FearnWannan_Sarah_762096_PartC_STUDIOAIR by Sarah Fearn-Wannan

STUDIO AIR SARAH FEARN-WANNAN

762096

TUTOR: FINNIAN WARNOCK 2017, SEMESTER 1

4 Introduction

6 Part A: Conceptualisation 8 A.1. Design Futuring 10 A.2. Design Computation 12 A.3. Composition / Generation 14 A.4. Conclusion 16 A.5. Learning Outcomes 17 A.6. Algorithmic Sketches 18 Part A References

20 Part B: Criteria Design 22 B.1. Research Field 24 B.2. Case Study 01 34 B.3. Case Study 02 38 B.4. Technique: Development 44 B.5. Technique: Prototype 48 B.6. Technique: Proposal 50 B.7. Learning Objectives & Outcomes 52 Part B References

54 Part C: Detailed Design 56 C.1. Design Concept 60 C.2. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes FIG.1: (COVER) Studio Air Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017 FIG.2: Studio Air Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

72 C.3. Final Detail Model 76 C.4. Learning Objectives & Outcomes 78 Part C References

ABOUT ME Hello! I am Sarah Fearn-Wannan, a third year Architecture student at the University of Melbourne. Growing up with a strong apprecitation for the visual arts, I gravitated towards pursuing study in Architecture. I am highly interested in the behaviours and emotional responses that design can ilicit and so this focus often impacts my work. Having reached my final year in the undergraduate degree, I am looking forward to immersing myself in subjects which represent the culmination of my learning thus far. Despite encountering digital design multiple times throughout the past two years, I feel that I have very base level knowledge of programs such as Rhino. Figure 3 is my favourite outcome from a previous studio using Rhino. This semester will be my first instance of using Grasshopper. FIG.3: Sarah FearnWannan, Sleeping Pod, UoM Digital Design and Fabrication, Melbourne, 2016

The philosophy of â&#x20AC;&#x153;bottom-upâ&#x20AC;? design through computation is new to me and I am sure that it will broaden my view and improve my approach to design.

“USE DESIGN AS A MEANS OF SPECULATING HOW THINGS COULD BE” - DUNNE & RABY 6

CONCEPTUALISATION

PART A:

CONCEPTUALISATION

DESIGN FUTURING CASE STUDY 01 Soomin Kim and Seo-Hyun Oh sumbitted this Skyscraper Enclosure into the 2016 eVolo Magazine competition.1 This innovation opens up a discussion about the future possibilities and strives to add imagination to it.2 It comments on the detrimental role of skyscrapers and megacities in human and nature coexistence, particularly from the early 20th century. This entry takes the traditional form of the structure and responds to the current dilemma by establishing a sustainable model for a skyscraper. Amongst other remarkable technologies, the facade converts energy for use and it collects data to control the interior climate. As Fry comments; “we have become too dependent upon the artificial worlds that we have designed.”3 It is time to investigate better ways of living, and this investigation is to be led by designers.

CASE STUDY 02

FIG.4: (RIGHT) Soomin Kim and Seo-Hyun Oh, Sustainable Skyscraper Enclosure (eVolo Magazine 2016 Skyscraper Competition), South Korea, 2016

FIG.5: (ABOVE) Charles and Ray Eames, Case Study House 8, Los Angeles, 1949

As an older work, this precedent was influential in terms of materiality. The Case Study Program which Charles and Ray Eames were involved in was about representing ways of living in the mid 20th century. The Eames’ endeavoured to construct a house that could theoretically be constructed by anyone, using standard materials accessible to them in hardware stores. Case Study House 8 (1949) represents a movement whereby homeowners were empowered to build what they desired and were limited only by their own creativity.4 This meant that even amid the mass production of the era, houses would be unique and tailored to the needs of each individual. It demonstrates an opportunity for individuals to reject the regulated ways of the modern built environment and have “greater power in deciding the form of the environments in which they wish to live”.5 It represents a defiance of the ordinary and a push for innovation by the everyday person.

1. Soomin Kim & Seo-Hyun Oh, Sustainable Skyscraper Enclosure, (South Korea, 2016), <http://www.evolo. us/competition/sustainable-skyscraper-enclosure/> [accessed 14/3/2017]. 2. Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby Speculate Everythinng: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press, 2013) p. 3-6. 3. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics And New Practise (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p. 3. 4. Charles and Ray Eames, Case Study House 8 (Los Angeles, 1949), <http://www.eamesoffice.com/the-work/eames-house-case-study-house-8/> [accessed 8/3/2017]. 5. Fry, p. 8. 8

CONCEPTUALISATION

DESIGN COMPUTATION

Prior to learning much about it, I had been highly sceptical of the role of computers in design. Consistent with the common sentiment, I assumed that surely computers must inhibit one’s creativity, due to the limitations of it. Conversely, digital design continues to prove its worthiness and pushes the possibilities for architecture. Within the limitations of the digital world, there must be an absolute extent of the code, given the nature of code itself. The code-writers hold power in what can be made available and they are limited by the capacity of their own knowledge in creating these systems.6 However, these points are outweighed by the enormous benefits of using computation as a method of design. Computation limits creativity minimally compared to the restraints imposed by hand drawing. Works by the Ball-Nogues Studio demonstrate instances where such geometries would barely even be possible to imagine, not to mention being even more difficult to represent visually. Their “Euphony” 7 installation acts as an optical illusion, quite perplexing in 10

CONCEPTUALISATION

appearance and seems to morph from differing viewing points. Computing redefines the practise of architecture by extending the range of concievable geometries. Computing promotes “bottom-up” design in a streamlined, efficient way. Parameters can be specified easily and the program never forgets within what limits it is working. Additionally, the computer does the “searching” for a solution for the designer, resulting in a possibility never being overlooked.8 The ICD/ ITKE Research Pavilion (2010) by Achim Menges 9 is of particular interest in regards to the order of the work flow which was facilitated. The process began by testing the limits of the chosen material and the design grew from that point. As opposed to the fragmented, tedious process one would undertake without such technology, this is far preferable as it allows the designer to focus on the design. Computation presents the opportunity for architecture to reengage with the rest of the design industry, as was the

FIG.6: (LEFT) BallNogues Studio, Euphony, Nashville, 2013

FIG.7: (RIGHT) Achim Menges, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion, Stuttgart University, 2010

