ADS3 - Air Final Journal Nick Bergin by Nick Bergin

AIR. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO University of Melbourne | 2012 Nicholas Sigi Bergin | 327088

|i|

AIR | CONTENTS

| ii |

1.0 PART 1.0

| EXPRESSION OF INTEREST |

| 01 |

1.1 | THE CASE FOR ARCHITECTURE

| 02 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE | WHERE I’M AT? |

NAME | Nicholas Sigi Bergin 3RD YEAR | BEnvs ABOUT | Prior to enrolling in the Bachelor of Environments, I was a commerce student. I chose to finish, however it was clear where my passion lied, with Architecture, so it’s a relief to finally be doing something I’m passionate about and interested in. I’m currently into my final year of the Bachelor of Environments and majoring in architecture. My design focused subjects have been the two studios I undertook as breadth whilst still in commerce and Virtual Environments last semester.

really progress and push myself in this studio, after my ‘warmup’ in Virtual Environments. I am starting to become more aware of the presence of digital architecture however I would say my knowledge of the theoretical aspect of the field is quite limited. That being said, it is a reletively new design phenomenon, so I’ll excuse myself. So really, I’m 6 months into my digital architecture experiment. Obviously I can’t claim to be an expert so I won’t make any sweeping statements, as I just don’t know yet.

I’ve traditionally been a bit skeptical of digital architecture, sure the heroic renders look sexy, but is that all? Is the computer just a cleaner tool for those who can’t draw? As someone who tended to hand-draw all of my projects, often purely out of stubborness, I tended to steer clear of the computer unless absolutely necessary. But now I’ve cracked. I began the year open to being ‘seduced’ by this ‘digital architecture’ and want to see for myself. It’s slow progress but I feel I’m coming I also feel these skills are a necessary development for decent employment. around. So this gives me added incentives to In semester 1 2012 I undertook do as best as I can and jumo into this Virtual Environments which was my studio. first experience with digital design. It took me a while to get going VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS | SEM and get my head around it. I was 1 | 2012 impressed by the results and the PROJECT BRIEF | ‘wow’ factor of many of the other students presentations except I have Design a lamp based on a natural one problem. I felt all of the projects process and develop it in Rhino softlooked much the same. It begs the ware into a fully functional 3D model question; is digital design constrained using paper. The natural process by the tools at our disposal? I could that was chosen was of a snake answer my own question here as shedding it’s skin. Using the three I recognise that once upon a time design drivers; growth, pattern and architects were constrained by their peeling to underpin the design. Afmaterials, such as stone and wood..... ter initial form modelling in clay, Rhino until the invention of cast iron. But I software was used to refine the form, panel the surfaces and prepare the still think it is a valid point. design for fabrication. Fabrication Nevertheless, the potential of was implemented by unfolding and design through this medium is very laser-cutting card to create a scaled exciting to me and I’m hoping to 3D model.

| 03 |

1.1.0. | Who? | Intro | Past-work |

1.1.0. | WHO? | INTRO | PAST WORK | 04 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

DISCOURSE | Digital architecture as a discourse is the focus of this studio. My best understanding of a discourse is like a ‘zeitgeist,’ or ‘spirit of the times.’ Whether or not this merely becomes a trend or a fad remains to be seen, however this studio is an opportunity to discover the digital design medium for myself. What is clear about digital technologies and computation methods is that they are opening up new possibilities in terms of the form of structures, however, is that all that digital architecture can offer? More inventive forms and a new aesthetic? If so, then this is nothing new, and I feel this type of architecture won’t last, and hence my skepticism at this stage. The Baroque period, characterised by curvilinear forms has been and gone. Digital architecture needs more substance to become really useful and fulfil the potential of architecture and its ability to contribute to the public realm. It seems as though digital architecture certainly can enhance the visual and aesthetic aspect of architecture, but what else can it achieve? It is an exciting prospect to consider. I feel it is an area that I must challenge both in a theoreti-

listic approach that incorporates the social and functional is important. A balance between the visual, the structural, functional and the social aspects of the building is in my view important and should always remain When we talk of architecture itself the focus of the discourse amongst and the discourse that surrounds it. architecture. My first reaction is to think of architecture as a form of art. However I Architecture functions on a social believe it is not just purely an artform level as it elicts emotions from the as Williams (2005, p.103) agrees, observer and the user. It can also contending it is as much a ‘philo- convey an image. It is a spatial expesophical, social and professional rience to the user and to the passerrealm as a material one’. The down- by. The human scale of architecture fall I believe of viewing architecture as allows it greater potential over other purely an art is that this view neglects art-forms. This, perhaps more subthe social, and functional aspects of liminal effect that architecture can architectural design, and turns it into have, is nevertheless very important. simply as aesthetic challenge, which Willaims (2005) offers architecture as I believe is only one small portion of either a sign, or an urban and social architecture as a whole. Architecture experience. He contends that either has more potential than just aesthetic, perspective is valid as they present and as such is the best medium with architecture as something we are rewhich to fulfill the brief of this project. ceptive to. The aesthetical aspects of architecture are the most visually obvious, Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and however are not necessarily the most Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual important. Therefore when discuss- Culture : Definitions, Concepts, ing architecture as a discourse, I think Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley it is important that the emphasis isn’t (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University purely on form. Hence, a more ho- Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 16. cal and hands-on manner to decide for myself. To begin with, one must question the nature of architecture itself to question the validity of digital architecture.

1.1.A. | ARCHITECTURE AS DISCOURSE

| 05 |

1.1.A. | Architecture as Discourse

| 06 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://beinglatino.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/flat_ iron_building.jpg

02 | Image Taken by author

| 07 |

1.1.A. | Architecture as Discourse

DANIEL BURNHAM 1902 | MANHATTAN, NEW YORK |

03 03 | Image Taken by author

WHY I LIKE IT? | I’ve chosen a classic building seemingly at odds with this digital architecture studio, but it remains a beautiful building. In this case and I like it for how it responds to the site. Free from any crazy form-making or cutting edge technology, (although it was at the time with the reletive newness of steel structures). It has stood the test of time and still commands more interest than many of the so-called ‘modern’ buildings around it. Having been there earlier this year I found it incredible to look at and was amazed at how it’s lines attract the eye and commands attention, almost as though all roads lead to this building, the centrepoint of the area of New York. As part of the intial stages of the modern movement, the Flatiron showcased the latest design technology; steel construction and was at the time one of the tallest buildings in the world. I think this building re-iterates the need to use the best technology available at our disposal and is a good inspiration for this studio in that sense. The architectural discourse at the time was beginning to embrace new methods of steel construction which enabled new use of form, as well as the pursuit of heights that were previously unfathomable. The Flatiron added to the discourse around the turn of the century in it’s unusual geometry and it’s ability to respond (even if somewhat literally) to the context of the site. Although in the design itself it wasn’t exactly modern, harking back to Baroque tendancies for ornamnetation and was slammed by critics at the time, it still responds to its context. |

ARCHITECTURAL FAVOURITES | FLATIRON BUILDING NY | 08 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 01 | http://skww.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/ img_6206.jpg

02 | http://architypesource.com/img/uploaded/projects/508/wh663-41.jpg

| 09 |

1.1.A. | Architecture as Discourse ZAHA HADID | INNESBRUCK, AUSTRIA | WHY I LIKE IT? | Contrasting to my previous favourite example, this design is reletively new, a deliberate choice, which illustrates my unwillingness to associate with a particular ‘camp.’ This design captures a certain malleability of architecture that excites me. I like the fact that at any one time it appears to be both in the process of movement, yet static at the same time. It gives the structure a sense of dynamism, as if it is somewhat about to slide away. I also like the fact that no two parts of the structure appear to be the same, every angle offers something new. Almost as though it is in the process of melting, like the ice caps on the mountain peaks in the distance. The designs are tweaked slightly over four stations to adapt to the specific conditions of the site, all whilst maintaining their cohenence. This is an exciting part of digital and parametric architecture, the ability to tweak and change designs ever so slightly, to tailor the designs to the site allows the design to respond more appropriately to context. The linkage that is created between each station is seamless and this project really represents the advantages of digital architecture.

