Design Journal Refke Gunnewijk, 597998
Design Journal Refke Gunnewijk, 597998
CONTENTS
Architecture as a discourse
5 - 13
ME. 6
ME. And my computer skills.
7
ME. And my previous design studios
8-9
ME. And my favorite architectural projects 10-13
Ciutat de les arts i les siencies Valencia 10-11
Farnsworth House 12-13
Computational design 15-19
Computing in architectur
16-19
Intro + Genexis theater 16-17
British musum Great Court Roof
18-19
Parametric design 21-27
Parametric design 22-27
Intro + Kunsthaus Graz
24-25
26-27
Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion
Wyndham Gateway Cut Case Studies Parametric experience so far
29-49 30
Biomimicry 31 Cut case study 1.0 32-39 Municipal Affairs & Argiculture Building 32-33 Mangal City Building 34-35 Shadow Pavilion 36-37 Research Pavilion 2011 38-39
2
Cut case study 2.0 40-49 Rebuilding the Mangal City Building
40-41
Technique matrix 42-43 Outcome matrix 44-45
Further research. The elements
46
Opening elements 47 Rotating elements 48 Suspended elements 49
Mid Semester presentation
51 - 55
Model pictures 52-53
Reflection mid semester presentation
54-55
Wyndham Gateway Project
57-71
Structure 58-59 Biomimicry 58 Construction & Material
58-59
Elements 60-63 Responsive 60 Variations 60-62
Shape 64-65
Site 66-67
End presentation 68-70
Reflection
71
References 72-75
3
Architecture as a discourse
ME.
Hello, My name is Refke Gunnewijk. I’m a third-year student at the University of Technology Delft. I was born in Amsterdam, but am now living in Melbourne for one semester to broaden my knowledge and to experience life on the other side of the world. My choice of the study Architecture was based on two of my interests: technique and creativity. Ever since I was a child I’ve been drawing, painting and designing (from clothes to furniture). Because I love drawing and find hand drawings make a project personal, I have made all of my Bachelor design projects by hand. Besides studying I do different sports (hockey, windsurfing and dance), I play piano and I am a member of the student associations.
6
ME. And my computer skills.
It’s maybe not very interesting for you guys to get to know my computer skills, because I do every design project by hand. The only programs I use for my projects are Paint, Word and PowerPoint. These three programs I manage very well. I even create my Bachelor portfolio with the help of these programs. Last year I followed a course for understanding Maya. After this course I was able to design and render my projects in Maya.
To improve my computer skills I also chose the subject Visual Communication, where they teach you how to work with Illustrator and Photoshop. The reason why I did everything by hand, is because I think that when you hand-drawn during your design-process you will be able to show more creativity and character in your design. I hope that by understanding the computer programs, like Grasshopper during this project, I am still able to be creative and give a personal note to a design without the digital architecture ensure any restriction.
I can imagine it sounds very weird that a third year student can’t do any program like Illustrator, Photoshop, AutoCAD, Rhino, Grasshopper or InDesign. Specially because it is so important for your future job to know some of the programs. Besides that working with the computer can make your Architecture life so much easier (especially by designing buildings with complicated shapes) and your final products look more professional. That’s why I chose this subject with a reason, I want to learn how to design architecture digital, understand the benefits of designing with a mouse instead of a pencil and at last I need to know Grasshopper for my final Bachelor subject back in the Netherlands.
A benefit to get started learning the digital design programs on the University of Melbourne is that you will give me some help by understanding the programs. In the Netherlands we don’t get special lectures to understand the computer programs and for me it is very difficult to learn it by myself without any help. I know it’s going to be an challenge to learn the programs all at ones and it will take some time, but I am willing to learn designing on a different and digital way.
7
ME. And my previous design studios
Design Project 1
Design Project 2
This was my first study work. The assignment was to design an atelier house standing in a Dutch polder and nearby a sculpture park.
The assignment during Project 2 was to design an exhibition hall on the IJsseloog, a Sludge depot in Ketelmeer.
By designing my house the use of privacy lines of sight and views over the water and green were important. I wanted the straight lines of the polder to come back in my design. The first floor is slightly set back from the ground floor so you have a balcony and a beautiful view over the polders, but the people from the sculpture park can’t look into the bedroom. The atelier stands next to the house, but is connected to it at the same time. Thus visitors don’t need to walk through the house to go to the atelier. Work and personal life can be separated, but remain in contact.
My concept for this project was the connection, but also separation between the Sludge depot and Ketelmeer. This concept (connected, but separated) I wanted to realize by two separate shapes (U-beams) showing unity by sticking them together. With this concept in mind I chose the materialization ‘Corten Steel’, which correspond with the rugged character of the surrounding nature, but also distinguish and stand out to the surrounding. By making the end elevation of glass the U-shapes will even more noticeable (at night the U-shapes will light up when the lights are on).
8
Design Project 3 For project 3 we had to design a library at the Faculty of Architecture (TU Delft). In this library there is also a exhibition located. The library is connected with the current façade of the university and follows this structure. By using ‘slats’ the facade seems to change when you’re passing by. When you look with an angle to the façade it seems to be closed, when you are at a corner of 90 degree the façade looks more open. By placing slats closer together or farther away areas are highlighted or forms are accentuated in the façade.To distinguish the kink of the straight part of the building, there is a difference made in de façade, in the interior, floor plans and construction between the two parts..
9
ME. And my favorite architectural projects
My favorite architectural style is modernism. Especially the work of Mies van der Rohe. That’s why I choose the Farnsworth House designed by Mies van der Rohe for one of my favorite architectural projects. I like his style because it is clarity and simplicity. Another project that’s one of my favorite is quite different then the Farnsworth House, but also belongs to modernism. It is the Cuitat de les Arts I les Ciències by Santiago Calatrava. This design is build in a later period then the Farnsworth House (about 50 years later) and looks totally different. Characteristic of the Farnsworth House is the expression ‘less is more’ and the building only exist of orthogonal forms, while the Cuitat de les Arts I les Ciències is composed of complex shapes and organic forms. Normally I don’t like organic shapes in buildings, but this design of Calatrava has really impressed me.
Ciutat de les arts i les ciències This cultural-scientific complex, designed by the famous architects Santiago Calatrava and Félix Candela, was inaugurated in 1998 and is an example of modern architecture. The Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències is built on the side of the Turia river which was drained in 1957.