Bauhaus approach. All design problems were approached in the same way, with a broad knowledge. At some point in time, architecture became separated and formal training involved study of buildings as precedents. Computation allows architecture to re-enter a universal design process, as all design problems are now revolving around approaches of using these programs. This is proven in the very precedents selected here; both being installations, but can also now be thought of as architecture. The use of computers within design is a truly valuable tool. Programs extend the possibilities of forms imaginable and streamlines the process itself. 6. Lawrence Lessig, The Zones of Cyberspace, Standford Law Review, 48 (1996), p. 1410. 7. Ball-Nogues Studio, Euphony (Nashville, 2013), <http://www. ball-nogues.com/#project-167> [accessed 14/3/2017]. 8. Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 14. 9. Achim Menges, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion (Stuttgart University, 2010), <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4443> [accessed 7/3/2017]. CONCEPTUALISATION

COMPOSITION / GENERATION In the same way that composition is linked with “computerization”, generation is an innovative strategy that is utilised amid computation. As defined by Ahlquist and Menges, compuation has “the capacity to generate complex order, form, and structure”.10 This results in the ability to define with parameters which mimic patterns that occur in nature. Nature is afterall, a proven source of information. Being informed by the very basis of this organic matter is sure to produce results “beyond the intellect of the designer”.11 Consquently, if they cannot even understand such discoveries, is the role of the designer made redundant? According to Burry,12 the designer no longer specifies the formal design as such, but instead “speculates on potentials” and explores these options by “modifying the code”. Burry posits that the architectural profession is making a categorical shift from using software as an aid, to a realm “where they create software”. In some ways, this strips architects of their creative side and channels them into a zone of binary code. However within this zone, designers think and sketch algorithmically to understand the order and logic of organic elements. Through algorithms, they can “tell the computer what to do”13 and utilise this as a formfinding process to imitate naturally occuring structures. Thereby, the beauty of this can be captured and displayed as art for the sake of art, as demonstrated by Eno Henze.14 The series titled “Ambush” was created through a generative approach where Henze programmed a computer to draw in this cellular way, with no motive

other than to create art via scripting. Similarly, Arata Isozaki sought to imitate the structure of the Sidra tree as a striking visual (and structural) component of his design for the Qatar National Convention Centre.15 Although such generation may at times produce previously inconceivable results, the goal itself is not always as serendipitous as the process of art generally is. Designers embark upon paths of discovery with the aim of reaching a solution to a known problem. By the same way in which composition would inform outcomes, generation produces somewhat radical results. This makes impressions within all streams of design and can be especially relevant for industrial design as mimicking nature ensures superiour ergonomics, in comparison to man-made patterns. New Balance shoes have been experimenting with “the most efficient structures possible”,16 which are evidently achieved by setting algorithmic parameters consistent with organic patterns found in nature. In this way generative design occurs for a set purpose. Designers continue to retain their creative position within society and are not “confined” to algorithmic thinking. Instead, a scripting culture opens up whole new creative opportunities. Architecture has become a plastic role within society, which does not simply adapt to the ever-increasing possibilities. Instead, it is a position which unlocks such potential and consequently, sparks the fluidity of all design-based professions.

FIG.10: Arata Isozaki, Qatar National Convention Centre, Ar-Rayyan, 2011

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.8: (ABOVE) Eno Henze, Red Ambush, Amsterdam, 2008

FIG.9: (RIGHT) Nervous System & New Balance, 3D-Printed Midsoles, Massachusetts, 2015

10. Sean Ahlquist & Achim Menges, ‘Introduction’ in Computational Design Thinking (John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2011) 11. Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’ in Architectural Design, 83, 3, p. 10. 12. Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures (John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2010), p. 8. 13. Robert Wilson & Frank Keil (eds), ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’’ in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MIT Press: London), p. 11. 14. Eno Henze, Red Ambush (Amsterdam, 2008), <http:// enohenze.de/ambush/> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. 15. Arata Isozaki, Qatar National Convetion Centre (Ar-Rayyan, 2011), <http://www.qncc.qa/about-qncc> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. 16. Nervous System & New Balance, 3D-Printed Midsoles (Massachusetts, 2015), <https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/06/new-balance-nervous-system3d-printed-personalised-soles-trainers-footwear/> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. CONCEPTUALISATION

CONCLUSION The evolving capabilities of computational design has resulted in a removal of limitations. It has, and continues to, set free both the physical possibilities of design and the strategies of problem solving. This has initiated a cultural shift for the role of designers. Rather than being reliant on and even inhibited by computers, architects must embrace them and exploit their powers. Having access to these possibilities means that there is no excuse for designers to not aim for the rehabilitation of nature, through their works. The design process must now, more than ever before, include an awareness of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surroundings and must conscientiously evoke remedial human-architecture-nature interactions. Given this significant resource, we have the ability to think smarter than any preceding generation. In accordance with the responsibility of which Fry charged us,17 now is the time to act.

FIG.11: Foster & Partners, Great Court at the British Museum, London, 2000

17. Fry, p. 16. 18. Foster & Partners, Great Court at the British Museum (London, 2000), <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/greatcourt-at-the-british-museum/> [accessed on 17/3/2017]. 14

CONCEPTUALISATION

LEARNING OUTCOMES Since commencing Studio Air, I have become further informed of the theories and practises surrounding computation as a resource. Engaging with this concept opens up infinite possibilities for designing and problem solving. My original standpoint that utilising thinking algorithmically would inhibit creativity has already been disproven. If I were to undertake the Sleeping Pod project again (Figure 12), I am certain my approach and the result would be vastly improved. These innovative processes will enhance my understanding by thinking via relationships and viewing a design as a whole entity. Further, they will adapt the efficiency of my workflow, as previously trialling various iterations would constitute elongated processes of alteration. I intend to undertake future design problems, inspried and influenced by a synthesis of the methods investigated throughout Part A.

FIG.12: Sarah FearnWannan, Sleeping Pod, UoM Digital Design and Fabrication, Melbourne, 2016

CONCEPTUALISATION

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

These sketches represent my initial findings using Grasshopper. My investigations thus far are centred around the function of easily altering the form via use of a slider. I am enjoying the lively characteristics which the models adopt as they are updated. I have found setting an attractor point to be a dynamic element.

