WESTERN GATEWAY DESIGN PROJECT ROXANNE DOWLING (558553) STUDIO DESIGN AIR
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PART 1: CASE FOR INNOVATION
2.0
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PART 2: DESIGN APPROACH
1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................4 1.2 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE...........................................................5 1.3 COMPUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE...............................................................8 1.4 PARAMETRIC MODELLING......................................................................12 1.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS...............................................................14 1.5 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................15 1.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES............................................................................16 REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................17 2.1 DESIGN FOCUS.......................................................................................19 2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0.....................................................................................20 2.2.1 REVERSE ENGINEER...............................................................................................22 2.2.2 MATRIX EXPLORATION............................................................................................24
2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0.....................................................................................26 2.3.1 REVERSE ENGINEER........................................................................................... 28 2.3.2 PROCESS ANALYSIS..............................................................................................30
2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT.................................................................32 2.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES ................................................................... 36 2.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL.........................................................................38 2.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES......................................................................40 2.8 LEARNING OUTCOMES...........................................................................42 REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................43
2
1.0 CASE FOR INNOVATION 1.O CASE FOR INNOVATION
3
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In response to the brief set out by Wyndham City, for an ‘inspiring, innovative and thought-provoking installation,’ it is without a doubt that an architectural parametric design is the best approach and solution for the Western Gateway Design project. The reason for this is because at current architecture as a discourse is paving the way for a design revolution like never before. Through architecture, Wyndham City has the opportunity to make a significant impact on how society views architecture, thus participating in and generating this new discourse. In order to see the revolution one needs to first understand what architecture is, the role that its plays in society, the meaning of architecture as a discourse, the current state of the discourse and the potential of the discourse. These topic areas I hope to cover in the first section of this journal, to fully provide understanding as to how I will approach the Gateway Design project.
4
1.2 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE What is architecture? What role does it play in society? What is architectural discourse?
Architecture in its definition is an expressive form of culture, closely woven into the fabric of art, that relates to the human inhabitants of the environment. It is its philosophies, processes and productions that constitute the built environment. It can be said then, that architecture is a central thread of everyday life and is inescapable on a daily basis1. The continuous development and redevelopment of the built environment continues to showcase the ability of architecture to construct our identities by shaping and reshaping the world we live in2. Architecture as a discourse therefore, mediates what we know, the connection between people and place.
sations, presentations, exhibitions, magazine articles, blogs, sketching/drawing and CAD file sharing. Architectural discourse is at the forefront of the revolutionary shift toward parametric digital design. But its stance in the revolution has not been without upsetting its traditional mode of envisaging the architectural subject and the structure of the traditional profession. Traditionally architecture discourse has been largely a discourse of form, dominated by debates around style ‘appropriateness’3. To encounter the significance of this shift it must first be compared to the last of its magnitude and so I refer back in time to the industrial revolution.
