STUDIO AIR SAM HORWOOD 637533
HRWD
sam horwood
|
637533
| abpl30048
|
studio 05
|
caitlyn parry
CON TE NTS
ii.intro / experience 02.part a 26.part b 83.part c
STUDIOAIR ii HRWD
Hi! I’m Sam. I’m a third year architecture major studying at the Melbourne School of Design. My interest in design in general came from a part in my life when I was old enough to start questioning what was happening around me and more importantly why it was happening. As soon as I started asking these questions design jumped out at me because I see design as being able to create some out of nothing and have the ability to change the way in which we think or do things.
INTRO DUC TION
My interest in the empathetical theories that design had to offer did not however, start in architecture. Before Melbourne University I studied drama at Deakin university for a year, During this time I was also able to dabble in graphic design as a minor study. Drama is usually not seen as particularly relevant when it comes to architecture, however, I like to disagree. I see them both as having
a stage and creating something interesting and new out of nothing. These experiences have entered their way into the architecture I had designed over the past two years. I have always tried to focus on the experiential aspect of design. Attempting to create not only a space to be in but one to experience along the way. I love multidisciplinary thinking and I think that it actually sparks some extremely interesting design outcomes. I think that more people should think in this way and accept that their field of expertise is not the only one in existence. If more people thought like epithetic designers the world would be a better place. I definitely enjoy more the simplistic rationalistic architecture of the greats like Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies Van Der Rohe, however, I am really keen to go full depth into computational design. It’s an exciting new-ish field of study and to actually understand it one must be ready to fully embrace it. I’m looking forward to this semester and what it has to offer.
STUDIOAIR iii HRWD
My experience within the digital architecture world is extremely limited at this point. I did this project for a subject called Virtual Environments. The project was called second skin and the basic premise was to create a piece of wearable design using a specified technique. The technique that I was given for the project was called profile and section, which basically involves having two pieces of planar material, notching into them then preceding to connect the pieces to construct a 3d object. I found this both a very challenging but insightful task to complete. I did however, feel that I did not stretch my computational abilities due to lack of confidence in my abilities in this type of design.
EXP ERI ENCE
This subject really deterred me from exploring digital design in my other works and not that I was in anyway unhappy with other works I have produced as I begin this studio I am starting to see the amazing dynamic nature of it.
STUDIOAIR 01 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 02 HRWD
SEC TION A
03.design futuring 07.design computation 11.design computation 15.conclusion 16.outcomes 17.algorithmic sketchbook 18.references
STUDIOAIR 03 HRWD
This project provides really interesting look into the future of design fabrication. More and More this has became a topic of conversation when discussing the influence of architecture on the sustainability of our futures. Architecture and the building industry have had a very long history of being particularly wasteful in their material wastage and energy demanding practices, and now architects are starting to say, this has to change.
DESIGN FUTUING
Digital fabrication is starting to arise as a solution to this problem. For architects today it is increasingly possible for manufacturing goods to be produced using the digital information associated with them. As an industry digital programs are not new and although the use of these products is not fully embraced a lot of what architects make is design within a digital space. This process stops when in comes to the industrial world and this project is trying to breach this gap. The interesting part of this projects
is that it is less about the style and more about the conceptual idea behind it. In this case it is simply a wall, but this wall is only the beginning of the entire concept behind it. In terms of the discussions now starting to occur about the future of digital design in the field of architecture I think that digital fabrication is the first to enter from the conceptional world into the realistic vernacular or architectural design. We are already beginning to see the shift towards modular elements within the architectural environment today and this is a very close step towards fully integrated digital fabrication. With the advent of technological innovations such as laser cutters and 3d printers our options for complexity in the digital realm has increased dramatically . The possibilities of geometry is now almost limitless and this brings on the necessity to move from traditional fabrication techniques into the techniques of digital design.
STUDIOAIR 04 HRWD
gramaziokohler the sequential wall
STUDIOAIR 05 HRWD
foster&partners the british museum
STUDIOAIR 06 HRWD
The Choice of my front cover for the subject this is one of my favourite pieces of design full stop, not only within the digital architecture world. This is an amazing example of how digital architecture can be used to make something beautiful. The key to this project for me is the seamless way in which it blends the very old with the very new styles of architecture. I think this is a really important point for the future of architectural design. The ideas of styles and eras are starting to become less important than just an honest piece of design that attempts to solve some design problem. For a museum this was quite a radical change in the way they are usually approached. Museums are usually synonymous with quiet, artificially lit spaces and can be sometimes quite plain designs. This design opens up that idea, literally. I’ve been there myself and as you walk into the main hall you a greeted with the mos amazing glass ceiling that floods the whole space with light, even on a cloudy London day. This ceiling was obviously made possible by digital forms of architectural design. I think that this
has not only had a huge impact on the digital architects of today, but also shown everyday people the beauty that can come of digital design. The design definitely opens more doors than it could ever close in term of future design. This building shows a lot of people how digital design can actually produce working, beautiful, built form and actually enhance a space further than what you could have with traditional forms of design.
DESIGN FUTUING
I think this could be one of the most important design for the future of architecture as it opens up the possibilities for this type of design within the civil and public spaces and still make it work for every person that visits. It’s an amazing space and can not be described in words or pictures this is a fully experiential space.