10
The complex consists of five modern buildings. In each building there is another function that fits with the world of culture and science. The building are surrounded by parks and water what makes the enormous white, organic buildings stand out. This reflects the architectural style of Calatrava; organic forms in nature inspired building (Lagerwaard, 2011). Besides the buildings there are in the garden in the same style floating arches designed (‘Promenade of Sculptures’) and over the water a bridge (‘Assut de l’Or’). Because I am a lover of modern architecture, Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències was always high on my list to visit. On the pictures the buildings are already looking very impressive, but when I arrived at the place is was much bigger and more impressive than I expected. The strongest points of Calatrava’s design for me are pointed out on the next page. Firstly, the contrast with the old city of Valencia. In Valencia the dominant architecture style is Spanish with Moorish details and AustroNeoclassical (Lagerwaard, 2011). Something really different then the modern buildings of Calatrava. You come in a whole different world when you enter the modern Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències.
However, the architects try to involve the traditional architecture of Valencia in their design, by applying the trancadis-technique and covering the facades with Valencia characteristic mosaics (Groen, 2008). Secondly, how the white buildings stand out against the blue water (extra bleu because of the blue mosaic on the bottom under the water) and the green of the parks. And thirdly, because if you walk through the Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències you have the feeling that you walk through a futuristic city. A city where buildings have a size and complexity what will surprise you. My personal favorite is L’Hemispheric. Calatrava drew his inspiration for L’Hemispheric from the human eye. The façade is made of glass, so the white ball inside becomes visible, ‘the pupil’. The façade can be opened and closed, through a mechanical system, so it can ‘blink’. Looking at the complexity, the construction and the different materials used in the design of Ciutat de les Arts I les Ciències, you know that a digital program helps creating it. The complex forms are nearly impossible to design and communicate in hand-drawn plans and sections. Also the construction is difficult to calculate and design without any digital help.
11
ME. And my favorite architectural projects Farnsworth house The Farnsworth House, designed and constructed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1951 and located near Plano, Illinois, is one of the most famous examples of modernist domestic architecture and was considered unprecedented in its day (Architectuul, 2008). This designed have made me fall in love with architecture, especially with minimalistic, modern architecture. The statement of Mies van der Rohe ‘less is more’, is a statement which I fully agree with. What I said before, I think that simplicity makes a building beautiful, ‘less is more’. What makes the Farnsworth House a good design in my opinion is the relationship between the individual and his society. Mies van der Rohe integrate the building with the surrounding nature. Glass walls and open interior space are the features that create an intense connection with the outdoor environment, while the exposed structure provides a framework that reduces opaque exterior walls to a minimum (Architectuul, 2008). The large terrace makes a define distinction between inside and outside. The minimalistic orthogonal construction and the glass walls spanning from floor to ceiling, makes the building weightlessness
12
and makes it looks like there is floating air between the floor and roof surfaces. The plan is designed as open as possible with as little as possible solid walls, only in the middle is a small solid core (for things like the bathroom), this reinforces the open and light character. By raising the building 1,5 meters of the ground, so the house is ‘floating’, makes the building even more weightlessness. The building is not only designed on ‘legs’ to reinforce the weightlessness, but also because of the flood. This decision to raise the Farnsworth House of the ground because of the flood integrate the surrounded nature in Mies his design. The industrial manufactured products Mies van der Rohe used in his building, for example the expressed structural columns of the framework, represent the character of the modern era. If you look at the building you think it’s an easy design, but this is not the case. To design a building so simple, but so compositional and clear is more difficult than you think. With just the right amount and placement of materials, without too many details but detailed designed, Mies van der Rohe get it done to create the best modernist building
13
of that time in my eyes. Things like designing the construction that way that you won’t see any window frame, to keep the clarity and strengthening the simplicity are small things what makes this design work. Concluding. Three keywords how you can describe Farnsworth House; weightlessness, simplicity and clarity. The concept of the Farnsworth House is the integration of the nature and her advantages (the open connection with the view) and disadvantages (the raised floor for the flood). Looking at the Farnsworth House you can see that there is no computer used or need to be used to create this building. Of course, the computer can help designing it, such as how the surfaces compositional facing each other or how the windows are made invisible in the construction. These two aspects can be figured out more quickly with a computer, instead of constantly making sketches or models. But the simplicity what makes the building a success may disappear by using the computer with his many possibilities. Because now a days it seems like the most architects try to create buildings as complicated as possible, just because it can with all the new digital capabilities. In my eyes they go too far and the clarity and character of their designs disappears.
Computational Design
COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE
We humans can assess complex problems and find different means of solutions. We need our creativity and intuition to solve design problems. This problem solving helps in the design process but it is not the only tool we need. A computer can be very useful in different parts of our design process. A positive aspect of using the computer is when the computer is correctly installed and works how you want it to work without making mistakes, it will never gets tired as humans do so and the productivity and precision won’t decrease (Esser, 2005). But there are more advantages of computing in architecture. An advantage of computing in architecture is that computers opened up a wide window of information and they are able to process the information (Kolarevic, 2003). When an architect puts information in the computer he will receive new information in return, what helps to create and improve the final design. Computers can also be introduced for communication reason (Kolarevic, 2003). The advantage hereby is that they can help represent solution graphically and communicate it to other partners or clients.
16
Another important advantage is that the computer can contribute superb rational and search abilities (Kalay, 2004). The computer can help us with the analytical aspects and calculations (for things such as climate and construction) of our design. It can improve the design process as a tool for designing with rational processes. They are purely rational and so the creative abilities of the architect or designer is necessary (Kalay, 2004). The computers only work within certain constraint and boundaries and are made to follow certain rules which they have been programmed to do. They are not able to design by itself, so we always have to put information in and program the computer in that kind of way to produce a design. By combining the rationality and analytical skills of computers and our humans creative abilities and intuition needed to solve design problem, the most suitable and ideal design solutions are able to be explored. The computer moved the boundaries in developments in form and height of buildings and in the field of materials. With the digital information and design tools architects are able to expand their design process in the way a building can work structurally, materially and formally.
An example of a way computers pushed boundaries in terms of fabrication technique and use of materials is the Genexis theater, fusionopolis in Signapore. Designed by ARUP and WOHA architects. It succeeds through a cohesive amalgamation of highly technical solutions and innovation design, the result is a composite work of art and technology. The use of 400.000 timber beads line the internally curved walls of an ovoid space with an acoustic solution reducing the echo minimum (DesignBoom, 2009). Nowadays the buildings become more and more complex. Architects try newer forms and constructions, what I mentioned before is this because they have the opportunities through the use of the computer. In my opinion some architects go too far in exploring the opportunities of the digital programs in their designs. I personally love the more simple and clear buildings, and these aspects disappear in some buildings nowadays. The basic idea and concept gets lost in the violence of the weird shapes and construction, just because the architects want to be different and want to show what he can.