Architecture as a discourse is by its definition many things that generate discussion concerning the philosophies and theories, approaches and outcomes of the human inhabitants of the earth. This discourse is expressed in many ways including, conver-
The industrial revolution produced rapid advances in physics and chemistry and inturn technical progression in the prefabrication of steel and sheeted glass. Yet the adoption of these advances into the building industry by Joseph Paxton’s 1851 Crystal Palace and Gustave Eiffel’s 1889 Eiffel 5
Tower (almost 40 years later) were seen at the time as an extremely bold step forward. Although some looked upon these buildings with discomfort at the time they became the most famous architectural and engineering masterpieces of this period. Their innovative influence saw a worldwide adoption of glass and steel, in terms of distance spanned and volumes enclose4, for the century of buildings that followed. The Crystal Palace and The Eiffel Tower showcased the potential that these new materials had and inturn stimulated the very esthetics that is the metropolis skyline, as we know it today5. The cultural repertoire that followed the architecture of the industrial revolution is undeniable. Any discomfort deemed by the unfamiliar was soon replaced with enlightenment towards the potential that the future could hold. In comparison to the industrial revolution, it is within the last few decades’ society has experienced a revolution of its own time; it 6
is referred to as the digital-information age. The introduction of computers and the Internet has without a doubt revolutionised the world today, as we know it. Like the industrial age, the digital-information age has the ability and still an undiscovered potential to evolve the architectural realm as well as the societal realm that follows it. This impact is already present in the work of architect Frank Gehry who’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (1997) alone has showcased what can be achieved when one embraces the possibilities of this new architectural discourse of digital design. Described as a state of transition between solid and liquid6, Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum is social accepted to be the most significant structure built so far in the 21st century7. This impact on the greater culture of society in their acceptance and appreciation to a building that is so innovative and unique was only achievable because Gehry embodied the spirit of the digital-information age through
Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (1997)
the adoption of digital design (BIM). It can Footnotes be said then, that Frank Gehry’s Guggen1. Williams, R. 2005. Architecture and Viheim Museum in Bilbao holds similar val- sual Culture. In: Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Viue to the architecture and societal change sual Culture: Definitions, concepts, contexts. Edthat the innovations that’s Joseph Paxton’s inburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 102. presented during the industrial age. Gehry, 2. Dutton, T. A. & Mann, L. H. 1996. Reconstructlike Paxton once did, is challenging how ar- ing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practicchitects and designers alike, design, manu- es, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Page 1. facture and construct buildings. 3. Leach, N. 1997. Rethinking Architecture: A It is this approach used by Frank Gehry, in using digital design that I will approach my design for the Gateway Project. I hope to prove with precedents that this is the best approach for ensuring Wyndham City is truly ‘put on map’ in inspiring and generating continuous innovation into this new discourse, that’s potential has barely been scratched.
Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge. p. xiii. 4. Hitchcock, H.-R. 1958. Building with Iron and Glass: 1790-1855. Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Middlesex: Penguin Books. pp. 115-129 5. Kolarevic, B. 2003b. We Have Seen the Future, and It is Pixellated: Branko Kolarevic connects the dots in the timeline of the digital revolution. Architecture, 92, 83-85. p. 83. 6. Giovannini, J. in Spain. Ibid., 14.
1997. Gehry’s reign [Accessed 20/02/2013).
7. Tyrnauer, M. 2010. Architecture in the Age of Gehry. Vanity Fair [Online], 2. [Accessed 03/04/2013].
7
1.3 COMPUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE
Historically digital technology has generally only been used in architecture as a virtual drafting board, increasing the efficiency of editing, copying and the precision of drawings that are generated from a preconceived idea of the mind8. This mode of working has been termed ‘computerisation’9. In moving with the digital-information age, over the last few years advances in computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technologies attained in the automotive, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, have finally started to have a profound impact on architecture and construction practices. Architecture is now witnessing the almost elimination of drawings from design where instead architects are working with complete, comprehensive three-dimensional digital models right from the start, from design through to production10. This mode of working has been termed ‘computing’.
8
‘Computing’ as expressed by Architectural Design magazine writer Brady Peters ‘is the use of the computer to process information through an understood model which can be expressed as an algorithm,’11 which is a particular set of instructions written in a code that is understood by the computer12. What the architectural discourse has and continues to witness is an outpour of intrinsic and complex curvy forms that are now even more appealing because they can be constructed; the design information becomes the construction information. Computing is redefining the architectural practice in more ways then one. For example the integration of technology has been paramount to the development of the Museo Soumaya in Mexico City by Fernando Romero EnterpreE (FREE). The design was approached using the adoption of computing techniques that saw a
Museo Soumaya, Mexico City 9 By FREE
three-dimensional digital model at the heart of the design and construction. The complex nature of the form meant that it would not have been achievable using a traditional twodimensional drawing for it would have left too much open to interpretation, risking the overall design intent13. Furthermore, what became an important factor in this design is that by using this approach it allowed for the whole project team to work concurrently on the building allowing for different aspects of the building to be designed and iterated simultaneously. Mountain Dwellings (Copenhagen, 2007) designed by BIG Architects in another example of what can be achieved through the adoption of parametric modelling. The project uses the recreation of its site in a parametric form to extrude from it a series of geometrical dwellings that essentally mimic the natural contour of the site. This projects significance is evident in its award achievements including, Winner of Best Housing Project for the World Architecture Festival Awards 2008 and nominated for the Mies van der Rohe Prize 2008. Footnotes
8. Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013]. 9. chitecture,
Terzidis, Oxford,
K. 2006. Architectural
Algorithmic Press. p
ArXI.
