should be visually-appealing and pleasing, as well as being durable to be used in a long period of time.

one

A1 | DESIGN FUTURING PRECEDENTS

Photographs by Adam MĂ¸rk

A1.1 | DESIGN FUTURING GREEN LIGHTHOUSE ARCHITECT: CHRISTSEN & CO ARKITEKTER

Photographs by Adam Mørk

GREEN LIGHTHOUSE was designed by Architects Christensen & Co Arkitekter. This building was designed for Danish University. The Green Lighthouse is Denmark’s first public carbon-neutral building (ArchDaily, 2013). The Green Lighthouse is located at the Faculty of Science within the campus of University of Copenhagen. This building proves that for a building to be sustainable, it is not necessary to fit in all sorts of expensive, high-tech gadgets. However, 75% of the reduction of energy consumption is the direct consequence of architectural design (ArchDaily, 2013). A number of sustainable and green design features have been embedded in the design of the green lighthouse - in order to reduce energy use and provide a condusive environment for both the students and academic staff (ArchDaily, 2013). The building was oriented to maximise solar resources, on the other hand, windows and doors are recessed and shaded with automatic solar shades to minimise direct solar heat gain within the building. VELUX skylights Velfac windows and generous atrium provides means of daylight and natural ventilation (ArchDaily, 2013). Photo voltaic cells, solar heating and LED lighting are also integrated into the building design.

I think this building reflects the thoughts of Tony Fry in Design Futuring as he states that design futuring has to confront two tasks: (1) Slowing the rate of futuring and (2) Redirecting us towards a more sustainable mode of planetary habitation (Fry, 2008). This building is the first carbon neutral building CO2 neutral public building. It sets the first foot into public sustainable building that demonstrates to the public that the environment is beautiful. And that sustainability is beautiful. The Green Lighthouse was designed with only environment in mind. It responds to the environment. The green building has a relatively small ecological footprint, that rhymes with Tony Fry’s Design Futuring. This building was showcased as a sustainable building at the UN’s Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December 2010.

Photographs by Adam Mørk

A1.2 | DESIGN FUTURING ANN ARBOUR DISTRICT LIBRARY ARCHITECT: inFORM STUDIO

Photographs by James Haefner Photography

ANN ARBOUR DISTRICT LIBRARY was designed by inFORM Studio in 2008. The district library is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America. The site is approximately 4 acres of property, which was purchased by the Ann Arbor District Library (AADL) in 2005. The site is heavily wooded and densely vegetated (ArchDaily, 2011). During a thorough site analysis, the architects identify the Southwest of the site - which were scarred and sparsely vegetated - as ideal for the placement of the building footprint, as it has minimal site impact (ArchDaily, 2011). Therefore, maintaining the biodiversity of the natural environment. During the early stages of site planning process, inFORM Studio considered harvesting wood from the site for re-use in the construction of the building (ArchDaily, 2011). Despite densely populated by Ash (trees) in the area, many of the trees were suffering from the effects of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). EAB is a destructive beetle that attacks aggressively on North American Ash trees through feeding on the water and nutrient collected in the bark, killing the tree over a period of 2-5 years. Preliminary research shows that this particular tree (Ash) is well-suited to milling, as the insect does not damage the interior portion of the wood (ArchDaily, 2011). Hence, with so much abundance of unique, natural resources, inFORM Studio strongly considered to use Ash (trees) in the floors, walls, ceiling

Photographs by Adam MĂ¸rk

The utilization of Ash becomes a major component to the design of the library interior. Ash is used from the main entry floor and walls into a ceiling material, then stretching along the entire eastern interior edge of the building (ArchDaily, 2011). Ash is being used as a interior wrapper, that wraps the reading rooms which are facing the forest (Refer to images above). Besides, large pieces of logs were used as structural columns, that resists vertical and lateral loading. The idea of using site materials complements the idea of design futuring on a different scale. Tony Fry (2008) states that design futuring should be slowing the rate of defuturing - actions that reduces our time of existence as natural resources are being depleted. By using ash (trees) that is available on site, inFORM studio is actually “recycling” the wood. In other situations or sites whereby deforestation occurs, and the unwanted trees are usually taken to a dumping ground. In which the scenario of AADL, Ash trees are being used as a major construction material and component throughout the course of construction. By reusing the ash (trees), inFORM studio helps to reduce the need to purchase new materials that may deplete the natural resources in another way. Hence, using ash (trees) complements the idea of Tony Fry’s design futuring as they are (literally) slowing the rate of defuturing.

