1 3
NICOLA INSKIP
0
angela woda
2
STUDIO A I R
gwyllim jahn
INTRODUCTION CASE FOR INNOVATION A.1. Architecture as a Discourse A.2. Computational Architecture A.3. Parametric Modelling A.4. Algorithmic Explorations A.5. Conclusion
DESIGN APPROACH Initial Explorations B.1. Design Focus: Aggregation B.2. Case Study 1 B.3. Case Study 2 B.4. Technique: Development B.5. Technique: Prototypes B.6. Technique Proposal B.7. Algorithmic Sketches B.8. Learning Objectives and Outcomes
PROJECT PROPOSAL C.1. Gateway Project: Design Concept C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model C.4. Learning Objectives and Outcomes References
1
i n tr o d uct i o n nicola inskip
semester of my degree, is where I realized the myriad of misconceptions I had in regards to architecture and its use of digital design tools. This realization was fortunately early in my degree.
My name is Nicola Inskip, I’m currently a 3rd year Bachelor of Environments student Majoring in Architecture at the University of Melbourne. My first encounter with computation in architecture was during my final year of secondary school during which I excitedly introduced to my visual communications class Google SketchUp. In a school where there were only 3 computers in a Design Studio and few people who could use basic design programs such as Photoshop, this 3D modeling program was astonishing. I used this program to create what I at the time perceived to be a modular house, which simply meant a box in which I managed to squeeze (not very functionally) a one bedroom loft complete with spa ensuite (priorities are important). Since then I like to think my engagement with computation in architecture, and architecture itself, has developed and matured. Virtual Environments, a subject taken in the first
Using Rhino, a program which renders programs like Google SketchUp simplistic and limiting, I developed an appreciation of the true potential of digital technology in architecture. In my early explorations of Google SketchUp I was excited by the simplicity of the program, the ability to quickly generate form three dimensionally and create basic documentation from that. Though all these things were, and continue to be, true, what excited me about Rhino was the ability to abandon preconceptions of form and function and to freely explore design potentials in digital space. The result of this subject was a wearable lantern (figure 1) which challenged preconceptions of architectural form and scale and was exhibited at The Lights in Winter Festival, Federation Square, 2011. Consequentially I have used Rhino as a visualization tool and feel that though I have a grasp of the potential of computation to be used as a design and form finding tool, I feel that I am yet to take advantage and fully engage with this notion. My goal for Design Studio Air and this journal is to explore the design possibilities of computation and to abandon predetermined ideas of possible outcomes and appropriate solutions. Design Studio Air will be the 5th studio based subject I’ve undertaken at The University of Melbourne and one of two design studios I’m undertaking this semester.
[2]
[3]
CASE FOR INNOVATION
[4]
[5]
A. 1. Architecture as a Discourse Architectural discourse must begin to consider architecture in terms of its consumption rather than its production in order to broaden the theory of architecture and the understanding of its influence. It is becoming increasingly evident that it is no longer prudent to view built form as isolated objects, but rather to understand architecture as a spatial contribution to society and culture. This approach begins to scrutinize not only what happens within the spaces designed by architects, but also the implications in spaces beyond. As such, architecture should not merely represent the intention and ideas of the architects responsible, but can begin to symbolize the zeitgeist of its context. Often architectural discourse is only accessible to those who are familiar with its unique language and terminology. Despite this the social and cultural implications of architecture extend far beyond those who are immediately involved in the field. Often it the building which are
contributes influential ideas to disciplinary discourse. Inherently temporary, pavilions are often sculptural and encapsulate ideas and concepts which may be considered too farfetched (at the time) for permanent buildings. By understanding the ability of these buildings to perpetuate discussion within architectural discourse, it will become possible to propose a design to the Wyndham City Council with proposes new, inspiring and brave ideas as well as generate a new discourse. In order further explore the ability of temporary structures to contribute influential ideas to the ongoing disciplinary discourse two recent pavilions from different world expos have been selected.
One feature of contemporary architectural discourse is its ability to perpetuate discussion on built form despite the fact that the topic of discussion may no longer exist. One building typology this occurs with is the pavilion, a building type which often [6]
“Architecture, for centuries associated with ideas of permanence, stability and monumentality, is here defined by the most impermanent of materials – water.�
(Kazi, 2009)
[7]
4
a rc h i t e ctur e as a discourse
World expos have long made architectural experimentation possible. Furthermore the temporariness of exhibition buildings gives designers even more creative freedom in regards to form and function. Two recent examples of this are the Blur building from the 2002 Swiss Expo and the Seed Cathedral (also known as the Dandelion Pavilion or UK Pavilion) from the 2010 Expo in Shanghai. One interesting feature of both these projects is their ability to blur the lines between art and architecture, simultaneously redefining both by challenging long established norms of what architecture is and can be. By reconsidering architecture in isolation both buildings engage the viewer in their definition. In the Blur building one influential idea is the ephemeral nature of the project juxtaposed the tradition of monumentality. DS+R say that ‘there is nothing to see but our dependence on vision itself” .1 Similarly the Seed Cathedral defies norms by integrating concept, container and content into the one form.2 The form of the Blur Building was composed of a complex and light weight tensegrity platform elevated on four columns. When in use however the structure dissolves in a cloud of water exposing the true form and function of the innovatively defined space. The Blur Building, like many other projects by DS+R, experiments with art, multimedia installation, interactive space as well as with architecture. This interdisciplinary approach to architecture contributes a multitude of ideas to the discourse of architecture as a cultural production.
Figure 4: Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Blur Building, Lake Neuchâtel, Switzerland, 2002.
1 Bernstein, FA (2010), ‘SHANGHAI SURPRISE’, Architect, 99, 7, p. 40 1 DS+R, AboutFA Blur Building, (2002) <http://www.dsrny.com/> Bernstein, (2010), ‘SHANGHAI SURPRISE’, Archi- [accessed 28 March 2013] 2 2 tect, 99, Bernstein, 7, p. 40 FA (2010), ‘SHANGHAI SURPRISE’, Architect, 99, 7, p. 40
[8]
"The only national pavilion that truly integrates concept, container and content."
