Design Studio : AIR Semester 1, 2018 NOOR LYANA NOOR AZMAN Tutor: Isabelle Jooste
PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
I
B.1. Research Field
1
B.2. Case Study 1.0
5
B.3. Case Study 2.0
13
B.4. Technique: Development
21
B.5. Technique: Prototypes
29
B.6. Technique: Proposal
37
B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes
45
B.8. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches
47
References
II
INTRODUCTION NOOR LYANA NOOR AZMAN architecture bachelor of environments, the university of melbourne I am currently in my second year in the University of Melbourne and is majoring in architecture. My interest in the world of architecture roots from my travelling ever since I was little. Having been to many different places has always fascinated me as I observe the various styles of architecture, each with a character of its own. Architecture intrigues me as it is able to capture any viewer’s attention at a glance through a mixture of creativity and also the nature behind it. As a child, I would draw buildings that pop into my head, and throughout the years, I have learnt to appreciate more of the nature of a design, as I will listen to my dad describing his appreciation for architecture, and going to home and architecture expos. This opportunity has given me the chance to expand my knowledge from the architectural point of view and I am very much willing to learn more deeply in order to understand more of the architectural wonders to be able to portray my own character into what I will design in the future. I started using more of digital tools when I did the International Baccalaureate program in college. However, I got to know and learn more of the programs such as CAD and Rhino in this university. It was a difficult process trying to get the hang of these programs, and I am still in the process of mastering them. However, I enjoy the possibilities and efficiency that they have to offer, and I am looking forward to gain more inputs and skills in these programs. Architecture Design Studio: Air (ABPL30048) is the first to have created the opportunity for me to test myself with Grasshopper, and while it is still a learning process, I am intrigued by the various possibilities that Grasshopper has to offer. I hope, that by the end of this course, I am able to use more digital tools more confidently and that I can express my digital skills through my designs.
I
part B
criteria design
B.1. 1
B.1. RESEARCH FIELD
biomimicry
The inconsideration of nature in the use of technologies, as mentioned in part A, has made the threat to human existence worse. Therefore, a consideration of nature is important in trying to solve this problem. Biomimicry is a way towards sustainability that mimics and emulates nature. This is due to the fact that nature has been dealing with problems for a very long time but is still around and existing, hence, why should we find a separate solution, when nature is the solution that we have been looking for all the while1. “After billions of years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.” - biomimicry.org As Janine Benyus, the president of Biomimicry Institute says its, biomimicry is an innovation that is inspired by nature2. It is a way of looking at nature’s strategies in handling situations, learning from it, and getting ideas of sustainable solutions in design through that.
Biomimicry Institute, (2018) ‘What is Biomimicry?’. [online] Available at https:// biomimicry.org/what-is-biomimicry/ [accessed March 23, 2018] 2 Biomimetic Architecture, (2018) ‘What is Biomimicry?’. [online] Available at http:// www.biomimetic-architecture.com/what-is-biomimicry/ [accessed March 23, 2018] 1
2
precedent (biomimicry) ICD/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION icd/itke, university of stuttgart 2011 stuttgart, germany ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion looks at sea urchin’s plate skeleton and creates a design based on that. The project integrates technology and nature into a design, where computation, simulation and computercontrolled manufacturing methods have been used in the design process. The structure is made of plywood sheets, and the exterior sheets, inspired by sea urchin’s shell plates, slot into one another using finger joints. This pavilion creates various geometries through computation, integrated with the bionic principles of the sea urchin. The complex structure can be achieved even with very thin plywood sheets - which was the aim of this project, where they are striving for a highly adaptable system of high performance from the geometrical plate components and the finger joints that were robotically fabricated. In the design process, biomimicry is done also through the heterogeneity (differentiation in the size of cells that are adaptable), anisotropy (ability to vary in orientation according to directional magnitude) and hierarchy of the structure (2-level structure - glued at the bottom to create a cell, and screwed at the top for the ability to constructed and dismantled)1.
IMAGE 1: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion
IMAGE 2: Interior of the pavilion
Dezeen, (2011) ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’. [online] Available at https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/ [accessed March 23, 2018] 1
3
B.1. research field
IMAGE 3: Joints
IMAGE 6: Toolpath generation
IMAGE 4: Biological structure of sea urchin
IMAGE 7: Digital models of the pavilion
IMAGE 5: Joints being robotically fabricated
IMAGE 8: Digital model of pavilion
All images sourced from ArchDaily Available at https://www.archdaily.com/200685/ icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart
B.1. research field
4
B.2. 5
B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0 THE MORNING LINE aranda\lasch 2008 - 2013 spain, turkey, austria, germany The Morning Line is a project done as a space to explore art and architecture, as well as other forms of creative works, alongside mathematics and science1. It takes form as a futuristic ruin in which its open structure is a continuous line that has no end or start to it2.