10. Kolarevic, B. 2003a. Architecture in the Digital Age: DEsign and Manufacturing, New York, Spon Press. 11. Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013]. p. 10 12. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. 1999. The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, London, The MIT Press. 13. Romero, F. & Ramos, A. 2013. Bridging ACulture: The Deisgn of Museo Soumaya. Architectural Design [Online], 83. pp. 66-69. 14. Mountain Dwelling. Archinect [Online]. Available from: http://archinect.com/firms/project/39903/ mountain-dwellings/9172196
10
[Accessed
23/03/2013.
Mountain Dwellings, Copenhagen (2007) by BIG Architects
11
1.4 PARAMETRIC MODELLING
Computing obviously has its advantages but at the same time has its limitations. Computing is constrained to the capabilities of the software, that is the parametres outlined by the programmer. What this essentially means is that the design created in the space is constrained by what the programmer has established as the necessary tools required for designing. In order to overcome these limitations one must learn how to rewrite the software in order customise their design environments. This allows the user to set there own limitations and constraints to the software algorithms14. This process is referred to as ‘scripting’ and is now made available through plug-in software such as Rhinoscript, Microstation and Grasshopper, just to name a few. What’s more is that these softwares are then able to interact with design performance software such as Geco and Ecotect. My next precedent explores this concept. Competition entry for Shenzhen Border sta12
tion, Hong Kong, (2011) by SPAN illustrates how scripting can be utilized to determine the performance outcome of a design. The computer program GECO was adopted early by the architects of this project and what this allowed them to do was to perform a solar access analysis of the roof design over a time period of one year, to develop precisely the appropriate roof openings and their relationship to the form of the overall design using Ecotect. This information was then translated into an algorithm/s and imported back into Grasshopper without having to reworking the model repeatedly15. The revolution of computing and scripting all relate back to the architectural discourse. ‘Scripting Architects’ are now emerging changing the traditional envisaging of a ‘pen to paper’ profession and the architecture subject at large. An architectural realm is finally embodying the digital-information age, there’s no going back!
Competition entry for Shenzhen Border station, Hong Kong, (2011) by SPAN
FOOTNOTES 15. Burry, M. 2011. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, Chichester, Wiley. p. 8. 16. Grabner, T. & Frick, U. 2013. GECO: Architectural Design through Environmental Feedback. Architectural Design [Online], 83.
[Accessed 25/03/2013].
13
1.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORTAIONS Figure 1 shows the outcome of using the contouring algorithm in Grasshopper. Here I have show it in wireframe to indicate the direction that the contour lines are cutting through
Figure 1.
Figure shows the outcome of creating form using the Voroni algorithm.
Figure 2.
Figure 3 is the outcome of a 2D rectangular grid that is has been populated with extruded cylinders. Figure 3.
14
Figure 4 is showing a boolean form that has been created from a box solid that has been randomly populated with solid spheres.
Figure 4.
1.6 CONCLUSION
Parametric modeling tools are becoming increasingly popular in architectural practice because the advantages of using such tools are extraordinarily limitless as proven by precedents. The architectural discourse is moving away from an era where architects use software to one where they create the software. Only by embracing these new technologies presented by the discourse of the digital-information age is an architect truly enabled to directly and entirely engage with the project, from the design process of a building through its construction phase. I will be using this new concept as the framework for my design for the Gateway Project. This will allow me to achieve an installation that is inspiring, thought provoking and will encourage ongoing interest in the Western Gateway Interchange.