(Brooke Hodge 2010)
[9]
5
architecture as a discourse
Dismantled after the 2002 Swiss Expo, The Blur building represents the ability of architectural discourse to perpetuate the ideas and concepts of a building or structure which may no longer exist. It is in this way that historic buildings continue to influence architectural thought and might begin to define a style or an era. The UK pavilion was a box, 15 metres high and 10 metres tall. From every surface, radiating from the centre protruded 60,000 identical clear acrylic rods, each 7.5 metres long. Each rod extends through the walls of the box allowing external light to permeate into the space during the day, and exude from the interior during the night.3 Furthermore the interior tip of each rod contains different seeds from the Kew Gardensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Millennium Seed Bank Project. When considering the continuation of architectural discourse it is interesting to consider the disparity between the 2010 UK pavilion and the Exhibition space of the 1851 Great Exhibition in London- the Crystal palace. An incredibly significant building of the 19th century, the Crystal palace housed the industrial masterpieces of industry which were being invented during that period. In contrast, the 2010 pavilion is a shrine to nature. Here seeds represent ecology, health and nutrition as well as symbolizing potential and promise.4 Just as the Crystal Palace came to represent the potential of the industrial revolution, the UK pavilion represents the changed attitudes of a nation towards industrialization, highlighting the contribution of the 2010 pavilion to contemporary architectural discourse though its ability to generate discussion and debate on topics other than archtecture itself.
6
7 Figure 5: Exterior of the UK Pavilion Figure 6: Interior of the UK Pavilion Figure 7: Detail of embedded seeds
3 4
Heatherwick Studios (2013). Projects, UK Pavilion, <http://www.heatherwick.com/uk-pavilion/> [accessed 28 March 13] [10] Heatherwick Studios (2013). Projects, UK Pavilion
[11]
A. 2. Computational Architecture The Western Gateway Project should utilise computation software as successful projects have done so both internationally and locally at different scales and in different ways. Computation in architecture has changed the design process enabling the creation complex geometries and optimised structures which are both evocative and efficient. The First example is the Guggenheim Museum , Bilbao , 1997. This building is an early example of the ability for compuational software to develop and document complex 3D geometries. In this example compuation is used as means of realising a design which may have been inconceivable without the use of computional tools. The Second example is Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, 2007.This stadium demostrates the collaboration detween the design and construction industries to realise a form which, through compromises of behalf of both parties, satisfies the performace criteria of both.
[12]
"This translation from the computer is not a lifeless version of the design; it's clean and pure, with all the energy of the original intentionâ&#x20AC;?
(Gehry, 1996 in Barrenche, 1996)
[13]
8
c o m put a t i o n in architecture
Guggenheim Museum, Frank Gehry, Bilbao, 1997. Frank Gehrys Guggenheim is one of the most renowned buildings of the 20th century. The building was said to have become an ‘instant landmark’ within Bilbao, a building people will come to the city just to see.5 Here, computation has allowed a free form design, conceived in the architects mind, to be achieved in reality when it may have otherwise have been too complex to construct. The Guggenheim Museum gave architectural form to the digital age.6 Despite the prominent role of computers in this project, they played a small role in the actual design of the project. The design arose from cardboard models, made by hand, which allowed the architect to manipulate the geometry at will. This model was then digitized and the digital model adapted until it matched the original model and drawings by Gehry (Barrenche, 1996).When under construction Gehry is quoted having said that the curves of the building capture the ‘energy of the original intention’ as was the goal of use of computers in this project.7 Despite the success of the building, computers were seen by Gehry as an infuriating intrusion into the design process. Gehry equated learning computer techniques to ‘putting your hand in a flame and seeing how long you can keep it there’.8 By using computers as a way of realizing predetermined designs, the architect was able to retain creative authorship over the design 9. Computation allowed the fabrication of the design and nothing else. Regardless of the attitude of the architect at the time, computation has given rise to in an internationally recognizable Museum demonstrating the benefits of using rudimentary computation for form making in architecture. 5 6 7,8,9 ture -New
Figure 8: Guggenheim Museum, Frank Gehry, Bilbao, 1997.
Rainbird, S( 1998). Bilbao : Guggenheim Museum, Bibliotheksverbund Bayern Carpo, M. (2013). The Ebb and Flow of Digital Innovation: From Form Making to Form Finding - and Beyond. Architectural Design, 83(1). Barrenche, R. A. (1996). Gehry’s Guggenheim: A progress report on Frank O. Gehry & Associates’ museum in Bilbao, Spain, ArchitecYork And Washington- American Institute Of Architects-, 85(9), 177-182.
[14]
â&#x20AC;&#x153;At times during the search for optimised building performance, the point was reached where it was impossible to decide on the most appropriate among a larger set of solutions generated.â&#x20AC;?
(Holzer, Downing, 2010)
[15]
9 11
c o m put a t i o n in architecture
Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, Cox Architects and Arup, Melbourne, 2007. Another more recent built example which illustrates the benifits of using computers in the architectural design process is Melbourne’s Rectangular Stadium (AAMI Park)(fig 9). This stadium utilises interlocking geodesic domes which are both visually evocative and structurally efficient. This project goes beyond basic computation used in previous ecample demonstrates the feasibility of materials based design computation. Here steel and concrete have been used in a way which enabled the use of 50 percent less steel than a typical cantilever roof structure.10 This was achieved through the collaboration between the architects and engineers which allowed rapid computationally assisted building analysis and simulation. The digitally generated models facilitated continuous feedback between the engineers and architects resulting in a greater number of achievable designs, optimising the result. This demonstrates a change in the traditional design process, utilising a method know as ‘Optioneering’.11 Optioneering enables greater interaction between architects and their consultants, resulting in a collaboration driven by strong performance parameters which drive all contributors. Since completion AMMI Park has received more than a dozen awards, notably: • Design and Collaboration Award, Lightweight Structures Association of Australasia, 2011 • Sports or Leisure Structures, Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), 2010 • World’s Top Ten Stadiums, Stadia Magazine, 2010 These awards illustrate how as a result of design collaboration and structural optimization, which was facilitated by through computation, AAMI Park has become an internationally recognized structure demonstrating the success of its innovation. 10 11
Figure 9: Melbourne Rectangular Stadium at night showing led lighting.
AAMI Park... Kicking Goals. (2010). Australian Concrete Construction, 23(5), 12 Holzer, D., & Downing, S. (2010). OPTIONEERING. Architectural Design, 80(4), 60-63.