STUDIOAIR 07 HRWD
Computer aided design (CAD) has been part of the architectural vernacular for quite some time. Architects have been using computer programs to enhance the drafting process, making it easier to edit, move and precisely draw technical drawings. Now thanks to the advent of new design based computer programs the involvement of the computer within the design process itself has increased dramatically. T h e ultimate g o a l of the architect ( a n d designers alike) in it’s most b a s i c form is to delve and design a solution to a set of problems given to them from a brief or client. And as tomorrow becomes today the design problems that architects face are growing in complexity exponentially. This complexity has led to an increase in the amount of architectural practices taking up the concept of digital and computational design.
DESIGN COMPUT ATION
Programs such as Grasshopper
and Microstation have allowed for computational algorithmic design to bleed it’s way into the general design process of architects today. These programs allow architects to process large amounts of information quickly, efficiently and most important edit this information parametrically. This can mean as in the following example that architects can design a form and then using a computational program add a complex material or construction process onto this form. This allows for an extremely quick work-flow producing an extremely complex design using the program as a way of doing all the heavy lifting. The nine bridges country club is a perfect example how using computational design can produced an amazingly dynamic yet also extremely efficient design in both material usage as well as construction process. Having programs like grasshopper that allow you to make surfaces to create form first is invaluable. The parametric nature of being able to orient geometry onto these surfaces means less time is spent on trying to make it work and more time can be spent on trying new ideas With digital design they were able to create something new and
STUDIOAIR 08 HRWD
shigerubanarchitects nine bridges country club
STUDIOAIR 09 HRWD
foster&partners serpentine institution
STUDIOAIR 10 HRWD
exciting something that could only have been achieve through the use of these programs. It’s projects like this that you can get really excited about for the future of design. To the left is another exciting project using surfaces and meshes as the ground plane for geometrical exploration. This project too has applied a grid to intersect along a undulating surface to create a truly dynamic space. The really interesting part about these two projects is that both are using some of the most basic commands and tools that a program like grasshopper has to offer and yet when the designs come to fruition in the real material world they suddenly come to life and evoke quite a seemingly complicated well considered form. This is an important topic to discuss in the future of digital design and Gwyllim discussed this in his lecture. He asked the question does parametric design have a style? Is parametric a style? And this is a pretty serious topic that we have to look at and be extremely mindful of when discussing the future of design. Tools like grasshopper let uses
come up with forms such as the two precedents here reasonably quickly which means that these techniques tend to be taught to new comers first and if they chose to just stick at this level we will start seeing a very samey version of architecture start to be produced. Gweyllim discusses this using the example of the voronoi cells and he said that this is one of those tools that
DESIGN COMPUT ATION
everybody goes to first resulting in the same forms coming up time and time again.
So now that firms are starting to use these tools in real world applications like these two can these same ideas be used again? Does a form like the Fosters ceiling become a new standard for ceiling design?
STUDIOAIR 11 HRWD
Generative architecture has many benefits when it comes to the always changing architectural design process. It is closely linked with parametric design but focusses more on an algorithmic way of thinking. Algorithms can be very hard to define as shown in this weeks reading (MIT Encyclopedia). This is because of their extremely complex nature and very programmatic thinking style. But simply put they are a certain set of
COMPOSI TION / GENERTA TION
The facade consists of a overall form with a geometric pattern applied to it, resulting in many penetrations throughout the form. And thus, we have a few different algorithms working together to create the final form. The fist algorithm is defining the general form of the outer skin. The second is defining the pattern that is being orient to the surface created in the first. And the third is defining the relationship between the two I.e. telling the pattern to penetrate the surface. Now, there’s probably a lot more working here but for simplicity we can limit them to these three. Compared to composition design methods all of these algorithms are written independently of each other which allows us as designers to manipulate each of the elements separately and still have the overall model update.
Like parametric the algorithm can be change resulting in new outputs from the system. This can be a radical change in the entire algorithm or can just be a slight change in one of the components.
For instances we can change the overall form of the shell and the oriented pattern will change it’s orientation to the new surface without intervention. Likewise we could change the geometry of the pattern and this will not effect the overall form. This can open up many possibilities when it comes to the design process as it allows designers to explore much more variation without needed to ‘redraw’ any elements.
This is best seen in an example so let’s talk about the Tower Dubai, in particular the outer facade.
Not only is this great for the designer and the design process it’s also a really helpful tool for
instructions that cause a product to result from them.
STUDIOAIR 12 HRWD
reiderumemoto tower dubai
STUDIOAIR 13 HRWD
EMBT spanish pavilion
STUDIOAIR 14 HRWD
changing
construction
issues.
Problems ultimately arise in the construction phase of design resulting in sometimes the need to change certain structural members. This may be caused by availability or cost and can change deigns subtly or more drastically. In traditional modelling this would mean for some the re-modelling or redrawing of any of the elements that are changing as well as any other elements that the change effects. This is where parametric design and using algorithms can really come in handy. Using the Spanish Pavilion (EMBT) as an example we can see how this can be a helpful tool in the design process. The underlying structure which can be seen faintly behind the wicker facade is made of a series of steel tubes that follow the geometry of the entire building form. If we have this information stored within our design model using algorithms it can be extremely easy to change this if need be. Say for instance after design engineers come back and say that the diameter of the tubes has to increase for structural stability. In traditional modelling techniques with something this
complex it would be a literal nightmare to make a change this drastically. However, if we have an algorithm that determines the diameter of the tubes it is as easy as changing the input to match the specification of the engineer. This wouldn’t effect and of the specified connections or joints and the model would simply update and that would be the e n d of the story. A m u c h l e s s stressful story. This just one area shows us the
COMPOSI TION / GENERA TION
potential of parametric design and how it can help architects not only in the design phase but all phases of the architectural process.