FIG.13: Sarah FearnWannan, Algorithmic Sketches, 2017

My goal for the next few weeks is to improve my understanding of the logic behind various components. CONCEPTUALISATION

PART A REFERENCES

Ahlquist, S., & Menges, A., ‘Introduction’ in Computational Design Thinking (John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2011) Ball-Nogues Studio, Euphony (Nashville, 2013), <http://www.ball-nogues. com/#project-167> [accessed 14/3/2017]. Burry, M., Scripting Cultures (John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2010), p. 8. Dunne, A., & Raby, F., Speculate Everythinng: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press, 2013) p. 3-16. Eames, C., & Eames, R., Case Study House 8 (Los Angeles, 1949), <http://www.eamesoffice.com/the-work/eameshouse-case-study-house-8/> [accessed 8/3/2017]. Foster & Partners, Great Court at the British Museum (London, 2000), <http://www.fosterandpartners. com/projects/great-court-at-the-britishmuseum/> [accessed on 17/3/2017]. Fry, T., Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics And New Practise (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p. 3. Henze, E., Red Ambush (Amsterdam, 2008), <http:// enohenze.de/ambush/> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. Isozaki, A., Qatar National Convetion Centre (Ar-Rayyan, 2011), <http://www.qncc.qa/ about-qncc> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. Kim, S., & Oh, S., Sustainable Skyscraper Enclosure, (South Korea, 2016), <http://www. evolo.us/competition/sustainable-skyscraperenclosure/> [accessed 14/3/2017]. Lessig, L., The Zones of Cyberspace, Standford Law Review, 48 (1996), p. 1410.

CONCEPTUALISATION

Menges, A., ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion (Stuttgart University, 2010), <http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=4443> [accessed 7/3/2017]. Nervous System & New Balance, 3D-Printed Midsoles (Massachusetts, 2015), <https://www. dezeen.com/2015/12/06/new-balance-nervoussystem-3d-printed-personalised-soles-trainersfootwear/> [accessed on 16/3/2017]. Oxman, R., & Oxman, R., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 14. Peters, B., ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’ in Architectural Design, 83, 3, p. 10. Wilson, R., & Keil, F., (eds), ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’’ in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MIT Press: London), p. 11.

CONCEPTUALISATION

CRITERIA DESIGN

PART B:

CRITERIA DESIGN FIG.14: Tyson Hosmer, Michael Dossier, Thiago Mundim & Ryan Szanyi, Fabware Study, London, 2008

CRITERIA DESIGN

BIOMIMICRY Biomimicry is a design approach where the objective is to emulate or be inspired by naturallyoccurring patterns. Such patterns are the focus of this generative process as they are already proven strategies which may offer the key to a sustainable future through design. By mimicking these organic occurances, the most efficient and successful solutions may be discovered. It involves the exploration of formation rules found in nature1 and represents an architectural transfer of biological principles.2 A resulting implication is that biomimicry requires research into a source of inspiration and analysis of biological structures.3 It is integral that the designer “focusses on the logic that binds the design together”.4 Therefore, biomimicry calls for a “growth algorithm”, as was in the Fallen Star project.5 Moreover, biomorphism involves anisotropy where “cells are arranged according to mechanical stresses”,6 and where form is influenced by structural performance.7 This would result in an “organic bone-like distribution” whilst ensuring efficient material use.8

FIG.15: United Visual Artists, Canopy, Toronto, 2010

1. Sucker Punch, ‘Fallen Star @ AA DLAB Visiting School’, (London, 2012), < http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2012/08/16/ fallen-star-aa-dlab/> [accessed on 23/3/2017]. 2. Amy Frearson, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’ on Dezeen, (Stuttgart, 2011), < https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditkeresearch-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/> [accessed on 23/3/2017]. 3. Frearson, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’. 4. Robert Woodbury, ‘How Designers Use Parameters’ in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 153. 5. Sucker Punch, ‘Fallen Star @ AA DLAB Visiting School’. 6. Frearson, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’. 7. Hunter, ‘Vertebrae Staircase - Andrew Lee McConnell’, on Biometric Architecture, (Concept design, 2013) < http://www.biomimetic-architecture.com/2013/ vertebrae-staircase-andrew-lee-mcconnell/> [accessed on 24/3/2017]. 8. Ehsaan, ‘Biomimicry Shoe by Marieka Ratsma Kostika Spaho’ on Biometric Architecture, (Concept design, 2012) < http://www. biomimetic-architecture.com/2012/biomimicry-shoe-by-mariekaratsma-kostika-spaho/> [accessed on 24/3/2017]. 9. Woodbury, p. 159. 10. Frearson, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’. 11. Think Parametric, ‘Canopy by United Visual Artists’ in Design Playgrounds, (Toronto, 2010), < http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/ canopy-by-by-united-visual-artists/> [accessed on 24/3/2017].

CRITERIA DESIGN

A major opportunity for designing in this manner is that an outcome will be contextually responsive, both in its setting and within the design itself. Further, by working from a direct source of inspiration, the opportunity for the abstraction of ideas and concepts is entirely feasible. A source is “used as a base from which to generate many alternatives”, meaning there are endless possibilities as to how a general concept can be realized.9 The related fabrication concerns revolve mainly around irregularity of the cells. Whilst the overall patterns are logical, they result in pieces which are unique and individually responsive. In the ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion, cells are inconsistent sizes as they “adapt to local curvature and discontinuities”.10 This presents issues for fabrication as each piece must be constructed individually, be meticulously labelled and only assembled by people with deep knowledge of the scheme. Even in “Canopy” where modules are identical, the growth pattern is non-repetitious making it equally challenging to fabricate.11

CRITERIA DESIGN

CASE STUDY 01 CANOPY BY UNITED VISUAL ARTISTS I found this base file on the Grasshopper website in a thread about CANOPY. The creator of it identified that this project appears to be based on the “Tatami Cairo Diagrid”.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Rows: 8

Columns: 2

Rows: 1

Columns: 1

Numeric Domain Start & End: 0.01 & 0.5 8. 2.

Rows: 5

Rows: 1 Columns: 5 Columns: 2 Numeric Domain Start & End: -0.397 & 0.5 Numeric Domain Start & End: 0.01 & 0.5 9.

Expression to Evaluate: 3*x

10.

Numeric Domain Start & End: -0.5

Expression to Evaluate: 3*x 3.

Rows: 2

Columns: 2 Expression to Evaluate: 2*x Numeric Domain Start & End: 0.5

New curve and surface 4. Alter curve 5.

Rows: 20

Columns: 20

Numeric Domain Start & End: 0.331 & -0.382

Expression to Evaluate: 2*x 6.

Rows: 5

Columns: 5

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPANISH PAVILION BY FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHITECTS

CRITERIA DESIGN

Internal Points X: 0.2, 0.4, 0.0, 0.2

Add Extrude component Undefined Z Unit

Internal Points Y: -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 7.

