AIR
ARCHITECTURE D E S I G N STUDIO Semester
One
2013
Michelle Ho 516315 Tutors: Finn Warnock & Tom Morgan Subject Coordinator: Dr. Stanislav Roudavski
table of
contents
i n t r o duction Hi, pleased to meet you! My name is Michelle Ho, and I am an Architecture student from The University of Melbourne. I have had a varied upbringing: born in Perth to Chinese-Malaysian parents, and I spent most of my childhood in the United States and Melbourne. I enjoy the creativity and independent thought that Architecture offers. Achieving that sense of satisfaction when I create something that suits the brief and improves on what was existing is a great feeling. It resonates with me that Architecture has an important role in people’s lives and it can significantly impact how people feel about their surroundings, whether it be their office, school or places they go for recreation. In comparison to my university peers, I consider myself to having a limited experience with digital design tools, having only undertaken Virtual Environments (also led byStanislavRoudavski) back in myfirstyearofstudy where I experimented with Rhino. Needless to say, I found it difficult and stressful, and it discouraged me from using it again in my second year. Despite this past experience however, I am determined to put my prejudice aside of digital design tools from now on. I am enthusiastic about the possibilities my peers and I can achieve using algorithms with Rhino and Grasshopper. I am quite excited to enjoy the ride that is Architecture Design Studio: Air, and I look forward to developing my digital design skills and overcoming challenges I may encounter.
Bring it on!
case for
innovation expression
of interest stage Part ONE
architecture
as discourse Architecture as discourse refers to what has been said about architecture in the realm, the conservation that surrounds architecture. Richard Williams in his essay “Architecture and Visual Culture” (2005) introduces the notion that architecture is much more than the physical building, that it is “as much a philosophical, social or professional realm as it is a material one”. One should view architecture as a range of social and professional practices that sometimes lead to buildings, ‘sometimes’ being the key word. This challenges the conventional way I have viewed architecture prior to starting this subject. The traditional way of viewing architecture primarily focuses on the physical outcome of a tangible building, but after much pondering about the ideas raised in the lectures and readings, I have come to the conclusion that architecture should be more about the process and experimentation, which may or may not lead to a tangible, physical outcome. This links in to the two approaches of producing architecture: problem solving versus puzzle making (Kalay 2004). In problem solving, there is a set path that leads to a predictable outcome,
this being an existing building typology such as a house, an office, a theatre. Although this path can be seen as being more efficient, it can be limiting in terms of contributing to the architectural discourse. It places a focus on representational outcomes such as drawing and models and there is less of a direct and deeper engagement with the design process. It is through the second approach, puzzle making, that we can contribute more readily to the architectural discourse. Puzzle making introduces a framework from which we begin and progress from and the outcome is unknown. By having an unclear ending, we are forced to experiment and continually evaluate our experiments, to see whether they address our requirements in the brief which may result in the unexpected. Experimentation may include paper/conceptual projects which may not end up being built, however this does not mean it is any less significant than built works. Architecture encompasses much more than the final built form, it is also the peripheral experimentation process, and this is what is meant with the term “architecture as discourse” – it literally means everything that has been said concerning architecture, whether it gets built or not. When something new is created as a result of puzzle making, it adds to the architectural discourse, expanding our boundaries and questioning what we assume architecture to be.
In reference to our design this semester, the question we have to consider is: What ideas or innovative practices will your project contribute to the architectural discourse? I think it is pretty exciting that we as university students can be part of something that pushes the boundaries of architecture. It challenges the notion that age and experience are necessary components to make a mark. Of course, it does help to have such experience but if we approach this semester with an open puzzle making mindset instead of a confined problem solving one, we may be able to achieve something interesting and profound. One of my peers remarked how it was pretty cool how we are already exposed to such concepts such as parametric design this early in our architectural careers, which already gives us an advantage over more established practitioners of the architectural community, who are perhaps more set in their ways and might need more persuading to view digital architectural design as a significant driver of innovation in the architectural profession. Although I find programs such as Rhino and Grasshopper complex at first, it is probably because I am not used to using parametric design as a tool (I am more at home with a pencil and ruler) but with more practice and continual exposure, hopefully I am able to contribute something meaningful at the end of this course, or at the very least, be more informed about how parametric design is a useful tool in the design process.