03 03 | http://www.architypereview.com/img/uploaded/projects/508/zha-nordpark-cablerailway-hb-4_rpg.jpg

Zaha Hadid’s designs are probably the most recognizable of the current generation of digital architects and therefore fits perfectly as a precedent when considering the possibilities of digital design in the current discourse. Although much of her other projects (which I don’t really like) seem very repetitive I think this one in particular responds to its cotextual obligations and while exploring the limits of form, is not just form-making for the sake of it, which I despise. It is good to see her projects actually being built to prove that forms such as this can be realised in real-life which pushes the upper limits materiality in architecture. Zaha’s designs such as this are contributing in a strong way to the architectural discourse through their seamless and flowing digital forms that are becoming more and more attainable through digital mediums. |

ARCHITECTURAL FAVOURITES | NORDPARK CABLE RAILWAY AUSTRIA

| 10 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

COMPUTING | My initial understanding of computing and architecture was that of a tool, a time-saver to architects. I believe this role is changing, as new developments in parametric architecture are increasing the computers capacity to actually be a valuable part of the design process. The status quo function of computers in architecture has been one of ‘computerization,’ in that it automates and speeds up a process, rather than changing the way we design. Essentially the same designs could be achieved with paper and a drawing board, only it would take substantially longer. Computers are advatgeous in being able to calculate complexity, however architects have traditionally not really used computers to their advantage in this regard. Basic calculations such as length, area and volume are easilly achieved by computers but I believe we have only really scratched the surface in unlocking a computers potential for design. What interests me is the relational aspects of architecture. The ability to create associative geometries that respond to the needs of the client. Such patterns of behaviour are not easilly quantifiable by the human brain. This is where computers offer a distinct advantage. As Kalay

(2004) suggests, computers by nature excel analytically, however they need humans as they ‘lack any creative abilities or intuition.’ A symbiosis between humans and computers is therefore needed to bridge this gap. Therefore it is not computerization, but computation, that is of interest. The ability of a computer to aid the design, rather than simply aiding the documentation and fabrication process. Theoretically, parametric architecture i.e. designing the system and setting the parameters, then letting the computer do the designing would facillitate this aim. This ‘bottom-up’ approach is at odds to traditional ‘top-down’ methodologies but perhaps holds the key to future architectural practice. Simulation of the effects of real life parameters, is therefore the greatest advantage of computational methods of design. The ability to design systems to respond to live and unpredictable parameters such as heat, wind, loads, social interaction, workplace synergies etc. is a worthwhile pursuit, which will enhance the value of architecture to the general public, the users of our designed buildings. Another advantage of computation is the digital continuum that is being developed linking design and construction and the synergies that are

appearing. As suggested by Branko Kolarevic in “Architecture in the Digital Age,” the contemporary digital architectures find their legitimizations in the exploitation of the latest technological advances, as well as new digital means of conception and construction and production. Previously unatttainable forms have emerged from this modelling software which would have once been considered too hard. New topological geometries centred around relations and interconnections within a spatial context are being created. Sptial relations over spatial distinctions. Digital architecture represents the oppotunity to synthesise all stages of the process of creating a building, from design, development, analysis, testing and manufacturing. As well as the ability to easilly change and manipulate design according to certain factors. | Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25;

1.1.B. | COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE | 11 |

1.1.B. | Computing in Architecture

PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE Performative architecture has a wide variety of solutions. Perhaps why I am interested in it is because I cannot seem to untie myself from the idea that architecture must have a purpose other than that of being sculptural. To me, architecture is not, and never will be solely about form. It needs more reason, more logic behind it to differentiate it from other types of art- like sculpture or painting or whatever. This is why performative architecture appeals to me more than other forms of digital architecture. It has a purpose. As Kalay (2004, p.5) agrees “design, accordingly, is a purposeful activity, aimed at achieving some well defined goals.” Kolorevic (2003) argues that performative architecture uses ‘building performance as a guiding principal.’ Therefore it places performance above form-making, which is personally resonates with me strongly. By utilizing the digital technologies of quantitave and qualitative performance based simulation, it offers a new, and I believe a worthwhile approach to design. However it can be argued that performative architecture can be interpreted and justified in a large number of ways, for buildings have a large array of purposes, any which

of these can justify a building as performative, for example financial, spatial, social, cultural, ecological and technical as mentioned by Kolarevic.

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28

The idea of performative architecture therefore seems quite open to interpretation, at this stage, being new to the digital realm, I am happy to accept this. Of particular interest in terms of performative architecture is the idea of structural and energy use optimization in architecure. To me this seems like a worthwhile pursuit as it can be seen as sustainable in terms of the construction, ensuring materials and energy are not wasted. Whilst this is not a new idea, the new software avaialble is offering the ability to achieve this aim to a greater extent.

Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25;

The ability to analyse and respond to airflows, fluid flows, the transfer of heat mass, stress and deformation and the like is something that I think will take building design to the next level and something worthwhile, with tanglible results for its occupants. I also think that by doing this, the role of an architect will become more important and more respected by the general public, as the results of good design suddenly become much more tangible to the users. It ensures that architectural discourse remains much more than just a study in form. |

1.1.B. | PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE | 12 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://senseseville.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ view-from-metropol02 | http://buildipedia.com/images/masterformat/ Channels/Go_Green/2011.08.16_metropol_parasol/ images_david_franck/parasol_aerial_credit_david_ franck_03.jpg

03 | http://www.yatzer.com/assets/Article/2577/ images/Jurgen-Mayer-H-Seville-Spain-photoFernando-Alda-yatzer-6.jpg

04 | http://www.iantenseldam.com/Artists/30382/ Images/1952011231623634_Metropol

| 13 |

1.1.B. | Computing in Architecture J.H MAYER ARCHITECTS | SEVILLE, SPAIN | PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE |

05 05 | http://www.iantenseldam.com/Artists/30382/Images/

This design encompasses the idea that the form is the structure. Although this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, in fact it has been around for thousands of years, it nevertheless explores certain possibilities to deal with form as a sturctural entity. The ability of the computer to create parts and pieces to assemble the structure in a sense is lending itself more to becoming like the manufacturing industry. This particular design can be characterised as performative in terms of it’s structure. The members that provide the structure also provide the shade, the fascade, and all of the functional requirements of the structure, whilst simultaneously providing the emotive response to its observers that was intended. So whilst at first this may be considered purely form-making, it isn’t, in that its form is everything else that it needs to be. Whilst I don’t profess to be a fan of the proliferated use of waffle-like structures that are now commonplace, this one has been done particularly well. Interesting to note also, of this project is the speed of construction. Parts were simply sent to and produced by the manufacturer and then transported to the site with the utmost accuracy. A significant step, I believe in abolishing the current norm of simply using standard materials and construction sizing in projects. Customization of parts is becoming a reality with more performative structures like this requiting individually tailored pieces to be built. Synergies with engineering programs and manufacturers, creating a ‘file to factory’ workflow, makes this possible. The use of wood as a medium has been structurally optimized to make it the largest wooden structure in the world. Computer technology has worked out the optimal structural form of this wooden structure, to allow it to stand the various forces with such a material as wood. As suggested by Kolarevic, the ‘digital based convergence of representation and production processes, represents the most important opportunity for a profound transformation of the preofession and, by extension, of the entire building industry.’ |

1.1.B. PRECEDENTS | METROPOL PARASOL

| 14 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://hdwallpapersdesktop.com/wallpapers/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/27/Desktop-tower-bridge-sunrise-city-hall-morningengland-london-uk.jpg

02 | http://garydidsbury.files.wor interior-london-2.jpg

1.1.B. PRECEDENTS | CITY HALL LONDON | 15 |

rdpress.com/2010/09/city-hall-

1.1.B. | Computing in Architecture FOSTER + PARTNERS | LONDON, ENGLAND | PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE | This building appeals to me as a member of the new buildings of the current batch of computer generated architeture discourse. Less so for its look, but more for the drivers that produced the forms that is seen.

03 03 | http://rockstararchitects.com/sitebuildercontent/ sitebuilderpictures/DSC07732.JPG

The building for the Greater London Authority (GLA) headquarters, underwent significant engineering changes after Arup analysed its thermal and acoustic performance. The ‘pebble’ like form was a direct result of the energy performance of the building, which minmized the surface area exposed to direct sunlight/ As a result the deformed sphere form has a 25% smaller surface area than a cube of identical volume. This had obvious benefits in the form of reduced solar heat gain and loss, and hence less of a need to rely on artificial heating sources from within (Kolarevic, 2010). The cladding was similarly developed through analysis of sunlight patterns throughout the year and was optimized to such parameters (Kolarevic, 2010). To the south, (the sunny side) the building leans back on itself such that the floors above proved the shading for the floors below This building clearly demonstrates that the much maligned ‘blobby’ forms can be more than smiply an expression of aesthetics, that the forms are derived as a direct result of performance, i.e. emergent forms. Socially one oculd also argue that the building is performative, the openness and transparency of the building is designed to reflect the democratic process that is confined inside the walls of the building as it is used. The building certainly shows the marked advantages of computational design with a performative focus, and is a direction that I am most interested in, as it has the ability to produce tangible, real-world results that benefit all of the stakeholders. | Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28 | 16 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE | As the name suggests, the idea of parametric architecture is that the structure responds to parameters. Parametric architecture is currentlly gathering momentum in the architectural discourse. If I could be clear, I firmly believe that parametricism is not a style, rather it is still just a design tool. So for proponents of parametric design such as Patrik Schumacher to declare it as a style I believe is wrong, it is nothing of the sort. It only offers a profound change in how we use computers to design, nothing more. The basic pretense of parametric architecutre is of a bottom-up approach to design, as opposed to top-down. Simply, this means that the important parameters set for the design create the form, rather than the form being declared, and then the parameters of the design being worked into it. ADVANTAGES | Parametric architecture offers some significant advantages over former design techniques. Equations can be used to define the relationships between objects, therefore creating associative architecture (Kolarevic, 2010). A focus on the interdependenies of whatever parameters were used creates infinite possibilities for functional design. With optimization of as many, or certain parameters being the objective of a building.