Z Unit Factor: 5

Series Horizontal & Vertical Arrays: 5 & 8 8.

Internal Points X: 0.2, 0.4, 0.0, 0.2

Hexgrid Extent X & Y Cells: 3 & 2 Internal Points Y: 0.2, 0.4, 0.0, 0.2 Series Step: -1 Series Step: 2 Point Number Panel: 0033

Hexgrid Extent X & Y Cells: 2 & 2

10.

Offset: 1

11.

Add Cap component

Internal Points X: 0.6, -0.6, -0.6, -0.6

Internal Points Y: 0.6, -0.3, 0.6, 0.6

Series Step: -2

12.

Replace Cap with Cone component

13.

Change Hexgrid to Squaregrid component Offset: 0.5

14.

Point Number Panel: 1100

15.

Revert to Hexgrid component

Series Step: 3

Series Horizontal & Vertical Arrays: 4

Hexgrid Extent X & Y Cells: 8 & 5

Series Step: 1

Internal Points X: 1, 1, 1, 1

Internal Points Y: 1, 1, 1, 1 Hexgrid Extent X & Y Cells: 1 & 1

CRITERIA DESIGN

VOLTADOM BY SKYLAR TIBBITS

CRITERIA DESIGN

Count: 10

Radius: 0.5

Seed: 3

Height: 15

2nd Number: 0.75

Count: 12

Radius: 0.75

Seed: 5

Height: 0.8

2nd Number: 1.5

Count: 18

Radius: 2

Seed: 3

Height: 3

2nd Number: 2.75 6.

V Minimum: 0.1 Count: 30

Radius: 1.2 Seed: 20 Height: 1.2 2nd Number: 0.75 3.

Count: 6 Radius: 0.75 Seed: 3 Height: 0.8 2nd Number: 0.75 V Minimum & Maximum: 0.1 & 1 Radius: 3 7.

Count: 30 Seed: 20

Height: 0.8 2nd Number: 10 4.

Count: 18 Radius: 2 Seed: 3 Height: 0.8 2nd Number: 0.75 V Minimum & Maximum: 0.1 & 2 CRITERIA DESIGN

DRIFTWOOD PAVILION BY AA UNIT 2

CRITERIA DESIGN

Series Step: 0.15 6.

Series Step: 0.15

Series Count: 30 Series Count: 16 Vector Factor: -3.25 Vector Factor: 0.206

Series Step: 0.6

Series Count: 30

Vector Factor: -3.25

Series Step: 0.6

Series Count: 30

Vector Factor: 3

Series Step: 0.1

Series Count: 30

Vector Factor: 7.37

Series Step: 0.15

Series Count: 30

Vector Factor: 5.25

Replace Z axis with X axis

CRITERIA DESIGN

SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS & SELECTION CRITERIA CANOPY: 3 With this iteration as two-dimensional linework, it presents many opportunities as to how to develop it into a three-dimensional, developable installation. The effect of the pattern catches my attention through a sense of movement, with connotations of a feathered wing. It supports the notion of biomimicry at this stage, through a gesture rather than actual structure but this could be explored.

SPANISH PAVILION: 6 Extruding the two-dimensional linework was a move in the right direction in pursuing the base pattern of the pavilion. I can envisage how this iteration could be fabricated and I believe it would create an interesting ceiling installation. The regularity of the pattern is visually pleasing but not incredibly attention-capturing and this regularity is what makes it inorganic in appearance. It is important for my design to emulate naturally occurring patterns.

SPANISH PAVILION: 10 This iteration is selected because it appears to be an advance on what the previous one is lacking. The improvement is that it can now be interpreted as biomimicry which is important. Whilst each cell conforms to a distinct pattern, the obscure shapes cause the overall appearance to be far more natural. However, the next challenge for this iteration would be to manipulate the form into being able to clearly respond to the space and engage with inhabitants. SPANISH PAVILION: 14 I believe this iteration has potential as a ceiling installation. With pods of the cells becoming separated into a formal grid, this provides opportunity to more easily investigate and fabricate variations in depth. This is important for a seven metre ceiling. The pattern overall has a very rigid layout but this is softened by the floral connotations of the cells within the pods.

CRITERIA DESIGN

CASE STUDY 02 The Centre For Ideas by Minifie van Schaik Architects was completed in 2001.12 It is part of the Victorian College of the Arts and is located in Southbank, Victoria. The facade was designed via a generative process, using an algorithm for voronoi tessellation. An impression of movement is conveyed through this pattern, which attempts to deliver the design intent of connecting the virtual to the actual. This is bolstered by its materiality and the apparent absence of completion. The facade is intentionally left in this state of incompleteness to highlight a dynamic sense of “becoming”, symbolic of the growth which may occur within the building. In terms of whether it is successful, the phylosophical theme could have been accentuated through a more jarring form. The architects claim thay the facade “stops short of a convensional tectonic” but I believe that it is still easily viewed within the realm of convension. The form could have taken a far more dramatic and unreadable shape, to become something that holds mystery as to how it performs the function within. 12. Minifie van Schail Architects, ‘Centre For Ideas’, (Melbourne, 2001), < http://www.mvsarchitects.com.au/doku.php?id=home:projects:victorian_ college_of_the_arts> [accessed on 4/4/2017].

FIG.16: Minifie van Schail Architects, Centre For Ideas, Melbourne, 2001

CRITERIA DESIGN

REVERSE ENGINEERING: CENTRE FOR IDEAS

1. Circles around points with size depending on distance to attractor point.

2. Offset circle with reliance on attractor point and move original group down.

2.1. Attempt at lofting, without circles paired.

3.1. Lines between points, without points paired.

3.2. Loft creating unintended result.

4. Populate geometries with points to draw lines between. Lofts to be straight.

3. Loft circles in pairs.

5. Voronoi added, attempted to trim lofts to fit cells. Central circles extruded.

CRITERIA DESIGN

DESIGNED USING PARAMTETRIC TOOLS

1. Populate rectangle with points and draw circles around them.

2. Add attractor point to influence size of circles depending on distance from it.

3. Offset circles and determine size via attractor point and move inner circle downwards.

6. Loft between lines with options set to “closed loft” and “straight”.

7. Add 2D voronoi cells, intended to act as the boundaries between circular “panels”.

8. Apply some sort of trim of the lofts so that they are cut by the voronoi cell curves. I attempted numerous strategies and despite persistent research, unfortunately could not find a component or method to achieve the desired result.