17
COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE
British museum Great Court Roof An example of using algorithms and complex mathematical analysis to explore the most optimal structural form is the British museum Great Court Roof designed by Foster & Partners. Fosters roof is the largest covered public square in Europe, visitors can walk freely around in this space. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines an algorithm as ‘A process, r set of rules usually one explressed in algebraic notation, now used especially in computing, machine translation and linguistics.’ Each rule of an algorithm must be open to only one possible interpretation, which means that no intelligence is required in using the rule. The algorithm used for the geometric design of the British Museum Great Court Roof, used a number of different types of rule (Williams, 2004). The Great Court Roof geometrical definition consisted of two parts, the shape of the surface and the pattern of steel members upon that surface. The position of the nodes of the steelwork grid upon this surface was determined by a relaxation process applied to a ‘numerical grid’. The coarser structural grid is obtained by joining diagonal nodes of the numerical grid.
18
The relaxation process involved moving each of the nodes on the numerical grid until it was the weighted average of the surrounding nodes. This process was repeated for the whole grid a large number of times, until the grid stopped moving. The weighting functions varied with position, mainly to try and limit the maximum size of glass panel (Williams, 2004). I think the roof itself is a beautiful play of lines. The dark steel construction frames different sizes and shapes bleu sky. And when the sun shines the sunlight will create a beautiful pattern in the museum.
19
A disadvantage of this design is that the sound of people talking and walking echoes throughout the space what makes conversations difficult to hold in the cafes. And there is also a growing concern over the effect Foster and Partners’ Great Court has had on the rest of the museum. Foster’s immense roof has come under increasing fire from the museum fraternity (Ed Dorrel, 2004). Some museum experts argument that the roof doesn’t help the galleries at all. They day that the essence of the museum has not been improved and the experience of visitors has not been enhances.
Paramatric Design
PARAMETRIC DESIGN
Parametric modeling is a very recent addition to the design process of architects. There are different opinions and several advantages and disadvantages of the use of parametric modeling in the architectural design process. By using parametric modeling architects are able to create and design buildings that are unconventional. Designs are no longer confined to follow classical and modern reliance on rigid geometrical figure – rectangles, cubes, cylinders, pyramids and spheres – the new primitives of parametricism are animate geometrical intities – splines, nurbs and subdivs (Schumacher, 2010). Shapes are defined by the architect, not by geometry. Besides the architect can create new shapes with parametric software, they can also change their designs very quickly. Manipulate, generate or change multiple things in their design (like size and number) is easy and can be done very quickly in parametric software, because it all come down to an algorithm made in the computer. The ‘unlimited’ possibilities in form that arise after the introduction of parametric
22
software, allows architects to design what they want. The complexity of designs. The consequence of this is that the costs involved in construction get very high, because the unconventional forms/elements are not mass-produced and sometimes engineers have to come up with new construction techniques to create the building. These new construction techniques can be a risk, because if it is not working as planed it will costs even more to fix the problem or it can even cause a serious disaster. Besides the rising costs, is parametric architecture difficult to understand by the general public. This public don’t see architecture with academic knowledge, they are only able to see style and aesthetics. For me the main drawback of parametric and digital architecture is that this denigrated style as buildings have transformed from an expression of order and cohesiveness to blob-like forms that either transcend or ignore the rules of style. That’s why, if we look at this week’s readings, I definitely disagree with Schumacher (2010) that parametricism is THE new style within avant-garde architecture and I agree
23
more with the response of Mayer (2010) that parametrically designed ‘blob’ architecture is disrespectful and impractical in most cityscape contexts. What I mentioned before in the chapter ‘computing in architecture’ I think that nowadays architects go too far in creating as complex and different architecture as possible. The essence and concept of the building lose his value. The clarity and simplicity faded. Connection with the surrounded environment is hard to find. Showing of and impressing other architects are more important, then impressing the public and serve a practical function within society. Despite this meaning about parametric designs, I think that parametric and other digital software can be very usefull within an architectural design, by designing specific aspects like construction and sustainability. I also think that it is an added value to architecture that we can create new forms and more complex building with parametric software. But parametricism has to be used as a tool within an architectural design, not as the driving force behind a design.
PARAMETRIC DESIGN
Kunsthaus Graz An good example of blob architecture is the Kunsthaus Graz, designed by Peter Cook and Colin Fournier. This blob architecture stands out in form, color and material against the surrounding baroque roof landscape with its red clay roofing tiles. It stands out like a rather blue, sore thumb. It is difficult to pass judgment on the aesthetic qualities of such a building; it definitely is there, and it definitely is bleu and blob-shaped, but some say that is also seems very much a part of the city (Stokes, 2003). The Kunsthaus is an exhibition hall designed for international exhibitions of multiplinary modern and contemporary art. A 900 m2 large media installation made of light rings for the eastern façade of the Kunsthaus Graz, called BIX, will be mounted beneath the acrylic glass surface of the building facing the river and city centre (Barznji, 2012). Three principals were generated during the design process and provide the rationale parameters that manifest the blob form. Firstly, the form was intended to be a ‘free form’ that was embedded in the surrounding buildings.
24
Secondly, the Buckminster Fuller ideology was a source of inspiration when considered the structural components. With this the layout of the triangular space frame was driven by the concept of an ease of connection to rectangular paneling (Lubczynski & Karopoulos, 2010). Lastly, the digital platform allows for the realization of the sculptural piece of art which is basically designed on the intuition of the 3D modeler (Lubczynski & Karopoulos, 2010). Specifically the digital program Rhino is used, this program can handle mathematical curves and produced very smooth and clean curvatures. The bleu material of the faรงade is made of plastic. Plastics are easily cut, formed and bent, what makes able to be shaped in limitless forms. This is a great advantage for designs like this and other parametric designs. Plastics were also relatively low priced. But now the petroleum cost rise, the cost of producing plastics risen with it, because petroleum is necessary to form commercial plastics (Lubczynski & Karopoulos, 2010). Another advantage of plastics is their strength-to-weight ratio which is mostly higher than other building materials.