STUDIOAIR 15 HRWD
Computational modelling is rapidly changing the way in which we interact, form, design and edit in the architectural world. It opens up a whole new way of thinking and approaching design and is proving to be the next step in architectural design. Computations let the designer to create in such a way that allows for rapid experimentation and powerful editing. This is all thanks to parametric modelling which
CONC LUSION
records your history as you go so that you can come back and change just one aspect of the design without effecting the rest of the space. Computational programs like rhino and grasshopper have opened the floodgates into a whole new realm of possibilities for the modern designer to explore and create. We can see that this knowledge is making its way into the everyday
vernacular of the present day architect and the importance of 3d representation has dramatically increased as this knowledge has been made more available. Computational design is making a big splash within the current architectural space because of it’s amazing benefits that can be put into the designers toolbox. Nurbs surfaces, meshes, triangulation, division and contouring are just some of the tools made available to the designer for their projects. The most important aspect is that all of these tools can be applied simultaneously, independent and parametrically in the design process. The tools can be changed and changed over again and again meaning that variations can be checked in a much more simple straightforward efficient saving the architect time to do with in other aspects of the project. Undoubtedly parametric and computation design will be the future of architecture in the world and it’s shaping up to be quite an event.
STUDIOAIR 16 HRWD
Part A of this studio has been an absolute eye opener for me as a designer. When I started 3 weeks ago I had no clue of how to use grasshopper and now after a short time using the program I’m starting to realize how many of my older projects would have been so much easier had I known! As first glance grasshopper looks really intimidating and scary and seems like it’s going to be the most complex thing you’ve ever seen. However, one you got into the grasshopper way of thinking it actually for me became an extremely intuitive way of designing and became just an extension of how to design. The most amazing part of it was how easy it ended up being the create dynamic interesting designs with a few clicks. To be 100% honest my expectations of me enjoying this kind of design at the start were slim to none. I thought that this type of design was not something that I would enjoy doing. This is starting to become no longer the case. It’s amazingly dynamic and you are able to get incredibly complex geometries without having to worry about the
problems one use to deal with when using tradition 3d modelling tools. By making it more straightforward in the way geometry is made one gets to spend more time playing around with iterations of that particular design move. Allowing more time for designing and less mucking around with programs with limited capabilities. Apart from all of the technical side
OUTCO MES
of things it is actually just really fun and enjoyable way of designing space and form. It allows me to just play with some forms and have more fun with form and geometry. From the outside looking in it looks extremely daunting and serious however, I have found it to be quite fun and intuitive in its approach of how we can design in the future.
ORIENT TO STUDIOAIR 17 HRWD
HEXAGONAL GRID
I really like the way the orient to surface was working out and I wanted to see what would happen if the surface itself became more complex. I created this flute like surface by lofting for circular curves together as is shown on the cover of this weeks tasks. I wanted to create an actual space that people could explore and
experience to start to see maybe a hint of real world application. I implemented the surface into the grasshopper function by adding it into the algorithm as a brep and hey presto! I was able to get this really interesting form very quickly and with very little effort.
STUDIOAIR 18 HRWD
creating a space
STUDIOAIR 23 HRWD
‘British Museum, Great Court’, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c
REFERE NCES
‘The Great Court’ < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/great-cou
‘The Nine Bridges, Country Club’ < http://www.archdaily.com/490241/nin
“The Serpentine Institute’ < http://www.dac.dk/media/11590/smithsonian
‘The Sequential Wall’ <http://www.rok-office.com/projects/sequential-wal
‘The Spanish Pavilion’ <http://img5.adsttc.com/media/images/53f9/1873
‘Tower Dubai’ <http://www.homedit.com/o-14-tower-in-dubai/> [accesse
STUDIOAIR 24 HRWD
commons/5/5a/British_Museum_Great_Court,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg > [accessed: 11.03.2015]
urt-at-the-british-museum/> [accessed: 11.03.2015]
ne-bridges-country-club-shigeru-ban-architects/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]
n_ChuckChoi_RGB.jpg> [accessed: 18.03.2015]
ll-068/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]
3/c07a/8009/6200/0749/large_jpg/1272406253-spain2.jpg?1408833639> [accessed: 26.03.2015]
ed: 26.03.2015]
SEC TION B
29
|
research
33
|
case study 1
47
|
case study 2
67
|
design potential
73
|
learning objectives
BIO MIM ICRY
STUDIOAIR 29 HRWD
Digital forms of architecture are quickly changing the way we do architecture and these technologies being produces are being heavily embraced by many architects today . Somewhat ironically as we delve further into digital design it has begun to bring us closer to the natural world, designing with fabrication and materiality already in mind shrinking the gap between the digital and the real.