This is particularly helpful towards the current need for sustainable design, as it has the ability to prioritise certain factors that lead to a more sustainable outcome. Parametric technology offers the ability for architects to focus on the relational aspects of the design. As suggested by Mark Burry (2011), “The ability to define, determine and reconfigure geometrical relationships is of particular value.” Parametric tools offer the chance to capture this complexity in built form. As suggested by Kolarevic (2010), the parametric approach to design, if consistently applied from the conceptualization phaze to it’s materialization, changes the entire nature of established hierarchies of the building industries, and forces the designer into a role of definer, of boundary setter, rather than the designer of form. Because parametric design is founded on the defintion of a system, changes and iterations are very easy to achieve. This streamlines the whole design process. Change an input to the system, and the rest of the systems automatically updates adjusting to the confines of specific parameters. This has the advantage of becoming a great time saver, creating multiple iterations quickly, and shortening the design phaze of the

whole building. This obviously has great cost-saving potential as well. DISADVANTAGES | As with any new technology in a market economy, parametric technology offers significant change that disrupts the status-quo of current procedures, with flow on effects to interlinked professional industries, such as the construction and building industries. Changing production methods and cost-saving economies of scale from the current ‘way of doing things’ would be an obvious barrier to parametric design being implemented as effectively as if could be. Also, the designer/architect faces a role shift. What happens to them when all the designing is done by computer programs. The designer becomes a definer of parameters, letting the computer do much of the work. Therefore is the designer losing ownership/autonomy over the design or gaining? | Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28 Burry, Mark (2011). Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 8 - 71.

1.1.C. | PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE | 17 |

1.1.C. | Parametric Architecture

“There are millions of natural objects and each has its own coherency...... It’s open minded. If you have geological layers shifted against each other, there are alway continuities. This is a form of natural computing if you want. The incident sits within the field of incidents which makes sense. The way vegetation runs up a mountain makes sense. We are trying to bring this logic into architecture. There is a sense of eloquent beauty and intuitive understanding that enters into the matter.” Patrik Schumacher - Extract from Hadid (complete works, (1979-2009) | A decisive factor for the success of such strategy is defining the correct selection criteria for determining the best individual in a population of this kind. The selection is the sole control mechanism.” (Bollinger, Manfred and Tessmann, 1486) |

| 18 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

1.1.C. PRECEDENTS | AAMI PARK MELBOURNE | 19 |

1.1.C. | Parametric Architecture AAMI PARK | COX ARCHITECTS, MELBOURNE |

As a building in my local city, I feel this is a tangible and great example to expel the virtues of parametric architecture and the way it has been used to ultimately design a world class stadium. Unlike parametric designs that purely design form for the sake of form, which to me, is not architecture, this structure uses the idea of “structural optimization” under parametric framework to generate the form. The idea of structural optimization makes sense to me because at the end of the day, I don’t feel like parametricism itself is a new style as suggested by Patrik Schumacher in his Architectural Journal article “Let the style wars begin.”

using a combination of Catia models and 3-D CAD. The parametric model was developed using Bentley’s “Generative Components” software after concept design, when basic geometries principals were agreed between Arup and Cox Architects. Parametric modelling enabled revised geometry to be speedily generated and imported into structural analysis model to study structural efficiencies. The parametric modelling software created the wireframe models.

The steelwork shop drawings and detailling were then prepared from the parametric modelling software, displaying the design process synI think parametric modelling is essen- ergies that parametric software can tially still just a tool. Not a new style of create. architecture. As suggested by Meyer in his blog, “without broader social Collaboration with engineers Arup aims a movement is likely to fall out of and their software enabled each of fashion.” I don’t believe that there is a the 4156 roof members to be optisocial need for parametricism, hence I mized for efficiency. can’t see it as a style. Rather, I see it as having the potential for massive labour saving and design and construction So where is the value? | fabrication synergies. This is why I see the project of AAMI park in Melbourne 1. | Parametric modelling allowed as being a great advertisement for the variations in geometry to be tested advantages of parametric design. quickly to provide the most structurally efficient form. Why was parametric used? | 2. | Structural optimization determined minimum steel tonnages for According to Cox Architects, paramet- the roof geometry. ric modelling was used to define the 3. | By combining parametric modroof structure because of its ability to elling and structural optimization, test alternative geometric configura- the engineering design team protions, and to accomodate the final pre- vided value in both steel tonnage set geometry for fabrication and con- savings and design time savings. struction purposes. (The final stadium required 50% less steel than typical stadium roofs How was parametric used? | of the same size.)

07 Initial studies of the roof and shell ge- (The Arup Journal, 3/200, p.13) |

ometries were undertaken with Cox Architects and RMIT University’s Spatial References: (The Arup Journal, Information Architecture Laboratory, Issue 2, 2010) | 20 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://smilepanic.com/wp-content/uploads/WaterCube.jpg

02 | http://www.bychinese.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/121 755123715-clip

03 03 | http://travelchinawith.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/beijing-water-cube.jpg

1.1.C. PRECEDENTS | BEIJING WATER CUBE | 21 |

1.1.C. | Parametric Architecture

THE WATER CUBE | PTW ARCHITECTS, BEIJING |

A criticism of the water cube given by Walker (2009) which I tend to agree with, lies in that it exemplifies the problem of focusing on only the fascade of a building. Perhaps highlighting the ability of parametric architecture to be used in an incomplete manner. The interior is stark, absent of symbolism that defines the outer and returns to the practical standards that define standard modern architecture. Thereby the parametric design is somewhat limited to the exterior of the building. A truely parametric design would integrate parametric aspects throughout the whole design. It is the ability to permeate the entireity of the structure that should be the ultimate goal of parametric design, rather than simply to affect the exterior fascade. This is one of the continual shortfalls of designers in general.

A unique building which I became aware of through the 2008 Olympic Games, the water cube is a great example of performative architecture, albeit of a different kind AAMI park. The water cube works on the principal of the buildings layering acting as a skin. Therby it is performative in terms of controlling itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal temperature. The structure itself is tied into the natural formation and emergent behaviour of soap bubbles, and the inherent strength they achieve when banded together. This fundamental mathematical model, which has been documneted for over a century has been realized through the digital technology responsible for fabricating the materials used for this structure. As suggested by Walker (2009) the water cube highlights the opportunity to overcome According to Walker (2009), the water cube the overly rational dogmas of the Modern confirms the role of the architect as a selec- Movement and re-engage with the longtor of systems. The architect was responsi- standing Ventruvian definition of architecture ble for selecting the symbolic representation - the balanced interplay of structure, proof water in the form of water bubbles, and gram and form. all of the subsequent formal decisions, such as the number, shape, size, profile and ma- Why was parametric used? | terials used, were determined largely by the Parametric was used to mimic the Wearieengineers, whose purpose was to achieve Phelan structural pattern of bubbles and creoptimal structural, electrical and mechanical ate the structural framework out of this patengineering. Therfore, in answer to some of tern for the fascade. the questions posed earlier concerning the changing role of the architect, the answer How was parametric used? | lies in the fact that the computer does what Parametric was not used to create the form, the machine cannot, understand and create it was simply used to create the skin, so it culture. was not a fully-integrated parametric project, but commendable nonetheless.

| 22 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

EOI

| STRUCTURE | 1.2 | METHOD PROPOSAL

| 23 |

1.2.O | Digital Architecture Reflection

DIGITAL/PARAMETRIC THEORY: REFLECTION / WHERE I’M AT NOW | The research and exploration I have undertaken into digital and parametric architecture has been a worthwhile experience. I feel that I have developed a balanced perspective of the subject due to a critical approach, and as such, I feel I am aware of the advantges and disadvantages of these theories. Beginning semester I was concerned that the basis of digital architecture was shallow or ‘skin-deep’, more concerned with form than purpose. However I have come to see that fully integrated digital architecture fullfils both purposes, perhaps in some cases better and more efficiently than ever before. However I’m also aware of the pitfalls of a non-resolved digital project, and how easy it becomes (due to the time-saving functions of digital software) to gloss over important functional issues and hide mistakes by producing heroic forms. To me this is not good architecture, and is a lazy approach. It is something I would not like to see associated with the discourse surrounding digital architecture, but something I feel could

easilly happen, evidenced already with its common moniker ‘blob’ architecture. I feel the precedent research has helped me to refine my taste in digital architecture, and I feel this has been important. Prior to begininng this design studio, I saw all of digital architecture in the one group, I struggled to recognise the nuances between projects. All digital projects were more or less the same to me. However I feel that I am now able to discern between digital projects better and classify them according to their purpose, e.g. structural optimization, pattern, performative. This, as opposed to the projects that are purely designed for form - or architectural self-indulgence. I found I have naturally gravitated towards projects that show genuine attempts to justify their form for a purpose such as AAMI park and London City Hall. PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE | In terms of parametric architecture, I have actually been surprised by the possibilities associated with designing in this way. From a big-picture perspective, I’m very impressed with

the advantages that parametric architecture offers. Specifically the opportunity for the convergence of the construction and manufacturing industries to allow the architect greater control over their designs. Agreeing with Beston (2012) who argues ‘mass customization, as opposed to mass production of the components of the building allows for specific, intentional bespoke architecture that moves away from standardization.’ I am also very much impressed with its ability to constantly tweak designs and I do think it has real time saving benefits associated with it’s use in the real world. Changes and updates are quick, not laborious and tedious, which appeals to me greatly. For these reasons alone the field of parametric architecture is worth pursuing. I have been impressed with the capacity of parametric software to create forms that I previously couldn’t have imagined myself modelling Beston (2012) Dossier: Manufacturing Difference, Architecture Australia, Vol: 101, No. 5: Sept/Oct 2012