25
Plastic waste from the production line can be easily recycled, but plastics that have been used in architecture - in this case the faรงade - would need to go through a complex and expensive collection system to bring them to a state that can be reused. Plastics as a source of design material comes also with large environmental concerns. As a material it releases large amounts of toxic pollutants in its production. The largest disadvantage to plastics in building applications is that they can be destroyed by fire (Lubczynski & Karopoulos, 2010). All the different kind of plastics perform differently when subjected to fire. Some of them burn and create toxic smoke, others produce combustible vapors and others melt.
PARAMETRIC DESIGN
Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion By choosing my examples of parametric designs this architect can’t be missed. Zaha Hadid’s. In the Netherlands, this architect and her designs are not so popular, but in the few weeks that I am studying on the University of Melbourne I found out that she is very beloved here. Zaha Hadid’s Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion is a pavilion that traveled around the world and has been installed in Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, London, Moscow and Paris (Doan, 2008). Conceived through a system of natural organization, the structure is shaped by both functional and conceptual considerations. Fluid geometries and organic lines compose a continuum of fluent and dynamic spaces, where oppositions between light and dark, interior and exterior and natural and artificial are manufactured (Design Boom, 2011). The design is an expression of the integration between sculpted lines and formal logic, derived from new digital modeling tools. The organic shell of the pavilion is created with a succession of reducing arched segments. As the Pavilion travels over three continents, this segmentation also gives an appropriate system of partitioning (Etherington, 2008).
26
This makes the pavilion easily to transport in separate and manageable elements. The partitioning seams become a strong formal feature of the exterior façade cladding, while these seams also create a spatial rhythm of perspective views within the interior exhibition spaces (Etherington, 2008). Not everyone was happy with this pavilion. As example I will take the article of Doan (2008) which argues that the pavilion has no added value for the people of New York.
27
Doan points out that Manhattan’s Central Park was reserved for leisurely Sunday strolls, ultimate Frisbee on the Great Lawn and narrated carriage rides for out-of towners. There was a policy to keep public art works out of the park proper leaving public spectacles to be reserved for ‘New Yorkers just being New Yorkers’. Zaha Hadid’s Mobile Art pavilion is in her opinion all about popularity, cool renderings and the ‘artistic mission’ to be a hip nomadic gallery. The design is not about what the people of New York want or need.
Wyndham Gateway Cut Case Studies
PARAMETRIC EXPERIENCE SO FAR
After a few weeks of doing this design studio I have a better insight into digital and parametric theory. I have a better idea what the possibilities of digital architecture are and what the advantages and disadvantages of parametricism are. Through researching other projects I gained more knowledge about how architects created their parametric designs. The weekly readings helped me a lot by understanding the value of digital architecture and by forming my opinion about this. Parametric modeling is a recent addition to the design process of architects and it offers more than simple being the new kind of architecture. Architects are able to create and design buildings that are unconventional. Designs are no longer defined by geometrical figures, but can be defined by the architect himself (splines, nurbs and subdivs). In addition, architects can change their designs very easy and quickly in parametric software.
30
The new abilities to design blob-like architecture of self-defined unconventional shapes has some disadvantages. The consequence of the ‘unlimited’ possibilities to create a building with parametric software, makes building the projects very expensive. Also increased the risks of causing a disaster by using new construction and material techniques to build the complex shapes. After using the digital programs myself and researchng examples of digital architecture I see the advantages of computation in architecture more than I did before. I must admit that parametric and other digital software can be very usefull and gives a lot of possibilities within an architectural design. But parametricism has to be used as a tool, not as the driving force behind a design. If parametric is the driving force behind a design, we will be surrounded by blob-like buildings who doesn’t connect with the surrounded environment, who are built to impressed other architects more than the general public and were the clarity and essence of the building is faded.
BIOMIMICRY
“Biomimicry is the science and art of emulate or take inspiration from the best biological ideas of nature to solve human problems” (AB, 2010). One of the reasons why we choose biomimicry is that it is a subject what really stands for something and make sense. You can explain why you have made certain choices during a design process. We all found that very important, that you can argument why you did design something on a specific way. Biomimicry is a smart way to find design principles for our project. In addition and probably the most important reason for picking biomimicry, we believe that nature has many beautiful lessons and materials to give, which we can use to design and create an original sustainable project. Animals, plants and microbes are the perfect engineers. They have already invented what works, what is appropriate and more importantly, what on earth van survive. Biomimicry is about learning from nature, instead of learning about nature.
31
This important aspect of learning from nature we found very interesting and we would like to apply this in the Wyndham city gateway. Besides the aspect of learning from the nature there are more possibilities to apply biomimicry in the Wyndham City Gateway. At this moment Wyndham is a small suburb outside Werribee where you can find the Werribee zoo and park. It’s a pretty unknown suburb and it can be put on the map by creating a visual interesting image that will be marking the start of the Great Ocean Road. Along the Great Ocean Road you can find a lot of beautiful nature that can be represented in the Wyndham City Gateway. This way the start of the great ocean road gets an eye catcher and Wyndham will be more famous and known as the start of the Great Ocean Road. In short, biomimicry is the perfect discipline within parametric architecture to apply for a freeway art project because of its relationship to nature, the possibility to represent the Great Ocean Road and make it an eye catching project.
CUT CASE STUDY 1.0
Minister of Munisipal Affairs & Argiculture building
create circle copy and scale circles [loft] [divide surface]
32
attach sunsreen
The Minister of Municipal Affairs & Agriculture building by the Aesthetics Architects Go Group in Qatar, better known as the ‘cactus’ building, is famous for its ability to adapt to the dessert climate just like a cactus. The building has a few interesting aspects that we will explain, after that we will explain how we should build this model in Grasshopper. The cactus building is a great example of biomimicry in architecture because of its facade system. The hundreds of smart shades on the outside that open and close depending on the strength and direction of the sun are really fascinating and well considered (ArchiCulture, 2009). We think this is a great example of biomimicry because the designers have learned from the local nature on the site. Qatar has a very strong dessert climate and by observing and learning from it you’re able to apply its advantages in a building. The cactus is a great example of vegetation that is able to adept really well to the hot climate. The designers used its advantages very well and created a building that has similar properties as a cactus.
33
If we have to design a building like this in Grasshopper we have to start with the basic shape of the building. We think you have to start with a basic circle surface, after this you copy these circles and place them above each other, the space between the circles will be the storey height. After that you can change the size of the circles separately, when we have done that we can loft the several circles into the building shape. When the basic shape is build we have to design the shading elements and attach them to the shape its surface.