INTRO DUC TION
function of the space. For me Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m really interesting in the idea that the function of the space can mimic nature. Creating spaces that work in similar ways to spaces in nature seems like a really deep field of exploration and I think that it can produce something thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s both dynamic and interesting. These three projects show some examples of how these three different ideas can work when it comes to architecture. They to me are really dynamic and produce some really interesting outcomes for design.
This is where biomimicry comes into play as an extension of this ideology. Biomimicry at its core come from the idea that nature is one of our biggest resource of inspiration and precedents that we can utilise to solve our design problems. This inspiration can come in different forms. Inspiration from nature can take on many different forms and the main of these are materiality, form and
materiality
STUDIOAIR 30 HRWD
function of space
mimic through form
STUDIOAIR 31 HRWD
There is a vast number of inspirational ideas and precedents when it comes to nature and biomimetic architecture, but something that I havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seen much in research is inspiration from the dynamic movement of nature.
INITIAL IDEAS
This is something that I am really interested in exploring and I think could produce something interesting for the area.
Movement surrounds the site, with the river right next to it seems only natural to produce something
that can move itself according to the conditions of the site reacting directly with its context. A really good precedent for this kind of design and that is the Rolling Bridge designed by Heatherwick Studio. This projects provides pedestrians with a way to cross the river as well as providing access for boats. Hetherwick said that he wanted to make the movement the great moment of the design. This is really interesting in the function of the item is being determined by a natural instance where this occurs, and with that has been manipulated to fulfil a function needed to solve a problem.
STUDIOAIR 32 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 33
s kyla rtibb it s v olt a dom
HRWD
STUDIOAIR 34 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 35 HRWD
“
VoltaDom, by Skylar Tibbits - for MIT’s 150th Anniversary Celebration & FAST Arts Festival (Festival of Arts, Science and Technology) - is an installation that populates the corridor spanning building 56 & 66 on MIT’s campus. This installation lines the concrete and glass hallway with hundreds of vaults, reminiscent of the great vaulted ceilings of historic cathedrals. The vaults provide a thickened surface articulation and a spectrum of oculi that penetrate the hallway and surrounding area with views and light. VoltaDom attempts to expand the notion of the architectural “surface panel,” by intensifying the depth of a doubly-curved vaulted surface, while maintaining relative ease in assembly and fabrication. This is made possible by transforming complex curved vaults to developable strips, one that likens the assembly to that of simply rolling a strip of material.
VOLT ADOM
That was the description taken from Tibbits’ website. I put it in here because it’s always interesting to hear from the actual designer what they think the project means to them which can be either beneficial or damaging. MIT is a very technical heavy school and being a festival celebrating art, science and technology this seems to me to be quite a fitting installation because the project itself come under all three of those branches.
This acts as an art piece enhanced by the references to the grand vaults of old cathedrals. For me an interesting juxtaposition between the forms of old and the technology of new that went into the making of the piece. The installation in also at the forefront, architecturally, of both technology and science. Digital methods have been used not only in design but in fabrication as well utilizing laser cutting. This project is quite interesting and produces quite an amazing interior space.
STUDIOAIR 36 HRWD
voltadom exterior
interior view
STUDIOAIR 37 HRWD
NUMBER OF POINTS
breaking point of the no. of points in system
Because another within it 35 poin plane. I point of
STUDIOAIR 38 HRWD
10
20
30
40
50
60
e of the way in which the cones trim one r the system can only handle so many items t. The original document only allowed for nts to be randomly generated in the source took this up to 70 as I wanted to see the f breaking for it.
70
STUDIOAIR 39 HRWD
Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve found that with this sli very quickly. I think that script to allow more fun
SEED NUMBER
The seed number is changing points that are being genera plane. Whats interesting is th between odd and even num seems to me that odd numb opposite arrangement of the
STUDIOAIR 40 HRWD
ider the system breaks down t you would have to alter the nctionality within this project.
g the position of these ated within the source hat Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m seeing a pattern mbers in this slider. It bers are producing the e points and visa versa.
CONE RADIUS
STUDIOAIR 41 HRWD
HEIGHT RATIO
STUDIOAIR 42 HRWD
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Adjusting the height ratio is resulting in taller cones. The practice application of this is that this can easily increase the volume of the interior space.
STUDIOAIR 43 HRWD
SECTION CUT
The size of altering of within. Thes varying ligh
STUDIOAIR 44 HRWD
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.6
the openings interests me quite a bit as the this element can dramatically change the space se could also be ranged so that you would get ht forming in different parts of the design.
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.9
STUDIOAIR 45 HRWD
POTE NTIAL OF DESIGN
I thought that it would be really cool to see these faults with the box morph applied to them. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s be honest I was right! These look super cool and could be a really interesting space to be involved with.
STUDIOAIR 46 HRWD
interior space
exterior surface
u nit edvi s u ala rt ist s ca n opy p ro jec t
STUDIOAIR 49 HRWD
The canopy designed by united visual artists is a light sculpture for the footpath of the Maple Leaf Square building in Toronto, Canada. The light filled instalation spans a huge 90 metres and house hundreds of individual leaf shaped boxes. Some of the boxes are simply finished in metal however, most act as light boxes which are programmed turn on and off individually creating a spectacular show for passers by.
