2013 S1 Emily Tang by Studio Air

A I R

ABPL30048 ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO AIR 2013 | STUDIO 05 CHRIS GILBERT + ROSIE GUNZBERG EMILY TANG 540456

CONTENTS Introduction

PART A . Case for Innovation

PART B. Design Approach

PART C. Project Proposal

Introduction About Me

’m Emily, a third-year architecture major at the University of Melbourne. My interests outside of architecture don’t stray too far from the field - I have a keen enthusiasm for design and craft, from typography to bookbinding and ceramics.

Entering this studio, I realised my knowledge of digital design theory is relatively basic compared to my understanding of architectural history and theory from the Renaissance to Modernism. It follows that contemporary theory should add to my existing knowledge.

For me architecture is about the creation of an experience and its relationship with the people who are engaged with it whether directly or indirectly.

My introduction into digital design tools began with Rhino3D™ within which I also learnt about the plugin Panelling Tools. Since then, I have been working with more tactile mediums that align with my personal interests. On the digital front, I have predominantly been using Autocad and the Adobe Suite as representational mediums.

Throughout my studies I am finding that it is multilayered discipline that finds itself overlapping with many others adding to my appreciation of architecture. It is why I would like to be involved in a multi-disciplinary design practice: being involved from a project’s beginning to its completion, feeling the responsibility and thrill of rewards from rigourous work and attention to detail.

This time through revisiting Rhino3D™ and a new plug-in Grasshopper™. I hope to gain more confidence in these tools in order to expand and enrich my repertoire and discover an alternative process for design.

introduction

A Precursor

his first year course introduced students to parametric modelling and digital fabrication. The brief was to produce a wearable lantern based on the analysis of a dynamic process. Explorations were first conducted through different media such as clay and paper before developing designs further using Rhino3D™ and Panelling Tools. Numerous iterations were produced digitally before reaching the final outcome. My design was based upon the process of seed dispersal of dandelions. Translating this process into a design that could be worn and illuminated was challenging and demanded serious engagement. Investigating precedents such as Iwamato Scott’s Voussoir Cloud and their installations for M.A.C. gave me a better insight into digital design. Through my design’s development in Rhino3D™ I learnt how myriad

responses could be generated by making small changes in the parameters within Panelling Tools. The subject provided me with a primer of terminology (e.g. NURBS curves, nesting, developable surfaces) to add to my architectural lexicon and more of a basic understanding of digital design practice. As my first experience with the laser cutter - and digital fabrication in general - the outcome was surprisingly precise and rewarding as I was able to actually make my design by hand. From that moment I began to see the potential of digital design methods and their streamlined connection with the fabrication process. Design is a process of constant discovery. The Wyndham Gateway project will be another opportunity to build upon these experiences and plunge deeper into digital design.

introduction

Case for Innovation

Pa r t A Ca se for Innovation A .1. Architecture as Discourse

A .2. Computation in Architecture A .3. Parametric Modelling

13 18

A .4. Algorithmic Explorations A .5. Conclusion

A .6. Learning Outcomes

A .1 Architecture as Discourse

he debate and discussion over the meaning of architecture has been and remains to be a long and perplexing task. The intricacy of the issue seems to grow over time. Pevsner’s view of architecture consisting only of ‘buidings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal’1 can no longer satisfy the 21st century mind. Architecture in this age is increasingly recognised as a plurality of disciplines, guises and ideas.

Architecture as an autopoietic system2 - or more simply put, discourse proposed by Patrik Schumacher, will provide a useful basis from which we can begin exploring architectural solutions for the City of Wyndam’s Gateway Project. This theoriticisation allows architecture to depart from the conception of architecture as physical objects - buildings - to something greater: an inclusive means to view it in all its guises i.e. one that constitutes of all types of media (physical or virtual) and transcends time. Architecture is both the ends and the means responding to the desires3 and thoughts of a particular time. With a shift in contemporary culture to an

Information Age, comes new discourse that parallels with its arrival. Within architectural pedagogy, the interaction of students in architectural discourse makes for a valueable exercise as we become equipped with a capacity to tease out architecture in different directions. Transitioning from the analogue (drawing) to the digital (scripting) there is an opportunity to experiment with something unfamiliar. Through learning to work with new techniques in the Wyndham City project, experimentations and eventual outcomes become intrinsic to contributing to contemporary architectural discourse. In turn, the new Gateway will expose the wider public to experience and thus engage in forming a new discursive complex. The following precedents demonstrate how architecture acts as a dialogue between its creators, its immediate audience and the broader community it engages with over time. The engagement with innovative practice parametric design- will thus stimulate discussion in similar ways to these projects.

1.1

A.1

s d

Eladio Dieste, The Church of Jesus Christ the Worker, AtlĂĄntida, Uruguay, 1960 Both the walls and the roof are double-curved surfaces, and the intersection of these shows Diesteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mastery of construction techniques.

11. W Addis, Building: 3000 Years of Design Experience and Construction, Phaidon (London), 2007. A.1 12. For a contemporary text on graphic statics readers are referred to W Zaleweski and E Allen, Shaping Structures, John Wiley (New York), 1997.

Prece d e nts of Innovation

The Church of Christ the Worker Eladio Dieste | Atlántida | 1958

ost World War II, concrete, steel and glass became the favoured materials to express the zeitgesit of the modern movement. Engineercum-architect, Eladio Dieste belonged to this time but he went against the current of fashion. Adopting a fundamental and modest construction unit - the brick, he revolutionised the masonry vaulting system; his main innovations were casaras autoportantes (self-supporting shells) and bovédos gausas (Gaussian vaults)4.

In the Church of Christ, we can see the groundbreaking nature of Dieste’s work. Although Dieste used rational numerical methods to produce his creations he exploited them in a way that challenged the confines of conventional practice.5 The mathematical could be turned into something ethereal. He sought to communicate with ordinary people through his work6; it is evident that this was at heart of the Church of Christ. The Church formed a dialogue with its people. It was an unprecedented architectural work built with minimal expenditure involving the extraordinary craftsmenship of local workers. But the value of this building

A.1

was also something else. Commenting on the reactions of a visitor, he wrote that its value was ‘that [it] touches us in the most profound way because it expresses to us the force that produced it but without feeling the force.’7 ‘Solid’, ‘block’ and ‘heavy’ are a few of the words we may typically associate with the brick. From Dieste’s projects unexpected semantics are introduced ... we can conjure words of lightness, as Juan Martín Piaggio aptly titles his book - Leggero comme un mattone (Light as a brick).8 Dieste’s name might not be as recognisable as his contemporaries but his legacy certainly continues with his treatment of brick informing further investigation and innovation potential in new contexts. As an example, the AHO Oslo School of Architecture and Design (Norway) revisited Dieste through a series of events - a symposium, exhibition and workshops to examine the potential of his systems for present day practice in the Scandinavian context.9 The Church of Christ can be read as a feat of engineering, art, sculpture, craftsmanship and human intelligence. Dieste contributed to the discourse of architecture by creating a change in perception and a new paradigm for traditional materials.

Japan Pavilion Shigeru Ban | Hannover | 2000

the structural capacity of the paper tubes.11 What this demonstrates to us is how architecture can generate questions and stimulate further responses of innovation. From this experience, Ban was able to realise a pure paper-tube structure for an installation in MoMa (New York).

he Japan Pavilion is not unlike Paxton’s Crystal Palace of 1851. Paxton’s patent roofing system was the beginning of a new building type as Ban’s use of paper tubes is to the venture of constructing with a humble material. Just as Paxton had gone through iterative processes of developing his roofing system, Ban continued to perfect his paper tubes.

Paper, as Ban has proven, cannot solely be seen as an inherently weak and ephemeral material. Like Dieste, Ban’s work has changed preconceived ideas of viewing traditional and elemental materials. Their work provokes the reconception of materials and how they can be exploited to achieve unexpected outcomes.

In 1991, he instigated the inclusion of paper tubes as a structural material under Japan’s Building Standard Law.10 In doing so, Ban generated a discussion amongst the wider community about the possibilities of an age-old material produced in a simple yet radical way. For the Hannover Expo 2000, Ban presented his paper tubes in a new country, a new context and audience. Collaborating with Frei Otto, the pair succesfully created an impressive space that would fuel the field of paper architecture’s advancement. However, this was not without difficulty, the Japan Pavilion was not the pure paper architecture that was intended. They were met with the Hannover city authority’s reluctance to acknowledge

With parametric design we are afforded the capacity to create cases of innovation like the Church of Christ and Japan Pavilion - in place of humble materials, a new approach to designing. Through the Wyndham City Gateway, we can take these examples as a basis to think about ways in which we could turn existing entities - be they shapes, typologies or objects - and give them new meanings, encouraging the formation of new discourse around the field of parametric design.

1.2

A.1

A .2 Computation in Architecture

omputerisation versus computation. These two words seem to be interchangeable. However, acknowledging the difference between them is critical in unmasking what computation actually means for architecture. Many fall into the trap of attributing the notion of computational design as the automation of preconceptualised designs. Such presumptions can undermine computationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity to make valueable contributions in architecture.