What are the advantages and problems associated with this view? How can contemporary idea of digital architectural design relate to this? How does this frame (or expose) the preconceptions behind the Gateway competition? Advantages – aesthetic value of architecture is preserved; it is maintained as an important quality in the practice. If architecture is viewed as “individual works of art”, thought has to be carefully put into the visual appeal, it is not just a practical shell for habitation. Problems – this view can be limiting, as architecture is more than just 2D beauty (e.g. Ruskin focusing on facades). Too many expectations of what architecture should and should not be. I feel that architecture should simply be more about individual expression in consultation with the users and environment. If we view architecture as merely art, something with just aesthetic appeal, we might limit ourselves in the design of the Gateway before we even begin designing it, e.g. “the Gateway should be of this certain style, this particular look”. if we remove the pressure for the Gateway to be “pretty”, we can open the design more and experiment with the unconventional to produce outcomes that may not be “beautiful” to the commons, but will be ”interesting” and “inventive”. However, architecture differs from traditional art in many ways. For instance, architecture does not exist in a vacuum; it is often specific to a time, place and culture, whereas we have works of art from centuries ago still present today. Architecture usually requires patronage or clients to propose the project, unlike art where artists often make things without this stimulus to start it up. In art, the creator of the piece is the person who makes it, whereas the idea of authorship in architecture is more complex as the outcome is dependent on the collaboration of other professionals such as engineers and builders to make it a reality.
Critique of the reading
Architecture and Visual Culture:
Architecture as art Richard Williams 2005
BLUR BUILDING
Diller Scofidio + Renfro 2002 temporary pavilion Yverdon-les-Bains SWITZERLAND
Unique point: Proposing new ways of considering what is architecture and what is art
The Blur Building was designed for the Swiss Expo in 2002 and was dismantled afterwards as it was made to be temporary, only existing for the duration of the expo. Being temporary is a quality that makes projects ideal to experiment with non-conventional ideas as they do not have to deal with the problems that permanent buildings face such as practically and cost-effectiveness. In this regard, expos and world fairs are curators for innovation and exhibit projects that break new ground in some way, making such projects exemplars to contribute to the architectural discourse. Blur Building is no exception; it merges the realms of architecture and art. It challenges what we predictably view as architecture: stable walls do not exist; instead there is a lightweight tensegrity metal construction with high-pressure steel jets that sprays water from the surrounding lake. The result is a saturation of moisture in the air and this creates the effect of mist hovering over the surface of the lake, a blur effect. Although this project does not physically seem like a building, it does share some characteristics with what defines architecture. For example, Blur Building is context specific. It takes into account the surrounding environment (Lake Neuchatel where the Swiss Expo is located at) and uses the water from the lake to generate the blur effect. Computers are integrated into the design, constantly processing the changing climatic conditions at the site (temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction) and using this data to adjust the steel jets and the strength of the spray. Blur Building is uniquely attuned to the location it is constructed upon, and this is one of the defining characteristics of architecture. I found the Blur Building interesting because it is an architecture of atmosphere that relies on ephemeral qualities to define it. Diller has said of her design, “our dependence on vision [becomes] the focus of the pavilion” (Wolfe 2006). It is interesting how the primary material used for the project – water – is indigenous to the lake site; similar to the practices of sustainability, using materials sourced locally. I like how Diller Scofidio + Renfro were able to produce something that contrasts so vividly to what a physical building normally is; they were essentially making nothing, even describing their own contribution as “formless, massless, colourless, weightless, odourless, scaleless, featureless, meaningless”. Blur Building does not have a permanent form or boundary, the blur effect is constantly adapting to the climatic conditions of the lake site. It is weightless, challenging the role of gravity in architecture, opening up the possibility that somehow “the weight of our buildings and buildings in the distant future that [escapes] the bounds of the earth” (B.W. Parker as quoted by Sandhana 2002). Even though the project does not use revolutionary construction techniques, it expands the discourse of what can be considered architecture. With the Blur Building, Diller Scofidio + Renfro have created something that blurs the difference between architecture, art and the environment.