CANOPY PROJECT
individual leaf, leafs within a forest canopy or even the twinkling lights of a city scape as seen from above. There is a video on their website showing the light work in action and it is extremely memorizing. The light flicker and dapple in an almost choreographed dance. Bouncing of one another they seem to be reacting to their surroundings. This brings quite a playful life-like nature to the structure. The lights almost look as if they are playing with each other whilst jumping around the canopy.
The canopy is designed to mimic the dappled light when walking through a forest environment. The modules are arranged within the structure in a non-uniform growth pattern abstracted in form by the shape of a leaf with a combination of both artificial and natural light source bleeding through. There are multiple scales at which the installation can be viewed, from their website they have likened the pattern and light show to be reminiscent of the cells of an
view from the street
STUDIOAIR 50 HRWD
the canopy effect
STUDIOAIR 51 HRWD
I think that ultimately the finished outcome worked pretty well. The geometry of the individual pieces looks to be the same as that of the existing project.
piece.
I obviously needed some help from the nice people on the grasshopper forum and that was really handy without which I wouldn’t have been able to get the geometry right at all.
The original project is quite simple in form being a long rectilinear form it doesn’t hold many surprises. From this point I’d like to try and see what happens when the surface input is changed. Will it work?
FINAL OUT COME
The part that needs work is the boundary surface that creates the surfaces open or closed. This was the best / only way I could think of completing the task and unfortunately it seems to be a very heavy algorithm. This makes the outcome slightly less parametric then I wanted it to be. The glass areas in my engineered version are simply just planes that I have materialised with a glass texture through Vray. In the actual project you can see that there is infact a 3 dimensional geometry to the glass most likely dispersing the light in a nicer way than just a flat
I couldn’t quite figure out how to perform this task but it’s something I would like to look into.
Another part I would like to change is the vertical length of the pieces themselves. In the project all of the pieces are the same height and I think this could be varied to create something more dynamic in nature. Overall I think it worked out pretty well and resembles the original design with respect.
STUDIOAIR 52 HRWD
final interior space
STUDIOAIR 53 HRWD
SUBDIVIDE SURFACE
SELECT A SURFACE
MAKE BOUNDARY SURFA BASED ON CURVES
DEFI NITION
CURVES
EXTRUDE
FACTOR IN Z AXIS
POINT
POINT CHARGE
NON-UNIFORM S
RANGE
THIS IS NOT NEE
E
ACE
STUDIOAIR 54 HRWD
DOMAIN U DOMAIN V
APPLY SCRIPT TO SURFACE USING DOMAINS
SPLIT SURFACES USING CURVES
PANEL TRUE OR FALSE
DISPATCH TO CREATE 2 GROUPS
BAKE
SCALE
GRAPH MAPPER
EDED FOR ORIGINAL DEFINITION
STUDIOAIR 55 HRWD
I needed to create surfaces behind each of the extruded pieces of geometry. This was solved easily with making a boundary surface using the curves from the script as the input. This create one surface the shared the extents of the geometry. However, a portion of the panels seemingly random in choice were pieces of metal the others were glass panels to let light through the canopy skin.
DISPA TCH ANA LYSIS
I needed to figure a way of selected the panels I wanted so that I can change their materiality separately. I had one surface and needed to divide it into individual segments based on the geometry below and to do this I figured the best option was to use a surface split command using again the curves as the trimming device. This worked in creating individual surfaces for each piece. Unfortunately this was an extremely â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;heavyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; command apparently
resulting in the inability to change to amount of geometry without crashing my system. Pushing through I needed to separate the collection of surfaces into two different groups in order to create a random selection of faces. To perform this task I used a dispatch command that selects items in a list according to a true / false input and places them into 2 groups. Perfect! I was then able to place in a panel for the true / false input and create a very parametric and relatively random way of creating the two different panels.
STUDIOAIR 56 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 57 HRWD
DISPA TCH ANA LYSIS
TRUE > FALSE
TRUE > FALSE > TRUE
TRUE > FALSE > FALSE
TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TR
E
RUE
STUDIOAIR 58 HRWD
This is a really interesting tool. This enables me to somewhat control hoe much or how little light can get through the structure and as you can see has an extremely high amount of variation built in.
that can switch the panels on and off that could maybe be triggered by something on the site. This could be an interesting thing to explore for my design project.
This would be something that I want to explore more and see how much I csn manipulate it. I really want to have more control over it as in maybe a point attractor
TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE
TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE
TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE
TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE
TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE > FALSE
TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE
STUDIOAIR 59 HRWD
SUBD IVISION ROWS
STUDIOAIR 60 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 61 HRWD
SUBD IVISION COLU MNS
STUDIOAIR 62 HRWD
Both adjusting the columns and the rows bares similar results. If on is kept constant the other simply stretches the geometry in the direction that it adds divisions. This seems somewhat not useful however as I have attempted to place this algorithm on other surfaces this becomes really important. The surface divisions needed to create
the correct geometry changes drastically when applied to different surfaces and more importantly the ratios of columns to rows changes as well. This is what I think is a somewhat limitation of this script as you have to constantly adjust these two parameters when altering surfaces which becomes cumbersome and time consuming.
STUDIOAIR 63 HRWD
5:1 RATIO
STUDIOAIR 64 HRWD
From testing the different iterations of subdivided surfaces I realised fairly quickly that there was a constant ratio needed between the rows and columns to create the exact shape in this case study. This ratio was 5 rows to 1 column and as you can see this ratio applies through the spectrum of variations you had, as long as the ratio stayed the same the profile of the geometry would as well. This makes the system very easy to add density to. I can now easily create higher density of geometry and knowingly have the same profile of the pieces.