Just as the Industrial Age and the Modern movement had challenged contemporary notions of design methods in architecture, the Information Age of the 21st century is also experiencing a paradigm shift with the convergence of designer and computer. Computation is not detached from the design process.12 \\ When architects have a sufficient understanding of algorithmic concepts, when we no longer need to discuss the digital as something different, then computation can become a true method of design for architecture. //

Brady Peters13

A.2

Computational architecture reconceptualises traditional architectural practice. From the outset, complex designs are able to be visualised threedimensionally through interaction with digital models. Craft and intuition become a package as a product of the design process being inherent to digital modelling.14 With such computational techniques, the communication between fabricator, builder and designer facilitates a more holistic approach to the realisation of a design. The design and its physical production are fully integrated processes. In this way the incorporation of computation in architecture paves the way for the renaissance of the architect as masterbuilder. Tea-House in J-Office and One Main Street provide an insight into this revitalised notion of the masterbuilder. It will be this amalgamation of designer and fabricator through computation that drives the creation of a brave and innovative design for Wyndham Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gateway.

The TeaHouse in J-Office (Fig.2.2) by Archi-Union demonstrates the benefits of integrating computational techniques in practice. The architects utilised scripting in Grasshopper™ to create the staircase’s contorted hexahedron form.15 The complexity of this geometry could be efficiently communicated to the builder in ways that pen-and-paper may not have accomplished. In order to guide construction, the architects had to go beyond creating the design. The structure was to be built manually so constructional parameters were inevitable. What computation offers in this regard, is a means to approach the design with more thought and generate solutions - which is what Archi-Union did. The shape could be recalculated so that it was feasible for low-technology methods to achieve. Constraints of material dimensions could also be considered in this phase thus allowing tractability of both design intent and construction. (Fig. 2.1) A ‘digital continuum’ was thus established between design and construction.16

2.1 2.2

A.2

2.3

Tea House in J-Office Archi-Union | Shanghai | 2011

A.2

One Main Street dEC Oi Architects | Boston | 2009

A.2

One Main Streeet by dECOI Architects (Fig.2.3) provides us with a vision of the holistic design approach mentioned earlier.

Specifications of the CNC machine used to produce this determined the path for the architects to take in developing the digital tools to create the desired surface geometry. Scripted protocols (Fig.2.4) enabled them to analyse the surfaces and automatically divide parts that would be directed as toolpaths for CNC milling.17 Fabrication parameters accounted for functional components such as ventilation grilles, glass accomodation actingn as variables that could be applied to the geometry which would adapt accordingly with respective conditions. The dexterity of digital design tools also facilitated nuances of detailing e.g. door handles, outlets. Automated algorithms were formulated to create the files that would smoothly communicate with the very machines that would bring them to life. 18 Essentially the three-dimensional instructional files generated by the architects were all they needed to realise One Main Street. The design information became the recipe for construction. 19

It should be noted however that the apprehension of adopting computational methods for design exists, and not without reason. Designers would need to acquire a new language of algorithmic understanding to use these tools to their full creative potential. The idea of the architect and machine thinking together is still a new - and even intimidating - concept. Relinquishing part of the designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s control to the computer is part of the challenge in validating computational architecture across the profession. In the meantime on-going experimentation - design and fabrication - is what sustains architectural thinking and dialogue and encourages changes in architectural culture. By taking up computation, the Gateway project will be contribute to the progression of this process.

2.4

A.2

A .3 Parametric Modelling

arametrics has earned a contentious reputation in the discourse of computational architecture. Patrik Schumacher’s 2008 manifesto heralds ‘Parimetricism’ as the style of the 21st century.20 It is a bold proposal attracting much ongoing critique on whether stylistic labels are relevant in today’s society. As students participating in the discussion of digital architecture we need to be wary of the ‘taboos and dogmas’ (e.g. avoid all corners, all forms must be curves) Shumacher prescribes.21 Such principles potentially limit creative scope. Design outcomes can become pre-determined too early on when parametric modelling is still evolving and finding its feet in architectural practice. Such a debate goes beyond the scope of this chapter (in saying that it is still something to keep in mind), instead it will be more fruitful to look at the nature of parametric modelling as an alternative design paradigm. Parametric models can be thought of as associative geometric representations generated through a fixed set of interconnected parameters.22 A nexus is established

between the model and its individual entities. In the context of architectural design, this medium demands intellectual engagement from a project’s inception and even more so with scripting being swept into the fore. There are numerous approaches and reasons for using parametric modelling and scripting. They can be used at different stages of a project from its generation for its production or mid-way for problem-solving. Broadly speaking, they can fall under two categories: productivity and creativity. The following projects - Sagrada Família and Futuropolis - have incorporated both aspects at varying degrees and will build upon our foundational knowledge of the advantages and pitfalls of parametric modelling.

A.3

La Sagrada Famí lia Antoni Gaudi | Barcelona | 1883- Ongoing

agrada Família (Fig. 3.1) is a particularly interesting case - both historical artefact and workingproject it was fundamentally designed (and continues to be designed) parametrically. Such a continuation was made possible by the uptake of parametric modelling.

model. But to do this the team had to ascertain that design criteria right from the start the entities are finite. In a project of this scale it would have been disastrous if a major change that hadn’t been already accounted for within the script set had to be implemented.

Gaudí left encoded models with ‘geometric clues’ to future generations to carry on his work. However with these models now missing or at best existing as restorations of fragments, the project team is left with an elusive scheme to work from.

For example, the team had to choose between two potential geometries to create the columns’ curves - either by hyperbolic paraboloids or conoids. Had they chosen the ‘wrong’ one they would have had to completely restart the model.25

This condition has led to the adoption of parametric modelling as a problemsolving tool to decipher the geometry left by Gaudí’s models as well as a platform for design sythesis where parts are missing.

In this regard, parametric modelling and scripting can be both efficient for iterative experimentation and problematic in its finiteness.

The morphology of the triforium’s columnetes (Fig.3.2) was reached via an (re-)iterative process afforded by first scripting and parametric modelling.23 It was deduced that there was an applied geometry system - whole and bisected hyperbolic parabloid surface - which led to the criteria for scripting that would inform subsequent models.24 The designers could experiment with the different variables and quickly see working results as the model regenerated in real-time eventually reaching a result that would satisfy the design intent as suggested by Gaudí’s 3.1

A.3

3.2

Futuropolis Daniel Libeskind | St Gallen | 2005

aniel Libeskind’s Futuropolis (Fig. 3.3) installation utilised parametric and scripting methods for both productivity and generative design. Libeskind provided the algorithmic design from which parametric models could be generated in a similar manner to parts of the Sagrada Família.

(2005), it has gone to Milan (2010) to participate in witnessing the development of a new area, Fiera Milano.27 The installation indirectly facilitates the engagement of the public as they watch Fiera Milano grow. It acts as a ‘walking-and’-talking’ piece, so to speak.

Within the model, the connection details could even be considered and customised. The grooves of the dovetail joints could adapt to the pieces they were joining. This aspect shows a different side to parametric design as a craft in itself - it becomes possible to create a gesamtkunstwerk.

Scripting and parametric modelling can be used to foster architectural design that is meaningful so long as it is used in such a way as both these works have shown. These digital mediums are paradoxical in nature. On one hand, the designer is pushed intellectually from the beginning, stimulating creativity where software is not merely deployed at face-value, on the other, the rules they apply at this stage could place too much restraint limiting their design space.28

Futuropolis shows us how parametric design need not be something devoid of planarity and repetition (see p.18). The triangle was the fundamental unit driving the design yet it is not immediately observable. The installation was a collaborative effort under the direction of an established architect, students and various consultants, this is where its success in execution lies. The generation of a shared digital, used by all those involved, enbabled the precise design of complex coordination of over 2000 pieces.26 What also makes it interesting is the on-going reconfiguration of the final product itself. Its 98 towers can be placed together or divided thus being able to be read together as a narrative or independantly. Since its first installation in Switzerland

As the community around Rhino3D™ and Grasshopper™ grows we have access to a respository of techniques and scripts to alleviate the initial apprehension of taking up these design tools. This bounty, however, makes it easy to become complacent and adopt techniques in a ‘copy-paste’ manner effectively stultifying real progress and the creative potential of parametric design.29 By overcoming this though the designer actively pushes for inventiveness. Its interactive capacity is one of its most valueable properties and will facilitate enriched engagement in the design process and collaborative creation for the Gateway project. 3.3

A.3

A .4 Algorithmic Explorations

A.4

4.1

A selection of algorithmic explorations in Rhino3Dâ&#x201E;˘ and Grasshopperâ&#x201E;˘

Contour + Loft A curved form can be easily fabricated by approximating its surface geometry with lofted strips (or ruled surfaces). These can then be unrolled and nested within the same interface ready for fabrication.

These sketches demonstrate the tractability of parametric modelling. Numerous versions can be derived from a single entity within a small time frame. The results of these changes can be visualised in real-time and in threedimensions. Efficiency in fabrication preparation is also a major advantage. Parametric modelling and scripting thus afford architects longer time in the exploration phase allowing them to generate designs that have not been compromised by physical and time constraints. Parametric (sketch) models like these are interactive and encourage the designer to discover unexpected outcomes e.g. by simple rotation of the model. Parameters in these sketches have allowed for both design control and freedom.

4.2

4.3

Contour + Orient

Referencing different geometries as an algorithmic component can produce an unlimited range of outcomes. Slight changes such as the addition of a reference point can generate interest and variation over a surface.

Contour + Loft+ Orient Understanding the connections and logic behind components encourages intellectual engagement which inherently feeds into the resulting products. 4.3 is a rearrangement of relationships between 4.1 and 4.2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s components.