IMAGE 2: Close-up of the Morning Line
There is a single fractal block in the centre of the Morning Line that symbolizes growth and scale3.
IMAGE 3: Display of work
IMAGE 1: The Morning Line All images sourced from Aranda\Lasch Available at http://arandalasch.com/ works/the-morning-line/
IMAGE 4: Geometries of the Morning Line
Aranda\Lasch, ‘The Morning Line’. [online] Available at http://arandalasch.com/ works/the-morning-line/ [accessed April 12, 2018] 1
Designboom, ‘The Morning Line by Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup’. [online] Available at https://www.designboom.com/art/the-morning-line-by-matthewritchie-with-aranda-lasch-and-arup/ [accessed April 12, 2018] 1
Aranda\Lasch, ‘The Morning Line’. [online] Available at http://arandalasch.com/ works/the-morning-line/ [accessed April 12, 2018] 3
6
SPECIES 1.0
The definition was explored in this species by differing the inputs for each of them, that resulted in various forms.
1
number of segments = 3
2
number of segments = 4
4
number of segments = 3
5
number of segments = 4
7
number of segments = 3
8
number of segments = 4
7
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
3
number of segments = 5
6
number of segments = 5
9
number of segments = 5
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
B.2. case study 1.0
SPECIES 2.0 1
number of segments = 3
4
number of segments = 3
7
number of segments = 3
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
B.2. case study 1.0
Species 2.0 was created with the mirroring of the geometries of Species 1.0, and the possibilities for each of them to be mirrored without having most of the surfaces intersecting were explored.
2
number of segments = 4
5
number of segments = 4
8
number of segments = 4
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
3
number of segments = 5
6
number of segments = 5
9
number of segments = 5
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
8
SPECIES 3.0 1
number of segments = 3
4
number of segments = 3
7
number of segments = 3
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.5
scale of polygons = 0.1 fillet
9
Species 3.0 is the addition of fillet that takes away the sharp curves of the geometries. Species 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 are the mirroring of these geometries, which was found to be not as easy as those in Species 2.0.
2
number of segments = 4
5
number of segments = 4
8
number of segments = 4
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.5
scale of polygons = 0.1 fillet
3
number of segments = 5
6
number of segments = 5
9
number of segments = 5
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.5
scale of polygons = 0.1 fillet
B.2. case study 1.0
SPECIES 4.0 1
number of segments = 3
4
number of segments = 3
7
number of segments = 3
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
B.2. case study 1.0
Weaverbird was used in the making of Species 4.0, that have created these mesh-like geometries. Species 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 look more like individual floating objects.
2
number of segments = 4
5
number of segments = 4
8
number of segments = 4
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
3
number of segments = 5
6
number of segments = 5
9
number of segments = 5
scale of polygons = 0.1
scale of polygons = 0.3
scale of polygons = 0.5
10
SELECTION CRITERIA 1
SPECIES 1.0 5 sides 0.5 scale of polygons This selection is chosen as one of the successful iterations due to the fact that the various singular projections remind me of little roofs that would work as a protection from the rain. Besides that, it gives off a sense of open structure that the Morning Line by Aranda\ Lasch also portrays.
2
SPECIES 2.0 3 sides 0.1 scale of polygons mirrored This selection is successful in terms of its ability to be mirrored and stacked, without most of its surfaces intersecting or touching. The other selections with 4 and 5 sides are difficult to be mirrored without their surfaces touching. Hence, this selection’s success in doing otherwise is deemed important as it allows for the ‘baking’ of structure that portrays its full geometries, instead of having them intersecting with one another.
11
B.2. case study 1.0
3
SPECIES 3.0 3 sides 0.5 scale of polygons fillet This selection is considered successful as it was fillet, hence producing a structure that looks strong, yet having these corners that are not sharp, which is suitable for the client (possums) to be in. Not only that, the structure is somewhat stable as it is derived from the geometry of a tetrahedron.