[16]
[17]
A. 3. Parametric Modelling â&#x20AC;&#x153;Parametric design call or the rejection of fixed solutions and for an exploration of infinitely variable potentialitiesâ&#x20AC;? (Branko, 2003) The proven success of compuation technology is now being superceeded by the more complex modelling techniques of Parametric modelling. Parametric modelling is nothing new, however with the advent of computational software it is becoming increasingly simple and, consequently, increasingly common. The first example, The Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell, 2009, is experimental and focusses on the reinterpretation of tradional, pre-industrial materials. In this instance the design process is material orientated with the final form derived from the matieral used rather then that material being manipulated into a preconceived form. The second example is the Baoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an International Airport Terminal 3, 2013, which demonstrates that parametric modelling is not restricted to structural optimisation and can be used to meet other performance criteria.
[18]
11
[19]
10
p a r a m e tr i c modelling
There are numerous debates within current discourse on parametric modeling. Questions raised include what is parametric design and if parametric design exists as a distinct category, what is not parametric? There has also been an attempt to declare a new style, Parametricism, as a style developed from parametric modeling and design. 12 Examples of Parametric design can be seen as early as 1898 when Antoni Gaudí first began developing his hanging chain models (figure 11). This experiment showed optimized load paths, the curves of which defined the form of the structure of the in the resulting building, the Sagrada Família. If there is indeed a new style derived from parametric modeling, does Antoni Gaudí use of form finding models in the design of the Sagrada Família, still under construction, fall within this category? The physical model used by Gaudi can be considered parametric as it can be instantaneously adjusted by shifting the location of the points the chains are suspended from, resulting in different curves. Similar form finding models to Gaudi’s can now be generated using the Kangaroo plugin with Rhino, contemporary examples such as IwamotoScott’s Voussoir Cloud demonstrate this same technique(fig 10). We’ll leave it to Patrik Schumacher to decide whether the style of Gaudi’s Sagrada Família fall under the umbrella of Parametricism as the answer is inconsequential. Here parametric modelling will be explored as explicit implications of parameters on a form which results from a design methodology of form finding rather than form making. Parametric modelling should not be defined visually or stylistically as the form of parametric modeling is secondary to the design methodology which informs it.
Figure 10: IwamotoScott’s Voussoir Cloud, 2008. Figure 11: Antoni Gaudí, ‘Hanging model’ for Colònia Güell Chapel, Santa Coloma de Cervelló, near Barcelona, 1896–1914.
12 Schumacher, Patrik. “Parametricism: A New Global Style For Architecture And Urban Design.” Architectural Design 79.4 (2009): 14-23.
[20]
â&#x20AC;&#x153;A computational design tool was developed based on synchronous physical and computational studies and the related encoding of material characteristics and system behavior, enabling the construction of a differentiated wood lattice shell with a stressed actuator skin.â&#x20AC;? (Menges, 2012)
12
p a r a m e tr i c modelling
Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2009. Performative Wood Studio Projects. The Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell project (fig. 12) demonstrates that by using parametric software it is possible to optimisation of material properties to create optimized structures. The lattice uses one of the most common structural materials, timber, in ways which have previously gone unutilized in favor of more universal tectonic systems. To achieve this, material characteristics- that is the capabilities, restraints and tolerances of the materialwere calculated and input into a design tool to be further developed into fabricatable structures. The outcomes of projects such as this become evidence of the feasibility of material based computational design processes.
13
The Performative Wood Studio has realised numerous other projects from several universities. Examples of this include the Steam Bent Lattice Morphology, 2009(fig 13) as well as the Research Pavilion from the University of Stuttgart, 2010 (fig14). These projects contribute to student communities who are often drivers of digital innovation. These projects contain and are generated by huge amounts of information, much more then the average designer is able to comprehend and make changes to without error without comuter aid. In this way parametric modelling allows for more complex geometries to be generated. With this in mind it is also evident how computation software can be restricted by the uses ability to manipulate the form and make changes based on the users skill level.
14 Figure 12: Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2009. Figure 13: Steam-Bent Wood Lattice Morphology, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2009. Figure 14: The ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion, an experimental bending-active structure, is located at the city campus of the University of Stuttgart, 2010.
[22]
The size and slope of the glass openings are the two design parameters that were adapted to meet the local requirements of daylight, solar gain, viewing from the inside towards the airfield, as well as the aesthetic intentions of the architect. (Knippers, 2013)
[23]
15
p a r a m e tr i c modelling
Bao’an International Airport Terminal 3, Massimiliano Fuksas and Knippers Helbig Advanced Engineering, 2013 (under construction), Shenzhen,China. Experimental projects such as the Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell (fig.12) have the flexibility of having few function constraints on the design. However in architectural application this kind of parametric purism is not always possible with the multitude of function requirements within a building requiring compromise. With this in mind it is important to consider examples of parametric modelling which are not purely focused on material performance but look at one specific aspect of the overall building. In the Bao’an International Airport Terminal 3 the focus is on the design of the openings of the perforated cladding which envelopes the structure (fig. 15). Designed as a stretched metal sheet, the perforations vary across the surface to meet the local requirements of daylight, solar gain, viewing from the inside towards the airfield, as well as the aesthetic intentions of the architect (fig. 16-17).13 In the Bao’an International Airport Terminal, the parameters are the variation of size and slope of glass panels within the honey comb modules of the perforated cladding. It is also important to note the disparity between this parametric project and form making projects such as the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. While form making projects essentially put existing designs into computer space, parametric modeling generates form based on parameters input by the designer (fig. 17).
16
17 Figure 15: Rendering of Bao’an International Airport Terminal 3 completed. Figure 16: Image of perforated cladding Figure 17: Detail of module with variation of size and slope of glass panels.
13
Knippers, J. (2013). From Model Thinking to Process Design. Architectural Design, 83(2), 74-81.
[24]
[25]
A. 4. Algorithmic Explorations Exploring Grasshopper is like trying to solve a puzzle. All the pieces are available however I’m still learning how they all fit. The short weekly task we have been given have been useful as they have created an opportunity to have a closer look at these pieces (and, unsuccessfully, attempt to force them together). Gehry wasn’t far off the mark when he said learning computer software is like ‘putting your hand in a flame and seeing how long you can keep it there’ (Barrenche, 1996). Though it can be frustrating, it is evident that while grasshopper is capable of generating complex definitions, the plugin is fairly intuitive and make the process as simple as possible through its visual interface.