CUT CASE STUDY 1.0
Mangal City Building
create curves [divide surface] [pipe] [edge surface]
connect points [line] [loft]
34
create modules curves [loft]
attach random use attractor
The Mangal City by Design Team Chimera harnesses biomimetic principles borrowed from a range of sources. The characteristics for this design are flexibility and adaptability. The spiraling skyscrapers structure are modeled after the complex ecosystems created by Mangrove trees. The project is an urban ecological system composed of modular pod capsules that shift to adapt to environmental and contextual conditions (Chino, 2010). The space is being divided following a logic of cellular aggregation, embedding neighboring relationships at different scales, and is also the ground reference of the urban housing massing negotiation (Chino, 2010). Models from nature such as branching and phyllotaxis have been the driving paradigms to create a parametric machine which is able to create a responsive urban ecology (Chino, 2010). The technology makes it possible to generate a complex geometry and surfaces whose organizing principles are borrowed from nature.
35
In Grasshopper, one could perhaps start with a curve to create the central ‘stem’ and use commands like pipe and offset to give it volume and thickness. Next the surface can be divided to create points which can be used to cut the shapes from the ‘stem’ and as starting points for the ‘branches’. Using one of the rotate commands these branches can than be aligned according parameters like the angle of the sun.
CUT CASE STUDY 1.0
Shadow Pavilion
create curves [divide surface] create circles [loft] [attach to points]
36
connect big circles to smaller circles
The Shadow Pavilion, which is placed in the Botanical Gardens of the University of Michigan, is a very interesting biomimicry project because in first instance you don’t really recognize biomimicry in the design. The pavilion by PLY Architecture consists of a lot of metal cones that are all working together to make it a self supporting structure. The reason why this pavilion is a biomimicry project is because of this self-supporting system, the structure is based on the arrangement of flowers and leaves that are using the same principle to be selfsupporting. This phenomenon is called phyllotaxis; phyllotaxis is the arrangement of leaves along the plant stem (ArchDaily, 2011). This phenomenon is not very common, that’s why in first instance people won’t recognize this as a biomimicry project. We think this design is very well considered and put together because all the cones are working together in the same way as the leaves of some plants are working together.
37
Besides the self-supporting system this pavilion is special because of the second function of the cones. The cones are not only structural but they are also exaggerating the different natural elements as sunlight, wind, sound and moisture (ArchDaily, 2011). The sunlight gets exaggerated because of the reflecting properties of the material it is made of, when the wind is going through the cones it makes a noise what implicates a stronger wind then it actually is, the same thing goes for sound as the outside sounds seem to be louder then they really are and last but not least the moisture is exaggerated because of the sound it makes when it falls on all the different cones.
CUT CASE STUDY 1.0
Research Pavilion 2011
38
The Research Pavilion 2011 at the University of Stuttgart is a special example of biomimicry because it has a very special structure. By doing a lot of research on different structure in nature the people from the University of Stuttgart came up with a really special and effective structure based on the Sand Dollar. The sand dollar refers to an extremely flattened surface, therefore they are better known as sea biscuits. By using a structure based on this sand dollar it became possible to create a really thin but still a very strong structure, by using this structure the people of the University of Melbourne have saved a lot of money on material. Besides the low construction costs the lightweight material also makes it really easy to assemble the building, disassemble the building and transport it. All different elements the pavilion consists of are created based on the transmission of mechanical stress, by optimizing this transmission it became possible to create the very thin but still effective and strong structure (Universit채t Stuttgart, 2011).
39
The elements are all produced by a robotic system that made it possible to create the perfect elements (Universit채t Stuttgart, 2011). In short, this is a great building that has used a natural element very well to construct a very effective construction. The thin material, the great transmission of mechanical stress and effective use of the computer made this a very successful project that the student of the University of Stuttgart can be proud of.
CUT CASE STUDY 2.0
40
We choose the Mangal City Building to rebuild in Grasshopper. The main reason for us to choose the Mangal City Building is because the building is totally different and more difficult then the options that were given. That made it a bigger challenge for us to rebuild this building in grasshopper. Besides the difficulty of the building the other reason for picking this building was its character. It’s a very flexibele and adaptabele building that is based on the complex ecosystem of a mangrove tree. There were two different elements that were interesting to us, the first one is the organisation of the building and the second one is the complexity of the structure and design. The organisation was a challenge because of the three different elements, the trunk, the surface and the penetrating elements, that are connected to eachother and are working together. The surface is the most important element because it’s connected to the trunk and the elements, this made it an exciting building for us to rebuild. But the complexity was maybe a bigger challenge because of the double curved surface, the trunk and the elements that are penetrating through the surface.
41
CUT CASE STUDY 2.0
42
F
G
6. MATRIX Starting from the grasshopper model of the Mangal City building, we varied thefrom shape and size of the model of the Starting the grasshopper surfaces and modules to comewe to our Mangal City building, varied the shape size of the surfaces and modules to ownand design. come to our own design. We began with simplifying the We began with simplifying original, double-curved shape the of original, double-curved shape of the mangal surfaces the mangal surfaces [column A] [column A] so the modules would no longer so the modules would no longer interfere with eachother (problem we eninterfere with eachother (problem countered in modelling). After that, we exwe encountered in modelling). plored some more random variations of the After that, we explored some more surfaces like differentiating each [B], creatrandom variations of the surfaces like ing one surface all around [C] and playing differentiating each [B], creating one number sliders around with scale using simple surface all around [C] and playing [D]. Soon after that we started shifting away around scale using simpledirection of the fromwith the dominant vertical number sliders [D].design Soon to after that Mangal City a horizontal direction we [E-G}. startedThe shifting fromour thesculpture could idea away was that dominant vertical of the could not only overhang the direction roadso drivers Mangal City design to as a horizontal enjoy the design an object from afar but that it[E-G}. would influence their experidirection Theactually idea was that of driving road. the our ence sculpture could the overhang roadso drivers could not only enjoy For theasmodules we tried out shapes rangthe design an object from afar but ing from organic [1-2] to angular [3-6], from that it would actually influence their smaller [1, 3, 5] to larger [2, 4, 6]. We found experience of driving the road. that we liked the original shape we modelled for the Mangal City Building best [1] because For the modules we tried out shapes we think its fluent shape compliments the surranging from organic [1-2] to angular face shape and it has enough ‘length’ to de[3-6],fine from smaller [1, 3, 5] to larger itself but not control the overall design. [2, 4,From 6]. We found we liked stage [F]that onwards wethe skipped the modoriginal shape we modelled ules on top of the surfacesfor as they can’t be the seen Mangal Building best [1] wellCity from the road anyway. because we think its fluent shape compliments the surface shape and it has enough ‘length’ to define itself but not control the overall design. From stage [F] onwards we skipped the modules on top of the surfaces as they can’t be seen well from the road anyway.