1.2.0. DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE | REFLECTION

| 24 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest CONTRIBUTING GROUP MEMBERS:

Michael McLoughlin Nick Bergin Sophie Bardoel ARGUMENT STRUCTURALLY PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE Why choose structure as a starting point for our parametric project? As a group, Michael, Sophie and I have decided to focus on structural parametric design. We chose this area due to the current trend in digital architecture to focus on form making, neglecting structural, functional and performance considerations. As a group we are concerned with the marriage of structure and ornament, as Louis Sullivan has suggested in Ornament in Architecture. Through this union, we intend to span the (false) dichotomy between architecture and engineering. Between sculptural art and construction. Moreover, we want to explore the unique position Wyndham has in the broader industrial, urban nd non-human environment. While exploring the broader geographies of the area, our intention is to create a beautiful, ornamental, sculptural piece of architecture that maximises scale and visual and experiential impact, whilst minimizing the size of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;kit of partsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; used to construct the structure. This approach will create a structure on a monumental scale, but will also minimize both material and constrcution costs. The placement of this intervention near a highway is a call to arms for a monumentalization of movement and allows an expression of the deep relationship Wyndham and the highway share with urbanism, industry and nature. Railway stations and airports have often been the subject of architectural intervention: spaces for the monumentalization of high-speed movement in the digital age. The highway is an oft-neglected space for architectural monumentalization and we intend to remedy that. This approach is apt for the Wyndham city Gateway project because through the optimization of structure with a holistic integration of ornament, we will be able to create an exciting, eye-catching monumental structure that will act as a beacon for the city of Wyndham that is sensitive to, and sits at ease with, the surrounding geographies.

1.2.A. GROUP ARGUMENT | STRUCTURE

| 25 |

1.2.A | GROUP | Research + Argument

INTENT “Our interest lies in bridging the gap between engineering and art through the marriage of structure and ornament in digital architecture. To unify structure and ornament, both must be considered in equal measure at the beginnings of a design. Digital architectures allow us to work with both, holisitically, throughout the design process.” “Expressed through the monumentalization of structure, the design translates contrasting ideals of the compressive notion of urban industrialised space and the expansiveness of suburbia as one oscillates through this continuum along Geelong road.”

1.2.A | STATEMENT OF INTENT

| 26 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4800357687_50230924f1_o.jpg

02 | http://s3.amazonaws.com/everystockphoto/fspid30/31/65/27/9/studio-gang-

| 27 |

1.2.A. | Precedents

NATURE BOARDWALK AT LINCOLN PARK ZOO STUDIO GANG | This small scale project was of particular relevence to us due to its use of structure as ornament. As a structure to be experienced through movement it has strong parallels with our design intentions. It highlights the fact that structure can be beautiful and structural at the same time, in this case through the use of a curved grid shell structure. The intention of this design, to be traversed ‘through’ on foot has important implications for our own ‘Gateway,’ project for the city of Wyndham. Whilst the means of movement may be different, the sensation is the same. In a construction sense, the use of single repetitive unit would ensure ease and speed of assembly, proof that a simple concept can be beautiful, yet hold enough complexity to warrant no more ornamentation than the structure itself. Important features | 1. | Ornamental structure in the landscape to be experienced through movement. 2. | Single repeating unit. 3. | Curved diagrid.

SOUTH POND 1.2.A | FURTHER PRECEDENTS

| 28 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 01 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/British_Museum_1120002_1120026.jpg

BRITISH MUSEUM GREAT COURT FOSTER + PARTNERS | The Great Court at the British Museum uses structure to create the sense of grand. A radiated grid shell structure has been used to achieve the design intentions. A structure that monumentalises the space it encloses. As with South Pond, the experiential phase of this building comes by walking through it. Although this time in a more circular manner as

opposed to the straight line. Stucture fullfills the duel aims of enhancing natural light in the space, whilst adding to the sense of circularity of movement that is intended by the room. Furthermore the structure of the roof creates inherent ornamentation due to itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of detail that attracts the attention of occupants. Therfore the obvious parallels with the intended direction of the Wyndham Gateway are present.

| 29 |

1.2.A. | Precedents

Important Features | 1. | Flexibility of radiating grid shell for creating internal spaces. 2. | Allows light into an internal space. 3. | Creates a space for circulation.

BRITISH MUSEUM 1.2.A | FURTHER PRECEDENTS

| 30 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Canary_Wharf_and_ Gherkin.jpg

02 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/30_St_Mary_Axe.jpg

30 ST MARY AXE, LONDON, ENGLAND FOSTER + PARTNERS | 30 St Mary Axe, affectionately known as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the Gherkinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is a good example of structurally performative architecture. The triangulated exterior of the structure supports entirely the weight and external loads placed on the buildings. As summarized by the architect the radial plan resolves walls and roof into a continuous triangulated skin, allowing column free floor space, light and views., whilst being optimized for wind and air circulation. I think the architect has achieved this aim spectacularly. HOW WAS PARAMETRIC USED? |

03 | http://plus.maths.org/content/perfect-buildingsmaths-modern-architecture

The building is a perfect example of the benefits of parametric modelling. Currents ciculating around the structure create large whirlwinds at the base, makie it uncomfortable for occupants. Based on the mathematical properties of turbulence, the cylindrical form chosen responds optimally to the air currents compared to a square building and minimizes ground level wind, whilst also reducing the lateral loads that the structure has to endure. On an interior level, the structure was optimised for cooling effiiciency. Hence, the form was one that maximised natural air ventilation. This combined with aerodynamic modelling that created a spiral effect of air up the interior of the structure created a state of the art self-regulating cooling and heating system that uses a quarter of the energy of comparably sized buildings. | 31 |

1.2.B. | Cut | Case Study 1.0 01

STEPS TAKEN: 1. | Created elevated circles as a starting point to represent the reletively cyclindrical form. Used the move function with a z-vector. 2. | Resized the circles using the scale function to represent the form. 3. | Lofted the circles 4. | I struggled a bit at this point but

found a solution by creating a polygonal spine along the building from the end points of each circle and then lofting them. 5. | Rotated the one spine using a slider 6. | I then rotated the loft giving it an interval range of 0-360 degrees. This duplicated each spine around the

circumference of the building. 7. | I then realized the fascade rotated anti-clockwise and clockwise, so I mirrored the effect I had already produced, which resulted in the latticed structure desired. Although it looks wrong, this is becuse you can see through the building so the front and back is showing.

1.2.B. CUT | C.S 1.0 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;THE GHERKINâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

| 32 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 01 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/King’s_Cross_Western_Concourse_-_central_position.jpg

1.2.C. | C.S 2.0 ‘KINGS CROSS’

| 33 |

1.2.C | Cut | Case Study 2.0

KING’S CROSS WESTERN CONCOURSE

THE GRASSHOPPER PROCESS

JOHN McASLAN+ PARTNERS |

1. | Lofted semi-circular guidelines to create a surface to divide. This is not ntirely parametric and I hope to find ways to make the form of the structure parametric in the coming weeks rather than relying on lofting circles, as it is not truely parametric.

The Western Concourse roof epitomises the monumentality of spaces associated with movement that we are trying to replicate. As a circulation space within a train station, the grid shell structure creates a vast experiential space to move within. Again, parallels with our design intentions for the ‘Gateway’ are evident. Important Features | 1. | Flexible use of the grid shell structure. 2. | Monumentallises internal space.

2. | Divided the surface in the x and y directions to produce a grid structure from the surface. 3. | Manipulated data structures to connect points along the grid structure to one another. This was my first attempt at manipulation of data structures so I hope to gain greater control over this and create some more intricate structural systems with this knowledge as the base.

3. | Monumenalises movement, both in circulation and through rail travel. | 34 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 01 | http://kepler.njit.edu/ARCH163-000-F09/Pavilions/Ban%20Shigeru_Japonese%20Pavilion_pg_MA_91.jpg

02 02 | http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2weabHoOO1r904b7o1_1280.jpg

1.2.C. | C.S 2.0 ‘CARDBOARD PAVILLION’

| 35 |

1.2.C | Cut | Case Study 2.0

CARDBOARD PAVILLION SHIGERU BAN | We began to think of exactly how we would put together a structure similar to a diagrid, which often contains many 4-way or 6-way intersections or junctions. Shigeru Banâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s temporary cardboard pavillion offers a possible solution, whilst highlighting the inherent strength of the grid shell structure. The structure is made of only cardboard tubes tied together. This emphasises the flexibility of materials able to be used with the structure, owed to its internal strength. Creation and exploration of new forms was easilly achievable through this grid shell structure.