CRITERIA DESIGN

4. Populate geometries of both sets of circles. Match the corresponding points via grafting.

5. Join point pairs with lines.

9. Theoretically loft voronoi curved to the outer circles, using a slightly lower number of points on the geometries to locate lines between.

10. Extrude inner circle on the z-axis.

CRITERIA DESIGN

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT ALTER SLIDERS

ADD UPPER LOFT

CRITERIA DESIGN

SINGLE VORONOI, ADD ROTATE

ALTER ATTRACTOR POINT/CURVE

REPLACE VORONOI WITH HEXGRID

ALTER BOUNDARY & POPULATE 3D

CRITERIA DESIGN

SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS & SELECTION CRITERIA

This iteration remains quite similar to the original project. The interest for me in this is the variation of sizes in all directions. I set both the voronoi and the extrusions to respond to the same attractor point. This has been successful in conveying a layered effect. I believe this would be important in the context of the seven meter ceiling as it is integral that the installation above engages with the space below and the people in it. It would be interesting if this were to behave in response to the areas that people congragate within the room.

Focussing on a single voronoi, this form hints at a sort of pendant which could perhaps be freely hanging or could have the wider end attached to a frame of sorts. The form suggests connection to natural elements and appears as though it could move or unfold in the same way that a flower responds to sunlight. Perhaps movement could be incorporated in the design. Again, the length of this could be the point of variation. The loft is selected to be straight so as to be compatable with a rigid material.

9. Seed: 50

27. Seed: 30.349

Count: 9

Count: 1

Extrusion multiplier: 0.3

Rotate degrees: 200

Divide point count: 5

Divide point count: 10

CRITERIA DESIGN

These pods demonstrate the significant of an attractor point, in that each form is recognised as being the same species yet each is vastly different in its proportions. Further, they hint at a floral theme which I consider to be beneficial to the overall installation. I especially am interested in the idea of inhabitants looking up and seeing a constructed interpretation of a natural phenomenon, such as a field of wildflowers. Further, I think that this idea would have greater significance if the design was more than something to just be â&#x20AC;&#x153;noticedâ&#x20AC;?. It should truly contribute to the atmosphere of the space where people within can appreciate the relevance it has there.

Based on a hexigonal grid, when comparing to nature, this could be likened to a honeycomb which is the same asset as the previous floral appearance. This iteration is distinguished from the others as the extrusions are of varying levels. This is a characteristic which I can understand as a strategy for engaging with the space below.

37. Seed: 10

52. Set boundary box, populate 3D and create 3D voronoi.

Count: 5

Polygon multiplier: 0.298

Replace attractor curve to verical line through centre.

Extrusion multiplier: -1

Points on attractor curve: 3

Points on line: 5

CRITERIA DESIGN

BIOMIMICRY THROUGH RECURSIVE AGGREGATION To continue this studio, I became part of a group where we had each focussed our interests on biomimicry. In pursuing a concept which pushes past our current level of understanding, we started researching recursive aggregation. In particular, this requires the Anemone plug-in for Grasshopper. We are interested in this area because rather than replicating a specific natural detail, such as the form of a cell, it expresses a natural process and even behaviour. Recursive aggregation is based on the L-system which replicates organic patterns of growth. Therefore, the essense of our design will be instrinsically linked to emulating nature, in the core of its being. Firstly, we searched for examples of this in the natural world. Key findings included the stereotypical tree, species of corals and the antlers of elk/ similar mammals. Then we turned our attention to how we could fabricate such an entity.

FIG.17: Alisa Andrasek & Jose Sanchez, The Bloom Game, London, 2012

CRITERIA DESIGN

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES MATERIALITY In selecting the materiality, it seemed that the choice was quite clear-cut. A rigid, self-supporting material would suit the biomimicry field as it would provide the ability to design structural cells or a strong skeletal frame. As a group, we discussed some options and settled on the use of timber. This is because this natural product ties in with the intrinsic notion of a design which feels natural and is not outwardly man-made. We considered timber veneer but concluded that it is not rigid enough to be a supporting structure. We assembled prototypes using both plywood (3mm) and balsawood (2mm and 3mm). Having built some small sections of various iterations, material performance was evaluated. Choosing a specific timber to continue with would require large-scale testing and would depend on the requirements of the final design.

13. Tyson Hosmer, Michael Dossier, Thiago Mundim & Ryan Szanyi, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Fabwareâ&#x20AC;? on Biothing , (London, 2008), <http://www. biothing.org/?cat=15> [accessed on 24/4/2017]. 14. Alisa Andrasek & Jose Sanchez, The Bloom Game, (London, 2012), < http://www.bloom-thegame.com/main/> [accessed on 24/3/2017].

CRITERIA DESIGN

STRENGTH

FLEXIBILITY

LIGHTWEIGHT

PLYWOOD 3MM

GOOD

POOR

BALSAWOOD 2MM

POOR

GOOD

EXCELLENT

BALSAWOOD 3MM

POOR

GOOD

We are retaining the potential to introduce additional materials if we are to combine a different elements into the current skeletal form. Our thoughts on this include a type of lightweight fabric or floaty mesh, and perhaps use of string or rope. This secondary material could bare no load and be present solely to enforce a particular design atmospheric intention, whatever that is decided to be.

CONNECTIONS

FIG.18: Prototype Exploded, 2017

As we are thinking about a rigid structure, the most obvious choice for us at this stage is to utilise a frictionhold slotting system. The effect of this is that only one material is required, hence resulting in a stronger, more pure gesture. This was inspired by the striking result of the 2008 Fabware Study.13 To allow for the eventual large-scale structure, it is probable that some glue will be involved in reinforcing these joints. However, this is a solution which suits our current design ideas. Therefore, much of the practicalities are still being explored. The Bloom Game14 is a relevant precedent which demonstrates an alternative strategy for connecting the repeating modules. As well as adopting a friction hold, it appears that they placed a rod through an opening on each piece; depending on how that part of the structure fits together. The rod guides the positioning of the modules and creates a sectioning effect. Speculating further, perhaps there is no requirement for a connection system to exist between the modules themselves. Maybe an interesting effect would occur if we hang each element from the ceiling itself. This would allow the elements to be extremely lightweight, therfore they could pysically respond to activity within the room as they would lightly swing around due to air movement. Such an effect could reflect trees swaying in the wind. CRITERIA DESIGN

PROTOTYPES The three models that we produced were a study into how a base module effects the broader appearance of the form. Even with a limited number of modules, we can see how the positioning of connections and the introduction of flowing or tight curves create contrasting visual pieces. This was beneficial to us because in the Grasshopper definition so far, we have only known how to work two-dimensionally using just lines. This allows us to see the structure of the overall form but denies us of considering the organic feeling comprised of the materiality and the geometries of the base elements. Through this process, we were able to refine the technicalities of the friction hold connections. Additionally, we have been informed as to what kind of base geometry is most successful in achieving an organic appearance. Consequently, it may be important to retain the curvature seen in Figures 19 and 21.