[26]
18
[27]
algorithmic explorations
Over the past four weeks I have begun to explore Grasshopper and the discourse surrounding it and have developed a greater appreciation on the potential of the software as well as my current inability to fully engage with this potential. With my current skill level and lack of experience, my use of Grasshopper has involved simple definitions which are yet to exploit the potential of parametric modeling. My experiments have resulting in some interesting outcomes though. My week two definition allow the creation of a lofted surface between altering shapes (fig. 19). By using the contouring component on this surface I was able to quickly generate the changing curves between the two shapes. This technique could be useful in fabrication as the contour lines could be placed the distance of the construction material apart and used to laser cut and fabricate many variations of the form.
19
Figure 18: Week 2 explorations. Figure 19: Week 4 explorations.
[28]
20
21
[29]
algorithmic explorations
Week four was useful as I began to experiment with the math components which I think will become useful in weeks to come (fig. 18). Using these components I should be able to generate functions which create variation throughout the form. Experiments from week three show my explorations of patterns on surfaces (fig. 20-21). These experiments were useful as they highlighted how quickly and easily different patterns could be generated. I also used vectors to stipulate the direction of some patterns, another useful trick.
where contours on XY plane were generated and piped. On this surface curves should be generated radially for a more even effect over the entire surface. Thus far my experiments are not yet indicative of the direction I want to explore in the Gateway Project. In order to achieve the desired result additional plug-ins such as Kangaroo will be explored to generate results similar to some of the case studies mentioned during Part A. Ultimately the goal is to engage with the process of form finding rather then form making.
What I think my experiments to date lack is variation; so far the distribution of change or arrangement has been more or less regular. Future test will be sure to explore attractor points as well ways of showing varying forces to generate non uniform geometries and patterns. Much of what I have generated is also planar, this is evident in figure 20
Figure 20: Week 3 explorations.
[30]
[31]
A. 5. Conclusion Based on the information presented in Part A of this document the potential of architecture to contribute influential ideas to ongoing disciplinary discourse and culture at large should be evident. This is highlighted by the ability of buildings and structures which no longer exist to continue to contribute to ongoing debate and discussion within architectural discourse as well as reflect the attitudes of society at large. Furthermore, the promise of innovation offer by computational technology should be unmistakable. The examples presented here demonstrate that computation software has been in use for decades and has resulted in buildings which are internationally recognizable, have been widely praised and received numerous awards. It is also apparent that there are different ways of using computation technology as part of the design process, both which offer evocation results. Despite this, the potential of form finding techniques over that of form making techniques should also be apparent. For this reason the case for using Parametric modelling software as a means of optimizing the design method as well as the designed outcome has been argued. Parametric modelling offers designers the ability to optimize the use of materials or
other performance criteria such as solar performance in ways which would not be possible without the use of computers. The examples presented here highlight that while computational parametric modelling is being used in experimental projects, it is also being adopted by cutting edge projects internationally. In order for the Western Gateway to become an innovative, inspiring and exciting installation which enriches the Municipally of Wyndham, computational software and parametric modelling techniques must be adopted. It is for these reasons Wyndham cities â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Western Gatewayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; should adopt the scheme proposed in this document.
[32]
[33]
A. 6. Learning outcomes Learning about the theory and practice of architectural computing has given me a new perspective on the future of architectural practice. It has become evident how the role of the architect and designer is changing and it is important to keep up with current trends in computational software or risk becoming overwhelmed by the changes in technology and practice. I have a much deeper understanding of the ways computing is used in architecture and therefore a much better understanding of the role it has played in my own design experience. Previously my only real engagement with computational software was during Virtual Environments undertaken in semester 1, 2011. In this subject I now know the project we created was grounded in a tradition design process which utilised computers as a means of form making. In this studio I hope to enhace by skill and explore form finding as a design approach.
[34]
Bibliography: AAMI Park... Kicking Goals. (2010). Australian Concrete Construction, 23(5), 12 Barrenche, R. A. (1996). Gehry’s Guggenheim: A progress report on Frank O. Gehry & Associates’ museum in Bilbao, Spain, Architecture -New York And Washington- American Institute Of Architects-, 85(9), 177-182.
[35]
Images: Figure 4: Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Blur Building, Lake Neuchâtel, Switzerland, (2002) in Kazi, O. (2009), Architecture as a Dissident Practice: An Interview with Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Archit Design, 79: 56–59. doi: 10.1002/ad.812 Figure 5: Heatherwick Studios (2013), http://www.heatherwick.com/uk-pavilion/ Figure 6: Heatherwick Studios (2013), http://www.heatherwick.com/uk-pavilion/ Figure 7: Seed detail (2010),<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aTlFJsCJcDU/TIP2GRJMGwI/AAAAAAAAC44/_ Umt-bXc44s/s1600/UK-pavilion-3.jpg> Figure 8: Guggenhiem Museum, <http://mfareview.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/the-crisis-of-architecture-andthe-new-imaginary/> Figure 9: Morgan, J (2012), AAMI Park, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/30612615@N02/6960285694/ sizes/l/> Figure 10: IwamotoScott, Voussoir Cloud, Projects, <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/> [accessed 2 April 2013] Figure 11: Gaudi’s hanging model, Brown, P., Burry, M., & Burrow, A. (2013). The innovation imperative : architectures of vitality / guest-edited by Pia Ednie-Brown, Mark Burry and Andrew Burrow. London : John Wiley & Sons, Inc pp. 12 Figure 12: Jian Huang and Minhwan Park, Differentiated Wood Lattice Shell, Performative Wood Studio (Achim Menges), Harvard University Graduate School of Design (GSD), Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2009 in Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design. Archit Design, 82: 14–21. doi: 10.1002/ad.1374 Figure 13: Steam-Bent Wood Lattice Morphology, Niemasz J, Sargent J, Viklund L, Harvard GSD, 2010, <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5003> Figure14: Institute for Computational Design (Achim Menges) and Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (Jan Knippers), ICD/ ITKE Research Pavilion, University of Stuttgart, 2010 in Menges, A. (2012), Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design. Archit Design, 82: 14–21. doi: 10.1002/ ad.1374 Figure15: FUKSAS (2008). Rendering, < http://www.fuksas.it/#/progetti/1405/> Figure16: Detail, construction phrase (2012), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Bao%27an_ International_Airport> Figure17: Knippers, J. (2013). From Model Thinking to Process Design. Architectural Design, 83(2), pg. 79.