Important Features | 1. | Shows flexability of materials in a gridshell structure 2. | Simple, lightweight repeating units. 3. | Quick assemply and dissassembly Whilst this structure isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t an exact replica, we feel we are moving closer to replicating the structure with increased knowledge of data structuring proving to be our stumbling block again this time.

| 36|

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

01 01 | http://www.ipig.biz/projects/Resources/chiddingstone02.jpeg

| 37 |

1.2.C | Precedent Analysis

CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY PETER HULBERT ARCHITECTS | Whilst investigating methods to help build our model for the midsemester presentation we were again plagued by the problem of how to connect a 4 overlapping members in a grid shell structure. Realizing that simply flattening the grid shell pattern onto a panel and laser cutting this out would defeat the purpose of calling our project ‘sturctural,’ and render it simply an exercise in pattern, we looked for precedents to help us solve the issue. Peter Hulbert’s design for the roof of the Chiddingston orangery in England inspired us to engage with the structure on a more tectonic level. The idea of creating a universal joint or a small number of identical joints to support the members and tie them together at these intersections may well be a direction that we have to take to realise our outcomes for the final submission. Whilst we were unable to really attempt this method as we discovered it after having made our models for the mid-semester crit, we believe it offers the group a way forward. This is a method that we may be able to employ with the use of the 3D printer, to create the necessary joints to fabricate our structure.

Important Features |

02 | http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4A0lKIgx9U4/Sf50Qhs94vI/AAAAAAAADC8/GiVnDXzVJgw/Node_ close_up9_ready%5B4%5D.jpg

1. | Innovative way to construct a grid shell. 2. | Use of a simple repeating joint to join repeating structural units. 3. | Ability to fabricate.

1.2.C. | PRECEDENT ANALYSIS | ‘CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY’ | 38 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest 01 | AAMI PARK COX ARCHITECTS

02 | KING’S CROSS JOHN McASLAN + PARTNERS

03 | BRITISH MUSEUM FOSTER + PARTNERS

04 | SOUTH POND STUDIO GANG

OPTIMIZATION OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE REPRESENTING MOVEMENT

FLEXIBILITY OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT STRUCTURE TO MOVE THROUGH

05 | CARDBOARD PAVILLION SHIGERU BAN

06 | ‘THE GHERKIN’ FOSTER + PARTNERS

07 | CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY PETER HULBERT ARCHITECTS

OPTIMIZATION OF MATERIALS

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

| 39 |

1.2.D. | Summary of Precedents

STRUCTURE

MOVEMENT

GRID SHELL

ORNAMENT

1.2.D. | SUMMARY OF PRECEDENTS

| 40 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

| 41 |

1.2.E. | Design Development

Parametric Diagram | Unfortunately the clarity is an issue due to my screenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resolution.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1.2.E. | PARAMETRIC DIAGRAM | 42 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest 1. Changing the number of divisions on the grid

2. Creating surface curvature

3. Changing the underlying geometry

2. | 43 |

1.2.E. | Design Development 4. Segmenting the underlying geometry and creating duplicates

5. Elongation in the y-direction and further plasticizing form

GROUP MATRIX | As a group it was decided to start with the grid shell structure to generate our forms. This method, or a closely related one, was prevalent in many of our precedents and case studies we analysed. It gives us the flexibility to form a number of different structural patterns with the manipulation of the parametric data structures. It was also decided that this structure lended itself to our key drivers of design; monumentalization and movement. This matrix explores the manipulation of our parametric grasshopper model. We have created a flexible definition that enables us to easilly manipulate the base geometries, create duplicates, segment the structure and intensify or dilute the pattern. The proliferation of a long â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;snake-likeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; structure in this matrix is in part due to our wish to draw out the experience of the user (a driver travelling at 100kmph) and also partly due to our wish to use size to add to the sense of monumentality of the structure.

One would expect that through further knoledge of grasshopper techniques we can develop data structures that allow more curvature between the main gridlines and hence enhance the overall aesthetic qualities of the structure. This and other changes will hopefully come about through increased technical knowledge. But we are satisfied that this defintion gives us multiple options.

1.2.E. | DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GROUP MATRIX | 44 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

| 45 |

1.2.E. | Design Development

CHOSEN DESIGN | The design chosen is by no means a reflection of our intended final form or structure. However we chose this one as we feel it best incorporates the advantages of the parametric grid shell structure, whilst reflecting our design intents of movement, monumentalization and structure at the same time. The intent behind the design was to create a structure that was ornamental and elicted the sensation of movement. The structural pattern helps to give directional movement as one passes through. Further, we intend to explore the relationship between the compressive notion of urban industrialised space and the expansiveness of suburbia, which one experiences moving along Geelong road. The form dictates this intent through the compressive and more open spaces along the structure. We also intend to explore these notions through materiality to add multiple layers to the meaning. This design demonstates a starting point, a parametric model that allows for ease of manipulation and the potential to grow with our expanding collective knowledge base in grasshopper.

| 46 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

Method 1 | Double skin - Inner & Outer

We initially attempted this method because the flattened grid structure wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t strong or maleable enough to stand by itself. This exposed the inherent problem of using the laser cutter to fabricate - it needs to be flattened to be printed so it becomes a planar surface, rather than a collection of individual elements. This method requires thick members to support itself. As a result of its inability to hold its form we decided to use a wire mesh underneath

to support the grid shell structure. Obviously this method is not optimal so we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to use this method. But I think it showed us that we will need to look at a method that is not a planar surface. By flattening to a surface, it defeats the purpose of our argument because our method is structure, and hence should be self-supporting, not simply a patterned surface imitating a structural system.

Method 3 | Grid Shell Structure Flattened

This was another attempt at laser cutting, with thicker overall form to a more linear tube-like form, which was cardboard and a simplified structure. Although it visibly not what we desired. looked how it should have, It required steel wire to keep the model in proportion, due to the fact it had been flattened to cut in the machine. Also, we had to simplify the | 47 |

1.2.F. | Prototyping

Method 2 | Reinforced Mould

Taking inspiration from reinforced concrete and the strength and maleability it posesses, we decided to use ‘pinkysil’ embedded with wire to create a flexible and stable model, which could easilly bend in all directions. This was an interesting experiment that showed how adaptable our grid shell structure could be.

best thing about this model however, was that it was a structural system, rather than a ‘dumbed’ down version of what we wanted to achieve.

However aesthetically it wasn’t the cleanest result. The

SUMMARY | The inability of our design to be simply flattened onto a planar surface meant that we had to explore our options in the fabrication stage. We decided at this stage to test out as many options as possible (within the time constraints) to see what we could come up with. As structure is our method, we feel the need to not ‘cheat’ the end result by simplifying the model because the laser cutter can only work in singular planes. We also don’t see the point of 3D printing the whole structure as this is just not feasible in real-life. Ultimately we are looking to the example of the Chiddingston Orangery to hopefully design a universal joint that can permeate the whole structure. This would allow us to really explore the tectonic relationship between members and also make the assembly quite simple, and repeatable in the real-world.

1.2.F. | PROTOTYPING

| 48 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

FEEDBACK DISCUSSION | We felt that perhaps we shot ourselves in the foot a bit in the presentation. The ideas were there, but I don’t feel as though we got it all out. We agreed that we probably got ourselves hung-up on the idea of achieving ‘optimization’ with our structure for too long, and didn’t fully engage with the idea of movement. As a result we didn’t prioritize this in our presentation, and only really mentioned this when pressed in question time. This was disappointing, however it was also encouraging in that now we feel we have a solid theoretical base from which to launch our design in the coming month. We know what we have to do, we have a solid theoretical backing for the design decisions we make, and feel that we can pull this off. The crit did highlight the fact that we need to be more critical of our work, and question every minute decision - is it backed by our design intent? If not, change it. It was also suggested that we find some more contemporary precedents for structural based parametric architecture. This is something we will consider, and a bit of an eye-opener (I thought we were looking at reletively new works, apparently not!). This may enable us to explore different fabrication methods as well. We were also corrected on the name we had been using for our structural system, calling it the ‘diagrid’ rather than the ‘grid shell’, this has been noted and ammended in this journal. PARAMETRIC EXPERIENCE | Learning parametric architecture on grasshopper is most defintitely a challenging experience, having spent many nights feeling as though I was not getting anywhere it was great to make a breakthrough with Michael a few weeks ago. The combination of his knowledge and mine were able to solve two problems that we were having, with our knowledge complementing each other. This is the advantage of working in a team on new software such as this. We are trying to make our model totally parametric so we have complete control over the structure, which is the idea behind parametric architecture. We are seeing results, but I feel we needed to overcome our small theoretical hitch as the basis to push our design to the next level. I feel we have done this, with a new emphasis on monumentality and movement that was uncovered during the feedback section of our mid-semester crit.