two

A1.1 | DESIGN COMPUTATION COMPUTATION VS. COMPUTERISATION 2002 SERPENTINE GALLERY GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM BILBAO

A2.1 | DESIGN COMPUTATION VS COMPUTERISATION INTRODUCTION Towards the end of the post-Folding period, parametric design began to popularize and became the pioneer of digital design (Oxman & Oxman, 2014). It is a new way of digital design thinking that focuses on interrelated relationships and connections between objects as part of whole relationships. Parametric modelling enforces a set of virtual rules, also known as parameters that sets a “boundary” for the program to generate a design (Oxman & Oxman, 2014). The values of parameters within a scheme of relationships can be altered accordingly, which will then change the design of the object or building. Therefore, parametric design rethinks the idea of design, by developing design logic. The way these are being set out helps to give architects a reason for their design, instead of the conventional “top-down” data design methodology. Parametric design is used as a facility that controls a set of parameters (rules), that allows the creation of different shapes and elements at different scale which includes building facades or even urban schemes. Parametricism,

as defined by Patrik Schumacher is a distinguishing quality of “contemporary digital architectural form” (Schumacher, 2009). With the surfacing of new and available software, parametric designing became the preferred design environment for a new generation of programming (scripting), indirectly designing. 3-D Modelling software such as Rhinoceros (based on Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines) and later parametric modelers such as Grasshopper allows architects (or designers) to create forms based on a set of rules or parameters that are inputted by human beings. Later on, software engineers began to develop simulation software for energy and structural calculations that can be integrated into these parametric 3-D modelers. Advanced Geometries Unit (AGU) encouraged younger generation of architects to make use of (and rely upon) the scripting of algorithms as a basis and platform for research which allows them to explore different views of architecture. One

of the iconic algorithmic designs was the 2002 Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito and Balmond, which will be discussed further in the following pages (Oxman & Oxman, 2014). Scripting is the age of “emergence of research by design” (Oxman & Oxman, 2014). In conclusion, computational design over arches three large topics namely: (1) Form and generation, (2) Performative Design and (3) Parametrics. Computerisation - on the other hand - is a method of designing that uses computers (or technology) as a tool to materialize and visualize an architect’s imagination. Architects use drafting software - like AutoCAD and ArchiCAD to digitize their ideas and design from hand drawn sketches to architectural drawings. The use of computers in this context does not reflect the true power of computers and technology. Architects who takes on the computerisation approach to design already has an idea of how he or she intends the building to look like. The form and shape has been set. However, computers are used as a medium of translation to convert their ideas into reality.

A2.2 | DESIGN COMPUTATION 2002 SERPENTINE GALLERY ARCHITECT: TOYO ITO

Photographs by Sylvain Deleu

Figure from Balmond, C. A+U Special Issue: Cecil Balmond. Tokyo: A and U. 2006

Toyo Ito along with the assistance of Balmond and Arup took charge of the design of the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, at Kensington Parks, London. The competition took place in 2002. The form of the pavilion was a complex random pattern derived from an algorithm of cube that “expanded” (physically) as it rotated (Jordana, 2013). The lines that intersected each other created triangles and trapezoids, whereby the transparency and translucency gave a sense of infinite repeated motion (Jordana, 2013).

going everywhere. Cecil Balmond discovered a simple algorithm to derive a seemingly “busy” and chaotic pattern of lines. The idea was as follows: “Propose an algorithm: half to a third of adjacent sides of the square. The 1/2 to 1/3 rule traces four lines in the original square that do not meet (Deuling, 2011). The half to a third rule forces one to go out of the original square to create a new square so that the rule, the algorithm, may continue. This is repeated until a primary structure is obtained. Then if these lines are all extended, an overlapping pattern will emerge.