[36]
[37]
DESIGN APPROACH AGG R EGA T ION
[38]
d e s i g n tE a m Aggregation
NICOLA INSKIP
[39]
Sarah Lam Po Tang
jAKE Nancarrow
ANDREA Piotrowski
[40]
[41]
B.1. Design Focus: Structure Structure, as a theme in architecture, has a long and varied history. Within architectural discourse structure is often juxtaposed ornament and the dialogue of opposition between the two is exerted. Intrinsically, architecture cannot exist without structure, therefore all architecture can be considered structure, however not all structure can be considered architecture. It is in this way the relationship between ornament and architecture becomes significant and, most importantly, the significance of which is given priority. Structure itself is the form determined by purely technical criteria.1 Ornament is the aesthetics of a form which is often determined intuitively. Throughout history the diverging relationship between these two themes is played out. The Greek Parthenon stands out as an example of the unity of a structural vocabulary with minor ornamental adjustments to give the building a visual language. Similarly during the Gothic the structure of the flying buttress received minor adjustments for visual satisfaction. These examples may be better described as articulation of the structure rather than pure ornament. Later, during the
Renaissance, the separation of the technical and ornamental becomes evident. These examples reflect the changing design process and role of the designer as the relationship between the technical and ornamental broadens and specialises. By the 20th century the field of Engineering emerges and establishes itself as technical authority of structure, leaving the intuitive aspect to architects. The design approach explored in Part B of this journal will assert the potential of Parametric software to reintegrate structure into the design process, the feasibility of which has been highlighted in several examples presented in Part A . As such the resulting projects will represent a new stage in the evolution of the design process, demonstrating the validity of this parametric approach to the Wyndham City Gateway project.
1 Macdonald, A. J. (2012). Structure and Architecture [electronic resource]. Hoboken : Taylor & Francis, 2012. Pp. 101
[42]
[43]
B.2. Case Study: One Great Court at the British Museum, Foster and Partners, 2000, London, United Kingdom.
For Case Study One our group chose to explore the roof structure of the Great Court of the British Museum. Our interest in this project was in the expressive use of structure to enclose and define a space. Technically, this project deals with one of engineering’s greatest problems, the long span which was further complicated by the design intent to glaze the whole court of approximately two acres, making it the largest enclosed public square in Europe. The resultant structure however is not merely a solution to a technical problem; rather it is the enabler of the design intent- undeniably the power of the design is in the harmony of its parts. Commentary surrounding the roof structure highlights the impact of the design: “Foster has given us the most surprising and most sensationally beautiful space in London.” Richard Dorment, The Daily Telegraph, 29 November 2001 “The great court is spellbinding enough to detain all who wonder there. Walking in from the entrance hall is like entering a magical realm, where everything seduces us with a radiant apprehension light’s transfiguring power.” Richard Cork, the Times, 4 December 2000 “The Great Court is a welcome and powerful addition to the rich cultural experiences of London.” RIBA Award citation 2003 The city of London has a rich cultural heritage and the ability of this project to stand out as a powerful addition to that existing cultural context demonstrates the suitability of Structure as a design approach to the Wyndham City Gateway project.
Figure 21: Great Court at the British Museum, Foster and Partners, 2000, London, United Kingdom. Despite the structure weighing 800 tonnes, the structure appears the float above the courtyard.
[44]
B.2. Case Study: One
HEIGHT
NUMBER OF GRID ELEMENTS
2
1 The definition is capable of producing a diverse range of forms. Those with the least height are flat and take the form of geometric motifs which reveal different patterns and shapes (highlighted example 3). The panels produced may become façade patterns or tiling. The mutations of the definition we developed which most resembles the roof of the British Museum Great Court are those which utilize the highest number of grid elements and half the height (highlighted [45]
example 5). The final column of the matrix highlights these examples when the overall form it the smoothest due to this high number of grid elements. When the height is adjusted the shape takes three dimensional form and architectural applications can be imagined. As the height increases the structure becomes more important and a visual resemblance can be drawn IwamotoScott’s Voussoir Cloud and Antoni Gaudí’s Hanging models (figures 10
3
5
4 & 11). Example 4 has a resemblence to the capopy at kingscross Station, an unexpected result. I think some of the more interesting outcomes were those which were created by adjustinf the number of side the form had, as in example 1
[46]
ATTRACTOR POINT
B.3. Case Study: Two
Our exploration of Herzog & de Meurons Birds Nest Stadium was concerned with the expressive and irregular structure which also forms the façade and roof of the Stadium. Here the structure is the façade and vice versa- the is no distinction between the two. The matric we created here was focused on the number of ‘structural’ elements as a form defining element as well as the positioning of the elements which we manipulated with the use of an attractor point to control the density at different location around the form.
[47]
NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
[48]
[49]
Ev a l u a t i o n structure
Predominantly our interests in structure lied in the divergence from the modernist ideal were the structure of a building is separate from its façade. Though revolutionary at the time, this mode of design is no longer innovative and therefore unsuitable for the Wyndham gateway proposal. Both Fosters Great Court and Herzog & de Meurons Birds Nest Stadium integrate structure and façade resulting in designs which are functional and aesthetically pleasing. As a result there is honesty about the structure which is both visually evocative and skillful in execution. Based on feedback received after having explored and presented ‘structure’ as our design approach, we decided that as a starting point it lacked the interest and failed to instigate strong design concepts. Though structure as we have explored it here will remain an important aspect of any our design, we required a far more stimulating approach to drive our design development of a Gateway proposal for Wyndham. Furthermore the broadness of this approach did not give our group the focus we needed to narrow down our algorithmic explorations in grasshopper and thus further develop our proposal technique. As a consequence we chosen to move on from structure and instead explore the more interesting and innovation topic of Aggregation which we have found to be contextually relevant and a catalyst of algorithmic experimentation.