4
SPECIES 4.0 4 sides 0.3 scale of polygons weaverbird The criterion that brings to the success of this selection is its perforations. These perforations would help in the ventilation of the home for the client (possums) which is an important thing to consider. Not only that, some of the perforations are bigger, which can be thought of as the entrance to the interior.
B.2. case study 1.0
12
B.3. 13
B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0 QUASICABINET
aranda\lasch 2007 - ongoing
Quasicabinet is one of the Quasi-series, that focusses on creating disorderly standard forms. It is inspired by quasicrystals, which are crystalline structures that maximise space in a non-repeated manner. Quasicabinet brings forward this property of the quasicrystals, in which an aperiodic pattern trims the surface of a rectangular cabinet.1 The use of parametric design in the design process of the Quasicabinet has enabled for the reduction in cost of the project. It has also made the whole design process faster, as ways of finding the aperiodic pattern can be found more easily through computation. Not only that, Aranda\Lasch approach to computational design enables the possibility for them to produce their own design tools.2
IMAGE 1: Quasicabinet All images sourced from Aranda\Lasch Available at http://arandalasch.com/works/quasiseries/ Motherboard, (2015) ‘Quasicrystals Are Nature’s Impossible Matter’. [online] Available at https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4x3me3/quasicrystals-are-naturesimpossible-matter [accessed April 3, 2018] 2 Duong Tam Kien, (2009) ‘What is parametric to us?/Aranda and Lasch’. [online] Available at http://cendres.net/2009/02/12/what-is-parametric-to-us-aranda-and-lasch/ [accessed April 3, 2018] 1
14
IMAGE 2: Shapes trimmed off the Quasicabinet
IMAGE 3: Parametric design
All images sourced from Aranda\Lasch Available at http://arandalasch.com/works/quasiseries/
15
B.3. case study 2.0
REVERSE ENGINEER thought process In my thought process of reverse engineering the Quasicabinet by Aranda\Lasch, I have laid out the possible steps to achieving this. Basically, I would need two components which are the pentagonal pyramids and a rectangular box. Firstly, I would need to create the pentagonal pyramids that trim the surface of the cabinet. Next, I would need to vary their size and randomize their positions. I would then need to have a box that will be the cabinet before surface dividing these two components, with the pentagonal pyramids being the “trimmer” and the box being the “trimmed” object.
pentagonal pyramids
+
box
+
“BOOLEAN”
GRASSHOPPER SCRIPT With the thought process, I then tried to find ways to “Boolean” the components on Grasshopper. This step was a bit tricky, and I arrived at 4 possible ways to achieve this. The first possible definition is with “Trim Solid” to cut holes into the box with a set of pentagonal pyramids as the cutters. Next, “Split Brep” might be a possible definition that splits one brep with another. The third possible definition is “Solid Difference” that allows for a solid difference to be done on two Brep sets. Finally, I have also found a possible definition which is “Solid Intersection” that intersects two solids of two Brep sets. Experimenting with these 3 commands, I have found that the command “Surface Divide” works best in trying to reverse engineering the Quasicabinet.
points
+
pentagonal + pyramids
B.3. case study 2.0
solid orient + box + difference + size
16
PROCESS
step 1 points “Populate Geometry” (PopGeo) definition is used to create points on xy plane. This is to later mark the positions of where the pentagonal pyramids will be.
step 2 pentagonal pyramids Polygons are created with the “Polygon” definition. Pentagonal pyramids are created by changing the slider input of the polygons’ number of segments to 5. These pyramids are then multiplied until there are a number of pyramids of about the same amount as that on the Quasicabinet.
step 3 orient + size The orientation of the pentagonal polygons are then mirrored to the yz plane. Next, the size of the polygons are varied, as that on the Quasicabinet. 17
B.3. case study 2.0
step 4 box After the polygons that act as a cutter are created, an object to be cut is then made using the “Box” definition that will represent the cuboid cabinet.
step 5 solid difference Finally, “Solid Difference” (SDiff) is used to cut the box with the pentagonal pyramids, that will then lead to the final look of the Quasicabinet.
B.3. case study 2.0
18
IMAGE 4: Details on the Quasicabinet
IMAGE 5: Opening of the Quasicabinet All images sourced from Aranda\Lasch Available at http://arandalasch.com/works/quasiseries/
19
B.3. case study 2.0
final SIMILARITIES:
DIFFERENCES:
- form and shape of the cabinet
- size and location of trimmer
- overall shape of the trimmer
- size of box
Trying to reverse engineer the Quasicabinet is more difficult than I thought. Some of the definitions did not work and a way to successfully “trim” the box with the pentagonal pyramids was a challenge. The pentagonal pyramids also need to be joined before “Solid Difference” is able to be performed.