The pattern that Ito uses for his pavilion was assisted by ARUP. The ARUP Team configures a geometric algorithm, whereby the base of the algorithm is formed by a rectangular or squared plane; by drawing lines. The angle is defined by drawing a line a specific ratio from different sides of the plane (Deuling, 2011). For example, from the middle of one side to the middle of the other side. By doing this repeatedly, each square will be embedded in the previous one. After doing this a certain number of times, a pattern will appear. By changing the ratio between the sides, this will produce different pattern outcomes.

This approach that was entirely based on algorithms offers more exploration and freedom. However, it is a tool for thoughts that helps you to realize the randomness and unimaginable. Furthermore, it creates unpredictable complexity, and hybrid situations whereby it is realistic, calculable and manageable whilst having a reason for doing so. The use of algorithm and the subdivision tool is able to create thousands of iterations or version over a short period of time. If this task was to be done traditionally (or conventionally, it is possible however, it will be extremely time consuming to generate such a pattern without the use of algorithms.

By extending the lines in an overlapping fashion, the network of crossing lines will be formed. Hence, by stretching these lines over the box, a network of lines will wrap around the box. These lines will continue running over the faces (planes) of the box and come back on the other side. These lines are heading nowhere whilst 15

Photographs by Gehry Partners

A2.3 | DESIGN COMPUTATION GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM BILBAO ARCHITECT: FRANK GEHRY The Guggenheim Museum is a typical example of a building designed and constructed with the computerised design approach. Frank Gehry’s ideas are usually stimulated by papers, in which he models and then iterate over and over again (Pagnotta, 2013). These paper models are the source of inspiration for Frank Gehry (Jones, 2013). Gehry’s works are most commonly known to be notorious and infamous, breaking the traditional norms of architecture. His works are regarded as deconstructive. Despite not being liked by some, I must admit that Gehry’s work is indeed spectacular and unique. It stands out from the urban fabric in Bilbao, Spain. Based on my visual observations from the aerial view of the museum, this building is completely different from those around it. It is made of titanium, limestone and glass which makes it unique during the era it was constructed (Pagnotta, 2013). The Guggenheim Museum is a good example to demonstrate the computerisation design approach because it employs a top-down approach whereby the architect has a design intent generated from his own creativity. Here, Gehry already has his own set of interests in paperbased architecture. Hence, his buildings are based on crumpled papers and so on. With this in mind, the form of the Guggenheim Museum was then translated into digital drawings by associate architects. These digital drawings are then iterated and analyzed carefully prior to construction. The reason being a top-down approach is because the idea comes from the architect and the form is created by the architect. This method of designing is juxtaposed by the computational design method that has been discussed in the previous page and an example is being compared in the following page. 17

three

A3 | GENERATIVE DESIGN OVERVIEW OF GENERATIVE DESIGN ICD/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION BLOOM!

A3.1 | COMPOSITION TO GENERATION INTRODUCTION Computation is redefining the practice of architecture (Peters, 2013). Most architects have been using computers to carry out their architectural practices. However, the tasks that they have been doing is simply to digitize their work (into a digital format). For example, architects use drafting software like AutoCAD that helps to create digital drawings from their hand sketches. The use of computers help to increase accuracy and acts as a virtual drafting board. However, this mode of working is known as “computerisation”. Peters (2013) states that computation allows designers to “extend their abilities to deal with highly complex situations”. On the other hand, Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges defines computation as “the processing of information and interactions between elements which constitute a specific environment; it provides a framework for negotiating and influencing the interrelation of data sets of information, with the capacity to generate complex order, form and structure” (Ahlquist & Menges, 2011). Peters (2013) defines computation as the use of

computer to process information through and understood format – by the computer – which is expressed by an algorithm, which augments the intellect of the designer and increases capability to solve complex problems (Peters, 2013). Computation has the potential to provide inspiration and outdoes the intelligence of a designer, by generating the unthinkable and unimaginable. Computation creates unexpected results. An architect writes a program that can be further explored via modifications to the algorithm. An algorithm, as defined by Peters (2013) is a set of instructions that can be understood by the computer, and must be written in a language the computer can understand – known as a “code”. Algorithmic thinking means taking on an interpretative role to understand the outcomes of the generating code, knowing how to tweak and modify the existing code to explore new options and reiterate the model to further explore other design potentials (Peters, 2013).