4.3

A.4

A .5 Conclusion

rchitecture envelopes us all. It is seen, experienced and felt whether at a conscious or subconscious level, transcending both time and space. Parametric design presents an alternative and innovative approach to architecture. Shifting from analogue to digital practice in design, instigates new ways of thought. Myriad creative opportunities can be afforded by parametric modelling and scripting, these include (but certainly not limited to): envisaging spaces and geometries beyond static limitations, realising topologies not restricted by formality and facilitating efficiency and control in fabrication. By using parametric modelling and scripting the Gateway will reflect the creative capabilities of computation. As an entry statement, the proposed installation will become an extension of the community of Wyndham and place itself in a position to contribute to architectural discourse by engaging in contemporary digital architectural culture and stimulate contemplation as a piece itself.

A .6 25

Learning Outcomes

hat I have taken away from these past few weeks is that designing parametrically requires a considerable shift in thinking. There are many parallels in the history of architecture that reflect the attention and discussion being placed around parametric design today. Whether it is a passing phase or here to stay, parametric design forms a major part of architectural theory, culture and practice today. If I was equipped with this new knowledge for BodySpace, the final product may have looked entirely different as a greater number of possibilities would have been made possible to explore. Furthermore the workflow would have been facilitated by the use of algorithmic codes as greater control could be applied. Approaching the next stage of our project it will be important to keep this in mind: letting go of the hand-mind-eye coordination we have grown comfortable with is not necessarily a negative step and does not render the human mind or hand redundant. Rather, it is an opportunity to discover new creative opportunities.

A.5 + A.6

References Pevsner, N. (1943). An Outline of European Architecture (London: Penguin Books, 1990) 1

Schumacher, P. ‘Introduction: Architecture as Autopoietic System’, in The Autopoiesis of Architecture (Chichester: J.Wiley, 2011), p. 1 2

Palaasma, J. ‘New Architectural Horizons.’ Architectural Design. Vol. 77 (2007), p. 17 3

Sunguroglu, D.‘Complex Brick Assemblies. Architectural Design. Vol. 78 (2008), p. 67 4

Anderson, S.Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004), p. 32 5

Ibid, p. 33

Dieste, E.“Arte, pueblo, tecnocracía” in Eladio Dieste: L’a estructura cerámica. ed. Galaor Carbonell (1987) rpt in Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004), p. 33 7

Anderson, S. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004), p. 32 8

Detail, 2010, ‘Eladio Dieste’, Detail: Das Architekturportal <http://www.detailonline.com/architecture/dates/eladio-dieste-007385.html> [accessed 15 March 2013] 9

McQuaid, M. Shigeru Ban (London:Phaidon Press, 2003), p. 14

Ban, S. “Engineering and Architecture: Building the Japan Pavilion” in Shigeru Ban (London:Phaidon Press, 2003), p. 9 11

Peters, B. ‘Computaton Works: The Building of Algorithmic’, Architectural Design. Vol.83 (2013), p. 11 12

Ibid, p. 15

Carpo, M. ‘The Ebb and Flow of Digital Innovation,’ Architectural Design. Vol. 83 (2013), p. 60 14

Archi-Union. TeaHouse by Archi-Union,’ Dezeen <http://www.dezeen. com/2012/03/09/tea-house-by-archi-union/> [accessed 21 March 2013] 15

REFERENCES

Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design & Manufacturing (London: Penguin Books, 1990), p.3 16

dECOi Architects. ‘One Main Street,’ dECOI Architects <http://www.decoiarchitects.org/2011/10/onemain/#comments> [accessed 21 March 2013] 17

Ibid.

Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design & Manufacturing (London: Penguin Books, 1990), p.7 19

Schumacher, ‘P. 2010, Patrik Schumacher on parametricism - “Let the style wars begin”’ Architects’ Journal < http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/2011-stirling-prize/patrikschumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article> [accesssed 28 March 2013] 20

Ibid.

Menges, A. ‘Instrumental Geometry’, in R.Corser (ed.) Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), p.23 22

Burry, M. ‘Parametric Design and the Sagrada Familia,’ Architectural Research Quarterly Vol.1 (1996), p.73 23

Burry, Mark. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2011), pp. 164-5 24

Burry, M, Davis, D. and Pallett,J. ‘The Flexibility of Logic Programming - Parametrically regenerating the Sagrada Família’ in C.Herr, N.Gu, S. Roudavski, M. Schnabel (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Newcastle, Australia, 27-29 April, 2011. p.30 25

VectorWorks, 2005, ‘Vectorscript and parametric modeling technology bring Daniel Libeskind’s Futuropolis to life’ Vectorworks, <http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/D2p/ ConferencesPublications/2005_Vectorworks_Libeskind.pdf > [accessed 29 March 2013} 26

CityLife, 2010, ‘Preview of Daniel Libeskind installation Futuropolis’, in CityLife, <http:// www.city-life.it/en/sala-stampa/eventi/anteprima-dell-installazione-futuropolis-di-daniellibeskind/ > [accessed 30 March] 27

Weisberg, D. 2008, ‘Parametric Technology’ in The Engineering Design Revolution, p. 12 [e-book] Available at < ttp://cadhistory.net > [accessed 28 March]

Thomsen, M.R, ‘Inventiveness’ in M.Burry, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, (Chichester, John WIley & Sons Ltd, 2011), p.55 29

REFERENCES

Images Fig. 1.1 Heinz Isler, “The Church of Jesus Christ the Worker, Atlántida, Urugay, 1960” in “Form, Force and Structure : A Brief History”in Architectural Design. Vol. 78 (2008), p. 19 Fig 1.2 Hiroyuki Hirai , 2000, “Japan Pavilion at the Hannover Expo 2000, Germany” in Domus, < http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/shigeru-ban-architect-foremergencies> [accessed 15 March 2013] Fig. 2.1 Archi-Union Architects, 2012, “Tea House - Archi-Union Architects” in ArchDaily, <http://www.archdaily.com/216171/tea-house-archi-unionarchitects/> [accessed 21 March 2013] Fig. 2.2 Shen, Z., 2009, “Tea House in J-Office” in Archi-Union Architects, <http://www. archi-union.com/project_view.asp?id=40> [accessed 21 March 2013] Fig. 2.3 and Fig 2.4 dECOi Architects, 2011, “One Main Street” in dECOI Architects, <http://www. decoi-architects.org/2011/10/onemain/> [accesssed 21 March 2013] Fig. 3.1

RMIT University, 2006,“Sagrada Familia-West Transept” in SIAL - Sagrada Familia <http://www.sial.rmit.edu.au/Projects/Sagrada_Familia.php> [accessed 30 March 2013] Fig.3.2 Burry, Mark. ‘Temple Sagrada Familia -Triforium: as built’ in Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming. (Chichester, John WIley & Sons Ltd, 2011), pp. 166 Fig. 3.3 6 VectorWorks, 2005, ‘Futuropolis’ Vectorworks, <http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/D2p/ ConferencesPublications/2005_Vectorworks_Libeskind.pdf > [accessed 29 March 2013}

IMAGES

Design Approach

Pa r t B De sgn A pproach B.1 Design Focus: Sectioning

B.2 Case Study 1.0: banQ B.3 Case Study 2.0:

35 40

B.4 Technique: Devlopment

B.5 Technique: Prototypes

B.6 Technique: Proposal B.7 Algorithmic Explorations B.8 Learning Outcomes

53 54 55

B.1 Design Focus | Sectioning

The roof is fundamentally composed of sections; seven beams connected by parallel ribs enable the creation of its distinctive shape.2

igital design has yielded numerous approaches to explore and generate ideas. Sectioning is one of such design streams that digital techniques has brougth forth and is a particularly compelling area of parametric design. In the first part of this chapter precedents will be discussed to outline sectioning’s evolution as a design approach and more importantly, how it has the capacity to continue to do so. From there, the discussion of this approach will be taken into the context of parametric design in an attempt to elucidate its significance in architectural discourse.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, digital methods have allowed for sectioning to flourish as a mode of design . Revisiting dECOi’s One Main Street (p.16-17), the sculptural potential of sectioning has been exploited - like Ronchamp - this time to create an entire space. Planar components come together to express another dimension, in this way, a range of sensuous experiences are created, for example, it gives a sense of solidity but also lightness simultaneously, smooth and textural qualities also exist together.

Before the machine-age, sectioning in architectural practice was largely a mode of two-dimensional representation in drawings. With the arrival of the modern movement, sectioning took its first step into being reconceptualised as a way to achieve nonstandard forms in architecture and then maturing into an established mode of design itself. Sectioning involves the derivation of a series of profiles from surface geometry.1. One of Le Corbusier’s most recognised creations, Chapelle Notre Dame du Haut (Ronchamp), is an example of this technique being used to construct irregular sculptural forms (Fig. 1.1).

Dunescape, by SHoP Architects exemplifies the multivalency of sectioning (Fig.1.2). Through this technique the architects’ design won the Young Architects Program in 2000.3 Placed together, individual lumber sections visually allude to a continuous entity within which various inhabitable spaces are created. An engaging response to the installation program is made. The apertures between each section has allowed for the play of light creating different experiences as the user moves around and engages with the installation.

1.1

B.1

Chapelle notre dame du haut Le Corbusier | Ronchamp | 1955

B.1

From this small sample of projects, it is seen how sectioning can offer the designer a way to create something that manifests different experiential qualities as a coherent whole. In combination with parametric modelling and algorithmic techniques, sectioning still has potential to expand and be explored even further. The two complement one another in their inherent ability to couple design (craft) and construction into a seamless process. In Michael Meredith’s essay, “Never enough (transform, repeat adnauesa)” products of parametric design are described as: [...] falling short of its rich potential to correlate multivalent processes of typological transformations, parallel meanings, complex functional requirements, sitespecific problems or collaborative networks.4

dualities such as light and darkness, stillness and movement.Tactility is achieved with its incorporation of material tectonics - variability in volume, shape, composition and texture of a single material can all be made possible.5 Such qualities are desirable and relevant to the intentions of the Wyndham Gateway project. Sectioning will be a valuable stream to explore and thus aims to build upon the technique’s expansion through exploration. By doing so, Wyndham City will position itself in a line of sectioning’s evolution and thus play a part in progressing the discourse surrounding the field of parametric design.