Original design by Gaudi; numerous refinements by many others Construction began in 1882 Still under construction Barcelona SPAIN
Sagrada familia
The Sagrada Familia (meaning ‘Holy Family’) is a cathedral in Barcelona, Spain which began construction in 1882 and still is currently under construction to this present day. Antoni Gaudi is the architect responsible for the fusion of Gothic style and curnilinear forms reminiscent of Art Noveau that are present in the cathedral. As the construction was only a quarter completed when Gaudi passed away and much of his detailed plans for the cathedral was burned during the Spanish Civil War, some are critical that the current design is hypothetical and is ruining the original design intent, putting forth the view that the cathedral should be left incomplete, to preserve Gaudi’s design integrity. The overwhelming size of the Sagrada Familia brought about opposition from many of the church leaders in Barcelona as they were worried that Gaudi’s design would upstage the existing Gothic cathedral in the city, however the public supported the new construction. The Sagrada Familia was a symbol of the Catalan nationalism revival at the time and relied on public donations for its construction. In this regard, many saw the cathedral as a way to recapture the community spirit of the Middle Ages, as back then the great cathedrals of Europe was built with public support.
Unique point: Still under construction, each generation to make its own mark
At the turn of the 20th century, Gaudi was considered revolutionary for his time as he chose to disregard the norm of flat horizontal and vertical surfaces in favour of parabolic arches, hyperbolic vaults and slanted, helical columns. He carefully considered elements such as space, light and the surrounding environment and was heavily inspired by nature. The Nativity Façade of the cathedral is composed of four parabolic spires that reach immense heights of 350 feet, which was unheard of at that time. His inspirations from animals and nature manifested themselves into intricate ornamentation that integrated the varied shapes and textures found in nature, which was a contrast to what his contemporaries were focusing on at the same time, such as Frank Lloyd Wright and his prairie style concerned with simplicity and horizontalness. Despite the fact that the Sagrada Familia is still unfinished despite over a century of construction, it is this characteristic which makes it unique in architecture today. Most projects that are built now are proposed to be finished within a lifetime at most, but Gaudi envisioned the church as a ‘medieval project’ that would take decades, perhaps centuries, to complete and he welcomed the idea of successors to make their own mark on the cathedral, a collaboration of sorts throughout generations.
The role of computing in architecture is a controversial one. We have to question whether computers encourage ‘fake’ creativity or whether they are merely limiting our creativity. Many take the first view, also a view put forth by Lawson (?) who states that CAD encourages ‘fake creativity’, but others believe that computing allows us to explore possibilities that would have been difficult or even impossible without the computer. One should differentiate between the terms “computerisation” and “computation” however. Computerisation refers to the digitalisation of physical models and the rationalising of such surfaces into NURBS surfaces, which allow greater flexibility in how these shapes are controlled on the computer. Computation on the other hand is defined as “the use of the computer to process information through an understood model which can be expressed as an algorithm” (Architectural Design, March/April 2013). Advocates of computation believe that computers should be integrated more in the design process, that computers are not merely “just a tool” but something that can generate complex geometries that would have hard to do otherwise. Herbert Simon claims that design problems are “ill-structured”, as they are open to interpretation and multiple goals often need to be considered, sometimes resulting in tradeoffs. This renders the design outcome as unpredictable, similar to the puzzle making concept discussed in the previous section. Design problems are open to experimentation and never-ending possibilities, and this may be daunting to address without the use of computing. Yehuda Kalay in his essay ‘Architecture’s New Media” notes that while computers are “superb analytical engines” capable of digesting huge amounts of information, they lack the creativity to produce their own instructions. I agree with this point, that although computing can help allow for interesting outcomes, it is ultimately up to the designer to evaluate constantly and know when to intervene and adapt the computer processes when needed. We should work in synergy with the computer in order to produce the best outcomes; Kalay proposes the collaboration of the computers’ “superb rational and search abilities” with our human creativity and intuition to solve design problems. I believe this would be advantageous as the computer compensates for our weakness in processing complex tasks; with the computer to aid us, we can achieve much more complicated designs. Computation essentially complements the intellect of the designer and improves our ability to solve complex problems.