If I were not constrained by the original form of the Quasicabinet, I would experiment more on the possibilities of “Solid Difference” on different geometries to test this definition more.
B.3. case study 2.0
20
B.4. 21
B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT So far in the course, I have learned more on the usage of Grasshopper and other parametric tools. I am looking forward to explore the possibilities of the definition that I have produced in B.3. for the Quasicabinet, to see its capabilities in its performance on various geometries and with different input parameters.
22
SPECIES 1.0
23
B.4. technique: development
SPECIES 2.0
B.4. technique: development
24
SPECIES 3.0
25
B.4. technique: development
SPECIES 4.0
B.4. technique: development
26
SPECIES 5.0
B.4. technique: development
SPECIES 6.0
B.4. technique: development
SELECTION CRITERIA 1
SPECIES 1.0 This selection is successful in terms of creating a Quasicabinet with different geometry as the trimmer.
2
SPECIES 5.0 This selection is successful as it appears as a ball that can act as a single dwelling for a possum.
27
B.4. technique: development
3
SPECIES 3.0 Voronoi was explored in this species. This selection is successful as it allows an intersection of a brep with voronoi. Each components can act as a single dwelling for each possum.
4
SPECIES 4.0 Species 4.0 is successful in terms of creating a component that pipes along the edges of the original Quasicabinet.
B.4. technique: development
28
B.5. 29
B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES Amin Mohd Fouzi, Xueling Zeng and I have worked together as a group to create a dwelling for our client, Brushtail possums along the Merri Creek. We have looked at the Morning Line by Aranda\Lasch, as well as Monocoque 2 by Neri Oxman as our precedents to inspire our works in terms of our research fields which is Biomimicry. The Morning Line was specifically looked at for its open cellular structure, and Monocoque 2 for its strong external structure. IMAGE 1: Brushtail Possum
These two properties are specifically important as the open cellular structure allows for ventilation to take place in the dwelling. It also allows for a flexibility in the way the structures are to be organized. Next, the strong external structure is particularly stressed upon in our project, due to the fact that our client (Brushtail possums) have a habit of munching their dwelling. Therefore, with the dwelling being externally strong, the structural property of the dwelling is able to be maintained.
We have made a few digital explorations before making our prototypes to find ways that suit our clients’ needs.
IMAGE 2: The Morning Line
IMAGE 3: Monocoque 2
- Image 1 sourced from Sciencentre Available at http://www.sciencentre.qm.qld. gov.au/Find+out+about/Animals+of+Queensland/Mammals/Common+mammals+of+southeast+Queensland/Marsupials/Common+Brushtail+Possum#.Wtk4Pq1L1-U - Image 2 sourced from Aranda\Lasch Available at http://arandalasch.com/works/themorning-line/ - Image 3 sourced from Material Ecology Available at http://www.materialecology. com/projects/details/monocoque-2#prettyPhoto
30
DIGITAL EXPLORATIONS selection 1
top view
Selection 1 was done using Weaverbird and pipe tools that have allowed for an open cellular structure, inspired by the Morning Line by Aranda\Lasch. 31
B.5. technique: prototypes
selection 2
Selection 2 was done using Voronoi, weaverbird and maptosurface tools that have allowed for a strong external structure, inspired by Monocoque 2 by Neri Oxman.
The two criteria from Selection 1 (open cellular structure) and Selection 2 (strong external structure) are merged as a Selection Criteria for the prototypes. Next, the shape of the dwelling is to be determined. We have decided on the shape that is derived from triangles due to the flexibility that this shape has when stacked on one another. Shapes with 4 or 5 sides are more difficult to stack (as suggested in B.2. Case Study 1.0). B.5. technique: prototypes
32
PROTOTYPES prototype 1
Prototype 1 is unsuccessful due to the fact that it is stacked close to one another, which is unsuitable for the clients due to the fact that their habitat does not prefer to be really close to one another. Hence, some space needs to be applied in between the dwellings.
prototype 2
Prototype 2 is created by aggregating Prototype 1 that represents a continuous line. However, it is also unsuccessful as the perforations are too big which will cause the possums to be too exposed to predators. Besides that, too much light will be coming in which is not suitable for its joeys. In terms of fabrication, Prototype 2 is not able to be fabricated as the mesh lines are too thin. 33
B.5. technique: prototypes
prototype 3
Prototype 3 is made by increasing the size of the mesh lines of Prototype 2. This is to enable it to be fabricated, as well as to make the lines for the enclosure not as brittle.