This however does not have to be the case if we consider sectioning’s ability to engender such charecteristics (as demonstrated collectively by the precedents mentioned). This design stream is not merely a form-making exercise. It affords a complex, but tenable existence of

1.2

B.1

B.2 Case Study 1.0 BanQ Restaurant Office dA | 2006

Early explorations use simple modifications of the directional levels to see what each component was responsible for.

his case study turned into a confirmation of one of the initial concerns that were raised when sectioning was chosen to be used as a design technique.

The second series of explorations takes away the curved surface to see the effects of intersecting perpendicular frames more clearly.

The following matrices shows several attempts to move away from the original definition but as a result of breaking it down to understand the workings of its individual parts the resulting outputs were not as fruitful in demonstrating the innovative possibilities of sectioning. Systematically adjusting component by component was perhaps not the most effective way to approach the defintion.

In the last matrix a different curved surface is used and integrated with a digrid structure. Introducing the digraid allowed more parameters to be put in place and increased the number of options that could be adjusted.

2.1

B.2

GRADUAL ITERATIONS EXPLORING THE PERPENDICULAR FRAME AND INTERSECT COMPONENTS 1 -4 Using the same curve and adjusting its position 5 - 8 Referencing multiple curves. 9 -12 Introducing curves and straight lines to manipulate the intersections and thus creating areas of different densities.

The outcomes have been shown from the top and in perspective to show how each view can have a different effect spatially and visually from the next. The outputs here are repetitious but it can be seen how the technique of intersections can be integrated into future definitions to create spaces that are sparse or dense .

B.2

B.3 Case Study 2.0 Digital Weave University of California + Lisa Iwamoto | 2004

or this installation, time was a prevailing constraint. To be displayed for a single night, the project team had to devise a solution that would allow them to quickly assemble and disassemble the entire structure. CAD/CAM techniques drove both the conception behind the design and solutions for fabricaton.6

Sectioning

Through the discovery process of reverse engineering, the outputs that came out formed a sound foundation on which to form our design proposal further on.

Iwamotoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Digital Weave

What is interesting about this project is its ability to become compressible and then expand when needed for installation. This concertina action captures a moment of temporality whilst the series of weaves contributes to its tactility. By multiplying this detail, an engaging volume materialises to fill the exhibition space.

The Digital Weave was an important part to the development of our own concept for the Wyndam. As discussed in the preceding section, the planarity and repetitiveness of Case Study 1.0 led to dead-ends. In order to move on, The Digital Weave was picked up and interpreted as a less conventional way to conceptualise the qualities of sectioning that were argued for (see B.1).

3.1

B.3

3.2

B.3

surface The Whole The first approach in deducing possible definitions for the Digital Weave looked at the installation as a whole.

diagrid

In this trial, a volume was first created in Rhino to be referenced into Grasshopper. In trying to replicated the weaving form, the diagrid structure (component of the plug-in tool, Lunchbox) was used and proved to be a good starting point.

extrude

The results were rudimentary, without much scope for development. So in the next phase, we drew into the most interesting part of the installation whicih was the detail of the weave itself.

B.3

The Weave This second attempt was generated entirely within Grasshopper. By doing so, much more flexibility and potential for elaboration was made.

u=6 v=8 r = 10 t=9 s=2

Although the resulting models were not accurate representations of the Digital Weave, the outcome was successful in extracting the point of interest from the installation and opened up the way to create something different. The simplicity of the three fundamental components allows for myriad combinations between other parametric controls.

u = 10 v=7 r=8 t=7 s=2

u=7

f = 10

helicoid diagrid extrude

B.3

f = 10

B.4 Technique Development

n the development of our chosen technique - the diagrid, recall, as explained Woodbury and Burrow was a useful way to explore our reverse engineered model.7

Drawing on from this, different iterations and steps were taken to modify the model until it became something recogniseably different.

dialogue

This continuous process of predicting and evaluating, allowed an increased familiarity and efficiency to produce solutions.

problem solving

Before each outcome appeared, potential solutions were anticipated based upon the preceding output.

puzzle-making

goals

The exploration approach used here is akin to the methods of design that Kalay discusses (Fig.4.1).8 From the outset there was a case study and then a precedent (The Digital Weave) on which to base our our explorations which then led to a process of problem-solving to come up with solutions that matched our design goals.

solutions

The targets of our outputs were to embody the qualities of weaving. Each iteration aims to get closer to this goal.

4.1

B.4

Exploring the diagrid Each of these explorations have originated from the outcome of Case Study 2.0. The numerous variations of outputs that are generated by digital processes are made much clearer here.

B.4

B.5 Further Exploration Weaving conoid surface divide diagrid panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

diamond grid u=5 v=3 interconnect pipe

diagrid 1,2 u=7 v=3 interconnect

helicoid surface divide diagrid panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

diagrid u=7 v=3 interconnect

conoid surface divide diagrid panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

47 conoid surface divide rectangular panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

2 surfaces diagrid 1 u=7 v=3 diagrid 2 u=3 v=1

3 surfaces diagrid 1 u=7 v=3 diagrid 2 u=7 v=3 diagrid u=3 v=3 interconnect

conoid surface divide daigrd panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

mobius surface divide rectangular panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

3 surfaces diagrid 1,2 u=7 v=3 interconnect

mobius surface divide rectangular panels polygons explode points items move weave offset loft

diamond grid u=5 v=3 interconnect pipe

B.5

helicoid surface diamond grid u: 8 extrude f: 4 integer, division, surface morph rows & columns: 3

helicoid surface integer, division, rows & columns: 3 surface morph, join, rebuild curve pipe diamond grid u: 5 extrude f: 3

helicoid surface integer, division, rows & columns: 3 surface morph, join, rebuild curve pipe diamond grid u: 5

Depth curve1,curve2 divide: n = 35 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line join extrude z: f = 10

curve1,curve2 divide: n = 54 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 2.0, c = 54 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 2.0, c = 54 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 2.0, c = 54 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line join extrude z: f = 10

curve1,curve2 divide: n = 35 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 2.0, c = 35 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line join extrude z: f = 10

curve1 ,curve2 divide: n = 76 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 2.0, c = 76 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 2.0, c = 76 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 2.0, c = 76 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line join extrude x: f = 3 y: f = 18 z: f = 50

curve1 ,curve2 divide: n = 96 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 5.0, c = 96 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 5.0, c = 96 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 5.0, c = 96 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line join extrude z: f = 10

curve0 ,curve1, curve 2 divide: n = 36 series 0: s = 0.0, n = 3.0, c = 36 series 1: s = 1.0, n = 3.0, c = 36 series 2: s = 2.0, n = 3.0, c = 36 item1: i = series2, item2: i = series1 – line item2: i = series1, item3: i = series0 – line item 4: i = series0, item5: i = series1 – line item 5: i = series1, item6: i = series2 – line item 7: i = series2, item 8: i = series1 – line item 8: i = series1, item 9: i = series0– line join extrude z: f = 15

surface explode contours | n=xunit | n=yunit items distance offsets |p=yzplane | p=xyplane curve shift loft

surface diamond grid u: 10 v: 46 extrude (lines) x: 0 y: 0 z: 4

surface explode contours | n=xunit | n=yunit items distance offsets |p=yzplane | p=xyplane curve shift loft

surface diamond grid u: 10 v: x: 1 y: 4 z: 1 extrude (lines & nodes)

surface explode contours | n=xunit | n=yunit items distance offsets |p=yzplane | p=xyplane curve shift loft

surface diamond grid u: 4 v: x: 0 y: 7 z: 5

parabaloid surface explode contours | n=xunit | n=yunit items distance offsets |p=yzplane | p=xyplane curve shift loft

B.5

surface diamond grid u: 4 v: x: 0 y: 7 z: 5 extrude (lines)

surface diamond grid u: 4 v: x: 0 y: 6 z: 5 curve extrude (lines)

surface diamond grid u: 4 v: x: 0 y: 7 z: 5 curve extrude (lines)

Prototypes Weaving

5.1

Corrugated cardboard The use of corrugated cardboard has an interesting effect in terms of materiality. It is of one material but shows two qualities, both of which can be accentuated by the technique of weaving.

5.2

Ivory Card

In the paper model, linking or interlocking was the main focus. Here, the link acts as a pivot point and allows the different layers of rings to move independently from one another whilst remaining connected.

5.3

Thread

This model looks at the interrelationships between a single thread and a number of different nodes. There are boundless configurations that can be created by directing the thread to different points. Furthermore, the degree of tension at these nodes also influences on the overall geometry and its effects.

5.4

Ivory Card

Interlocking was looked at on a larger scale to see how the weave could play on light.

5.4

B.5

5.5

Plastic The first model uses strips semi-opaque plastic bent over one another giving an open structure that also achieves enclosure.

5.6

Paper The use of paper in this model, shows its malleable qualities by overlapping curved portions at different points. Views from the each side differ and explore the changes in perception.

5.7

Plastic bag This exploration used plastic bags - a material that shares qualities of both plastic and paper. It can be seen how light materials can be composed in such a way to evoke a sense of depth as well as weightlessness at the same time. Again,changes in perception is something being explored.