As this is the only geometry I need for this definition a simple expression could be set up that represents this ratio meaning only one slider would have to be changed to add density.
DESIGN POT ENTIAL
STUDIOAIR 67 HRWD
GRAPH MAPPER
BEZIER
GAUSSIAN
SINC
SINE
STUDIOAIR 68 HRWD
PARABOLA
PERLIN
POWER
SINE SIMULATION
SQUARE ROOT
CONIC
The graph mapper makes the scale adjustment of the fins almost limitless. I really like how many different outcomes you can achieve just by changing this one element. As you can see the changes are not only virtually limitless but they drastically change from one graph to the next making this a very powerful tool.
This is also good because the shape of the curve could be something relating to the site context which could be really awesome for my design project.
STUDIOAIR 69 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 70 HRWD
One area that I really want to explore was varying the height of the modules themselves. When considering how to complete this I wanted to add a more dynamic and surprising nature to this shift. This is why I decided to use a point charge as I could obtain a varying height difference as the charge began to wear off. This worked out really well I and meant that I could get a much more dynamic and perhaps even a more responsive design outcome. These point attractors could be related to something occurring on site and could provide the design with a changing form responding to the site. This feature has added quite a bit to the design and was a relatively easy and painless operation just using the force of the point charge as the input for the force in the z axis on a non-uniform scale parameter. The point charge is also being controlled by a graph mapper which means that I can alter the graph and create linear and non-linear fall off from the charges. This factor is probably the most interesting because using that graph mapper
letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s you come up with an extremely large amounts of variation with very little effort involved.
EXT RUSION LENG TH
STUDIOAIR 71 HRWD
What really interested me about the site was the difference in the quality of the areas around the park area. Most of the site seemed very clean to me. Almost to clean to be honest. It seemed to me that the park area was attempting to emulate a natural environment yet still having all the amenities that a normal park has, bike paths, bench seating, nice green grass.
SITE CONTEXT
It struck me as a little fake, like they wanted it to be this nice natural place but really it’s virtually the same as a park in the south east suburbs. That being said there are some parts of the area
CERES
BLYTH ST
MERRI CREEK PARK
that feel more interesting to me and the site that I’ve found really struck me when I got to the site. I think that placing my design here could bring something really interesting to the site in genera and produce somewhere on the site for people to chill out and experience the ‘natural’ parts of the are more.
STUDIOAIR 72 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 73 HRWD
LIGHT AND MOV EMNT The next step for me is to tryout different forms within the algorithm. For me I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think it is necessary to have the geometry of the leave within the structure as I want to focus on the light potential of the space based on the circumstances of the site. The script that runs the geometry is quite processor intensive and makes the whole design run quite
slow so changing this geometry to something more simple like a hexagonal grid may be a good direction to go. This way I can focus directly of the manipulation of the form and the other algorithms that will make my project more interesting and engaging.
STUDIOAIR 74 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 75 HRWD
LERN ING OBJE CTIVES
To say that this part of the course has been tough would be a vast unders B has been an eye opener to how hard these concepts can be to grasp.
The thing is that watching the video tutorials and following the steps extremely easy thing to do. Part B introduced the challenge of coming up definitions to solve our own problems.
This was a challenging but amazingly rewarding experience. When you start from the bottom up and attempt to use your own scripts to solve becomes a lot harder but ultimately the goal becomes more exciting to
I think my next step is clear, after the crit it was obvious to me that I ne a solid pick of my certain script that I wanted to use and I need to just single possible thing I can do with it. I simply need to just try and try again nothing left but a better sense of what Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m doing.
From seeing other peoples projects it was clear to me that I needed
statement. Part
is actually an p with our own
u’re forced to e a problem it experience.
eeded to have explore every n until there is
d to try more
STUDIOAIR 76 HRWD
possibilities. I was being too conservative and not trying to take the system to the point at which it nearly breaks. I was simply performing tasks until I thought it looked good, and a I now know that simply should be my concern. This being said from where I started in this subject i do feel a sense of accomplishment in my understanding of these concepts. I do not think that what I’ve done has shown that yet but I am keen to make that much more obvious from this point onwards. I look forward to this exploration and hope that Part C will force me to step out of my comfort zone and into somewhere I haven’t yet been.
STUDIOAIR 77 HRWD
LINEAR GEO METRY
I wanted to start looking at different geometries and how this same process would on them. This proved to be quite interesting actually and spat out some really usable forms especially when using straight sections. I thought that this form would make a cool skin for a building and then just fill in the blank spaces with a curtain wall. Could be interesting.
STUDIOAIR 78 HRWD
CURVED GEO METRY
STUDIOAIR 79 HRWD
IMAGE 1
IMAGE 2
STUDIOAIR 80 HRWD
close up of height changes
STUDIOAIR 81 HRWD
GRAPH MAPPER
BEIZER
PURLIN
STUDIOAIR 82 HRWD
The graph mapping technique became extremely useful to me through my exploration of my design proposal and in these sketches I discovered the vast potential of this tool. I will definitely attempt to use this tool in my final design outcome.