1.2.G. | FEEDBACK & RESPONSE

| 49 |

1.2.G. | Prototyping

DIRECTION | MODELLING & FABRICATION METHODS | Initially I was concerned about our lack of a polished, presentable physical model, however I think we are in a position where we need to take the time to develop a construction system rather than take the easy way out and laser cut the structure. We are looking at possibly 3D printing the inverse of a universal joint, and then using it as a mould to create multiple joints for a model. However we need to address concerns over materiality to have a reasonable understading of how these joints will work. The idea obviously, is to create a proposal that is structural, not some fake imitation of structure, and this may take time. Currently we are working on creating a site model in the break to alleviate the need to worry about this later. This will enable us to prototype models at scale and give us a better idea as to the designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sensibilities to the site. TEAM DYNAMICS | I feel the unity within the team is working very well. We are all beginning to find each others stengths and weaknesses and are now progressing accordingly. Everyone seems to be on the same page theoretically so we all understand the principals underpinning our design. THE SITE | This is now the time to start analysing the site and exploring the contextual issue of the area. The urban-geographical relationship of Wyndham and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surrounds becomes the focus of the next stage of design. The grasshopper defintion is a work in progress as we look to try to incorporate the ideals of monumentality and movement into the structure. Our ideas have become clearer with the constructive feeback and we are looking to really push the design in accordance with these developed parameters.

1.2.H. | WHERE TO FROM HERE? | 50 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

01 01 | http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1339269374--c--karsten-monnerjahn-myzeil-fuksas-003.jpg

| 51 |

2.0. | Development

MYZIEL DEPARTMENT STORE | FRANKFURT, GERMANY | MASSIMILIANO FUKSAS | WHY? | We stumbled across this example later as we were looking for precedents using the grid shell as a form-making structure. This proved to be a breakthrough find for us.

02 02 | http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FCnJrKKHm1I/TMQycgT7BVI/AAAAAAAAAIU/oc9iqjYVUio/s1600/ Life+in+Frankfurt+038.JPG

The structure punctures through the main fascade creating a sense of movement, and is reletively cutting-edge in terms of the architectural discourse. It exemplifies the plasticity of the grid shell when used as a stucture. However it was the ability of the myziel complex to elict emotions of moving through which is what we wanted to realise and reflect in our own structure and helped us to move forward in terms of form-creation. The vortex-like structure descends into the internal space of the building, creating a gesture.

1.2.I. | FURTHER PRECEDENT | MYZIEL | 52 |

2.0 PART 2.0

| DESIGN PROPOSAL |

PAGE INSTRUCTIONS This spread should be a “splash” page for the case for innovation section of the journal

| 53 |

2.1 | CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

| 54 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

BRIEF | The site for the Western Gateway installation is located near the edge of the Wyndham urban growth boundary where future residential and commercial developments will meet the undeveloped plains of the west. It will primarily be viewed by motorists travelling at high speed and provide the first indication of arrival into metropolitan Melbourne. The backdrop of the large scale service centre and associated signage will require serious consideration in the design and location of the installation. The Western Gateway installation should provide an entry statement and arrival experience, and become a new identifier for the municipality. The installation should create a focal point of iconic scale and presence and encourage a sense of pride within the local community. The Western Gateway should propose new, inspiring and brave ideas, to generate a new discourse. INTENT “Our interest lies in bridging the gap between engineering and art through the marriage of structure and ornament in digital architecture. To unify structure and ornament, both must be considered in equal measure at the beginnings of a design. Digital architectures allow us to work with both, holisitically, throughout the design process.” “Expressed through the monumentalization of movement, the design translates Wyndham’s role as the epicentre of new urban movement in it’s Western regional context as it’s boundaries ‘creep’ towards a collision with surrounding city boundaries in the future. This collision phenomenon is visible as one oscillates through the continuum of Geelong road The structure reflects a commentary on the urban expansion of the Wyndham region and it expands outwards to carve it’s own identity in Melbourne’s Western region between Melbourne and Geelong.

| 55 |

2.1.A | Brief | Gateway to Wyndham

CONSIDERATIONS & ISSUES | • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Prominent location of the site at the entry to metropolitan Melbourne; Back dropped by a large scale service centre; Consideration of how the installation integrates with and/or sits in the immediate and surrounding landscape; Iconic feature; Appropriately scaled; Dialogue between sculpture and landscape to compose the Gateway; Original and engaging in form; Object‐centred individual sculpture or a more experiential approach; Literal or abstract; Adherence to the regulations imposed by VicRoads in relation to siting, view lines, setbacks, materials, colours etc; Daytime and night time viewing; and Safety, ease of maintenance, materials and longevity.

2.1.A. | BRIEF | GATEWAY TO WYNDHAM

| 56 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| INTEREST | •

Bridge the gap between engineering and art.

•

Marriage of structure and ornament.

| INTENT | •

Explore the unique position Wyndham has in the broader industrial, urban and non-human environment

•

Monumentalize movement

•

Highlight the relationship Wyndham and the highway share with urbanism, industry and nature.”

| 57 |

2.1.B | Design Intent

| RESOLUTION | Expressed through the monumentalization of movement, the design translates Wyndham’s role as the epicentre of new urban expansion. In a Western regional context, its urban boundaries ‘creep’ towards a collision with surrounding cities in the future. This future collision phenomenon will be visible as one oscillates through the continuum of Geelong road. The structure reflects a commentary on the urban expansion of the Wyndham region as it expands outwards to carve its own identity in Melbourne’s Western Metropolitan region.

2.1.B. | DESIGN INTENT

| 58 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

2.1.C. | PRECEDENTS | KEY LE

| 01 | MONUMENTALIZING MOVEMENT | 02 | S

| 59 |

2.1.C | Precedents | Key Lessons and Design Drivers

ESSONS & DESIGN DRIVERS

STRUCTURE & ORNAMENT | 03 | COLLISION

| 60 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 01 | MONUMENTALIZING MOVEMENT | 02 | | 61 |

2.1.C | Precedents | Key Lessons and Design Drivers

STRUCTURE & ORNAMENT | 03 | COLLISION 01 | http://hpmcq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/kingscross.jpg

| 62 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 01 | MONUMENTALIZING MOVEMENT | 02 | 01 | http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lcAmLeDyopA/TFng0MVotVI/AAAAAAAAANI/2MvsmlhCFAI/s1600/IMG_2227.JPG

| 63 |

2.1.C | Precedents | Key Lessons and Design Drivers

STRUCTURE & ORNAMENT | 03 | COLLISION | 64 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 01 | MONUMENTALIZING MOVEMENT | 02 | | 65 |

2.1.C | Precedents | Key Lessons and Design Drivers

01 | http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1339269374--c--karsten-monnerjahn-myzeil-fuksas-003.jpg

STRUCTURE & ORNAMENT | 03 | COLLISION

| 66 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal SITE DESCRIPTION | The site of the future Western Gateway installation is located on the road reserves adjacent to the Princes Freeway, at the interchange with the Princes Highway (Geelong Road), commonly known as the Western Interchange (Melway reference – map 244 B4). SITE A | The Princes Freeway provides excellent exposure onto the site, with south‐ bound and north‐bound traffic along the Princes Freeway splitting to create a 90 metre wide road reserve (site‐A), measuring approximately 50,000 metres square. SITE B | A second area which may form part of the gateway treatment is the verge between north‐bound traffic along the Princes Freeway and the freeway off‐ramp onto the Princes Highway (site‐B), measuring 22,000 metres square. This portion of the site is located immediately in front of a service station, thus the design response needs to consider the placement and design of the Gateway so as to ensure the Gateway treatment and design intent are not undermined by the service station and its signage. SITE C | A narrow band measuring approximately 18 metres wide, located to the west of the freeway off‐ramp onto the Princes Highway (site‐C) may also form part of the gateway treatment. This site measures approximately 4000 metres square. AREA SPECIFIC DETAILS | • • • • •

Werribee Open Range Zoo, Werribee Park Mansion National Equestrian Centre. The Melbourne Water Western Treatment Plant Significantwetlands

| 67 |

2.1.D. | Context

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

WERRIBEE

GATEWAY SITE

| 69 |

2.1.D. | Context

2.1.E. | SITE CONTEXT | LOCAL SCALE | WYNDHAM CITY

| 70 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

GEELONG | 71 |

2.1.D. | Context

MELBOURNE

WYNDHAM

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

URBAN CONTEXT

URBAN CONNECTIONS

Melbourne Wyndham

Geelong 01 | The city of Wyndham and Melbourne and Geelongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current urban boundaries

02 | The Princess Highway connecting Melbourne, Geelong and Wyndham.

| 73 |

2.1.G. | Concept Development

URBAN MOVEMENT

03 | Expected urban expansion - convergence of metropolisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

URBAN COLLISION

04 | Future collision of urban frontiers.