5.8

Balsa Strips of balsa are arranged in a variegated but repetitive manner to draw on qualities of depth.

5.8

B.5

B.6 The Proposal

he proposed Gateway is inspired by the idea that current computational approaches in design can be crafted to evolve beyond conventional application and become something that acknowledges the need to look beyond the veneer of appearances.

sketch model can be instantaneously evaluated in its performance before progressing further.10

In the search for a way to approach this project with new eyes, digitally generated design becomes incorporated with the traditional art of weaving. Reflecting the nature of the craft, architects must also interweave a wide range of knowledge in order to achieve a work of value. In their common goal to relate a design’s physical properties to its presentation, weaving and architecture share qualities that are worthy of further exploration. With the union of a timehonoured craft and contemporary practice new ideas and thus innovation naturally follow. The implementation of parametric software has made way for the development of these ideas. Deferral in the design process, as discussed by Woodbury and Burrow, highlights the benefits of this approach with its ability to lengthen the design exploration phase before arriving at the final outcome.9 Relating to Kalay’s idea of parametric design a digital

This observation can be illustrated from the origins of our project. Taking the diagrid as a simple framework, the use of parametric software has allowed its design potential to be pushed and discover unexpected outcomes. With these explorations, certain qualities began to emerge which would inform the realisation of our conceptual ideas. Depth in both forms of the word is considered as an extension of weaving. Its physical sense is explored with the play of density and configuration of individual elements which come together to materialise the whole. Experientially, it will encourage inquisition and a detached contemplation of the synthesis between light, material and space. Ultimately, the recontexualisation of a traditional craft and quality of depth engrained in the project evokes intrigue in the viewer, and instils a need for contemplation to understand its underlying ideas and configuration leading to a rethinking about architecture contemplation beyond first glance.

B.6

B.7 Algorithmic Explorations

series

Dynamism of A Dog on a Leash

6.1

point

Using Giacamo Balla’s ‘Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash’ as an image sample input.

line

rotate 54 multiply

6.2

6.3

B.7

loft

B.8 Learning Outcomes

he turning point in the development of our proposal presented itself in our reverse enginerring of the Digital Weave. From this point onwards, we were able to begin discovering more ways to generate a range of possibilities with the diagrid. Having made several prototypes in conjunction with our explorations the fundamental concepts behind our proposal were not always clear.

To start with, projects by architect Mette Ramsgard Thomsen can provide us with ideas to develop our prototypes further (Fig. 7.1). Thaw a collaboration between Thomsen and CITA Frame and fabric come together to create this piece that investigates material performance and parametrically explores tensile relationships. 11 The next step in the development of our design is to try a composite of materials. A suggestion was made to create a parametrically derived frame incorporated with handcrafted elements.

Depth was achieved successfully, but the technique of weaving requires and deserves further research and experimentation. The next step will be to think about how our conceptual ideas could be fabricated. Possibilities of a composite between digitally fabricated components and analogue crafts could provide a solution. In this way, the idea of integrating traditional craft and computational design can become interwoven into the final outcome itself.

7.1

B.8

REFERENCES

References Notes Iwamoto, L. Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques, (Princeton Architectural Press: New York, 2009), p.10 1

Weber, N.F. Le Corbusier: A Life, (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 2008), p. 669

MoMA PS1, ‘ Dunescape: SHoP/Sharples Holden Pasquarelli’ in MoMA PS1: New York, (2000), <http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/yap/2000_ shop.html> [accessed 13 April 2013] 3

Meredith, M. ‘Never enough (transform, repeat ad nausea)’, in T. Sakamoto et al. (eds), From Control to Design: Parametric/Algorithmic, (Actar-D: New York, 2008), p.8 4

Kolarevic, B. ‘Material Effects’ in B. Kolarevic (ed.) Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manugacturing, (Spon Press: New York, 2003), p. 6 5

Iwamoto, L. Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques, (Princeton Architectural Press: New York, 2009), p.17 6

Woodbury, R.F. and Burrow, A.L. ‘Wither design space?’, Artificial Intelligence

for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol.20, p.76 Kalay, Y. 2004. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), p. 13 8

Woodbury, R.F. and Burrow, A.L. ‘Wither design space?’, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, ANalysis and Manufacturing, vol.20, p.74 9

Kalay, Y. 2004. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of

Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), p. 18 CITA, ‘Thaw’, 2010, <http://cita.karch.dk/Menu/Projects/

Behaving+Architectures/Thaw+%282010%29> [accessed 30 April 2013]

REFERENCES

Images Fig. 1.1 Lucien Hervé, 1955, “Chapelle Notre Dame du Haut à Ronchamp”, in Lucien Hervé, <http://lucienherve.com/LC_EX_305.html> [accessed 11 April 2013] Fig 1.2 David Joseph, 2000, “Dunescape” in ArchNewsNow.com, in <http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature412.htm> [accessed 12 April 2013] Fig. 2.1 Horner, J. 2008, ‘BanQ’, in ArchDaily, < http://www.archdaily.com/42581/banqoffice-da/>, [accessed 15 April 2013] Fig. 3.1-3.2 Iwamoto,L./UCAL, ‘Digital Weave’, in Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques, (Princeton Architectural Press: New York, 2009) Fig. 4.1 Author’s own. Adapted from Kalay, Y. 2004. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press)., p.13 Fig. 5.1-5.8 Photos by Gokmen, A. Wang, J and Tang, E,. May, 2013. Fig. 6.1 Giacamo Balla, 1912, ‘Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash’ in Albright-Know Art Gallery, < http://www.albrightknox.org/collection/search/piece:505/>, [accessed 7 May 2013] Fig. 6.2-3 Author’s own. Fig 7.1 Ingvartsen, A. ‘Thaw’ in CITA, < http://cita.karch.dk/Menu/Projects/ Behaving+Architectures/Thaw+%282010%29>, [accessed 30 April 2013]

IMAGES

Project Proposal

Pa r t C Projec t Proposa l C.1 Gateway Project: Design Concept

C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model C.4. Algorithmic Sketches C.5. Learning Outcomes

87 88

68 74

C.1 Design Concept

PRESENT

change + grow + evolve

A grove-like gateway sitting upon the threshold of Wyndham City offers the passing visitor a glimpse of the past, present and future.

eaving and knotting are ageold crafts - likely to be as old as human civilisation itself1 transcending both time (generations) and place (cultures). Underpinning the final concept is a dialogue between tradition and innovation which imparts a sense of change, growth and evolution. The widespread practice of weaving and knotting means that each individual can form their own reading from the installation and reflect on memories and experiences upon and beyond their engagement with it. With this idea, the gateway becomes a composite creation that appears to grow from an existing mound of an otherwise flat landscape, almost becoming one and the same thing (Fig. 1.1).

A parametrically derived weave becomes the primary framework upon which clusters of intricately knotted paper yarn rest. Throughout, bursts of greenery appear and grow to become intertwined with the structure. With this, each passing moment - day to night, season to season the installationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effects changes. Sometimes translucent, sometimes shaded. Robots in flight embedding seeds and weaving in and out of the framework paint another picture - one of the future and the possibilities of architecture and technology. The gateway evolves alongside Wyndhamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fledging community providing a means to stimulate ongoing interest amongst the local and greater community and establishes itself together with the community as part of the endless discovery of design and advancement of architectural discourse.

C.1

1.1

Site Location The gateway will bridge over the roadway incorporating the mound (bottom right).

C.1

Concept

01 63

am dh yn W

C, 0 Point

01 02

Density of weave

D, 1 x, y, z

Point

{307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

Point

x, y, z

{112.64861, 1169.553936, 16.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{96.298855, 1106.87755, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

Point 1 2 3

Density of plant growth

x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0} {302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0} {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

Point 1

C, 1 x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{79.949101, 1044.201164, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

8 {218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{63.599346, 981.524778, 16.0}

9 {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

10 {198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{47.249591, 918.848392, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

Point 1 2

B, 1 x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{731.028571, 1043.45

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{720.057143, 1031.91

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{709.085714, 1020.37

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{698.114286, 1008.82

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{687.142857, 997.285

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{676.171429, 985.742

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{665.2, 974.2, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{654.228571, 962.657

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0}

{643.257143, 951.114

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{632.285714, 939.571

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0}

{621.314286, 928.028

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{610.342857, 916.485

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{599.371429, 904.942

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{588.4, 893.4, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{577.428571, 881.857

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{566.457143, 870.314

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{30.899836, 856.172006, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

C,1

D, 0 Point

x, y, z

1.2 Point

D, 2

x, y, z

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{555.485714, 858.771

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{544.514286, 847.228

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

{533.542857, 835.685

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{522.571429, 824.142

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{511.6, 812.6, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{500.628571, 801.057

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{489.657143, 789.514

Grow th progression Point

x, y, z

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

Plant growth originates from the mound where it is at its most dense. The arrival to Wyndham becomes more pronounced upon the increased sense of openess as the greenery becoems more sparse.