“[In digital generative processes] the emphasis shifts from the “making of form” to the “finding of form”, which various digitallybased generative techniques seem to bring about intentionally.” (Kalay 2004) This could possibly mean that digital processes enable form finding or refining better than completely making a form from scratch. This is what computerisation is essentially. Although we make an initial model in the physical world, we can use computerisation techniques to “scan” this physical model onto a computer which we can then “form find” through adapting and refining the initial model further using NURBS surfaces.
The typical design process presently involves the use of drawings with established conventions and scale models. I find that using such mediums helpful in experimenting with various possibilities (puzzle making!) and visualising how spaces work before I commit them for refinement. However, computing could be something nice to introduce to this process. As stated previously, computing can aid in analysing and processing complicated tasks in an efficient manner. Computers can be used as another way to generate and conceptualise my ideas in order to synthesise a solution to the puzzle, perhaps offering a more realistic representation than any drawing could. For example, I am aware that BIM (Building Information Modelling) is a framework that puts together all the information for constructing a building from various sources in one program, and this seems to be more convenient to use than having numerous drawings to reference upon. As Architectural Design (March/April 2013) notes, “The development of computational simulation tools can create more responsive designs, allowing architects to explore new design options and to analyse architectural decisions during the design process”. By having such constant responsive updates on how the design might perform when built, we can use this information to refine our design as needed. We can also use the information generated from BIM after the design and construction stages, during the occupation stage of the building itself. Feedback between users, building and the environment can be updated in the digital model, and this model can be used to propose changes that could be implemented to further improve building performance for its users and environment even after construction is completed.
computational
architecture
Critique of the reading
Architecture’s new media
principles, theories & methods of computeraided design Yehuda Kalay 2004 “Design is a process we engage in when the current situation is different from some desired situation, and when the actions needed to transform the former into the latter are not immediately obvious. … Design, accordingly, is a purposeful activity, aimed at achieving some well-defined goals.” This means that the final result should add something new or be different from what existed previously. If all design was undertaken in this manner, we can conclude that all design adds to the architectural discourse, as it is something unknown previously. We want our Gateway projects to hopefully bring something inventive to the architectural discourse.
Design search processes: Depth first. Examining each solution one at a time to its logical conclusion (either it achieves the goals or it fails), then moving on to the next solution if it does fail. Breadth first. Exploration of multiple solutions before deciding on one solution to develop to its logical conclusion.
Personally, I prefer breadth first as the way to search for a design solution. I believe depth first is too narrow in scope and can be quite limiting, as what happens if the first solution picked satisfies the goals adequately, how would you know that the solution you initially picked is the ideal one in the end? Breadth first allows for more experimentation in the search process, and it is through this experimenting we have a number of options to evaluate against our goals and then we can select the one which best achieves our goals for further development.
To decide which solution is the most ideal one for further development, it would be helpful to put in place constraints that “gradually reduces the size of the solution space and guides the process toward a particular solution” (Kalay 2004). Sometimes this Best first. Evaluation of all may involve designers establishing additional constraints to what currently available solutions the client initially proposes. In terms of our Gateway project, this before choosing one for can involve us going out onto the site itself and seeing whether development. To me, this seems our site analysis and first-hand observations can add something quite similar to “breadth first”. we want to adapt or address in particular on the competition brief.