15
1.7 LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the start of this semester I was confused with the concept of architectural computing. I guess coming from a more computerisation background I was unaware of this other way (computation) of approaching design. So for me it was a hold new concept to wrap my head around. I think that most of my confusion came from the understanding the dialogue and terminology used to describe architectural computing, such as ‘discourse’, ‘computerisation’, ‘computing’, ‘scripting’ etc. It was through the research of precedents, actually seeing the outcome of this approach that I was able to gain a better understanding. I feel that I have now grasped the concept of architectural computing and this is valuable because I am now able to see the purpose behind this way of approaching design where as at the start I guess I was sceptical about that. The challenge for me now is to put my theory knowledge into practice and generate an output that explores this enlightenment.
16
REFERENCE LIST
Mountain Dwelling. Archinect [Online]. Available from: http://archinect.com/firms/project/39903/mountain-dwellings/9172196 [Accessed 23/03/2013. Burry, M. 2011. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, Chichester, Wiley. Dutton, T. A. & Mann, L. H. 1996. Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Giovannini, J. 1997. Gehry’s reign in Spain. Architecture [Online], 14. [Accessed 20/02/2013]. Grabner, T. & Frick, U. 2013. GECO: Architectural Design through Environmental Feedback. Architectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 25/03/2013]. Hitchcock, H.-R. 1958. Building with Iron and Glass: 1790-1855. Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Kolarevic, B. 2003a. Architecture in the Digital Age: DEsign and Manufacturing, New York, Spon Press. Kolarevic, B. 2003b. We Have Seen the Future, and It is Pixellated: Branko Kolarevic connects the dots in the timeline of the digital revolution. Architecture, 92, 83-85. Leach, N. 1997. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge. Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013]. Romero, F. & Ramos, A. 2013. Bridging A Culture: The Deisgn of Museo Soumaya. Architectural Design [Online], 83. Terzidis, K. 2006. Algorithmic Architecture, Oxford, Architectural Press. Tyrnauer, M. 2010. Architecture in the Age of Gehry. Vanity Fair [Online], 2. [Accessed 03/04/2013]. Williams, R. 2005. Architecture and Visual Culture. In: Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, concepts, contexts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. 1999. The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, London, The MIT Press. 17
2.0 DESIGN APPROACH
18
2.1 DESIGN FOCUS
By applying an architectural computing approach to the Gateway Design project I am faced with an array of design possibilities. To narrow down these possibilities I have chosen an area of interest to focus on, that I feel is most appropriate to the project brief. My chosen area of interest is ‘Sectioning’.
concept is based upon ‘seperation without isolation.’ Meaning that although the city of Wyndham is sperated from Melbourne and has its own unique identity it is not remote and out of touch with its neighbouring state capital. The use of an architectural computing approach shows just this, that Wyndham is very much aware of and a par‘Sectioning’ within the architectural com- ticipant in the current and growing archiputing realm is described as a technique tectural discourse of parametric modeling that uses but is not limited to, contouring design. and waffle grids to develop an overall form that is made up of a many different parts. I This next part of my journal I will use to feel that this technique is directly relatable research ‘sectioning’ precedents as a basis to the city of Wyndham because it consti- for my argument and then use this infortutes what a community is made up of. It mation to explore my parametric approach signifies unity and the coming together of as a form finding technique for my design many individual parts to create a strong proposal. and defined form. My design intent is to create a gateway that acts as a recognisable landmark that aesthetically and in an abstract manner represents Wyndham as a strong and united community. Furthermore, I also want to highlight Wyndham’s bond with the nearby City of Melbourne. The idea behind this dual 19
2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 ‘DRIFTWOOD PAVILION’