FIG.19: Concave Triangular Module (plywood), Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.20: Trapezoidal Module (balsawood 2mm), Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.21: (FAR RIGHT) Curved Module (balsawood 3mm), Photo by Nick Boer, 2017 46

CRITERIA DESIGN

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL Our design intent is primarily to emulate naturally occurring patterns and to respond to the space. In consideration of this, the key element of biomimicry is the L-system which “grows” in the same sequence that a tree or coral does through splitting and branching. Our proposal responds specifically to this room, through the behaviour of the growth pattern. The system provides a sense of “beginning” where the loop (and experience of the room) starts; the main points of entry. There is a gesture to the central areas and some suggestion of orientation towards the stage. We plan two sections of branching which allow the sliding door to function, and mean that the effect of the installation remains even when the space is divided. The two would be unique but similar and should respond to each other.

An issue thus far is that we have not been able to work with the Grasshopper definition threedimensionally. This limits our ability to really design this installation, as we intend for it to have presence as a volume via parametric control of a base module. An idea that has intrigued us is combining our system with another technique such as sectioning. This could be executed in such a way that our current proposal remains as a semi two-dimensional frame, attached to the ceiling. We are considering adding a secondary material such as hanging ropes, shear fabric or rigid pods to assist in vertically engaging with the space through depth variations. The incorporation of such would impose new aesthetic opportunities but material selection is critical, as the mood created by some products would not be desirable in a ballroom.

FIG.22: (BELOW) Form Development in Anemone Plugin, 2017

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.23: Spatial Concept in Plan, 2017

CRITERIA DESIGN

LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES So far in Studio Air, my understanding of algorithmic design has exponentially increased (given my lack of experience). I have found it interesting and have been pleasantly surprised at my new ability to not only create iterations, but to some extent actually understand how it works. I have been able to make use of this in generating numerous versions to assist in working towards a cohesive (but not yet resolved!) idea. This process has been beneficial in considering the brief, as normally a minimal alteration in a concept would be time-consuming to re-record. In Grasshopper, a new idea for the brief can mean a quick update. Our group has been working cohesively and equally. Rather than allocating one person the work with the definition, we have been working collaboratively, to each improve our knowledge. We are all bringing our own understandings and ideas of what the installation should be.

FIG.24: Sarah FearnWannan, Algorithmic Sketches, 2017

CRITERIA DESIGN

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES Over the past few weeks I have grasped an improved understanding of using grasshopper. The area which I intend to focus my growth on is again, understanding the logic behind the scripts. These sketchtasks demonstrate the sort of responsive movement that I am interested in pursuing but at this point have only speculated about.

CRITERIA DESIGN

PART B REFERENCES

Andresek, A., & Sanchez, J., 2012. The Bloom Game, (London) < http://www.bloom-thegame. com/main/> [accessed on 24/4/2017].

Sucker Punch, 2012. ‘Fallen Star @ AA DLAB Visiting School’, (London), < http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2012/08/16/ fallen-star-aa-dlab/> [accessed on 23/3/2017].

Architectural Association Unit 2, 2009. AA Summer Paviilion - Driftwood, (London).

Think Parametric, 2010. ‘Canopy by United Visual Artists’ in Design Playgrounds, (Toronto), < http:// designplaygrounds.com/deviants/canopy-by-byunited-visual-artists/> [accessed on 24/3/2017].

Ehsaan, 2012. ‘Biomimicry Shoe by Marieka Ratsma Kostika Spaho’ on Biometric Architecture, (Concept design) < http:// www.biomimetic-architecture.com/2012/biomimicry-shoe-bymarieka-ratsma-kostika-spaho/> [accessed on 24/3/2017]. Foreign Office Architects, 2005. Spanish Pavilion, (Aichi, Japan). Frearson, A., 2011. ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart’ on Dezeen, (Stuttgart), < https:// www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-atthe-university-of-stuttgart/> [accessed on 23/3/2017]. Hosmer, T., Dossier. M., Mundim, T., & Szanyi, R., 2008. “Fabware” on Biothing, (London), < http://www. biothing.org/?cat=15> [accessed on 24/4/2017]. Hunter, 2013.‘Vertebrae Staircase - Andrew Lee McConnell’, on Biometric Architecture, (Concept design) < http://www. biomimetic-architecture.com/2013/vertebrae-staircaseandrew-lee-mcconnell/> [accessed on 24/3/2017]. Minifie van Schail Architects, 2001. Centre For Ideas’ (Melbourne), < http://www.mvsarchitects. com.au/doku.php?id=home:projects:victorian_ college_of_the_arts> [accessed on 4/4/2017].

CRITERIA DESIGN

Tibbits, S., 2011. VoltaDom, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Woodbury, R., 2014. ‘How Designers Use Parameters’ in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (London; New York: Routledge), p. 153.

CRITERIA DESIGN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PART C:

DETAILED DESIGN

FIG.25: David Tipling Photography, Starlings Sturnus, Scotland, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

DESIGN CONCEPT PART B REFLECTION Our study so far has centred on a study into L-systems which was primarily restricted by limitations in using the Anemone plugin. We were only able to work in two-dimensional linework, so our previous proposal was focussed on an overall concept. Possibly due to the absence of specifics in that presentation, the issue arose that we need to identify a natural system to actually mimic. This initiated a revisitation of biomimicry. We concluded that we are more interested in organic processes and behaviours rather than distinct entities. A second recommendation was to relate to the context better. We had attempted to address this as a design intention, but had focussed on supporting circulation through the ballroom. The advice given suggested creating links with the furniture, but we determined there to be too many tables to play with density effectively. We considered alternative ways of connecting with the space such as prioritising a sense of movement and by somehow allowing the inhabitants to feel motivated to engage with and explore the design, dictated by their view of it from different points in the ballroom. This could be achieved through establishing an â&#x20AC;&#x153;epicentreâ&#x20AC;? of the installation with a sweeping motion. The final important feedback regarded designing the base module. Upon deliberating over what overall effect we desired, we agreed to restrict the pieces to just one consistent size and shape throughout the system, so as to emphasise the purity of the recursive gesture. A form of gradiation which we are interested in implementing concerns colour and light instead. Further, selection criteria of the base shape will be truly focussed on evoking a flowing, natural form. Luckily for us, the new Fox plugin was released soon after the Part B presentation, so we began realising our concept as a volume.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.26: (FAR LEFT) Laser Cut Modules Sheet, Photo by Sarah Fearn-Wannan, 2017