[50]
[51]
22
B.4. Technique: Development One of the greatest threats to the city of Wyndham is the negative stigma Wyndham is gaining due to the growing mountain of trash visible in the distance of our site. Inspired by the manufactured landscapes captured by Edward Burtynsky which express the atypical beauty in the aggregation of trash, our group has chosen to explore this as a technique for the design of the border crossing and gateway into Wyndham. As the dump is expected to grow, our group’s intention is to develop a design which ensures the dump does not destroy the image of Wyndham and instead provides an opportunity to highlight the issues of excessive consumption and waste production.
overtime, simultaneously reflecting the potential of the parametric model and the growth of the dump. Our approach is appropriate as it responds to local issues and encourages further reflection due to the designs contentions source of inspiration in the dump, its continual growth and its use of innovative parametric software to achieve this. The development of our technique is divided into the three categories we have outlined which will be presented and explored here systematically.
Our exploration of aggregation has focused on the accumulation of a single element and the emergent patterns which arise through assembly. Through controlled configurations, the form of this technique is defined by masses and densities rather than a single surface. Our exploration has resulted in the categorization of three distinct types of aggregation; Fractal aggregation, Self-organizing Aggregation and Explicit aggregation. Each type we have outline has both positive and negative attributes, the most desirable of which is the ability to continually ‘grow’ due to the inherent accumulation potential of each type. As such it is the intention of our groups design that it should continuously develop
[52]
fr a ct a l aggregation
se organ
aggreg
[53]
lf nising
explicit aggregation
gation
[54]
fr a ct a l aggregation
fr a ct a l aggregation
NUMBER OF ELEMENTS
NUMBER OF SIDES
mATRIX 3
This matrix outlines the test we did which explored different shapes and their packing potential. The first row resembles The Morning Line by Aranda Lasch. The subsequent rows demonstrate how by adjusting the number of side the input shape has the overall form changes.
[57]
We were interested in the way fractals have been used as aggregate at different scales to realize an overall form. This is evident in projects such as The Morning Line installation by Aranda Lasch, 2008. This project is composed of truncated tetrahedron elements which are massed together. In this project the truncated tetrahedron elements can be scaled and reconfigured to create numerous architectural forms. The result of this technique is relatively predictable as the initial input form, though scaled and subtracts from itself continually,
remains the same resulting in a form composed of packed elements of varying density. We made a number of prototypes to investigate the way a fractal element could be packed together. Through this exploration we tested which shapes were best suited to packing and which were not. This investigation had interesting outcomes however these were too predictable and we decided that this technique was overused and that we wanted more of an algorithmic challenge. [58]
[59]
self organising aggregation
[60]
[61]
30
self organisng Aggregation
This category explores the interaction between unbound elements. Our exporations were heavily influenced by research by Archim Menges in particular Designed particles aggregation 02 which was interested in emission path, pouring speed, and how time affected the density of the overall form . Similarly, Aggregate Architectures by Karola Dierichs, explores how aggregates can develop in their unrestrained form. This project highlights how an aggregate system is composed of a loose arrangement of elements, whereby each part finds its own stable position within the overall composition which is determined by internal and external factors of the aggregate structure .
31
This type of aggregation is distinguished by its ability to continuously adjust to system-external and system-internal parameters. There was a desirable degree of unpredictably to this technique, something which was lacking in the previous aggregate type. Again we created our own prototype which was inspired by plant burs and their ability to lock and grip onto themselves and other objects. Our element was generated using a recursive line which was repeated and scaled to create a branching element which would hook and interlock onto other elements. We attempted to simulate controlled pouring conditions as is illustrated in the analogue matrix we generated which is outlined on the next page. By controlling the inputs of this technique we were able to anticipate and approximate the outcome.
Figure 30: One element as part of Aggregation prototype one Figure 31: Designed Particles Aggregations 02, Achim Menges Figure 32: Karola Dierichs in Aggregate Architectures,
[62]
pHYSICAL MODEL- ELEVATION pHYSICAL MODEL- ABOVE
DIGITAL MODEL
self organisng
Aggregation CURVE ONE
[63] CURVE TWO
CURVE THREE
Detailed here is the technique we used in order to predict and replicate the behavior of the physical elements in grasshopper. Using an attractor line which represents the emission path and a field of points which represented the aggregate elements the points are denser a along the path of emission, a conclusion we established though manual test which are outline in row two and three. In the manual test, elements were dropped along the emission curve and the results showed the overall form adhered to the curve of the emission path and was denser at this point, the exceptions being the elements which bounced off the main body of the aggregation and became separate aggregate systems. The aim of this test was also to discover the strength and stability of the aggregate structure as well as test the correctness if our digital definition in comparison to the manual test. The outcome shown in the matric here highlight that though our digital technique for predicting the behavior of the self organising elements was not exact, overall it was indicative of the outcome. It was discovered that the strongest and most stable forms were those which were bent, as is the case in curve two and three. Curve one was most likely to collapse when elements were added on as the resultant structure had little lateral stability and was destabilized by the impact of additional pored elements. This technique however was too difficult to control/ model with the available resources. We also wanted to have greater control over the overall form by being able to manipulate specific connections rather than them defining themselves
[64]
[65]
explicit aggregation
[66]
[67]
explicit aggregation
Explicit Aggregation, the final category of Aggregation we have outlined and explored, was concerned with angles between elements and the ability of these connections to influence and change the overall form. By being able to explicitly control the connection between element the designer gains greater control over the the system and resultant form. We looked at a number of project which exemplify this. These included projects by Gramazio & Kohler such as Structural Oscillations, Venice, 2007-2008, Pike Loop, Manhattan, New York, 2009 and Flight Assembled Architecture, FRAC Centre OrlĂŠans, 2011-2012. The three similar projects explore and challenge the potential of the brick as an aggregate element within a system rather then as a modular component of a building. In doing so they challenge traditions of material use and building construction. Bricks, perhaps the most mundane of building materials are revitalised through the use of robots in construction- enabling them to be laid with unprecedented precision. For example in Structural Oscillations, an installation at the 11th Venice Architectural Biennale 2008, specific algorithmic and geometric rules were followed and built on site by R-O-Ba mobile robotic fabrication unit. The 100m loop consisted of 14,961 bricks
which were individually rotated to give the wall added curvature and subsequently increased stability. Each brick was rotated by the robot where it was calculated to require increased stability, for example should a course of bricks become too straight, the next course would have a greater rotation to counteract this. Similarly Flight Assembled Architecture utilises brick as molecular elements within an aggregate system which is concern with the explicit connection between each element and the way in which these elements perform overall. In this project the bricks are place by quadcopters rather than a land based robot, reducing height constrains. For our project the significance of these examples lies in the way they are connected. As has been stated the brick elements were rotated in order to give the overall form added strength and stability. This is just one of the guiding rules of the algorithm as the positioning of the brick is also constrained by how far one brick can overhang another before additional support is needed. The undulation of these projects is a direct result of the connection between each brick which is placed to curve the wall, adding strength, but never curving far enough the cause the form to collapse.