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{478.685714, 777.971

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{467.714286, 766.428

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{456.742857, 754.885

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{445.771429, 743.342

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{434.8, 731.8, 16.0}

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{412.857143, 708.714

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{401.885714, 697.171

{423.828571, 720.257

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{390.914286, 685.628

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{379.942857, 674.085

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{368.971429, 662.542

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{135.0, 765.0, 65.0}

{358.0, 651.0, 16.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

D, 0

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

A, 0

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

{880.0, 1053.273897, 88.0}

{107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

{830.098445, 1016.136134, 88.0}

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

{90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

C.1

B, 0

C, 0

C, 2 x, y, z

3 4

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{780.196889, 978.998372, 88.0}

{730.295334, 941.860609, 88.0}

{680.393778, 904.722847, 88.0}

{630.492223, 867.585084, 88.0}

{580.590667, 830.447321, 88.0}

{530.689112, 793.309559, 88.0}

{480.787557, 756.171796, 88.0}

{430.886001, 719.034034, 88.0}

{380.984446, 681.896271, 88.0}

{331.08289, 644.758508, 88.0}

A, 2

D, 2 Point 1 2

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{846.732296, 1028.51

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{796.830741, 991.377

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{746.929186, 954.239

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{697.02763, 917.1021

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{647.126075, 879.964

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{597.224519, 842.826

{547.322964, 805.688

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

{497.421408, 768.551

{447.519853, 731.413

{397.618298, 694.275

{347.716742, 657.137

{297.815187, 620.0, 8

1.3

Weaving and Knotting Weaving and knotting are both timehonoured crafts that have been passed on through the ages. Because of this long stretch of history, its practice was widespread and allowed different places to evolve their own techniques.2 Seen in this light, the installation does not reference a particular cultural tradition but is seen as an abstraction of a simple weaving action more focussed on the practice of the crafts themselves. Given the diversity of origins, the incorporation of weaving and knotting in this installation leaves its interpretation open to the viewer. Behind this concept is also the idea of time, community and sharing. These handcrafts continue to be passed on from generation to generation and within circles of family, friends and communities. The gateway thus aspires to instil such feelings and qualities for the city of Wyndham and play a part and inscribe a strong sense of identity.

64 1.4

Change, grow and evolve The knotting technique has long been used in the making of friendship bracelets. A person who receives it wears it until the bracelet wears out and falls naturally honouring the time and effort their friend has put into making it. Analagous to this in the installation is the gradual degradation of the paper knots leaving behind the plants and the woven framework which then solidify a memory of what had once supported it during its growth. Over the course of time, the plants undergo changes; growing, dying and evolving just as a community like Wyndham would with the arrival and departure of people - residents or visitors.

C.1

item

points from line

lines A, B, C, D

line and point A, B, C, D 0, 1, 2

pattern 0, 1, 2

connect

Design Definition

series

list item C, 2 line D, 1

divide

line D

line

C, 0 point 0 D, 2

line

point 1 C, 1

line

point 2 D, 0 divide

line C

C, 0 line point 0

B, 0

point 1

C, 1 line B, 1

divide

line B

D, 0 line point 0

A, 0

point 1

D, 2

point 2

A, 2

line

divide

line A

n=2

D,1 0

Bell Gothic 1

C, 0

n=2

point 0

s=0 n=2

C.1

point 1

s=1 n=2

a b

Using contours on site to reference the position of lines from which points will be established for the weave.

Initial division of points.

Rules are established parametrically between each line set to generate a system of patterns. (See â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Design Definitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) 66

Line A

Line B

Line A

Line C

Line B

Line D

Line B

Line C

Line A

line Line B line

line

connect

line line

line

C.1

Line A

Line B

Line A

Line C

Line B

Line D

Line B

Line A

Line B

Pattern sets Line C

Each series represents a set of points that defines the pattern to be repeated along each line.

Entering different numerical values (s or n) within a series alters the pattern. Individual list items are a specific combination of a line and point and consolidate the relationship between them to help generate a pattern.

C.1

C.2 Tectonic Elements

The next test used a notch configuration. Again the issue here was securing the strands. Without wrapping around the upstand there was a risk of the strand becoming loose.

The first test was based on a previous prototype. A strand could be secured by wrapping around twice before moving to the next upstand. It gave flexibility to move between points whilst remaining taught. However, this method was timeconsuming and inefficient if given a greater number of points because of the need to secure the strand.

68 Testing different configurations of components to hold strands

For this design, a solution needed to be developed that would allow the woven strands to be held in place with sufficient tension whilst allowing it to be move under and over other strands. The nature of this project forgoes common methods of digital model fabrication that usually involve nesting of individual pieces. The assembly of this model will be predominantly driven by the visualisation of data from the digital model.

In the final configuration the position of points where the strands would meet were determined and then offset and duplicated. There was enough flexbility for strands to be thread through. The addition of the second set of holes ensured that the strand would be kept in place.

C.2

D,0

{115.4, 1180.0, 16.0} {112.6, 1169.6, 16.0} {109.9, 1159.1, 16.0}

D,1 D,2

{107.2, 1148.7, 16.0} {104.4, 1138.2, 16.0} {101.7, 1127.8, 16.0} {99.0, 1117.3, 16.0}

C,0

{96.3, 1106.9,16.0}

{307.0, 1134.0, 6

C,1

{297.2, 1112.9, 65.0

{93.6, 1096.4,16.0} C,2

{90.8, 1086.0,16.0}

{287.0, 1091.8, 65.0}

{85.4, 1065.1, 16.0}

{282.4, 1081.8, 65.0}

{82.7, 1054.6, 16.0}

{277.5, 1070.7, 65.0}

{80.0, 1044.2, 16.0}

{272.6, 1060.2 65.0}

{267.7, 1049.7, 65.0}

{77.2, 1033.8, 16.0}

{262.7, 1039.1, 65.0}

{74.5, 1023.3, 16.0}

{257.9, 1028.6, 65.0}

{71.8, 1012.9, 16.0}

{252.9, 1018.0, 65.0}

{69.0, 1002.4,16.0}

{248.0, 1007.5, 65.0}

{66.3, 992.0,16.0}

{243.1, 996.9 65.0}

{63.6, 981.5, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0} {233.3, 975.9, 65.0}

{60.9, 971.1, 16.0}

{228.3, 965.3, 65.0}

{58.1, 960.6, 16.0}

{223.5, 954.8, 65.0}

{55.4, 950.2, 16.0}

218.5, 944.2, 65.0}

{52.7, 939.7, 16.0}

{213.6, 933.7, 65.0}

{50.0, 929.3, 16.0}

{208.7, 923.1, 65.0}

{47.2, 918.8, 16.0}

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.9, 902.1, 65.0}

{44.5, 908.4, 16.0}

{194.0, 891.5, 65.0}

{41.8, 898.0, 16.0}

{189.1, 881.0, 65.0}

{39.1, 887.5, 16.0}

{184.1, 870.4, 65.0}

{36.3, 877.1, 16.0}

{179.2, 859.0, 65.0}

{33.6, 866.6, 16.0}

{174.3, 849.3, 65.0}

{30.9, 856.2, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0} {164.5, 828.3, 65.0}

{28.2, 845.7, 16.0}

{159.6, 817.7, 65.0}

{25.4, 835.3, 16.0} {22.7, 845.7, 16.0} {20.0, 814.4, 16.0}

{297.2, 1134.0, 65.0} {292.3, 1102.4, 65.0}

{88.1, 1075.5,16.0}

{154.7, 807.2, 65.0}

{149.7, 796.6, 65.0} {144.8, 786.1, 65.0}

{139.9, 775.5, 65.0}

{

{381

{135.0, 765.0, 65.0}

{347.7, 657.1

{331.1, 644.8, 8

{369 {297.8 620.0, 0, 8 88.0} 0} {358.0, 6

C.2

65.0}

A,0

{880.0, 1053.3, 88.0} {846.7, 1028.5, 88.0} {830.1, 1016.1, 88.0}

A,1

{742.0, 1055.0, 16.0}

B,0

{731.0, 1043.4, 16.0}

B,1

{720.1, 1031.0, 16.0}

B,2

{709.1, 1020.3, 16.0}

A,2

{698.1, 1008.8, 16.0} {687.1, 997.3, 16.0}

{796.8, 991.4, 88.0}

{676.2, 985.7, 16.0}

{780.2, 979.0, 88.0}

{665.0, 974.2, 16.0} {654.2, 962.7, 16.0}

{746.9, 954.2, 88.0}

{643.3, 951.1, 16.0}

{730.3, 941.9, 88.0}

632.3, 939.6.0, 16.0} {621,3,928.0, 16.0}

{697.0, 917.1, 88.0}

{610.3, 916.5, 16.0}

{680.4, 904.7, 88.0}

{599.4, 904.9, 16.0} {588.4, 893.4, 16.0}

{647.1, 879.9, 88.0}

{577.0, 881.9, 16.0}

{630.3, 867.6, 88.0}

{566.5, 870.3, 16.0} {597.2, 842.8, 88.0}

{555.5, 858.8, 16.0}

{580.59, 830.4, 88.0}

{544.5, 847,2, 16.0} {533.5, 835.7, 16.0}

{547.3, 805.7, 88.0} {530.37, 793.3, 88.0}

{522.6, 824.1, 16.0} {511.6, 812.6, 16.0}

{500.6, 801.1, 16.0} {497.4, 768.6, 88.0} {480.8, 756.2, 88.0}

{489.6, 789.5, 16.0} {478.7, 778.0, 16.0}

{467.7, 766.4, 16.0} {447.5, 731.4, 88.0} {430.9, 719.0, 88.0}

{397.6, 694.3, 88.0} 0}}

{456.7, 754.9, 16.0}

Map of points

{445.7, 743.3, 16.0}

{434.8, 731.8.0, 16.0}

{423.8, 720.3, 16.0} 1.0, 681.9, 88.0} 0}} {412.9, 708.7.0, 16.0}

Points of each line with x, y, z co-ordinates labelled. Co-ordinate data obtained from the digital modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition. Such data sets can be used to direct physical assembly of the model.