B.5. technique: prototypes
34
FABRICATION METHOD AND MATERIAL ANALYSIS cnc milling The first fabrication method considered is CNC milling. However, it was found that the material for this method which is plywood has formaldehyde in it, which is carcinogenic and can cause difficulty in breathing. Not only that, excessive skin contact can cause burn. The same was found on MDF. The properties of these materials therefore means that they are not suitable to be used as the material for possums’ dwelling, topped with the fact that CNC milling is a process of subtraction. This process results in a lot of wastes, and most of the time, these wastes are not able to be recycled, Hence, this process is deemed unsustainable.
3d printing The next fabrication method that we looked at was 3D printing as this process has lesser wastage, is stronger and more structural. The material that we have decided to be suitable for the dwelling is timber filament with natural PLA as it is more organic, non-toxic, biodegradable and noncarcinogenic. Different temperatures can be set while 3D-printing to allow for a variety in colours, a characteristic that is beneficial to this project as the possums prefer their habitat to be of colours that appears to dissolve in the background (to protect themselves and their joeys).
35
B.5. technique: prototypes
3D-PRINTED PROTOTYPE
The prototype was powder printed to test the possibility of the digital prototype to be fabricated.
B.5. technique: prototypes
36
B.6. 37
B.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL Our client, the Brushtail possums prefer to live in tree hollows. However, with the decrease in the number of these tree hollows has caused this species to move into house sheds and roof. There are current “solution” to this problem, where possum boxes are made and placed on certain areas to accommodate these possums. However, these possum boxes are not suitable to accommodate these animals, especially due to the fact that their faeces are harmful and can cause flesh-eating ulcer. With possum boxes, these faeces are being held/locked in the boxes without being able to be displaced. This becomes more harmful when the possums bring their food into these enclosures, and also feed the food to their joeys. Not only that, Brushtail possums have a habit of muching their homes to “renovate” them, and so these boxes will become structurally unstable. A dwelling for the Brushtail possums are to be designed by Amin, Xueling and I that meets the possum’s living criteria.
38
SITE MAP
IMAGE 4: Site Map Map sourced from Google Maps; edited by Lyana Azman selected area
N
human circulation
water resource
This area was chosen due to the fact that it is a distance away from dense human access. Hence, a safer area for the possums is able to be ensured, besides the ability for a noise reduction. Not only that, the site is near the water resource, which is an important criteria to consider in selecting a site for the possums’ dwelling. Also, there are a lot of trees and shrubs surrounding the area, that makes a good spot for habitation, as well as a good area for food source. The branches on the trees give the possums flexibility for climbing. After deciding on a good area for the possums’ dwelling, we found a bat box near the site which justifies the good reasons of having animal habitation there. 39
B.6. technique: proposal
IMAGE 5: Selected area where two tall trees stand
IMAGE 6: Existing bat box near selected area
IMAGE 7: Water resource near the selected area
IMAGE 8: Vegetation nearby
All images photographed by Lyana Azman
B.6. technique: proposal
40
OCCUPATION DIAGRAM
41
B.6. technique: proposal
average height of trees
suitable height for possum habitation (4 meters)
1.7 meters
average height of Brushtail possums (38 - 52 centimeters)
B.6. technique: proposal
42
PROPOSAL
43
B.6. technique: proposal
IMAGE 1: Section of the design
The aggregation of the dwelling allows for the possums to choose which dwelling they would like to inhabit, hence, choosing how much space they need between other possums. Not only that, the perforations allows for a strong external structure to overcome the problem of unstable structure due to the possums’ munching habit. Plus, the perforations are designed to be bigger than 1.5cm (size of their faeces) to allow for these harmful faeces to drop to the ground, instead of being kept in the dwelling. The dwellings go up to 4 meter high, which is the optimum height for the possums. Two possible connections between the dwellings are considered. Firstly, screws to enable the position of the dwellings to be adjustable. Next, 3D printing adhesive Magigoo. The screws, however, are thought to not be suitable as it could harm the possums as they munch through the dwellings. Hence, the odourless and non-toxic 3D printing adhesive is chosen as the connection medium. Tree forks and straps on certain areas of the dwellings will be used to support the structure and hold it from collapsing. This technique allows for a more natural connection as the trees on site will not be hurt or damaged. The big holes on each dwelling will be somewhat facing East which is the morning Sun, and so, will face away from the Sun when it is at its peak. This allows for Sun heat to come in without having harsh Sun coming through, which is essential for the joeys.