[68]
[69]
explicit aggregation
Bloom is another project which utilises the connections between elements to form an aggregate system. Just as in the Projects by Gramazio & Kohler, Bloom uses elements which are identical but which become unique once assembled. Each Bloom element is comprised of three possible connection points and through the act of reconfiguring these connections, an infinite number of formations can be generated.
The element itself could be parametrically adjusted by changing the angle of the connection notches as well as the overall dimensions of the initial element. Due to the dynamic nature of the grasshopper definition the adjustments made to the element were simultaneously reflected in the changes to the aggregated formation.
This installation has been marketed as a game and is dependent on user engagement to give the design form. The image below depicts potential configuration sequences which were generated using a model developed with grasshopper. When in use however the sequencing of the connections becomes far more erratic. Through testing different arrangements different forms including chairs and pavilions. Through sequencing emergent patterns arise.
[70]
[71]
25
explicit aggregation
After exploring fractals and self-organizing aggregation our group became interested in exploring what weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve termed Explicit Aggregation by developing new prototypes which explored forms which were defined by the the connection angle and rotation. Drawing on the precedent projects previously mentioned we generated two prototypes which utilized elements which were identical, though allowed for unique arrangments. Figure 25 illustrates a prototype developed which used the end angle of elements as well as the rotation between elements to change the overall composition. Figure 27 illustrates the initial iteration of this prototype before the elements were rotated. This technique as further explored through Explicit connection Prototype Two which had a greater number of connection options which allowed for a more gradual change in form and greater experimentation in the sequencing of elements.
26
27
Figure 25: Explicit connection prototype one. Figure 26: Diagram explaining the initial form of Prototype One, and rhe element which has an adjustable connection to develop alternative linear forms. Figure 27: Explicit connection Prototype Two: an elaboration of Prototype One which has more connection options.
[72]
[73]
28
explicit aggregation
Unsatisfied by the linearity of the previous definitions and prototypes we explored the potential of elements which had three or four connection points and which could then transform in multiple directions, forming far more interesting objects as is evident in the Bloom project. To do this we explored a research project by Kokkugia which used rhino script to generate objects which continued along numerous paths and changed depending on the rotation between these elements. We created our own definition in grasshopper through which we were able to manipulate specific parts of the aggregations and adjust dynamically.
29
Figure 28: Explicit connection prototype three Figure 29: Research project by Kokkugia which used python script.
[74]
FOUR POINTED ELEMENT
THREE POINTED ELEMENT
NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
[75]
explicit aggregation
This matrix highlights the different iterations created with a three or four pointed element. The matrix illustrates our trails on how the form changed with the rotation of the elements as well as the impact of the number of arms in the element. In comparison to explicit connection prototype one and two this test resulted in far more design potential and it is this technique we began to develop our design for the Gateway for Wyndham.
[76]
[77]
B.5. Technique: Prototypes Throughout our teams design development material test and prototyping have played an important role. A number of prototypes were generated in conjunction with the type of Aggregation we explored. As a consequent we had an opportunity to explore different fabrication techniques early in the design stage. Approximately 8 prototypes were created to test the Aggregation types we explored. Card and plywood were used predominantly in these early test and subsequently we have attempted to continue challenging ourselves and try a new fabrication technique to us- Casting.
[78]
[79]
m at e r i a l test
Having chosen a technique to develop into our final design, we simultaneously began to explore material properties and how this would affect the performance and behavior of the element. We thoroughly explored casting as we wanted to create a solid element which closely resembled actual construction materials. The materials we cast included: Wax Silicon (1) Resin - Objects within resin (2) - Solid resin (3) Sugar (Peanut Brittle) (4) Plaster - Plaster, with and without PVA (5) - Plaster with metal filings (6) - Plaster and foam composite (7) - Burning foam inside plaster (8) We were interested in how different materials would deform and distort. A key finding from the material experimentation was the weak points of the element which we later optimize through the introduction of an additional material element (see C.2).
[80]
m at e r i a l test
Silicon (1)
Objects within resin (2)
Plaster, with and without PVA (5)
Plaster with metal filings (6)
[81]
Solid resin (3)
Sugar (Peanut Brittle) (4)
Plaster and foam composite (7)
Burning foam inside plaster (8)
[82]
[83]
B.6. Technique Proposal As a consequence of our teams Technique development we have decided to further explore Aggregation, specifically Explicit Aggregation as we have outlined it here. As a technique Explicit Aggregation is flexible and allows both the designer to remain in control of the overall form as well as facilitate the design. The way in which the overall form of our design is generated through the use of parametric tools will be the focus of our design work for the remainder of the semester.
Aggregation is a relevant as: 1) Aggregation has been inspired by local issues and is therefore contextually relevant. 2) Aggregation has potential for growth, which symbolizes the development of the city despite the presence of the dump. 3) As Aggregation is on the forefront of design research it will contribute to contemporary architectural discourse. 4) By incorporating local issues we are building on and contributing to existing discourse on the issue.
The Wyndham Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competition jury should choose our teams proposal to develop as it responds to local issues and utilizes complex and uncommon parametric techniques. A recent newspaper article reveals the fear local residents have of the area becoming the waste capital of Victoria and our technique proposed alternative view on the issue.
[84]
[85]
B.7. Algorithmic Sketches At the beginning of Part B. I was interested in exploring the use and potential of meshes. To do this I explored Weaverbird to generate flexible definitions which could be applied to different projects.