Driftwood At the startwas of this designed semester in the I was summer confused of with thebyconcept 2008-9 AA 3rdofyear architectural students, computCamille ing. I guess comingSibingo, Steyaert, Danecia from a more FerascomputEl Aterisation background tai, Hisashi Kato, Jerome I was unaware Tsui, Kyungtae of this other way (computation) Jung, Lyn Hayek, Rama of Nshiewat, Ryan approaching design. So for me it was Phanphensophon, Suram a hold Choi, newTaeyoung concept to wrap Lee and Yoojin my head Kim around. with their I think Unit that Tutor most: of my confusion Charles Walker, came Martin from Selfthe and understandEngineering Consultants(Arup) the dialogue and :terminology Ching Lau as used a part to describe of the Architectural architecturalAssociations computing, Summer such as ‘discourse’, Pavilion Program. ‘computerisation’, The project was ‘computing’, unveiled th ‘scripting’ on the 27etc. of ItFebruary was through 2009the in research Bedford of precedents, Square, Londonactually and was seeing chosen theby outcome judges of this as the overall approach winner that of I was the annual able to exhibigain a better Its tion. understanding. overall concept I feel is to that provoke I haveanow regraspedofthe minder theconcept UK’s link of to architectural the sea’ through computing its formand created this by is the valuable motionbecause of wavesI1.am now able to see the purpose behind this way of This concept approaching was made design achievable where as through at the startuse the I guess of computer-generated I was sceptical about scripting that. The in challenge for me Grasshopper. Thenow basis is of to the put design my theory was knowledgeby fashioned into a given practice parameter and generate which maan output that nipulated the explores movementthis of lines enlightenment. in a continFurthermore, uous parallel manner I find it an to create interesting a lineand drawan 2 almost ing . This amusing line drawing thought was to then consider able to what be outcomes lofted giving may it ahave poly-surface been generated and an in overall past projects if I was able to apply this same ap20 proach. For example, I can now see that in my ‘Wearable Architecture’ project that the
form. that form The technique was created of was sectioning dictated was bythen the structural applied to this integrity form by of using materials a series I used. of ex-I believe offset truded that ifcurves I had applied as a basis a architectural for generatcomputing ing resolvedapproach intersecting andsurfaces used say thatRhino were and Grasshopper equally spaced. When I would the exploded have beentool able was to explore it applied a larger then became range of possible forms without to selectthat the particular surfaces sectioned constraint in and Rhino instead so that with thegiven end parameters. result is a series of individual surfaces that create the overall form. What’s more is that the structural frame of the form was able to be generated using surface planes that intersect the form thus creating a structural skeleton that is hidden by cladding. What is significant about this project is that its concept is delivered in an abstract form yet still concisely received by its audience. The overall form of the ‘Driftwood’ Pavilion alludes complexity but with the use of computer-generated scripting it enables it be simplified in its creation so that it can be tweaked, manufacturing and constructed straightforwardly. I plan to use this project as inspiration to create an architectural sculpture for the Gateway project that is thought-provoking in its abstract form yet readable in its design concept.
FOOTNOTES 1. Driftwood by AA Unit 2. (2009, June 25). Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Dezeen Magazine: http://www. dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/ 2. Welch, A., & Lomholt, I. (2012, September 10). AA Summer Pavilion London : Driftwood, Bedford Square. Retrieved april 20, 2013, from e-architect: http://www.earchitect.co.uk/london/driftwood_pavilion_design.htm
The image above shows the original Grasshopper algorithm sequenced used to design the Driftwood Pavilion. This also shows the evolution of scripting itself as the Grasshopper program has become more and more simple to understand as illustrated in the reverse engineering of this project on the next page.
21
2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 2.2.1 REVERSE ENGINEER
A series of parallel and continuous lines.
22
The 2D lines are lofted to create a 3D solid shape and referenced into Grasshopper as a Brep.
New 2D curves are draw around the brep and referenced into Grasshopper as a curve componet.
The inner curve is then offset and extruded to create a series of intersecting surfaces.
The interacting surfaces are then resolved using a brep/brep component and the surfaces a spilt, ultimately taking the form of the original brep in a sectioned form.
Intersecting planes are then added to create the internal structure of the noe sectioned brep.