43
CUT CASE STUDY 2.0
44
The outcomes of our matrix-research finally brought us to a shape reminding more of a bridge or something like a single leaf than the mangal tree shape we started with. It appears to be way more dynamic now and more suitable for the environment of a highway. By its placement over the road, the design has the possibility to interact with the drivers. The modules are still organic but now better dimensioned to provide a more consistent appearance with the surface and placed more carefully to make sure they don’t interfere with each other and provide the optimal light and shadow pattern on the street. To rationalize the doublecurved surface we wrote a simple definition that divides the surface into an adaptable amount of subsurfaces, exploded those into their individual components and created new planar triangles between their edgepoints, so that we now have a surface consistent of a lot of planar triangles instead of a complicated doublecurved surface. Because the design was pretty complicated we agreed together with Finn that 3D printing was the best way to go, bur making our definition 3D print proof turned out to be more difficult then we thought. So in the end the time spend on cleaning up the Rhino file and make sure the surface was completely closed was similar to completing a model by hand. But the outcome was totally worth it...
45
CUT CASE STUDY 2.0
The technique we chose was based on the Mangrove City Building and consists of a surface with elements attached to it. These two elements (the surfuce and the elements) have two different functions. The structure of the surface can be related to the structure of different plants or leefs and make it as efficient as possible. The elements are derived from the Mangal City Building but they have to make sense. We developt how further along we got in the design process a growing interest in kinetic and adaptive approches for the elements. In this way the elements could interact with the passing cars and slightly change the design over time. By making the movement of the wind of the cars visible in our project we hope to make the experience more interesting every time you pass it. So by chosing a kinetic and adaptive approache we want to make the project more attractive for the cars that are passing, because after all this design is kind of made for the drivers. We found three different options to integrate wind in the elements. These options are an opening, a rotating and a suspended system. For each system we found a few references.
46
Opening Elements – ‘Flare Facade System Flare is a modular system that creates a dynamic hull for the facade and it’s acting like a living skin. This way it allows the facade to express, communicate and interact with its environment. The flare units are made of metal flake bodies that are all individually controllable by pneumatic cylinders (WHITEvoid, 2008). Normally this system reflects the bright sky or sunlight by turning in the right direction, this way each element can either reflect the sunlight or its face is shaded. Because all these movements are controlled by a computer responding to the sunlight it’s also possible to let the elements respond to the wind and the pressure its creating. For example when cars are passing by and creating a wind flow, or natural airflow, wind pressure sensors can give a signal to the pneumatic cylinders. Then the cylinders make it possible to press the elements open, this way the wind is opening the elements. We think this system has a lot of opportunities for our freeway art project because we can use it in the original way and create a changing facade by reflecting the sun or providing shade, or we can adjust the system and let it respond to the wind in different ways.
47
CUT CASE STUDY 2.0
Rotating Elements – Rendal Museum This facade system is especially designed because wind is an invisible element, by creating a wind-driven kinetic facade the wind gets visible. The system consists of 612 freely rotating directional arrows; each arrow shows the wind direction at that point (Feel Desain, 2012). This way it reveals the complex and ever-changing ways the wind interacts with the building and its surrounding environment. In the example before we have seen that the elements were opening, now the elements are just rotating what needs less installations and is easier to design. The rotation of the elements is caused by the natural airflow and the wind cars are creating. It’s important the shape of the elements is optimised to adjust easily to the wind direction, this way the elements will also rotate with less wind, which is important because we want a constantly changing pattern on the surface. The shape of the elements relies on the properties we are demanding, there are a lot of different options that are suitable for the rotating elements so we have to research what the best option is related to the wind but also to its environment and the properties we are demanding.
48
Suspended Elements – Mesa Art Center The last example is a suspended system that is composed of thousands of blue-anodized, 3-inch square, aluminium flaps that move in the wind and create the illusion that the building has been submerged in a vertical sheet of rippling blue water. This illusion is created because the flaps move in and out with the passing breezes, this way they reflect different amounts of light from the sky (Ned Kahn, 2005). This is also an ever-changing system that maybe suits best for our design because of its relationship with the sea. Earlier we have said that the Wyndham City Gateway can represent the beginning of the great ocean road, by creating the illusion of the sea it will have a very good relationship to the great ocean road. Again their are a lot of possibilities for the shape of the elements but the material should be similar when we want to create the illusion of the sea. However, the shape of the elements can vary from the original facade system, by changing the shape of the elements we can create another link to elements of the great ocean road or Wyndham City. This way this facade system gives us a lot of possibilities to integrate the freeway art project with its environment.
49
Mid Semester presentation
MID SEMESTER PRESENTATION
52
53
REFLECTION MID SEMESTER PRESENTATION
We received useful feedback from the panel after our mid semester presentation. Since we are still in the beginning of the process, we didn’t worked out everything in detail, such as how the elements work or how the structure of the Wyndham sculpture should look like. The panel has therefore mainly helped us by giving tips on what aspects we can improve or need to develop. I will explain some points of improvements below, these points are called by the panel or figured out by ourselves. The elements are now placed in a fixed grid on the surface, inspired by the Mangal City Building. We could design more differentiation in the elements, by changing size or placement on the surfaces. An effect of this improvement is that the shadow and light pattern formed on the highway will be more interesting. New locations, spaces and shades may be formed. Also will the sculpture itself become more interesting. The panel liked the kinetic and responsive approach for the elements, but gave as an option to design our structure with biomimicy.
54
A major point of attention for our end presentation is that we have to figure out how the construction of both the entire sculpture as the elements will work and how we want to design it. How can we design our project strong enough to build it over the road? How can wind open or close the elements? In what way will the elements open or close? By designing the structure of the elements we can do more research then we did these weeks en try to apply a system in our own design. Finn came up with an idea to create a motion what will maintain, that one element is effected by the other. In this way our project gets more dynamic and the drivers experience more the change. Besides the construction, we also need to think about the materials we want to use. What material is strong enough to carry the elements? What material is flexible enough to move? By picking materials biomimicry can be helpful. The comments about the presentation were that for the next presentation we have to show more techniques, besides 3D printing also something like laser cutting. And if we 3D print again we have to make the surface thicker, what makes the model prettier to present.