2.1.G. | CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

| 74 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

CURRENT CONTEXT

URBAN MOVEMENT

| 75 |

2.1.H. | Parti | Concept Diagram

URBAN COLLISION

2.1.H. | PARTI | CONCEPT DIAGRAM

| 76 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

2.2. | DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

| 77 |

2.2. | Design Development

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 01 | Collision UPWARDS | 02 | Collision OUTWARDS

URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN CENTRES

URBAN CONVERGENCE

UPWARD COLLISION

| 79 |

2.2.A. | Concept to Form

| 01 | Collision UPWARDS | 02 | Collision OUTWARDS

URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN CONVERGENCE

OUTWARD COLLISION

2.2.A. | CONCEPT TO FORM | 80 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal JELLYFISH COMPONENT | Having established a solid conceptual base for our design we decided to focus on creating a structure that took the form of a collision. Through our concept development as mentioned earlier we wanted the collision to physically manifest itself upwards and outwards, reflecting the tendencies for cities to explode up and out. However our original form from the EOI was far too rigid. We needed a parametric model that would respond differently in certain sections, allowing us to manipulate it to the site and the conceptual constraints we imposed. Firstly we experimented with point attractors on a grid in 3D space. This was an attempt to explore the idea

between the natural and human forces contributing to urban form. The attractor points were to respond to the various forces, pushing and pulling and moulding the form. This definition began to get quite complex. Using a component package called “Jellyfish”, which allowed magnetic displacement in 3 dimensions as opposed to two, we were able to somewhat replicate these imaginary forces and manipulate the form into a series of peaks and troughs representing roughly the urban form. The definition, which produced some rather wacky results nonethless allowed us to illustrate the idea of a colliding structure. However we encountered problems when attempting to establish the design within the context of the site. Previously we had experimented with just a grid of 3D points in space. The definition was too innacurate and too

loose to work with. As a result, when trying to establish key connections with the design and the landscape, a slight change would throw the design way out of the boundaries, proving uncontrollable. Further attempts to control the Jellyfish component through Kangaroo-like anchor points proved impossible to work, to the point that we have still not figured it out. Time pressure meant that we had to try to simplify our method. However this experiment with the Jellyfish component enabled us to crystalize the ‘effect’ we were trying to achieve, and gave us hope that we could gain the form we wanted through some other means.

01 | The Jellyfish component transformed our attractor points into 3D space from a 2D plane.

02 | An abrupt collision-like form resulted. However it proved uncontrollable. | 81 |

2.2.B. | Development Process SIMPLIFICATION |

finished for the final presentation. Having messed around with our Being unable to overcome control grasshopper defintion for around issues with the Jellyfish component. two-weeks without really getting We decided on a new approach. any tangible results, we decided This involved decomposing a that we had to use rhino to give our shape into a another along a rail structure more control. Whils this curve. This would allow us the method meant that we lost some of rigidity to ‘pin down’ the structure our ability to manipulate the model at certain points, yet the flexibility to parametrically, it needed to be done manipulate the form beteen specific to gain a finished product. points. Whilst not as dramatic as the Jellyfish component. It allowed As is evident from the images us some sense of control when below, the form of our design was transferring the method onto the site. beginning to look more like the form we presented. Controlling the Unfortunately we felt that much of curves externally in rhino meant our work in making the structure that they didnt react to the rail like completely parametric had been they would have in rhino, and hence undone by this method. However as allowed them to remain ‘glued’ to is the case with much real-life design the site surface as intended. Our work, time constraints necessitated focus after this development turned the need to at least have something more to enabling the collision over

the Melbourne bound highway to act as the centrepoint for the design. And to attract the eye towards it through directing the structural members to the centre. This circular process highlighted the shortfalls of grasshopper as a tool when one gets stuck with a problem that they cannot find a solution to. It renders one powerless to achieve the outcome they desire, however I think we still managed to overcome these difficulties using more traditional modelling methods - a combination of grasshopper and rhino.

01 | Segmenting various sections of the strcuture controlled along a rail.

02 | Pinning down of the ends of the structure to pre-defined points allowed more synergy with the site.

2.2.B. | DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

| 82 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| ALL STEEL FRAME | After extensive research we were faced with what we considered to be two feasible options concerning the main material slections for our design. We first considered steel as we felt this would be the easiest material with which to fabricate with in a real-world situation. Steel has both compressive and tensile strength equal to no other commercial building material. However it does contain the downside of being heavy and therefore contributing to the static weight of the structure. Steel has been used in numerous large span grid-shell structures such as the previously mentioned King’s Cross concourse and as such there is precedental evidence of its success as a method in construction. Meanwhile, whilst thinking ahead to fabrication issues we had been focused on the creation of a ‘universal joint’ that could be placed at whatever intersection throughout the structure. Upon discovering the ArcelorMittal ‘Orbit’ in London, by Anish Mapoor and Cecil Balmond, we found our focus may have been slightly off. This structure’s difference lay in that the bolted joint was not at the ‘node’ where the individual members met, but rather half-way between the members. This would allow all nodes to be prefabricated, and then simply bolted together at the site. Initially wanting to use steel, we were encouraged in discussions with Paul concerning materiality and tectonics, to address the non-human environment of Wyndham, the environment. We decided to use timber, to exemplify the idea of Wyndham growing out of it’s natural environment of the Western Plains. Combined with a native planting scheme, this would help to celebrate Wyndham’s unique ecological context in addition to its urban context. Group consensus agreed that timber would best represent this.

01 | http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group1/building860/media/qjit_17244_3_jmp_kings_x_005_credit_hufton_crow_2.jpg

2.2.C. | MATERIALS | STEEL OR WOOD?

| 83 |

2.2.D. | Materials

| STEEL CLAMP FOR WOODEN LATTICE | ADAPTED FROM CHIDDINGSTON ORANGERY |

Our design decision posed a new set of problems however, and we experimented with a number of structural nodes. Recalling our precedent of the Chiddingston Orangery - whereby two members would run in different directions, and would be held in place with a clamp-like joint. The idea of a steel clamp bracing members initially seemed liked a sound idea to suppport our structure. However we decieded after experimentation and consideration of the member sizes that the joint would be far too bulky and interfere with the overall aesthetic of our structure. We felt that large member sizes would need too larger joints and be overbearing in a timber structure. In addition we felt as though we were overcomplicating structural matters. After searching for structural solutions such as creating a 360 degree joint we felt that such a joint would be too difficult to fabricate and we would need to simplify our method. This was an important recognization as I felt we had been giving this method too much focus and we needed to simplify.

02 | http://www.ipig.biz/projects/Resources/chiddingstone02.jpeg

| 84 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

01 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Herbert_Art_Museum_and_Gallery,_Coventry_-_covered_court.jpg

| 85 |

2.2.D. | Materials

2.2.C. | STRUCTURAL PRECEDENT | HERBERT MUSEUM & ART GALLERY

01 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/The_Herbert_Art_Museum_and_Gallery,_Coventry_-_Covered_court_roof.jpgurt.jpg

| 86 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

TOP VIEW

SIDE VIEW

CAST STEEL NODE | • • • •

Fabricated off-site Reduces construction time Flexible with angles Transportable

GLULAM TIMBER | • • • •

Strong in compression and tension Large spans Proven results in large span structures. Laminated for waterproofing

FOOTING DETAIL

| 87 |

2.2.E. | Detail Joint + Members

FRONT VIEW

PERSPECTIVE

2.2.D. | DETAIL | JOINT + MEMBERS

| 88 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

WHY DID WE DO THIS? | We felt that our design lacked a certain capacity to relate to the site on a local scale. This was acknowledged due to the fact that our focus had primarilly been at a more macro scale directed at Wyndham and its urban context. We wanted to reflect the idea of Wyndham â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;leapingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; out of its natural state as it has in its past, and towards an urban consolidated area as is anticipated. We felt that the plantation of

local plants within the area of the design would help give the impression that the structure had morphed out of the natural landscape. We decided that the area could be landscaped with some important local flora to achieve this effect. We have chosen a shrub layer, an understorey and a canopy of native local plants to create a dense plantation to complement the structure.

CANOPY

River Red Gum

UNDERSTOREY

Round Leafbox

Australian Blackwood

Black

| 89 |

k Wattle

2.2.F. | Local Scale Context | Planting

SHRUB LAYER

River Bottlebrush

Tree Violet

Wooly Tea-Tree

2.2.E | LOCAL SCALE CONTEXT | PLANTING

| 90 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

SITE A

PR I

ES S

HW AY

UR N

SITE C

| 91 |

2.2.C. | Site Plan

CALTEX SERVICE STATION

SITE B

S CE

Y WA H IG

G TO

ELO

200

2.2.F. | SITE PLAN

| 92 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 93 |

2.2.C. | Site Plan

2.2.F. | SITE PLAN RENDERED

| 94 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 95 |

Inset | Rounding the bend in the road on the Melbourne bound highway. The collision point of impact is clearly visible to drivers as they approach and pass under the structure. | 96 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

Inset | Travelling under the structure on the Melbourne bound highway.. | 97 |

| 98 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 99 |

Inset | Approaching the structure on the Melbourne bound highway. The vaulting of the structure into the collision is easilly identifiable on approach. Note the integration of local fauna on site. | 100 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 101 |

Inset | View travelling along the Geelong bound side of the princess highway. | 102 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

WHY DID WE 3D PRINT? | We 3D printed our model as we felt that the design was far too complex to attempt to replicate piece by piece and impossible to laser cut without flattening the model into a single plane. We had great difficulty in working our model into something that could be cut using the university machines, especially at a scale of 1:1000 where the individual parts were miniscule. We wanted to have a complete model to show how the design sat in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s context alongside the highway. We also felt that when combined with a tectonic model of the structural joint that this would be a sufficient way to show our method. We felt that the 3D scale model at 1:1000 would frame an important experiential perspective in our presentation. We acknowledge that structures cannot be simply 3D printed in reality. Hence the reason why we have also made a structural node. With further engagement with a professional structural engineer, we are confident that this method would be able to stand if made at a 1:1 scale from the designated materials. Wooden structures of such a scale have been built in the past - see Metropol Parasol, and hundreds of wooden large span bridges.