23
2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 2.2.2 MATRIX EXPLORATION
In this series I explored different distances between the offsets of the intersecting planes. What I noticed with this series was that when the offset curves where too close together the sectioning of varies plane surfaces was not noticeable, instead the form looked solid. On the other hand when the distance between the planes was increased dramatically parts of the overall form were lost because the gap was too big and there were no planes intersecting especially towards the distinction of the perimeter of the form. The middle model of this series had the best outcome where the distance between the planes was neither too large or too small. 24
N
In this series I explored different geometrical shapes that I used to generate the sectioning planes from. In the reverse engineer of the Driftwood Pavilion the shape that if offset to create the intersecting planes is curve shape that is similar to the form outline of the original brep. So I wanted to see what contrasting geometries would create. The first model I used an offset of circles, the second model I used a hexagon and the third in the series was a straight line. What I noticed the most in this series was the contrasting view angles that the hexagon created. By creating a cornered angle it essential gave the view through that section a dead end and blocked the light from going through. This is something that I will try to avoid in my own design for the Gateway project.
In this series used a populated grid to extruded cylinders through the original brep of the Driftwood Pavilion. I experimented with different rates of populations, different sizes of the radius of the cylinders and an exploded trimming technique. I found the first of this series to be the most useful because it kept its overall form. The second of this series I exploded the intersecting cylinders and in my opinion this created a real mess. The last of this series I explored a low rate of population. I found this was similar to the results of the first series where too large to distance between surfaces took away the definition of the overall form that was trying to be achieved. 25
2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 ‘OUTDOOR SCULPTURE’
‘Outdoor Sculpture’ was design and fabricated by students of the Washington University School of Architecture: Zephyr Anthony, Andrew Davis, Kyle Fant, Xiaoshuang Hu, Allyson Justmann, Andrew McCready, Kelly Peoples, Xiaofei Ren, Bo Sheng, Jordan Smith, Benjamin Stephenson, Duo Yu, Thomas Watkins under the direction of Joe MacDonald of Urban A&O.
that expose deep contrast between shadow and light and thus, recreating an overall pattern on the ‘skin’ of the sculpture.
This project too, successfully portrays its concept through an abstract form. It is this project that my team will use as a basis for learning how to generate the technique of sectioning in Grasshopper. The next part of this journal explores our reThe concept of ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ was in- verse engineering process in remaking this spired by the patterned skin of animals. In ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ project in Grasshopper. particular animals have non-repeating patterns on their skin such as a giraffe or a FOOTNOTES python. What the students noted was that 1. Evolo. (2012, December 4). Parametric Exploration for n Outdoor Sculpture. Retrieved April 20, the patterned skins of these animals com- 2013, from Evolo: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/ prised of lines and surfaces that generated parametric-explorations-for-an-outdoor-sculpture/ like a network and that arise spontaneously but inevitably from their programmed genetics 3 . Using this phenomenon as inspiration ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ ultimately aimed to reassemble this network of surfaces as a form-finding technique. The result is the formation of an overall organic shape that is 26 sectioned with a series of concaved shapes
27
2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 2.3.1 REVERSE ENGINEER
We started with the algorithm for a solid sphere.
28
By applying a non-uniform scale to the sphere we were able to create a ellipsoid shape.
We then use the twisted-box algorithm to create a twisted shape that is thinner at one end.
Using the populate geometry tool we were able to randomly populate our twisted ellipsoid with smaller spheres.
We then applied the nonuniform scaling tool again, this time to the spheres that were populating the twisted ellipsoid form.
By applying a trim algorithm we were able to ‘cut’ the small ellipsoids that populated the form out thus leaving their shapes imprinted in the form.
Finally we used the contouring algorithm to section our final form. We were able to manipulate the distance between sections and the vector to which the section was created.
29
SIMILARITIES > Sectioned > Solid shape subtracted from overall form > Form morphed from an ellipsoid shape > Twisted form
DIFFERENCES >Solid shapes that have been substracted are uniformed and do not vary in shapes and sizes. > Overall form is slightly different- thicker in some areas and flattern in others 30
2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 2.3.2 PROCESS ANALYSIS During our reverse engineering process we encountered a few problems that we had to overcome. These are outlined below: > Over population: When the populated ellipsoids were touching they were unable to generate so we had to make sure they were not touching. We also felt that an over populated surface took away the distinction of the overall form. > Twisted form: It took us a while to work out how to twist the shape. The secret we discovered was to use the points referenced into grasshopper for the twisted-box algorithm had to be in a sequenced manner. > Form too thin for subtraction: At the thinnest part of the form we found that when we trimmed/subtracted the populated ellipsods it actually created an protrusion in some parts. We added thickness to the form in order to stop this from happening. WHAT’S NEXT? From here we plan on creating our own forms to apply sectioning to. We want to experiment with different geometries and distances between sections to see if we can create an interesting shape that is more appropriate to the Gateway project site.