B.6. technique: proposal
44
B.7. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Objective 1: “interrogat[ing] a brief” by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital technologies The studio brief was examined as it was important to make sure that I keep in track with the requirements of the studio. In the process of completing the course so far, I have realized that going back to the brief to make sure we had everything in line is an important step in making sure that all our works were in line with the course.
Objective 2: developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration The requirements that our client (Brushtail possums) had to be considered in order to design its dwelling. With these requirements, a lot of design possibilities are able to be achieved through the computation tools that are available. Grasshopper and Weaverbird, especially, had played an important role in the design for our client.
Objective 3: developing “skills in various three-dimensional media” and specifically in computational geometry, parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication The Grasshopper plugin that immediately shows the design on Rhino has enabled me to see and understand my design and its inputs clearer. Not only that, Studio Air is the first subject that I have 3D-printed for, and this has allowed me to understand the process and possibilities of 3D-printing, as well as other fabrication methods available in the university. Plus, I have explored and researched on new materials, that is interesting to me.
Objective 4: developing “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere The design proposal was examined before going on site visit to Merri Creek. This site visit has helped us in visualizing what was to be designed through parametric modelling, on this site for our client.
Objective 5: developing “the ability to make a case for proposals” by developing critical thinking and encouraging construction of rigorous and persuasive arguments informed by the contemporary architectural discourse The researching of the habitat of our client, site, as well as fabrication methods and materials is important in developing a proposal for our client. The requirements had to be understood deeper in order to develop a working proposal. 45
Objective 6: develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architectural projects In the process of reverse engineering the Quasicabinet, I have tried to analyze the process in which this project went through. Through the analysis, it was made easier for me to visualize how the project was designed.
Objective 7: develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming I personally think that I have now know more about the usage of parametric tools compared to when I first started this course. However, more practice and explorations need to be done in order to fully have a command of Grasshopper and other parametric tools.
Objective 8: begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application The iterations that I did in my journal has allowed me to insert my personalised skills in these computational techniques. I think that computational design is important in architecture, especially due to the fact that it is an efficient way of working.
46
B.8. APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES
47
48
REFERENCES Aranda\Lasch, ‘The Morning Line’, http://arandalasch.com/works/the-morningline/ [accessed April 12, 2018] Aranda\Lasch, ‘Quasicabinet’ [accessed March 23, 2018]
http://arandalasch.com/works/quasi-series/
ArchDaily, ‘ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 / ICD/ITKE University of Stuttgart’, 2012 https://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itkeuniversity-of-stuttgart [accessed March 23, 2018] Biomimetic Architecture, ‘What is Biomimicry?’, 2018 http://www.biomimeticarchitecture.com/what-is-biomimicry/ [accessed March 23, 2018] Biomimicry Institute, ‘What is Biomimicry?’, 2018 https://biomimicry.org/what-isbiomimicry/ [accessed March 23, 2018] Designboom, ‘The Morning Line by Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup’, https://www.designboom.com/art/the-morning-line-by-matthew-ritchie-witharanda-lasch-and-arup/ [accessed April 12, 2018] Dezeen, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’, 2011 https:// www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-ofstuttgart/ [accessed March 23, 2018] Duong Tam Kien, ‘What is parametric to us?/Aranda and Lasch’, 2009 http:// cendres.net/2009/02/12/what-is-parametric-to-us-aranda-and-lasch/ [accessed April 3, 2018] Google Maps https://www.google.com.au/maps [accessed April 15, 2018] Material Ecology, ‘Neri Oxman’, 2018 http://www.materialecology.com/projects/ details/monocoque-2#prettyPhoto[accessed March 23, 2018] II
Motherboard, ‘Quasicrystals Are Nature’s Impossible Matter’, 2015 https:// motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4x3me3/quasicrystals-are-naturesimpossible-matter [accessed April 3, 2018] Sciencentre, ‘Common Brushtail Possum’, 2018 http://www.sciencentre. qm.qld.gov.au/Find+out+about/Animals+of+Queensland/Mammals/ Common+mammals+of+south-east+Queensland/Marsupials/ Common+Brushtail+Possum#.Wtk4Pq1L1-U [accessed March 23, 2018]
iii