[86]
[87]
algorithmic sketches
I found weaverbird to be quite use and limiting at the same time. The additional components were easy to use but lacked flexibility when attempted to generate more unique definitions. Interesting effects could be created by using different mesh types within the same definition, each creating differing degrees of detail or softness in the resultant form. When combined with basic grasshopper functions nice effects could be created. In the experiments I undertook I often generated meshes from a nurbs surface. The limitations of this were that it did not seem possible to user define where and how this surface was divided. The generic surface to mesh component simply divided the surface into rectilinear mesh faces which could then be further divided with weaverbirds mesh type (e.g. triangles).
[88]
[89]
B.8. Learning Objectives and Outcomes Through my explorations in grasshopper I have begun to develop a unique repertoire of computational techniques when compared to students outside of my team. However when considering the direction our teams design approach has taken I feel my time may have been better spent exploring physics plug-ins such as Kangaroo which I have consequently had little experience with. Through group work and personal explorations I feel that I am increasing my ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation. I feel this is evident when presented with a technical problem within rhino or grasshopper and my increasing ability to quickly find a solution. Over the remainder of the semester I hope to further develop my ability to communicate through various three dimensional media. Especially in detailed line work and renderings. Part B of this Journal had been particularly useful as a means of broadening and extending my understanding of the potential to explore different techniques in digital space. For the remainder of the semester I look forwards to focusing on one technique an finalizing the design.
[90]
[91]
project proposal
[92]
[93]
C.1. Design Concept Part C of this Journal focuses on the refinement of the overall design including the Aggregate element which is optimized, the technique used to Aggregate the elements on the site as well as the tectonic solutions used to rationalize the construction of the design
[94]
element tectonic
The diagram depicted here illustrate the simple rules out design must follow. Simple each element has 3 arms set at 120 degree and at the end of each arm is a triangle the points of which, when connected to another element, must align. As a result the connections between each elements have 3 possible rotations at the end of each arm.
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
a g g r e g at e technique
EXPLICIT CONNECTION CLUSTERING
2
Within the category of explicit aggregation which we have decided to pursue, Our team have developed two aggregation techniques for arranging the elements on the site, or anywhere. The first is clustering, a technique where the designer has ultimate control. The second is Tracking, a technique through which emergent patterns can be created. These two techniques can be used separately or integrated.
[99]
1
1
EXPLICIT CONNECTION TRACKING
[100]
[101]
C L U S T E R ING EXPLICIT CONNECTION
Clustering allows control of the rotation between each element individually. It gives the designer greater control over the system and the outcome. In this Image opposite, we can see how the form can change dramatically by rotating specific elements within the system. By rotating one element the entire trajectory of part of the aggregation is altered.
[102]
[103]
Should no elements within the aggregation be rotated, the default form is a hexagonal grid. However the instant one element is rotated all those attached to it at moved too, instantly altering the design.
[104]
[105]
T R A C KING EXPLICIT CONNECTION
The tracking technique uses in open input curve, along which the elements arrange themselves in an attempt to approximate that curve. Tracking is more linear in its composition. The elements move along a line or towards a point the result of which is often unexpected.
[106]
[107]
architecture as a discourse
[108]
[109]
C.2. Tectonic Elements
[110]
element optimisation
Departing from the element we explored in part B of this Journal, we began to further develop the element we intended to aggregate. We used a parametric model to rapidly explore elements with differing numbers of arms and therefore potential aggregation [111]
trajectories. We decided to stick to 3 arms as this reduced the chance of the elements intersecting or colliding. Furthermore having an odd number of arms meant the element was not symmetrical and therefore did not mirror itself and was unable to move in straight lines, producing more interesting aggregation outcomes.
We also introduced a flexible metal joint in the center of the element. This was introduced due the the test we conducted in part B.5. Here it was discovered that then force was applied to the object it would break about the center where there were re-entrant corners. By introducing a metal center the element is able to deform and
bend without breaking. The arms are now cast onto the metal part of the element. The diagram here also highlights the geometry used in the definition to generate the element. Each arm is at the corner of a polygon, the number of which we can increase at will, creating more or less arms. [112]
element construction
1 This diagram illustrates the construction process of the element. 1. Three pieces of metal are cut to equal lengths. 2. The pieces are bolted together in two places. 3. The points create are placed into [113]
2 formwork the shape of the arm. The bolt closest to the end in place inside the formwork and will act as an anchor. 4. Concrete is poured into the formwork and left until cured. This process can be repeated infinitely until the desired number of elements has
3
4
been created. The rate of the process is dramatically increase by creating more formworks.
[114]
[115]
architecture as a discourse
Another key element in our design is the socket when can be used to join the aggregate elements together. The socket is tapered to fit the arms of the element. Within the element bolts are fixed on the arm which lines up with the holes in the socket, enabling bolts to be placed through the socket into the element holding it in place. These bolts can then be unscrewed to adjust the angle. This type of adjustable socket is only necessary when the scale of the element is small enough for a person to manipulate it themselves without equipment. Should the elements be larger than this a more permanent socket can be used.
[116]
[117]
C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model Our final model utilized 3D printing in order to fabricate our elements at an appropriate scale (1:25). The Model depicts just one portion of the potential design and encapsulates the potential of the technique.
[118]
[119]
final model
The image to the left depicts a section of the design which integrates both Clustering and Tracking. The regular hexagonal section depicts the clustering technique with not rotation. The increasing irregularity of the design is indicative of the changing technique.
[120]
[121]
architecture as a discourse
[122]
[123]
C.4. Learning Objectives and Outcomes At the conclusion of this subject I feel that I have dramatically improved by skills as a designer. I feel that our design responded to the brief and will deliver to Wyndham an innovative and eye-catching design which respond to local issues and is therefore suitable to its context. Our proposal is also flexible and can be adjusted to suit the changing needs of Wyndham as the city grows. Through my increased skill in using grasshopper Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve been able to rapidly generate large numbers of design outcomes and have already utilised this new skill in another studio subject this semester. Furthermore I am please that our design was able to abandon preconceived ideas of what a gateway into Wyndham might be. Our design was neither sock or surface and by creating this more complex definition we pushed our own skills and cahllanged ourselves.
[124]
[125]