Besides, scripting languages such as RhinoScript or Visual Basic help architects to customise their design environments in their existing architectural design software. Architects are using computation to simulate building performance, to understand materials, tectonics and parameters of production machinery in their design. This new tool – computation – provides performance feedback at various stages of an architectural project. With this information, architects can improvise on their design and explore new design opportunities (Peters, 2013). With the use of computational simulation, designers can now explore more responsive designs. Furthermore, with the increasing use of computation and simulation, the computer allows architects to predict, model and simulate designs using more sophisticated and accurate methods.

A3.2 | GENERATIVE DESIGN ICD/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION ARCHITECT: ICD/ITKE/STUTTGART UNIVERSITY

Photographs by ICD-ITKE

This pavilion was a joint-collaboration research between the Institute of Computation Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) that was conducted at the University of Stuttgart. This pavilion was entirely robotically fabricated from carbon and glass fibre composites. This research aims to investigation the possible interrelation between biomimetic design strategies and novel processes of robotic production. Material and morphological principles of arthropodsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; exoskeletons were the main focus of this research and aims to generate a new composite construction paradigm in architecture. The focus is on biomimetic design strategies for per formative morphology in architecture. With the use of form generation methods, computational simulations and robotic manufacturing, the pavilion only requires a shell thickness of 4MM of composite laminate, spanning eight metres.

This research project employed a bottomup approach, whereby a wide range of invertebrates were investigated with regards to the material anisotropy and functional morphology of antorpods. The biological principles of these invertebrates were transferred into viable design principles for architectural applications. A lobster (homarus americanus) was used as the biological role model of the project (ArchDaily, 2013). With the integration of biomimetic principles of a lobsterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cuticle and computational design process, enables a high level of structural performance for architecture. Despite being wide and big, the transparent skin of the pavilion weighs less than 320kg. Computational and material design, digital simulation and robotic fabrication allows architects to explore the architectural possibilities that have not yet been explored and proven. The use of computation design helps to prove the development of extremely

lightweight structures.

and

materially

efficient

The research pavilion was fabricated by a robot that was performed on site. It was constructed in a weatherproof environment by a 6-axis robot that was placed on a 2m high pedestal reaching a height of 4m (ArchDaily, 2013). During the fabrication process, fibres were saturated with resin while running through a resin bath directly prior to the robotic placement. This customized set up allowed them to create a structure of approximately 8m in diameter and 3.5m height. This is done by continuously winding more than 60km of fibre roving. This precedent is a good example of a computational design made possible by robotic fabrication. It is completely impossible for human beings to fabricate such a delicate structure of only 4mm thickness. The use of computational design approach and robotic fabrication made this possible.

Photographs by Brandon Shigeta

A3.3 | GENERATIVE DESIGN BLOOM ARCHITECT: DO/SU STUDIO ARCHITECTURE This project was designed as a sun tracking instrument that indexes time and temperature (Furuto, 2012). BLOOM over arches material experimentation, structural innovation and computational form and pattern making it into an environmentally responsive form (Furuto, 2012). This project was specially designed for peak performance during the spring equinox. The structure of Bloom was basically made of a smart thermo bimetal, a sheet metal that curls when heated. The responsive surface of this project shades and ventilates specific areas of the shell as the sun heats up its surface which eventually curves. The construction and fabrication of Bloom was assisted by complex digital software, and is made up of approximately 14,000 laser cut pieces (Furuto, 2012). Among these 14,000 laser cut pieces, no two pieces are alike (DO|SU Studio Architecture, 2012). Each of these pieces will automatically curl (to a specified amount) when the outdoor ambient temperature rises above 70째F or

when the sun penetrates the surface (DO SU Studio Architecture, 2012). Bloom was designed to be a shed that is responsive to the environment. The final form of the project is lightweight and flexible. It is dependent on the overall geometry and combination of materials to provide stability. At certain areas of Bloom, the hyper panels are made stronger and stiffer by increasing the number of connections (rivets), while others are made deeper. This project is a good example of a design that was responsive to the environment. As mentioned previously, the project was designed as a sun tracking instrument that detects time and temperature. The smart thermo bimetal material curls when heated. When these metal curls, it curls into a shed which ultimately becomes a man-made shed. This project is also fabricated by 14,000 laser cut pieces where no two pieces are the same.