Computation techniques in architecture are usually associated with the monumental structures that tower its neighbours, a visual landmark on the city’s horizon. However, computation does have a place in the smaller-scale domestic realm. English architecture firm Facit Homes is one of the first to integrate parametric and digital production methods in its design and construction process, changing the way residential projects are built. Facit Homes calls this computational process the “D-Process”. In the design of Hertfordshire House, all the processes associated with constructing a house (including the design, engineering, research and development, prototyping, production and assembly processes) were undertaken by a single entity called the Building Information Modelling (BIM). BIM allows all the consultants to work on one entity together, simplifying the collaboration involved between the parties. BIM is utilised to produce a 3D computer model that encompasses all the information needed for every aspect of the building – materials and their quantities, wall angles and even the position of items such as electrical sockets. It also allows consideration for environmental design, such as calculating the insulation value of the building envelope. A key feature of the D-Process is that these 3D digital elements are directly fabricated on-site in mobile production facilities (MPF). By making these building components in-situ, an efficient construction system occurs. MPF contain equipment that use information from BIM to precisely cut materials, reducing the material waste produced and the time spent that would have occurred if manufactured by hand. By having MPF, the need to transport large prefabricated structures to the site (and the related carbon emissions) is eliminated. Fewer building
contractors would be required as a consequence as the MPF does part of their job. In this regard, Facit Homes is changing how construction occurs on-site and is influencing the way sustainability could be achieved in the construction industry. However, the way computational techniques are used by Facit Homes differs from the typical prefabricated house present at the moment. The D-Process still allows for every project to be compatible to the unique conditions on site; it is not simply a case of mass-manufacturing housing components from a factory and assembling them on a variety of sites without regard for specific context conditions. Computational techniques played a vital role in the design and construction of Hertfordshire House. Computing has the power to bring information from various sources and consultants together in a single entity known as BIM, and this allows for more efficient and more sustainable practices to occur. As Facit Homes as shown, computing has a significant role at all scales of architecture and should be just limited to large-scale projects. After researching Hertfordshire House, I realised that not all computational projects have to look complicatedly intimidating. This is something useful for me to keep in mind as I approach the Gateway project: the use of parametric techniques does not equal complexity in appearance; it could mean efficiency of its construction.
Facit Homes 2012 built residential Hertfordshire ENGLAND
Hertfordshire House
Unique point: Computation techniques are not only for large-scale monumental buildings, can be used for residential small-scale projects; changing the construction process
British Museum
Great Court Architects: Foster & Partners | Engineers: Buro Happold 1994 - 2002 London ENGLAND
Unique point: An accomplishment of architecture and engineering working in synergy This project revitalised the garden in the middle of the British Museum into a covered civic area, in the process transforming one of London’s long-lost spaces. Where previously before, the courtyard was congested and difficult to navigate, the reinvention of the space provided a centralised circulation area that linked the surrounding galleries of the museum. The efforts of Foster and Partners was highly valuable as it guided the means for better pedestrian traffic as people enter the museum, and with visitor numbers toppling over five million annually, the British Museum is just as popular as the Louvre. The Great Court project comprises of a steel-framed lattice with over three thousand triangular panels of glass. Each glass panel is uniquely shaped and had to be precise, a tolerance of only three millimetres has been accounted for. Without the use of computers to determine these exact geometries, such a precise lattice would not have been able to develop. According to Greg Lynn, parametric modelling makes this possible, as it allows for the repetition of a form (the triangle in this case) but with slight differences in the shape of each individual panel according to their unique position within the lattice. It makes use of a technique called ‘fritting’ where the glass panels are screenprinted with small dots on half their surface area. Fritting filters ultraviolet rays and minimises solar gain, a nod to sustainability issues prevalent in the past few decades. Visitors enter the Great Court from the principal floor of the museum, and the glazed canopy provides a contrast to the classical Ionic portico forecourt of the British Museum exterior. When people enter the Great Court, they are met with an explosion of light and space. The Great Court is the largest covered square in Europe. “What should make the topology particularly appealing are not the new forms but, paradoxically, the shift of emphasis from the form to the structure(s) of relations, interconnections that exist internally and externally within an architectural project. Whether an architectural topological structure is given a curvilinear (“blobby”) or rectilinear (“boxy”) form should be a result of particular performance circumstances surrounding the project, whether they are morphological, cultural, tectonic, material, economic and/or environmental.” (Kolarevic 2003) This means that architectural forms should have a logical reasoning behind it, that they are not just “token” shapes plucked out of thin air. The glass canopy used in the British Museum Great Court is an example of how “performance circumstances” such as the existing Reading Room and quadrangle surroundings informed the shape of the glass canopy and the way the steel-framed lattice was configured in the project.
parametric modelling and
scripting “Parametric digital modelling is the paradigm of programming the definitions of the geometry and their associated relationships so that they might be more easily adjustable by simple algorithmic manipulation and changes can be varied interactively. In theory, a well thought out parametric program can increase the productivity, allowing for an increase in design iterations and the creation of variations in families of parts for fabrication. It promises to increase the productivity of an operator, saving time in the design process.� (Rick Smith 2007)
“Algorithmic thinking means … knowing how to modify the code to explore new options and speculating on further design potentials. We are moving from an era where architects use software to one where they create software.” (Architectural Design, March/April 2013).