{401.9, 697.2, 16.0}

1, 88.0} 8.0} .0 {390.9, 685.2, 16.0} 88.0} 88 } {379.9, 674.1, 16.0}

9.0, 662.5.0, 16.0}

651.0, 16.0}

C.2

C, 0 Point 1 2

D, 1 x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0} {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

1 2

x, y, z {112.64861, 1169.553936, 16.0} {107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

Point 1 2

x, y, z {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

Point

x, y, z

{307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{302.085714, 1123.4571

{297.171429, 1112.9142

{292.257143, 1102.3714

{287.342857, 1091.8285

{282.428571, 1081.2857

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{96.298855, 1106.87755, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.7428

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{79.949101, 1044.201164, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{267.685714, 1049.6571

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{262.771429, 1039.1142

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{63.599346, 981.524778, 16.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{257.857143, 1028.5714

{252.942857, 1018.0285

{248.028571, 1007.4857

{243.114286, 996.94285

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

14 15 16 17 18

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{47.249591, 918.848392, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.85714

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.31428

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.77142

{218.542857, 944.22857

{213.628571, 933.68571

{208.714286, 923.14285

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.05714

{193.971429, 891.51428

{189.057143, 880.97142

{184.142857, 870.42857

{179.228571, 859.88571

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

D, 0 Point

Point

C, 0

C, 2

16 17 18

{30.899836, 856.172006, 16.0} {25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

Point

x, y, z {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

4 5

7 8

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

D, 2

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

C,1 x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{174.314286, 849.34285

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{164.485714, 828.25714

{159.571429, 817.71428

{154.657143, 807.17142

{149.742857, 796.62857

{144.828571, 786.08571

{139.914286, 775.54285

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0} {82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0} {77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

6 7 8

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0} {238.2, 986.4, 65.0} {228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

12 13

6 7 8

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0} {71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

D, 0

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

Point

x, y, z

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

{107.198692, 1148.661807

{99.023814, 1117.323614,

{90.848937, 1085.985421,

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 1

{74.499182, 1023.309035,

{66.324305, 991.970842, 1

{58.149428, 960.632649, 1

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16

{41.799673, 897.956263, 1

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16

{25.449918, 835.279877, 1

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

Point co-ordinates x, y, z co-ordinates can be input as instructions for robots to follow. The model is highly customiseable and information like this can be easily and quickly extracted for fabrication purposes.

B, 0

C, 1

B, 1

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{731.028571, 1043.457143, 16.0}

143, 65.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{720.057143, 1031.914286, 16.0}

286, 65.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{709.085714, 1020.371429, 16.0}

429, 65.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{698.114286, 1008.828571, 16.0}

571, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{687.142857, 997.285714, 16.0}

714, 65.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{676.171429, 985.742857, 16.0}

857, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{665.2, 974.2, 16.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{654.228571, 962.657143, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} 9

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0}

{643.257143, 951.114286, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{632.285714, 939.571429, 16.0}

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0}

{621.314286, 928.028571, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{610.342857, 916.485714, 16.0}

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{599.371429, 904.942857, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{588.4, 893.4, 16.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{577.428571, 881.857143, 16.0}

143, 65.0}

286, 65.0}

429, 65.0}

571, 65.0}

714, 65.0}

57, 65.0}

10 11 12 13 14 15

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0} {243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0} {238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

43, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

86, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{566.457143, 870.314286, 16.0}

29, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{555.485714, 858.771429, 16.0}

71, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{544.514286, 847.228571, 16.0}

14, 65.0}

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

{533.542857, 835.685714, 16.0}

57, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{522.571429, 824.142857, 16.0}

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{511.6, 812.6, 16.0}

43, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{500.628571, 801.057143, 16.0}

86, 65.0}

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{489.657143, 789.514286, 16.0}

29, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{478.685714, 777.971429, 16.0}

71, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{467.714286, 766.428571, 16.0}

14, 65.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{456.742857, 754.885714, 16.0}

57, 65.0}

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{445.771429, 743.342857, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{434.8, 731.8, 16.0}

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0} 29

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{423.828571, 720.257143, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{412.857143, 708.714286, 16.0}

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{401.885714, 697.171429, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{390.914286, 685.628571, 16.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{379.942857, 674.085714, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{368.971429, 662.542857, 16.0}

{135.0, 765.0, 65.0}

{358.0, 651.0, 16.0}

43, 65.0}

86, 65.0}

29, 65.0}

71, 65.0}

14, 65.0}

31 32 33 34

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

57, 65.0}

A, 2

D, 2 A, 0 Point

x, y, z

}

{880.0, 1053.273897, 88.0}

7, 16.0}

{830.098445, 1016.136134, 88.0}

{780.196889, 978.998372, 88.0}

16.0} 16.0}

16.0}

4 5 6

{730.295334, 941.860609, 88.0} {680.393778, 904.722847, 88.0} {630.492223, 867.585084, 88.0}

16.0}

{580.590667, 830.447321, 88.0}

16.0}

6.0}

16.0}

6.0}

16.0}

8 9 10 11 12

{530.689112, 793.309559, 88.0} {480.787557, 756.171796, 88.0} {430.886001, 719.034034, 88.0} {380.984446, 681.896271, 88.0} {331.08289, 644.758508, 88.0}

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

{846.732296, 1028.515388, 88.0}

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{796.830741, 991.377626, 88.0}

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{746.929186, 954.239863, 88.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{697.02763, 917.102101, 88.0}

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{647.126075, 879.964338, 88.0}

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{597.224519, 842.826576, 88.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{547.322964, 805.688813, 88.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{497.421408, 768.55105, 88.0}

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{447.519853, 731.413288, 88.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{397.618298, 694.275525, 88.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{347.716742, 657.137763, 88.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{297.815187, 620.0, 88.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

C, 0 - D,1

D, 1 - C, 2

D, 0 - C, 1

C, 1 - B, 1

C, 0 - B, 0

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

199.142463

203.562141

201.145519

201.490032

444.822436

439.081968

195.1485

199.420475

197.143415

197.353551

439.081968

433.352429

191.171582

195.289342

193.157844

193.227936

433.352429

427.634257

187.212794

191.169423

189.18985

189.113898

427.634257

421.927916

183.273313

187.061459

185.240563

185.01221

421.927916

416.233892

179.35441

182.966257

181.311206

180.923711

416.233892

410.552698

175.457464

178.884691

177.403102

176.849318

410.552698

404.884873

171.583971

174.817718

173.517687

172.790026

404.884873

399.230986

167.735556

170.7663

169.656522

168.746926

399.230986

393.59164

163.913985

166.731817

165.821298

164.721211

393.59164

387.967467

160.12118

162.715276

162.01386

160.714186

387.967467

382.359137

156.359235

158.718126

158.236212

156.727286

382.359137

376.767357

152.630431

154.741869

154.49054

152.762086

376.767357

371.192877

148.937258

150.788159

150.779227

148.82032

371.192877

365.636486

145.282433

146.858816

147.104873

144.903902

365.636486

360.099023

141.668924

142.955849

143.470318

141.014942

360.099023

354.581373

138.099975

139.08148

139.878665

137.155777

354.581373

349.084477

135.238166

136.333305

349.084477

343.609331

338.15699

332.728577

327.325282 321.948368

D, 0 - A, 0

C, 1 - D, 2

Point

A, 0 - D, 2 x, y, z

Point

D, 2 - A, 2 x, y, z

Point

x, y, z

778.393913

780.642308

751.748214

327.325282

738.465373

740.364296

711.987172

321.948368

316.599181

698.795128

700.303984

672.51438

316.599181

311.27915

659.429796

660.500985

633.383731

311.27915

305.989796

620.427419

621.004777

305.989796

300.732736

581.860989

581.877836

556.437035

300.732736

295.509696

543.823261

543.199964

518.815996

295.509696

290.32251

506.433381

505.074338

481.941285

290.32251

285.173136

469.846041

467.636049

445.998059

285.173136

280.063659

434.26413

431.064221

411.230636

280.063659

274.996303

399.956085

395.599232

377.963629

274.996303

269.973439

367.279057

361.566928

346.629304

269.973439

264.997599

260.07148

255.197962

4 5

594.662771

Segment lengths Segment lengths (distances between points) allow for precision in the fabrication process enabling minimised wastage of material. With this information logistical requirements for the realisation of the project become easier to calculate. The measurements (in millimetres) here are specific to scale of the final model (1:200).