FIG.27: (LEFT) Pseudocode Diagram For Fox Definition, 2017

FIG.28: (BELOW) Fabrication Workflow Diagram, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

DIRECTION Following the Part B presentation, we felt that it would be helpful to revisit our sources of inspiration to establish a collective understanding of our design intentions. A prominent focus of ours is biomimicry, therefore our aim is to convey naturally occuring patterns through the design. Rather than mimicking a specific entity, we have decided to emulate an overall process, such as those observed in flocks of birds and similar behavioural systems. We believe that this is a justified approach for more than just our design, in that it would deeply contribute to the wider atmosphere in the ballroom. Biophillic design is something important to consider here because the introduction of natural elements can improve moods and be relaxing, which are desirable traits for people experiencing a ballroom. Following from this, our objective is to create a dynamic installation that evokes a sense of movement (rather than one that is visually static). To be further directed by biomimicry, we began looking at instances of organic circular motion such as wind patterns and wave formation. We soon agreed that this idea was too far removed from the context. We hoped for our design to genuinely feel “right” in the ballroom, so we jumped back a step. We decided to look back at our original precedent project “Bloom”1 so as to review what our first exposure to recursive aggregation involved. It was clear that the underlying aesthetic intents of our project and this precedent are somewhat opposing. Bloom has a mechanical appearance that is quite jarring in its interference of the natural context. Whilst we are attempting to bring nature inside, we realised that it would be beneficial for us to better link our design to the room itself. We have addressed this by considering a more abstract precedent and source of inspiration. The sense of movement we hope for can be derived from the way that clothes spin and float when people dance. We will continue to explore this idea via working towards a twisting, spiralling overall form.

1. Alisa Andrasek & Jose Sanchez, The Bloom Game, (London, 2012), < http://www.bloom-thegame.com/main/> [accessed on 24/3/2017].

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.29: Rachel Neville Photography, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES The Fox plugin relies on two significant inputs; a polyline tile and a surface for the overall form. We discovered early on that minor alterations in either of these would trigger noticeable change in the whole design. This became an important area to investigate and we did so by assessing the impact of various positionings of notches, their depths, and by analysing the effect of distorting the base shape. Aligned with our original design intent, it was the sinuous, sweeping shapes which attracted our interest. They convey more of a sense of movement than their angular counterparts, which is our priority. Moreover, we found it essential that the base module would seem to flow in one direction rather than appearing as a chaotic mess. We continued trialling the base shape â&#x20AC;&#x153;speciesâ&#x20AC;? that best expressed a cohesive, organic quality. Concurrently, we explored possibilities for the overall form. We tasked ourselves with creating a surface which would both convey a sense of movement in itself, as well as allow for the base module within it to aggregate in a cohesive, fluid way (see figure 34).

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.30: Prototype with near-orthogonal notches, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.31: Prototype with tighter-angled notches, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.32: (LEFT) Base Shape Iterations, 2017

FIG.33: (RIGHT) Base Shape Development, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FORM DEVELOPMENT FIG.34: Form Development, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

TECTONIC SYSTEM In terms of connections, we intend to pursue the previously decided friction-hold slotting system with reinforcing glue. This is integral to the design as we require the junctions between modules to be clean and sleek so as not to interupt the visual effect of the flowing form. Technically, it has been necessary for us to produce prototypes to understand the widths required for the notches, taking into account not just the material thickness but also the width of the laser, to produce a zero-tolerance fit. The whole installation will be hung from the ceiling by use of hooks/loops and discreet structural ties. Such ties will be looped through cut-outs in the final base shape (figure 35). Only a small area will be removed, so as to retain suitable material strength. These negative spaces assist in establishing a more visually intricate structure, thereby contributing to the effect of mass aggregation. Favourably, they further link to biomimicry by appearing skeletal. With regards to materiality, we have progressed past the point of utilising an exposed timber product. A timber finish would incite a specifically raw and rustic mood, which we assume is unsuitable for this sophisticated space. We intend to incorporate meaningful colour to counteract this. Therefore we would require a smooth, consistent surface to be able to paint onto. However, our chosen contruction element must be rigid (as discussed in Part B). The most feasible option for us at this point would be to laser cut our pieces from acrylic/perspex sheets.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.35: (BELOW LEFT) Base Module Refinement, 2017

FIG.36: (BELOW) Frictionhold connection, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

MATERIAL TREATMENT As explained earlier, we made the decision to create variation across the installation not by scale, but by colour. Our intention was to emphasise the established “epi-centre” through utilising a gradient which would intensify at the origin and fade away at the extremities. Initially we thought about reinforcing the organic foundations of the design through choosing a palette representative of autumn leaves or a sunset. Again, we decided this would produce an unrefined reference. Instead, we saw colour as a chance to link to the context. We considered a scheme based on connotations of colour, for example purple traditionally represents royalty. But, we needed to avoid such bold hues as we didn’t want to invade the space, as the Bloom Project had. We have selected a gold-silver-white gradient as a way of grounding the design to this context, by tapping into the sophisticated elegance of the space. We envisage this theme to be discreet enough that the installation will contribute to the character of the room, but not become a superficial point of interest.

FIG.37: Colour Selection, 2017

FIG.38: (FAR RIGHT) Plan, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL The form which we created is made up of five identical branching masses, orientated around the epi-centre. We believe this outcome is successful in terms of it being a dynamic structure which conveys a strong sense of movement, both on the small scale (the modules within) and as an entire aggregation. Despite suggesting in Part B that we would produce a form for each side of the sliding partition, we concluded that it would make far more of an impact if we were to locate just one centralised form. We were passionate that the aggregation should be visually unique from each angle and that it would draw people in to wanting to observe the inner focal point by being able to peer up and into it. This experience is made special when it is a one-off.