Spread image | Looking northeast (Melbourne bound) depicting how the structure hugs the road and attracts the eye of the viewer towards the collision of the structure. | 103 |

2.2.G. | Fabrication

Inset | The structural node joint made of steel, with adjoining timber members bolted on at the required angle.

2.2.G. | FABRICATION | 3D PRINTING | 104 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

| 105 |

2.2.G. | Fabrication

Inset | Looking northeast (Melbourne bound) at the epicentre of the collision - representing the city of Wyndham. | 106 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

FEEDBACK DISCUSSION | CRITICISMS | Does the structure work? | We are confident that the structure would work. I have found this to be a standard criticism in design subjects, which is of course valid. However the point of design subjects like AIR especially, one would think, is to ‘push the envelope’ in terms of design. So if the panel didn’t ask this I would be wondering whether our design was too safe. Whilst I recognise the answer is a bit of an unknown quantity, it certainly has the potential to work. However we feel that the level of structural knowledge needed would require considerable consultation with a structural engineer. In hindsight perhaps the idea of creating the structure purely out of wood and steel joints was a bit ambitious. However I think a combination of a steel skeleton clad in wood similar to the metropol parasol would definitely be able to support itself. The issue we had with chosing this method is that it would completely contradict our theoretical approach of ‘making the structure’ beautiful (the ornament). Essentially we would be covering up the structure, and we felt this decision would destroy our argument. If we were to simply make the structure out of steel then there is no doubt it would work, when you consider its size reletive to a number of successfully built precedents we studied using similar methods. However we wanted to ‘push the envelope’ as was suggested to us in our mid-semester presentation so wood was the medium, not wanting to compromise our design decision. We also acknowledge that as seen in the renders, the size of the members near the ground level was very large. In terms of member sizing we did not have the tools to determine what was the minimum sizing each member could be, however we understand that some parametric structural software can determine such things, and it would be great to try, but beyond our capabilities at this point. Presentation: too processional | In hindsight this may have been the case. Perhaps we were too focused on revealing the process behind the final fom, forgetting that the audience doesnt know the design like we did. This was an oversight by the group and something we will consider in future presentations. I disagree slightly with the criticism that we didn’t show enough of the final form when we were describing the concept.

| 107 |

2.2.H. | Final Analysis | Reflection

Maybe we skimmed over the “Concept to form” slide too quickly in the presentation, but I think this shows this translation well.

Main ‘hero’ render wasn’t selling your idea of collision | I really don’t agree with this statement by one of the panellists. I think we argued against this statement when responding to criticism on the day, and I think some of the panellists ended up agreeing with us on this one. We were strongly of the opinion, that the largest render shown was our best and most illustrative of the idea of collision, although we completely understand that it was his personal opinion. Technical aspects - not much to it | It was argued that from a technical point of view, the final proposal was fairly simplistic. Yes, it was, but it has to be acknowledged that what we were working with, whilst more technically advanced, was not achieving the ends which we required it to. It was too hard to control. Therein lies the problem with studio’s such as this, whilst it was great to learn and advance our technical skills in grasshopper, this is still a design proposal. Regardless of the methods by which we gained our final form, we needed something that worked, and we had to be able to deliver a proposal within a time constraint. Architecture isn’t about showing off technical skills, it’s about responding to a set of constraints the best way possible, with the skills that you posess. I think through our process we explored a number of more advanced techniques that we weren’t able to use because they were too uncontrollable, however the good thing about what we did was that we were able to convey the effect we wanted in the end, even if that meant simplifying the grasshopper model. I’m certain too that had we not tried and failed at more advanced methods, we would have not reached the design conclusions we did. Hopefully these more advanced grasshopper models will become of use some other time, but to criticise our design from a technical point of view I don’t think is valid. As for the structure not being sculptural enough.....again, an opinion. The idea of collision isn’t about being sleek and sinuous, which is the sort of form it seemed that some panellists wanted. Collision is chaotic by nature, therefore to create a clean, “schmick” form as it was described, wouldn’t truely be representitive of our ideas. We felt the imperfections were a good thing. I think

2.2.H. | FINAL ANALYSIS | REFLECTION | 108 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

we wanted to focus on doing one thing well, rather than semi completing a number of ideas. I think our structure really does exemplify the idea of collision well, which was our intent. And for that I think our project was a success (again personal opinion....which is the point of this section). At least there is little ambiguity in the final form. You can guess what it is about quite quickly and it is an emotive provoking structure. We tried to at least do this part well. Whether or not it is sculptural is a matter of opinion I think. Planting - Half baked idea | I agree with the thoguht that it was a half baked idea. We acknowledged fairly late in the piece that we hadn’t really engaged with the site on a non-human scale, as our focus had been solely on the human-centric development of the region. We felt, as Paul did in the week before submission that it needed some dual purpose to justify its existance. It probably showed in our final that we hadn’t given it much thought. And we should have explained it better, in that we wanted the structure to appear as though it had evolved out of the natural landscape, as Wyndham had. We thought that was sound theoretical justification for the design but we didnt illustrate it well, and didn’t explain it well enough on the day. However hopefully the panellists understood that we didn’t just arbitrarilly throw a bunch of plants in there, that we actually researched the native plants of the region extensively, it was just poorly executed, again due to lack of time and the fact that we came up with the idea so late in the piece. We felt this idea could have really added to the design had it been followed through thorughly so we didn’t want to just leave it out.

| 109 |

2.2.H. | Final Analysis | Reflection

PARAMETRIC EXPERIENCE | Overall this semester has been nothing but a massive learning curve. I’ll start with the positives, which I think comprehensively outweighed the negatives. Parametric Tools and Design | I have found my overall experience to be positive because I really do think that parametric software has many positive aspects that will be helpful to architecture realizing it’s potential in the future. Cutting out the tediousness of repreducing renditions of work is the obvious advantage. I think designing in a parametric fashion also forces the designer to engage more fully with the design. It becomes all about the system - what is driving the design? Which is was the main questions in design should be about. We found the end of semester a struggle as we could not get grasshopper to do exactly what we wanted it to, but I think we had a good plan b. so it is not as though digital technologies proved limiting because we still felt we achieved something cool, even though not through the method we would have liked in an ideal world. I also liked the fact that we have tried out reletively cutting edge software, rather than opting for something more safe. Architects have always been intrinsically linked to the tools at their disposal and the profession of engineering so to embrace new tools is a commendable, forward-thinking and sensible decision. Otherwise obviously we risk our methods becoming obsolete and dated. Digital architecture has always been very interesting to me, if not a little scary! I think this subject has helped me to break down some of the mental barriers that existed with me towards digital tools in architecture and something Iook forward to continuing to embrace within the future. It has certainly increased my confidence to try new technologies that I may have been apprehensive about in the past. One of the difficulties I found in parametric software was in working with scale, and also with fabrication. The ‘gravityless’ and seemingly scale-less world of rhino and grasshopper can sometimes lull one into a false sense of security. It is only when attempting to fabricate the design do you realise how in-feasible your design has become. Therefore I think that establishing context early on in the design is important to parametric tools. I think doing this studio as a group is essential. There is just too much to cover

2.2.H. | FINAL ANALYSIS | REFLECTION | 110 |

PART 2.0 | Design Proposal

if doing it individually so the group factor was great. Plus it reflects real-life practice so much morem which I think is a real positive, as compromises have to take place. One other great aspect of the parametric experience was that we had time to research what was out there. The precedent research certainly opened my eyes as to what was possible and raised the bar or standard of what is achievable in my mind. It was interesting to see that most of the big-name global firms use this type of technology in their designs and I felt it helped to justify why we were learning what we were. Another positive - practical and technical skills gained | This has been the single best attribute of Studio Air. Something that I felt the course at Melbourne severely lacked was that it didn’t teach us any technical skills. It was all about finding out how to do it yourself via youtube or ‘googling’ something. It has been great to see a subject integrate the teaching of certain technical skills into the course. Tutorials and lectures on graphic design, rendering, animations, fabrication and obviously the grasshopper and rhino tutorials were all fantastic and much needed. It is amazing how much of a difference it can make to the quality of work produced with a bit of guidance. Especially I imagine it will be helpful for future employability and for that I am very grateful.

2.2.H. | FINAL ANALYSIS | REFLECTION

| 111 |

2.2.H. | Final Analysis | Reflection

| 112 |

ADS3 | COLLISION GATEWAY TO WYNDHAM | | COLLISION | “Expressed through the monumentalization of movement, the design translates Wyndham’s role as the epicentre of new urban expansion. In a Western regional context, its urban boundaries ‘creep’ towards a collision with surrounding cities in the future. This future collision phenomenon will be visible as one oscillates through the continuum of Geelong road. The structure reflects a commentary on the urban expansion of the Wyndham region as it expands outwards to carve its own identity in Melbourne’s Western Metropolitan region.

NICK BERGIN SOPHIE BARDOEL MICHAEL MCLOUGHLIN

CALTEX SERVICE STATION

SITE B

SITE A

ELO

C RIN

TO AY HW

HW AY

SITE C

200