“In parametric design, it is the parameters of a particular design that are declared, not its shape. By assigning different values to the parameters, different objects or configurations can be created. Equations can be used to describe the relationships between objects thus defining an associative geometry … Parametric design calls for the rejection of fixed solutions and for an exploration of infinitely variable potentialities. ” (Kolarevic 2003) “[P]arametrically controlled digital modelling works well for quick design iterations of a project allowing a designer to step through many “what if” concepts much quicker, increasing productivity.” (Smith 2007) This opens up a range of possibilities, that by changing the values we input into the parameters, we can come up with a whole new variation of the design. This is much easier to do with the computer than by hand. It allows us to experiment further with one solution, allowing for the “depth first” design search process to occur more quickly and more easily, as proposed by Kalay. Grasshopper, the program we are using to generate forms for the Gateway project, is a form of parametric modelling which incorporates inputs into algorithms to create designs.
This quote highlights one of the potential problems that parametric scripting with algorithms may have: we need to know “how to modify the code” in order to make something, that instead of merely just using the software, architects are now creating the very software used in parametric programming. However, I feel that such approaches are not intuitive and can be difficult to master. It questions the role of the architect: are we now expected to become programmers in order to have our design voices heard in the future? Is simply coming up with a great concept and being able to sketch it not enough? Can architects afford to not use computation in the future? If parametric programs become the norm for architects in the future, there may be issues concerning the reuse and sharing of such modelling. As Rick Smith notes, “any operator using the model needs intimate knowledge of the parametric program that is written for that specific design” (2007). If one does not possess the “intimate knowledge” required, they would be unable to alter the parametric model meaningfully. As a result, the original programmer becomes the primary intellectual owner of the model, and this can be limiting in terms of contributing to the architectural discourse on parametric techniques, because only one person (or the selected group of individuals with the “intimate knowledge”) adds to the discourse. I feel that in order to make meaningful contributions to the discourse, it would be more viable to collaborate with others in a group environment, much like we are doing now with the Gateway project. This would allow for the exchange of ideas and exposure to different ways of thinking, characteristics ideal for creating something innovative. I am quite glad that I have the opportunity to work with two other members in my studio to produce the Gateway project; it certainly makes the task to create something interesting less daunting and more achievable.
“Once you think you have a working parametric model you may still find you haven't programmed a parameter of the geometry in a way that is adjustable to a designer's future request. A designer might say I want to move and twist this wall, but you did not foresee that move and there is no parameter to accommodate the change. It then unravels your program. Many times you will have to start all over again. Imagine trying to do this on a complex and fully integrated building.” (Smith 2007) Another limitation parametric modelling has is that often “front-loading” is involved; that is, we need to put in place all necessary and conceivable parameters at the beginning of the design process. However this may be difficult, as how would we know what to expect and what elements we want to account for before the designing has even occurred? It can be constraining to consider all the likely variables at the start; we may be closing ourselves off too early to certain possibilities. Nevertheless lack of parameter establishing at the beginning may lead to complications later in the design process; in the example given in the preceding quote, something as simple as “twisting this wall” can be hard to achieve with a parametric model that already has a dense interconnection of parameters in place; such changes can even break or “unravel” the parametric equation. This relates to what Herbert Simon (as quoted by Kalay 2004) referred to in reference to the balancing of multiple goals in design problems – tradeoffs sometimes occur in order to accommodate these goals. In the case of parametric modelling, we are trading off the control of some variables in the design for more control in other areas.
“Parametricism is the great new style after modernism. The new style claims relevance on all scales from architecture and interior design to large scale urban design. The larger the scale of the project the more pronounced is parametricism’s superior capacity to articulate programmatic complexity.” (Schumacher 2009) I hold similar beliefs to Schumacher, that parametricism has a place in the future of architecture and urban design, but only if used in collaboration with our existing skills and with others. Parametric modelling has the benefit of speed and being able to be more flexible in generating many different outcomes just by altering some parameters in the model. However, like with all design tools, there are also limitations. I am not too sure if I totally agree with Schumacher on the point that “parametricism is the great new style after modernism”, as for this to occur, a widespread adoption of parametric techniques by architects is needed for such a style to be established properly and this can be difficult at the present moment because of the limitations of parametric modelling identified earlier. Nevertheless, I look forward to immersing myself in the world of parametric scripting this semester and seeing where it takes me and seeing whether I am convinced of its benefits at the end of this course.