31
2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT SERIES 1.0
SERIES 2.0
The technical development behind ‘Series 1.0’ is based on the angle at which the sectioning occurs. What we noted with this series is that the models that had straight views or approx. 45 degree angles offered better views through the sectioning then the models that have sharper angles. However, we consider that if we were to angle all of our sections for our Gateway project model then only one direction of traffic would benefit from the views that the sectioning would create. Series 2.0 shows experiementation with different distances between sections. What we noted here was that too big of a distance took away the distinction of the overall form, where as too small of a distance did not allow for views and light to come through. A medium would be ideal.
32
SERIES 3.0
SERIES 4.0
Series 3.0 explores variation of sectioning to create one form. The sections vary in geometry and in distances apart. I feel that this series is too confusing and an overall form is not presented. Creating a united form is the underpinning of our design concept so it is important that it is easily depicted. I also think that the travelling speed of a car would not be able to grasp the overall form and thus concept because there is too much going on. Series 4.0 explores sectioning together with the subtraction of geometrical shapes from the overall form. We concluded from this series is that where sectioning does not occur the form becomes too heavy and bulky, which is not our design intent. The last three models in this series I feel create the same distraction as those in the series before, where there are too many elements. From this we decided that we want to keep our design simple and sleek so that design concept can be fully interpreted.
33
2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT ...continued SERIES 5.0
SERIES 6.0
The technical development behind Series 6.0 is based on sectioning determining the form of the model. Series 5.0 on the otherhand is a combination of series 6.0 and 4.0. We concluded that at the end of series 5.0 that too many geometries created confusion as to what the overall form was. Series 6.0 is more simple and evolves from similar geometries. The middle of this series shows more clarity to the form that is beginning created by the sectioning that is occuring. I think that this best illustrates our design concept of a strong overall form.
34
SERIES 7.0
SERIES 8.0 Series 7.0 shows our exploration with circular sectioning. We noted that when the sectioning was too close together that it was clear as to what technique was occuring. We also noted that at the end of the series that too many intersecting sections was confusing. What we like about this series was the fluidty of the arcs that were created and how the smaller arcs or circles of the series created a focal point and thus a line to travel for the eyes. Series 8.0 experiments with different geometrical shapes that are used a the basis to create sectioning from. We felt that the varying directions of the sectionign created by the corners was too abrupt in its rate of changed and preferred the smooth transition that series 7.0 created instead.
35
2.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES
36
Our group development a series of model prototypes to further develop our technique. We discovered the following considerations: > Proportion: The thicker the material we used the smaller the distance of the sectioning became. > Distance apart: the more distance we put between the elements the greater the light infiltrate in comparison to shadow. The greater the distance also determined the extent of the view that was given/ recieved. > The taller the structure the longer the shadow. > Geometrical Variation: The more subtle the variation in geometry between individual elements the softer the the straight lines and jaggered corners became. > Height Sequence: starting smaller to larger or vise versa, created a line of travel for the eyes to follow. Overall we concluded that too big of distance between elements and too much variation between the geometrical shapes of the elements took away the clarity of the overall form. We want to create a strong form from individual elements so it is important that we find the right balance between the individuality of elements and group relatability to create a readable form.