55
Wi(y)ndham Gateway project
STRUCTURE
Biomimicry For our structure we wanted to use the architectural discourse biomimicry, which we choose at the start of this project. We choose biomimicry that time, because it’s described as learning from the nature. After our previous references of the Shadow Pavilion and the Stuttgart pavilion we decided that we want to use biomimicry in the way of a self-supporting structure. We are the most inspired by the construction of the Stuttgart pavilion. The construction of the Stuttgart pavilion is based on the sand dollar, an extremely flattened thin surface but very strong. To build the Stuttgart pavilion the University of Stuttgart came up with an self-supporting structure existing of hexagons attached with finger joints (Universität Stuttgart, 2011). Construction We are using the hexagon structure of the Stuttgart pavilion, because it in this way we still have the freedom to experiment
58
with the shape. By using hexagons always three modules get strength from each other, which makes spans possible. Another advantage of using hexagons is that we don’t need extra beams or columns to support our design which would affect the whole image of the Wyndham Gateway. In Grasshopper we made an definition so we could test on every surface we created if the structure could be made self-supportive. The difference between the Research pavilion and our structure is that we use dovetails instead of finger joints. We use dovetails, because the attachment between the modules would be stronger. Dovetails can also transmit tension besides only compression. The material we choose for the structure is timber, because it is cheap, environmental friendly, light weighted and strong. Besides these positive aspects the lightweight material also makes it really easy to assemble the building, disassemble the building and transport it.
59
ELEMENTS
Responsive
The downside of the first variation, a rotating element, was that they could never be fully open. If they cannot fully open the difference of sunlight coming through the elements is not strong enough. Another disadvantage is that the elements need an extra ‘helpelement’ what have to catch the wind to move the two different slices.
For the elements we choose ‘responsive’ as an extra parametric discourse, because this suits better by the plans we have to interact with the cars. The elements will be responsive in the way that they response on the wind of the cars. When you drive by, the sculpture will change. To choose the best solution of how the elements can work and look we set up different variations of elements who open and close by wind. Variations For the elements we investigated five variations: a element based on a lid, an inflatable element and three rotating elements. They all have in common that they react on the wind of the cars. In the following part I will explain the disadvantages and advantages for every variation.
60
The second rotating variation had the disadvantage that the hole for the element couldn’t be in the middle of the hexacon, because otherwise the element couldn’t make the entire circulation to close or open the gap. Also need the element an extra help to catch the wind what affects the shape of the enitre sculpture.
The downside of the third element, the lid variation, was that it was too long and that the light difference between open and close was not enough to create a spectacular pattern of sunlight.
As a forth element we found an inflatable element. This element had the disadvantage that it wasn’t enough noticeable for the driver who ride under the sculpture.
61
ELEMENTS
For the last variation we were inspired by the rotating glass plates of the RMIT Design Hub. This would be the solution for our design. We don’t need an extra help to catch the wind, it is makeable, the difference would be noticed by open and closed elements and it’s possible to make it light weighted. Now we know how the elements will react on the wind, we can change the shape in a way we like and choose a material. When the wind hits the surface the circular elements rotate on their axis. To catch more wind we curved the surfaces in a ‘wave’. Besides curving the surfaces we searched for a very light weighted material what makes also the rotation of the elements easier. We decided to go for aluminum, because this material is light weighted and easy to bend in a ‘wave’. In the detail you can see how the rotating surfaces are attached to the structure.
62
Detail of how the timber moduls and the aluminum elements are attached.
63
SHAPE
Our shape is influenced by different things. You could see a wave in it what reflects to the Great Ocean Road and the sculpture is also shaped by the speed of wind. Sometimes we had a hard time with finding the proper shape, because our definition to make a self-supporting structure sometimes made specific forms impossible. By making
64
differentiation in the shape we get different kind of reflections on the road when the sun shines through the elements. That’s also the reason why we made the North(West) facade more closed, because the sun would be here the most. The hole in the more South side of our design frames a view of one of the gardens and the hill.
From top to bottum; North-West facade, North-East facade , South-West facade, South-East facade.
65
SITE
We want to build our Wyndham Gateway design over the middle road, because this is the road who goes to Wyndham (see the map for the specific location). By placing the sculpture on the middle road and before the hill the drivers on the other roads can see the sculpture too.
66
67
MODEL PICTURES
68
69
END PRESENTATION
DESIGN_STUDIO_AIR_2012 - WYNDHAM_CITY_GATEWAY Hans Christian Baecker_Refke Gunnewijk_Pim Kleintjes_Judit Zomer
70
REFLECTION
In general, the panel was positive about our design, but we also received some criticism. One of the critics was that biomimicry was not used cleary enough. However, we have used biomimicry in the sense of a self-supporting structure to build our entire structure. In addition, we moved away from biomimicry for our elements, because the parametric discourse ‘responsive’ fits better with our concept to interact with the cars. Another criticism was that our design was maybe not site specific enough, but we start designing the Wyndham Gateway project with a different approach. We challenged ourselves with using Grasshopper and tried to create an original and unique design. So that our design is not linked to a specific characteristic aspect of Wyndham, but that our design is characteristic for Wyndham. The question asked by the panel was if the software helped or hindered us by designing our shape. I think the desire to build a selfsupporting structure sometimes hindered us, but the limits set by this defenition have led us to our final shape. We saw it as a challange. Besides that makes biomimicry sense by building our design with a self-supporting structure we build someting really efficient by learning from nature. Something that was more important for us.
71
I think we could improve our design, by making a pattern of besides open modules also closed modules without elements. This could give more variety and a even more interesting experience when passing the design. All in all I learned a lot from this design studio. Before this project I never used any computer program as a design tool, but during this project I learned working with Grasshopper, Rhino, Photoshop and Indesign. All those programs were new and cost me a lot of time sometimes to understand. I must admit that using these programs can make designing easier. It also have the possibility to design something what is difficult to design with only hand-drawn sketches. I think that what we designed now is impossible to design without the use of the computer. Another aspect of this project what I enjoyed was learning how to use 3D printing and laser cutting. In the Netherlands we never use these two methods to build our models, but I was really impressed by the result of our models created by these methods. This is a tool I want to continue in the Netherlands. The last thing I learned during this semester is how to analyze existing projects and how to incorporate knowledge gained from these existing projects into your own design.