Bao’an International Airport
Terminal 3
Massimiliano Fuksas and Knippers Helbig Advanced Engineering 2012 Shenzhen CHINA
Unique point: Parametric programming offers the opportunity to redefine the role of structural engineers; even though the structure itself is simple, the façade cladding proved to be another problem
With a perforated cladding comprising of 60 000 unique façade elements with 400 000 individual steel members, parametric modelling was necessary to bring it under control. Rhino and Microsoft Excel worked in collaboration to produce this parametric model. The parametric data model that resulted was organised into four layers: the inner and outer facades each had their own layer, while two layers were dedicated to the inner grid structure. This model controlled the two design parameters (the size and slope of the glass openings in the façade) according to daylight, solar gain and viewing angles requirements imposed by the local authority, and they also ensured that the standard was up to the architect’s aesthetic intentions. Up to fifty different models were trialled for the tessellation of the terminal roof. In the end, a honeycomb motif was selected made out of panels from metal and glass that can be partially opened. It is with the power of parametric modelling that numerous and extensive trials could be completed easily for such a vast space (the terminal measures nearly 1 400 metres in length), as it allows for efficient control of fine details. This makes parametric tools flexible, allowing for changes to occur at relatively any stage of the design process.
iSaw can be seen as an development of a previous work of Kokkugia completed in 2005, the Parachute Pavilion. The Parachute Pavilion was the first instance wetform geometries were used by the design firm, gaining its inspiration from the interaction of liquid and gas when bubbles from milkshakes and carbonated drinks enlarge and multiply as they travel towards the surface. Despite the simplicity of this process, Kokkugia transforms this into code, creating algorithms to fabricate their structures. I feel that it is ironic that such a complicated method was used to produce a topology that mimicked the seemingly unfussy interaction of liquid and gas. However, parametric modelling does have some merits in this project: it allows the precise control of certain elements. iSaw uses a lattice with a non-linear gradient that thickens beyond a set threshold, where spaces emerge so that it becomes inhabitable. It is through parametric scripting that allows the provision of such a threshold that is capable enough to communicate to the model when and where to change the walls and make them thicker. The lack of parametric scripting here would have made this task very complicated to achieve manually; trying to adapt an already convoluted topology by hand would have been disastrous as there are many variables one has to consider before changes are implemented. As Rick Smith (2007) notes, the application of major changes to a parametric model may break the algorithm behind it, as such a change may not have been accounted for at the beginning of the project.
iSaw
Kokkugia 2012 unbuilt/conceptual Warsaw POLAND
Unique point: Parametric scripting can be used to produce intricate skins that divide and create space
My design approach to the Gateway project will be one of PUZZLE MAKING (as opposed to problem solving). In order to contribute meaningfully to the architectural discourse, it is necessary to constantly experiment and evaluate our efforts. In puzzle making, there is no set path towards the outcome, only a framework is established at the beginning. The framework in this case will be the Wyndham City Gateway Project Document and the fact that we will be using Grasshopper to generate algorithms which create forms and topologies for the Gateway proposal.
Who and how can benefit?
Why is it significant to design in this way?
How is it innovative?
What will your design approach be like?
conclusion
Puzzle making is innovative as it encourages us to experiment. Before we experiment though, we look at precedents of revolutionary projects in the past and analyse what makes them unique, whether it be it challenges our conventional notions of what architecture is (Blur Building), or whether they used new construction techniques (Hertfordshire House), or how their use of parametric scripting allows for precise control (Bao’an International Airport). Through analysing precedents, we create a “base” from which we can progress from, and hopefully challenge the status quo of design or what is already out there. Precedents are important to study as it makes us aware of what is already existing so we can learn from them. Approaching the Gateway project with a puzzle making mindset that urges us to experiment, develop and evaluate should help us create a design with parametric tools and scripting that is interesting and beautiful. If we experiment enough, we may be able to challenge the status quo of the architectural design space. As a result, our project would contribute to the discourse.