SINE
PARABOLA
SEC TION C
85.reflections 87.design concept 123.model 130.learning outcomes
STUDIOAIR 85 HRWD
REFL ECTIONS
From my interim presentation I now have a few areas that need to be co one big point that I received from the presentation was adding control to The variation in the surface script and dispatching was good but there ne reason for it and that reason needed to then be chanelled back into the wanted to play around with light quality within the space and this is good needs to be a reaction to something on site that can influence the amou light directly in the design.
onsidered. The the definition. eeded to be a design itself. I d but the light unts/quality of
STUDIOAIR 86 HRWD
This also applies to the form. The form I created for this presentation was simply to test the spacial quality of the script, now I need to attempt to create a form based of specific elements learnt from the site itself.
STUDIOAIR 87 HRWD
ROBERTS RESERVE JONES RESERVE
On my interim presentation I simply copied the panelling geometry that I had in my reverse engineering project. This was fine but I wanted to create an original geometry that was derived from an element of the site that I was interested in, My concept for the design is to direct attitudes towards the natural aspects of the site thus this I began to look into the context of the site within a wider area. I wanted to see the amounts of natural space within a wider circle of area.
PANEL LING IDEAS
After finding all of these spaces around the site I was able to connect all of them together. This created an interesting geometry that was a result of site context that will influence the design.
I wanted the geometry to become fully parametric so that if any of these spaces were to change, removed or if there were new spaces added then the geometry would reflect this in future interations of the project.
CERES ENVIRONMENTAL PARK
FLEMMING PARK
METHVEN PARK
To do this I created a simple rectangle that worked as my canvass for the geometry then through subdivision and list management I was able to connect the lines together at the correct spacing. This geometry can the be used to create the panelling on my surface now it was time to develop to form.
PHILLIPS RESERVE
ME PA
STUDIOAIR 88 HRWD
N
N
BATMAN PARK
ERRI ARK
finding the spaces
connecting the dots
parametrizing the geometry
STUDIOAIR 89 HRWD
z axis down z axis up plan geometry
form finding scale 1:500
STUDIOAIR 90 HRWD
point attractors
Through my concept I was asking people on the site to stop and consider the different aspects of the site. Thus it became an obvious conclusion that I could not ignore the site myself when it came to a form finding exercise. I wnted to create a form that was solely developed by the context of the site itself. First things first I wanted to look into the different aspects of the site that were involved in my concept for the design. These were, movement, man made elements and the sun paths along the site. These reflected my concepts of users of the site, directing towards natural spaces by using light qualities. I came up with the idea that these site elements could be reduced down to simply line work which could then be divided into points. These points could then be converted into point attractors that could mould a form and create a space.
FORM FINDING
STUDIOAIR 91 HRWD
TRI MMED SURFA CES
To attempt to complete my idea I needed to use a matix of points that cou patch command in grasshopper which creates a surface that follows the ev
This worked great and gave me a surface that had a base form of the geo related to my design concept.
Unfortunately this results in a trimmed surface. The problem with this is that results in a formulated simple rectangle which fits the extents of the trimm
This is frustrating however, from research there seems to be no way around t which means that even if you break the parametric model and bake the sur
I felt that the formation of the form was more important than the fact that it to the surface panallisation.
STUDIOAIR 92 HRWD
uld respond to the point attractors and inturn create my desired form. This uses the valuation of the matrix of points.
ometry created by the site analysis as well as being moulded by the site elements
t the surface division technique does not accommodate trimmed surfaces and thus med surface.
the problem. It has to do with the way rhino can perform tasks with trimmed surfaces rface the subdivision will return the same results.
t was built off my found geometry o I decided to accept this as reality and move on
STUDIOAIR 93 HRWD
VECTORDIAGRAM GEOMETRYCREATION DOMAIN U CREATE RECTANGLE
SUBDIVIDE SURFACE DOMAIN V
USIN FOR
FORMFINDING CREATE RECTANGLE
POPULATE WITH POINTS
MERGE POINT ATTRACTORS TO ONE FORCE
PANNELINGSURFACE
APPLY SELECTED POINT ATTRACTORS
APPLY PATCH TO MATRIX OF POINTS
DOMAIN U
SUBDIVIDE SURFACE DOMAIN V
MOVE ACCORDING TO VECTOR AMPLITUDE BASED ON ATTRACTORS
APPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHI TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE
RULE SURFACE BETWEEN TO GEOMETRIES
STUDIOAIR 94 HRWD
NG LIST ITEMS CHOOSE POINTS GEOMETRY
IM
MOVE IN Z AXIS EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
SCALE DOWN USING POINT ATTRACTORS
VECTOR DIAGRAM
STUDIOAIR 95 HRWD
This was the final form and panalisation of the surface and these are some of the renderings I produced for the project. The finsihed material was to be timber most likely plywood and each panel had the gometry panelled upon it. Overall I was relatively pleased with the outcome however, as I will go into detail in my
RENDER INGS
reflections on the presentation I realised that it was not exactly what I was looking for.