REFERENCES Ciutat de les arts i les ciències Text: CAC, 2010. Official website Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències. Available at: http://www. cac.es/ Groen, S., 2008. ‘Fris en fruitig Valencia’, Plus Magazine. Available at: http://www. sandergroen.nl/valencia/ Lagerwaard, 2011. ‘Rondleiding Valencia’. Available at: http://www.lagerwaardarchitect. nl/assets/files/2011_excursie_valencia.pdf?PHPSESSID=aced7cb2a5e5c64b36ff216c25e3 6c7f Pictures:
Giani, M., 2007. ‘Ciutat de les arts i les ciències’. Available at: flickr.com (Accessed 23 August 2012)
Farnsworth house Text: Architectuul, 2008. Available at: http://architectuul.com/architecture/farnsworth-house Farnsworth House, 2012. Official website Farnsworth House. Available at: http://www. farnsworthhouse.org/ Pictures: Farnsworth House, 2012. Available at: farnsworthhouse.org (Accessed 23 August 2012) Computing in architecture
Kalay, Y. E. (2004) ‘Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design’ Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kolarevic, B. (2003) ‘Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing’ Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis
Genexis theater Text & pictures: DesignBoom, 2009. ‘Genexis theater, fusionopolis by ARUP/WOHA’. Available at: http:// www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/genexis-theater-fusionopolis-by-arupwoha.html
72
British museum Great Court Roof Text: British museum, 2008. Available at: http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/the_ museums_story/great_court.aspx
Dorrell, E., 2004. ‘Ritchie to aid British Museum as the Creat Court comes under fire’, Architects’ Journal, 20 May. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/ ritchie- to-aid-british-museum-as-the-great-court-comes-under-fire/138202.article
Oxford Dictionaries, 1989. Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/
Williams, C. J. K., 2004. ‘Computers and the Design and Construction Process’. Available at: http://www.enhsa.net/downloads/publi/con2004/102_Williams.pdf
Pictures: Thomson, A.M., 2011. ‘Normal Foster - Great Court of the British Museum 1’. Available at: flickr.com (Accessed 6 September 2012) Parametric design
Mayer, A. N. (2010) ‘Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric’ Architecture’,
Schumacher, P., 2010. ‘Patrik Schumacher on parametricsm – Let the style wars begin’, The Architects’ Joural, 6 May, Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/the critics/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article Kunsthal Graz Text Barznji, H., 2012. ‘BIX media façade: Beyond Ambient Computing’, ArchaID. Available at: http://www.archaid.org/2012/02/18/bix-media-facade-beyond-ambient- computing/
Lubczynski, S. & Karopoulos, D. (2010). ‘Kunsthaus gras. Construction case studies. ‘
Stokes, A., 2003. ‘Kunsthaus Graz: Peter Cook and Colin Fournier 2003’, Galinsky. Available at: http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/kunsthausgraz/index.htm
Pictures: Haliti, F., 2008. ‘Kunsthaus Graz (Friendly Alien)’. Available at: flickr .com (Accessed 15 September 2012)
73
REFERENCES Mobile Art Pavilion Text: DesignBoom, 2011. ‘Zaha Hadid: Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion Paris’. Available at: http:// www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/14673/zaha-hadid-chanel-mobile-art- pavilion-paris.html Doan, A. (2008) ‘HADID’s Mobile Art Pavilion for Chanel or Central Park?’, Inhabitat, 31 July. Available at: http://inhabitat.com/zaha-hadids-mobile-art-pavilion-for-chanel-or- central-park/ Etherington, R. (2008). ‘Chanel Contemporary Art Container by Zaha Hadid’, DeZeen, 13 March. Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2008/03/13/chanel-contemporary- art-container-by-zaha-hadid/> Pictures: Brehm, B. 2011. ‘Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion makes it home in Paris’. Available at: www. entertainmentdesigner.com/news/chanel-mobile-art-pavilion-makes-its-home-in- paris/ (Accessed 15 September 2012) Biomimicry Biomimetic architecture BA, 2010. ‘What is Biomimicry?’, 25 Sep. Available at: http:// www.biomimetic-architecture.com/what-is-biomimicry/ Cactus building Text & Pictures: ArchiCentral, 2009. ‘Minister of Municipal Affairs & Argiculture Building’, 14 March. Available at: http://www.archicentral.com/minister-of-municipal-affairs-agriculture- building-doha-qatar-aesthetics-architects-go-group-13374/ (Accessed 16 September 2012) Mangal City Building
Text & Pictures: Chino, M. (2010) ‘Spiraling Skyscraper Pod City For a Future New York’, Inhabitat, 1 May. Available at: http://inhabitat.com/spiraling-skyscraper-pod-city-for-a-future-london/ (Accessed 16 September 2012)
74
Shadow pavilion
Text & Pictures: ArchDaily, 2011. ‘Shadow Pavilion / PLY Architecture’, 20 Dec. Available at: http://www. archdaily.com/shadow-pavilion-ply-architecture/ (Accessed 16 September 2012)
Research pavilion
Text & Pictures: Universität Stuttgart, 2011. ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2011’. Available at: http://icd.uni- stuttgart.de/?p=6553 (Accessed 16 September 2012)
Element research
Opening elements, text & pictures: WHITEvoid, 2008. ‘Flare Facade’. Available at: http://flare-facade.com/#system (Accessed 17 September 2012)
Rotating elements, text & pictures: Feel Desain, 2012. ‘Kinetic facade / Randal Museum’, 25 March. Available at: http:// www.feeldesain.com/kinetic-facade-randal-museum.html (Accessed 17 September 2012)
Suspending elements, text & pictures: Ned Kahn, 2005. ‘Fragmented Sea – Mesa Art Center’. Available at: http://nedkahn. com/wind.html (Accessed 17 September 2012)
RMIT Design Hub
Picture: Verduyn, T., 2012. RMIT Design Hub. Available at: http://www.facebook.com/media/ set/?se =a.3715022467029.2142340.1019700831&type=3 (Accessed 1 November 2012)
Site
Picture: Available at: lms.unimelb.edu.au (Accessed 1 November 2012)
75
Refke Gunnewijk 597998 12 November 2012 Journal Design Project Air