four CONCLUSION

Since my first encounter with Studio Air at the beginning of the semester, I have learnt and explored an extremely different way of designing. Throughout the course of Part A, I have explored different dimensions of computational design. By exploring the three main topics of Part A Journal: (1) Design Futuring, (2) Computational Design and (3) Composition to Generation, I realized the advantages brought about by computational design. Computational design helps to create designs that have reasons; it gives a building (or a design) a reason for existence. It explains why a building should exist. Apart from its functional approach, computational design provides a building more than enough reasons why it should exist. Computational design has changed the way I think about architecture. A building should not only be aesthetically pleasing, but it has to have functional values as well. It needs to be responsive, efficient and sustainable in its surrounding context. Despite being exposed to computational design for less than 3 weeks, I begin to understand why modern architects are making a big hoo-ha out of this.

five LEARNING OUTCOME

After acquiring introductory knowledge to computational design, I began to appreciate designs produced by parametric tools. In all my studios prior to Studio Air, I have been modelling my projects in Autodesk Revit alone. Being notoriously known for being rigid, I am unable to design buildings that speak my mind. I am unable to translate my ideas into reality, completely with the use of Revit. This is due to the software limitations - being a Building Information modelling software. However, with the introduction of Rhino and Grasshopper, I am now able to design buildings that speak my mind. Previously, I always thought of simplicity as being simple, clean and minimalist. However, with the exploration into Toyo Itoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work and various architects, it proves me wrong that simplicity does not mean clean and made of straight lines. Toyo Ito who is one of my many favorites, shows that his designs evolved from very simple geometry that is being translated by computational tools, that ultimately creates complex generated forms. Hence, I am very excited to expose myself to different ways of designing and allow computational design approach to help me rethink the idea of architecture.

REFERENCES Ahlquist, S., & Menges, A. (2011). Introduction. In Computation Design Thinking. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons. ArchDaily. (2011, May 2011). Ann Arbor District Library / InFORM Studio. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://www.archdaily.com/?p=137331 ArchDaily. (2013, September 3). Green Lighthouse / Christensen & Co Architects. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://www.archdaily.com/?p=422431 ArchDaily. (2013, March 6). ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion / University of Stuttgart, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.archdaily.com/340374/ icditke-research-pavilion-univer sity-of-stuttgar t-faculty-of-architecture-and-urban-planning/ Deuling, T. (2011). Serpentine Pavilion Case Study. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://www. collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentine-pavilion-case-study DO SU Studio Architecture. (2012). Bloom. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://www.dosu-arch.com/bloom. html Fry, T. (2008). Design Futuring. In Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1-16 Furuto, A. (2012, March 11). Bloom / DO|SU Studio Architecture. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from ArchDaily: http://www.archdaily.com/215280/bloom-dosu-studio-architecture/ Jones, R. (2013). AD Classics: Walt Disney Concert Hall. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://www.archdaily. com/441358/ad-classics-walt-disney-concert-hall-frank-gehry/ Jordana, S. (2013). Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.archdaily. com/344319/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2002-toyo-ito-cecil-balmond-arup/ Oxman, R., & Oxman, R. (2014). Theories of the Digital In Architecture. (London: Routledge) Pagnotta, B. (2013, September 1). AD Classics: The Guggenheim Museum. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http://www.archdaily.com/422470/ad-classics-the-guggenheim-museum-bilbao-frank-gehry/ Peters, B. (2013). Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought AD. In Architectural Design, pp. 08-15. Schumacher, P. (2009). Parametric Patterns. In M. Gracia (Ed.), Patterns of Architecture, AD (Architectural Design), pp. 28-41.