37
2.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL
The next step of our design development was to take the design considerations that where generated by the outcome of our prototype models and apply them to the site for the project.
would be an interacting connection between these two structural forms and beneath this connection would the movement of the motorway traffic indicating quiet literally the evolving strands of connection between the two. In summary, we ideally want to highSite Analysis light the site as a node where a relationship In a team discussion we decided that set occurs and not just merely a mode of transit back restrictions for site C left very little from two places. room to be utilised so we decided that we would construct on site A and B only. As Furthermore, the overall form that we are apart of our design concept ‘isolation with- working to create will be innovative in the out separation’ we want to showcase Wyn- sense that it will push the ‘norm’ for what dham as a unique and strong community is expected for the material structure of the but also allude to its relationship with the final form. By using parametric modelling city of Melbourne. We decided to use the as our approach it has allowed us to gentwo sites A and B to create two structural erate unique forms that stretch out across forms that hold a relationship with one an- the motorway thus making a significant imother. In doing so we believe that we can pact it its ability to provoke thought about use the project site to metaphorically show its creation. the interaction of this relationship between two destinations. On the larger site (A) we Our final prototype shows the outcome of decided we would showcase Wyndham and the ongoing considerations that have been on the smaller site (B) we would represent progressed throughout this journal. What Melbourne city using the abstract sectioned will be interesting is how we will further deforms we have been prototyping. What velop our design from this but you will just would theoretically occur over the motorway have to wait... 38
Figure 1: Gateway Project Site
Figure 2: Final Prototype Model 39
2.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES
We generated a series of arcs using the ARCS SED algorithm in Grasshopper. This particular algorithm creates an arc defined by given start and end points and the direction of the arc is generated by the input vector. This allowed us to manipulate the shape of the arc sequence so the arcs became smaller towards one end of the sequence.
This model is the result of a two lofted surfaces that are trimmed from one another. The interaction algorithm solves the interssection between the two surfaces and then a trim algorithm can be applied to subtract one surface from the other.
40
We then able to manipulate our arch form using anchor points. When we were happy with the shape.
When the sectioned our solid using the contour algorithm set at a given numerical distance apart. this created a series of sectioned plane surfaces.
We then offset the sectioned planes and lofted them together to give each plane a solid thickness value.
41
2.8 LEARNING OUTCOMES
By choosing a particular technique to focus on I believe that it has really allowed me to develop my understanding and skills in parametric modelling. With my focus on ‘sectioning’ I have been able to demonstrate my ability to use Grasshopper to manipulate design outcomes by changing, adding and subtracting algorithms to produce a variety of models. Furthermore, my conducted research into case studies 1.0 and 2.0 showed me the different ways that sectioning can be achieved and the variety of outcomes that can be generated from this specific technique. I learnt from this particular task that although these case studies look complex in their form and construction their use of parametric modelling simplifies their approach and has allowed me to gain acknowledge on how they were able to be achieved. I believe that these case studies reiterate my argument, that a parametric design is the best way to approach the Gateway Design project as both case studies provoke interest into the architectural discourse through their ability to use computational architecture to generate unique forms that push the boundaries of the ‘norm’. Over the last few weeks my team has been able to continuously development our technique and this included the creation of physical prototype models. These models allowed us to further progress our technique and build upon our gathered data limitations. These models in conjunction with the feedback we received during our mid-semester presentation have given us direction as to how we can continue develop and push our design further. Some areas that we are wanting to explore include; implementing more individual characteristics to the individual sectioned components that make-up our form, creating a reliant structural relation between our two forms to further express our concept of the relationship between Wyndham and Melbourne, the creation of purposeful views using different angles of sectioning and a stronger consideration to the structural integrity of our form. I hope that the next part of this journal will show successful solutions to these considerations as our design for the Gateway Project continues to develop. 42
REFERENCE LIST
Driftwood by AA Unit 2. (2009, June 25). Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Dezeen Magazine: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/ Evolo. (2012, December 4). Parametric Exploration for n Outdoor Sculpture. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Evolo: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-explorationsfor-an-outdoor-sculpture/ Welch, A., & Lomholt, I. (2012, September 10). AA Summer Pavilion London : Driftwood, Bedford Square. Retrieved april 20, 2013, from e-architect: http://www.e-architect. co.uk/london/driftwood_pavilion_design.htm
43