Moreover, it is important to make mention of the orientations of the branch masses. As seen in the section (figure 39), they are not all resting on the x-y-plane. The flowing gesture is apparent in all directions, allowing the aggregation to variate not solely through density, but also in depth. This was something which I originally viewed to be essential, back in the selection criteria for iterations in Part B. It has weighed heavily on our more recent decisions. Finally, the culmination of all these considerations seems to effectively lead back to a strong expression of biomimicry. This is evident in the methodical process from which the branches have emerged and â&#x20AC;&#x153;grownâ&#x20AC;?. Furthermore, a sense of the organic is unmistakable in the flowing, sweeping, sinuous emobdiment of our installation.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.39: Section, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.40: Perspective Render, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FINAL DETAIL MODEL We produced two final models of the design, both lifesize and at a scale of one-to-five. This was important given the nature of the repeating idential modules, so the life-size pieces can be correctly interpreted in terms of their real size. We did encounter a last-minute problem where our only option was to cut two millimetre perspex, instead of the required thickness as per our confirmed dimensions. We overcame this by layering the thinner sheets together to achieve the correct thickness. Consequently, this model is not totally true to our design, but in all other ways the finish is accurate. The scale model at one-to-five is integral as by such small construction, we are able to convey the sense of movement that the overall form successfully expresses. We chose this size predominantly because it allowed the model to be of a substantial size, whilst allowing us to build just one of the five â&#x20AC;&#x153;branch massesâ&#x20AC;?. In this model, we were restricted in our resources so we only applied the cut-outs for some of the pieces. In reality, we intend for every module to be identical to the piece we developed (shown in figure 35). The construction method we used for this is consistent with what we would propose for the real installation. Since each piece is identical and the five branch masses are repeated, it is relatively simple to follow along on the digital file to accurately locate and orientate the pieces. As they are added to the model, they can be marked off. We are especially pleased with the result of the final one-to-five scale model. It is effective in communicating our design as it clearly resembles it and because it manages to express the qualities which we constantly aimed to achieve.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.41: 1:1 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.42: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017 74

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.43: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.44: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.45: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

FIG.46: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017 PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.47: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

2. Finn Warnock, Personal Communication, Melbourne, 2017. 3. Finn Warnock, Personal Communication, Melbourne, 2017.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES PART C REFLECTION

STUDIO OBJECTIVES

Our final presentation went well and we were happy that we were able to convey an accurate story of how we arrived at our final design. A reassuring comment that we recieved was “it fits the brief and looks interesting”2 so, put simply, we felt that we had achieved what any studio inherently calls for.

1. Throughout the semester I have actively engaged with the brief and worked under its direction. This is displayed via the progression in this journal.

One cause for concern was that our design looks too similar to other precedents. However, “due to the nature of recursive aggregation, it is difficult to move away from these”.3 A suggestion for further development was to design the modules three-dimensionally using a slump former. This would be an interesting path for future exploration because all of the module development we produced was done within the realm of what could be laser cut. Without that limitation, there would surely be a multitude of untapped potential. Despite this, we are satisfied with our flat module because it reflects our aim of creating a sense of flow along one course. Although the brief was to design a ceiling installation, we were provided with some extra ideas to assist in really connecting our product to the ballroom. It was an interesting thought to reflect the form with its mesh outline in the carpet pattern. Further, a panel member who had played with the Fox plugin suggested that we could investigate the “Isosurface” definition as a way of building the form onto the columns. This would be compelling to experiment with as it would probably accentuate the current sense of growth, and even induce a new feeling of encroachment from the ceiling into the useable space. These final points are those which we would definitely incorporate for if we were to install our product into the ballroom. We would reconsider the colour palette, as the same effect could be delivered with any gradient of a metallic hue, to white. For example, the centre could be painted brass, rose gold, or even a dark silver. Ideally it would compliment the permanent finishings of the ballroom. Lastly, the use of lighting is something we had previously discussed but didn’t formally conclude. We envisage a strong light directed down the centre of the form, with a ring of fainter ones around it, angled towards the extremities.

2. Generating a large pool of possibilities was a focus during Part B. I consciously developed unresolved ideas and gestures that had capacity for further exploration. 3. The subject stipulates that we undertake the learning of digital design techniques. I had no prior experience in using Grasshopper, so am immensely satisfied with my new understanding and application of parametric modelling. 4. It has been vital to consider how our physical installation would exist in the space given. We demonstrated our understanding of this by designing a sound tectonic solution, allowing the mass to hang in air. 5. We have had the ability to justify our proposals at various points along the semester because our decisions have been well informed and rationalised. 6. An integral component of being informed was to critically analyse precedents. I have addressed this approach in relation to the Bloom Project, among others. 7. I have attempted to push myself and extend my knowledge of computational geometry, data structures and programming by pursuing a stream of study which seemed largely unchartered. The use of both the Anemone and Fox plugins were initially difficult for me and demanded full immersion into comprehending the logic governing them. 8. Overall, my appreciation for the role of computational techniques in design has absolutely expanded. Whilst I would still classify myself as a beginner, I have gained a way of thinking which allows me to identify and resolve problems which I encounter within the programs. My level of competence is enough that I intend to continue learning Grasshopper and am inspired to apply it in my future studies.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PART C REFERENCES Andresek, A., & Sanchez, J., 2012. The Bloom Game, (London) < http://www.bloom-thegame. com/main/> [accessed on 24/4/2017]. Boer, N., 2017. Photography of Models, Melbourne. Neville, R., 2017. Photo of Dancer, <http://rachelneville.com/ portfolio/g0000omurnurbrsdw> [accessed on 18/5/2017]. Tipling, D., 2017. Starlings Sturnus, (Scotland) <http://davidtipling. photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=142&_bqH=eJwL8kODPf01y1M 9Q0M9zcpdnUt8fApzfVOyyu3MjcztjI0MABhIOkZ7xLsbJuWk5.cr QZmxzv6udiWANmhwa5B8Z4utqEgdeE5jv55ZpGhAaHJavGOz iG2xamJRckZAHzZH8A-&GI_ID=> [accessed on 22/5/2017]. Warnock, F., 2017. Personal Communication, Melbourne.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG.48: 1:5 Detail Model, Photo by Nick Boer, 2017

Thank you to Finn for his support, guidance and patience throughout my semester in Studio Air. And thanks to my group members Nick Boer and Isurie Weerasinha for being wonderful people to work with! I had a positive and entertaining time with the two of you and I am proud of what we created together. PROJECT PROPOSAL