learning
outcomes My knowledge of architectural computing has greatly expanded since starting this subject. I feel that I am constantly learning. Before studying architecture formally at university, my ideas of architecture were embarrassingly shallow. Initially I thought that architecture was the design of aesthetic buildings with purpose, and while this is still true, I have now realised that architecture is much more than that. It is about constantly experimentation and evaluation, and how the first idea you come up with is not always the best one. Learning about parametric scripting programs such as Grasshopper and their power to create all sorts of variations just by altering the parameters astounds me. With this sort of process, I believe we can create architecture that is attuned to its site and context and changes accordingly when the surrounding changes or people are present. It would be interesting to produce a design that interacts with its environment and audience, by somehow having parameters on-site that constantly update. Out of all the buildings I’ve looked at for the Case for Innovation section, I quite enjoy the Blur Building because it merges the line between architecture and art, and is reactive to climatic conditions. The use of water vapour as its primary “material” intrigues me as it challenges what can be used as building materials and makes us wonder, does it have to be permanent and physical for it to be an effective material? This is particularly relevant for me as my group has decided on “materiality” as the design focus for the Gateway project, and it will be interesting to explore this realm throughout this semester.
design
approach expression
of interest stage Part TWO
list of
references case for
innovation expression
of interest stage Part ONE
Architecture as Discourse Kalay, Yehuda E, 2004. “Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of ComputerAided Design” (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) Williams, Richard, 2005. “Architecture and Visual Culture”, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) Blur Building Diller, Scofidio and Renfro firm website. <http://www. dsrny.com> Hill, John, date unknown. “Blur Building: The Architecture of Nothing”. <http://www.archidose.org/writings/blur.html> Sandhana, Lakshmi, 2002. “If You Build It, They Will Drink”, Wired. < http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/07/53700> [pics] Author unknown, 2002. “Diller & Scofidio: The Blur Building”, Designboom. <http://www.designboom.com/eng/funclub/dillerscofidio.html> Renfro, Charles, date unknown. “Blur Building:
Jurors’ Description of the Project”. <http://www.thinkspace.org/en/competitions/blur/> Wolfe, Cary, 2006. “Lose the Building: Systems Theory, Architecture, and Diller+Scofidio’s Blur”. <http://www.carywolfe.com/16.3wolfe.html> Sagrada Familia Schumacher, Edward, 1991. “Gaudi’s Church Still Divides Barcelona”, The New York Times. <http://www. nytimes.com/1991/01/01/arts/gaudi-s-church-stilldivides-barcelona.html> Hertfordshire House Bell, Bruce & Simpkin, Sarah, 2013. “Domesticating Parametric Design”, Architectural Design (March/ April 2013). Facit Homes, 2013. “D-Process”. <http://www.facithomes.com/dprocess> Facit Homes, 2013. “Celia & Diana: Herfordshire”. <http://www.facit-homes.com/clients/celia-diana> British Museum Great Court
Sudjic, Deyan, 2000. “The Bloomsbury Coup”, The Observer. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2000/nov/12/2> “Great Court at the British Museum”, pdf handout from Foster and Partners. Hart, Sara, year unknown. “A Brilliant Shell Game at the British Museum”, Architectural Record. <http:// archrecord.construction.com/resources/conteduc/ archives/0103brilliant-1.asp> Pearman, Hugh, 2000. “Empire in the Sun”, Sunday Times Magazine. <http://www.hughpearman.com/ articles2/britmuseum.html> Parametric Modelling and Scripting Smith, Rick. 2007. Technical Notes from experiences and studies in using Parametric and BIM architectural software. <http://www.vbtllc.com/images/VBTTechnicalNotes.pdf> Schumacher, Patrik, 2008. “Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design”, Architectural Design (July/August 2009). Bao’an International Airport Terminal 3 Knippers, Jan, 2013. “From Model Thinking to Process Design”, Architectural Design (March/April 2013). iSaw Author unknown, 2008. “Kokkugia’s iSaw”, IconEye. <http://www.iconeye.com/news/news/kokkugia-sisaw> Kokkugia’s own entry on iSaw. <http://www.kokkugia. com/>