STUDIOAIR 96 HRWD
main elevation
main perspective
interior space
panelled surface
STUDIOAIR 97 HRWD
DIRECT SUNLIGHT
DIAGRA MING SUCCESS
DAPPLED LIGHT
STUDIOAIR 98 HRWD
BIKE / RUNNING PATH
VIEWS OF MAN MADE OBJECTS
VIEWS OF MERRI CREEK
GREENERY / MERRI CREEK
STUDIOAIR 99 HRWD
REFL ECTIONS
There was a lot to think about after this presentation. Basically what I t experience was that the concet was good and the crits liked the nature o of the design directly effecting and manipulating the final form and des However, they did not feel that what was produced as a final piece re spoke about in the narrative of the design.
Getting home after the presentation was interesting to say the least. T honest I was very angry. Angry at myself for producing the level of work
took from the of the context sign elements. eflected what I
To be brutally that I did and
STUDIOAIR 100 HRWD
creating something that really didnt respond to what I wanted. Not only that there were other factors that I disliked about the design. But instead of wollowing in self pity I decided to look at this as a good thing. I knew the concept worked so really the hard part was done with but I needed to use this information I collected much more directly into the design. It was time to go back to the drawing board and a fresh design awaited.
STUDIOAIR 101 HRWD
FORM FINDING base geometry
extrude edges
STUDIOAIR 102 HRWD
diagonal curves
I went back to the drawing board and refined down the form finding exercise to itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bear essentials. This was what I wanted to create based upon the rules I originally set up in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most simple form. What makes this effective, I think, is that it is very clear to read, there is no trying to understand how or why
loft curves
I got here it is a clear appreciation of the information I got from the site analysis. What is nice is that although simple in nature I think that the overall form is quite interesting and full of plenty of surprising spaces to encounter.
STUDIOAIR 103 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 104 HRWD
The new plan solves many of the problems with the old and has created a much better outcome to my agenda.
of shadows differing in size. The inherent qualities of a translucent material have also created a more dynamic effect.
The plan still directs people to move off the bike track and towards he natural areas of the site but it also does something else in that it slows traffic down.
Shadows now overlap one another creating a next level of shadow complexity. This will of course change throughout the day creating suprising and dynamic shadows to be viewed by the audience of the site.
The nature of the form dictates that people slow down in the middle of the space. To further enhances the agenda in the way that people will start to appreciate the natural spaces and the overall beauty of the site. From this plan you can also see the dynamic nature of the shadows created by the panelisation and material properties, The differing panelisation treatment grows in scal as the spectator moves through the space creating more viewing area and directing people to where they should go. This has created a nice scattering
NEW PLAN
I started this deisgn by going back to the simple and defining the rules that matter. I started with my original geometry as a base and didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t sway from that it was very important that this stayed true and could be witnessed through the design itself.
STUDIOAIR 105 HRWD
elevation 01
elevation 02
STUDIOAIR 106 HRWD
elevation 03
elevation 04
STUDIOAIR 107 HRWD
VECTORDIAGRA
GEOMETRYCREATION CREATE RECTANGLE
VECTOR DIAGRAM
SUBDIVIDE SURF
FORMFINDING DECONSTRUCT BREP
EXTRUDE EDGES
PANNELINGSURFACE OFFSET EACH SURFACE TO CREATE FRAME
USE PAN
DOMAIN U SUBDIVIDE SURFACE DOMAIN V
STUDIOAIR 108 HRWD
AM
DOMAIN U
FACE
S
DOMAIN V
USING LIST ITEMS CHOOSE POINTS FOR GEOMETRY
CREATE LINE DIAGONALLY INTERSECTING EACH FACE
LOFT EACH LINE TO THE NEXT IN THE ROW
E LIST MANAGEMENT TO SELECT INNER NELS
APPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHIM TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE
SCALE DOWN USING POINT ATTRACTORS
STUDIOAIR 115 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 116 HRWD
CONSTRU CTION I didn’t feel that it was right to have a large join between the individual panels. The design relys on the sweeping movement of the form and that would be interrupted by large joining elements. Thus I used a technique that would allow me to create a small piece that would define the angle between
the two elements that need joining. This poved to be quite a nice detail in that it was subtle enough that it didn’t get in the way of the design and also could stand out on show without being covered up so that if you wanted to know how it was built you didn’t have to look very far.
STUDIOAIR 117 HRWD
ITTERATI ONS HEIGHT
STUDIOAIR 118 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 119 HRWD
ITTERATI ONS X AXIS
STUDIOAIR 120 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 121 HRWD
ITTERATI ONS Y AXIS
STUDIOAIR 122 HRWD
STUDIOAIR 123 HRWD
REFL ECTIONS
As stated in my last reflection there was a lot to think about after my ‘final’ and I’m happy that there was. I’m glad that I was able to take another look because what I finished with I am pretty happy with.
I spent a lot of time thinking about my design and refinig it down to what I to do. I needed it to be a simple gesture a play between light and spa design that was inherently straightfoward to read.
STUDIOAIR 124 HRWD
â&#x20AC;&#x2122; presentation, k at the project
This project was not easy to put it lightly. Grasshopper has an extremely steep learning curve and left me more frustrated than I have ever been designing. That being said it does have many benefits when it comes to this type of dynamic architecture.
I really wanted ace to create a
This subject was definitely rewarding, I had never really tapped into this area of digital design and I am glad that I have had the oppurtunity to do so. Ultimately I enjoyed what I was able to produce and although some may say it was not the point I did like my final piece and I am truly happy for that.
sam horwood