C.2

C.3 Gateway Project: Final Model

C.3

Construction and assembly 1

Pre-fabricated structural steel members brought onto site

Galvanised wire ropes or steel cables woven through pre-fabricated holes in the steel members

3 Paper knots interwoven with framework 4 End cables tied anchored down 5

Planting of seeds

Point

x, y, z

{112.64861, 1169.553936, 16.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

Point 1 2

x, y, z {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

Point 1

3 4

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0} {96.298855, 1106.87755, 16.0}

5 6

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{79.949101, 1044.201164, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0} {228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

8 9

{90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

{63.599346, 981.524778, 16.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0} {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

12 13

3 4 5 6

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0} {47.249591, 918.848392, 16.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

10 {198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0} 8 {218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} 9 {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

12 13

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

Point 1

C, 1 x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0} {69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

2 3

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0} {277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

B, 0

C, 0

C, 2

D, 1 , y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0}

13 {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0} {179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

Point 1 2 3 4 5

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0} {243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0} {238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

16 17 18

{30.899836, 856.172006, 16.0}

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

Point

x, y, z

Point

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

D, 2

C,1 , y, z

x, y, z

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

24 {115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0} {88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0}

5 6

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

5 6

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0} {82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

9 10

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

9 10

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0} {44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

13 14 15

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0} {159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

28 29 30 31 32

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Point 1

16 17

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0} {243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0} {238.2, 986.4, 65.0} {233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0} {228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0} {223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0} {218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} {213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0} {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0} {203.8, 912.6, 65.0} {198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0} {193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0} {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0} {184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0} {179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0} {174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0} {164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0} {159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0} {135.0, 765.0, 65.0}

D, 2 A, 0

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0} x, y, z

Point

Point x, y, z

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0} {28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0} {159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0} D, 0

14 15

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} {213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0} {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0} {203.8, 912.6, 65.0} {198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0} {193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0} {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0} {179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0} {60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0} {55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0}

26 27

33 {71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0} {66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0} {104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {272.6 , 1060.2, 65.0}

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

14 15

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

x, y, z

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0} {292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0} {282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

6 7

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

10 11 12 13 14 15

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

2 3 4 5

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0} {107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0} {99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0} {90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0} {82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

1 2 3 4 5

{630.492223, 867.585084, 88.0} {580.590667, 830.447321, 88.0}

8 8 9

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0} {49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{880.0, 1053.273897, 88.0} {830.098445, 1016.136134, 88.0} {780.196889, 978.998372, 88.0} {730.295334, 941.860609, 88.0} {680.393778, 904.722847, 88.0}

6 7

9 10

{530.689112, 793.309559, 88.0} {480.787557, 756.171796, 88.0} {430.886001, 719.034034, 88.0}

{380.984446, 681.896271, 88.0}

{331.08289, 644.758508, 88.0}

1 2 3 4 5 6

x, y, z D2 {109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0} {101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0} {93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0} {85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0} {77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

9 10

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0} {44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

At full-scale, the locations of each individual perforation can be programmed into a machine that can then drill holes at precise locations into light gauge roll-formed steel.

C.3

Paper knots are intertwined with the woven wire rope framework. Small flying robots embed the paper knots with plant sseds after installation.

Galvanised wire ropes or steel cables would be used in the full-scale installation for its durability and capacity to bear the loads of both the clusters of paper knots and growing plants. C, 0 Point 1 2

D, 1 x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0} {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

Point 1 2

Point

{112.64861, 1169.553936, 16.0} {107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

1 2

x, y, z {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

Point 1 2 3

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{96.298855, 1106.87755, 16.0}

{90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

5 6

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{79.949101, 1044.201164, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{63.599346, 981.524778, 16.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0} {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0} {179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0} {159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

3 4 5 6 7

{52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{47.249591, 918.848392, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

10 {198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0} {189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

14 15

{30.899836, 856.172006, 16.0}

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

x, y, z

Point

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0} {169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0} {149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0} {139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

x, y, z

15 16

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0}

3 4

{302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0} {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0} {292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0} {282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0} {277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

3 4

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0} {93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{88.123978, 1075.539357, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{71.774223, 1012.862971, 16.0}

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{39.074714, 887.510199, 16.0} {33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{22.724959, 824.833813, 16.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

1 2

9 10

B, 1 x, y, z {302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0} {297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

Point 1 2

x, y, z {731.028571, 1043.457143, 16.0} {720.057143, 1031.914286, 16.0}

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0}

{709.085714, 1020.371429, 16.0}

{287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0}

{698.114286, 1008.828571, 16.0}

{282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0}

{687.142857, 997.285714, 16.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0}

{676.171429, 985.742857, 16.0}

{272.6, 1060.2, 65.0}

{665.2, 974.2, 16.0}

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{654.228571, 962.657143, 16.0}

{262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

9 10

{643.257143, 951.114286, 16.0} {632.285714, 939.571429, 16.0}

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0}

{621.314286, 928.028571, 16.0}

{248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

{610.342857, 916.485714, 16.0}

14 15

21 22

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{599.371429, 904.942857, 16.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{588.4, 893.4, 16.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{577.428571, 881.857143, 16.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{566.457143, 870.314286, 16.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{511.6, 812.6, 16.0}

Point

x, y, z

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0}

{107.198692, 1148.661807, 16.0}

{99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0} {90.848937, 1085.985421, 16.0}

{82.67406, 1054.647228, 16.0}

{74.499182, 1023.309035, 16.0}

{489.657143, 789.514286, 16.0} {478.685714, 777.971429, 16.0}

{830.098445, 1016.136134, 88.0} {780.196889, 978.998372, 88.0}

4 5

{730.295334, 941.860609, 88.0} {680.393778, 904.722847, 88.0}

{630.492223, 867.585084, 88.0}

{580.590667, 830.447321, 88.0}

{66.324305, 991.970842, 16.0}

{58.149428, 960.632649, 16.0}

{49.97455, 929.294456, 16.0}

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0}

{33.624796, 866.61807, 16.0}

{25.449918, 835.279877, 16.0}

{530.689112, 793.309559, 88.0} {480.787557, 756.171796, 88.0}

{430.886001, 719.034034, 88.0}

{380.984446, 681.896271, 88.0}

{331.08289, 644.758508, 88.0}

C.3

25 26

{164.485714, 828.257143, 65.0}

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

29 30

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{139.914286, 775.542857, 65.0}

{135.0, 765.0, 65.0}

Point

x, y, z

{880.0, 1053.273897, 88.0}

2 3

{500.628571, 801.057143, 16.0}

23 24

{555.485714, 858.771429, 16.0}

{533.542857, 835.685714, 16.0} {522.571429, 824.142857, 16.0}

{544.514286, 847.228571, 16.0}

19 20

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

{169.4, 838.8, 65.0}

A, 0

17 18

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

33 34 35

{467.714286, 766.428571, 16.0} {456.742857, 754.885714, 16.0} {445.771429, 743.342857, 16.0} {434.8, 731.8, 16.0}

{423.828571, 720.257143, 16.0} {412.857143, 708.714286, 16.0} {401.885714, 697.171429, 16.0} {390.914286, 685.628571, 16.0} {379.942857, 674.085714, 16.0} {368.971429, 662.542857, 16.0} {358.0, 651.0, 16.0}

A, 2

D, 2

D, 0

{159.571429, 817.714286, 65.0}

{154.657143, 807.171429, 65.0}

{149.742857, 796.628571, 65.0}

{144.828571, 786.085714, 65.0}

{55.424469, 950.186585, 16.0}

12 13 14

{243.114286, 996.942857, 65.0}

{238.2, 986.4, 65.0}

{233.285714, 975.857143, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{223.457143, 954.771429, 65.0}

{218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0}

{213.628571, 933.685714, 65.0}

{208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0}

{203.8, 912.6, 65.0}

{198.885714, 902.057143, 65.0}

{193.971429, 891.514286, 65.0}

{189.057143, 880.971429, 65.0}

{184.142857, 870.428571, 65.0}

{179.228571, 859.885714, 65.0}

{174.314286, 849.342857, 65.0}

5 6

Point

3 4 5 6 7 8

{267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

Point

1 2

{104.473733, 1138.215743, 16.0} {99.023814, 1117.323614, 16.0}

C, 1 x, y, z {307.0, 1134.0, 65.0}

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

D, 2

x, y, z

{115.373569, 1180.0, 16.0} {109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{307.0, 1134.0, 65.0} {302.085714, 1123.457143, 65.0}

{252.942857, 1018.028571, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

C,1

D, 0 Point 1 2

Point

x, y, z

{292.257143, 1102.371429, 65.0} {287.342857, 1091.828571, 65.0} {282.428571, 1081.285714, 65.0} {277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {272.6, 1060.2, 65.0} {267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0} {262.771429, 1039.114286, 65.0} {257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0}

12 13

In the previous phase we had established that keeping the strands in tension would be the most challenging part in assembling the model. Whilst keeping the strands taught, the posts also had to resist the forces being exerted upon it by the strands pulling it across it. In order to keep the posts in place, anchorage members had to be introduced to tie them into position akin to the construction of a suspension bridge.

{41.799673, 897.956263, 16.0} {36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

{257.857143, 1028.571429, 65.0} {248.028571, 1007.485714, 65.0}

8 {218.542857, 944.228571, 65.0} 9 {208.714286, 923.142857, 65.0} 11

{297.171429, 1112.914286, 65.0}

{277.514286, 1070.742857, 65.0} {267.685714, 1049.657143, 65.0}

{228.371429, 965.314286, 65.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

10 11

B, 0

C, 0

C, 2 x, y, z

3 4

x, y, z D2

Point 1

x, y, z

{846.732296, 1028.515388, 88.0}

{109.923651, 1159.107871, 16.0}

{796.830741, 991.377626, 88.0}

{101.748774, 1127.769678, 16.0}

{746.929186, 954.239863, 88.0}

{93.573896, 1096.431485, 16.0}

{697.02763, 917.102101, 88.0}

{85.399019, 1065.093292, 16.0}

{647.126075, 879.964338, 88.0}

{77.224142, 1033.755099, 16.0}

{597.224519, 842.826576, 88.0}

{69.049264, 1002.416906, 16.0}

{547.322964, 805.688813, 88.0}

8 9

{60.874387, 971.078713, 16.0} {52.699509, 939.74052, 16.0}

{44.524632, 908.402327, 16.0}

{36.349755, 877.064134, 16.0}

{28.174877, 845.725941, 16.0}

{20.0, 814.387748, 16.0}

8 9

{497.421408, 768.55105, 88.0}

{447.519853, 731.413288, 88.0}

{397.618298, 694.275525, 88.0}

{347.716742, 657.137763, 88.0}

{297.815187, 620.0, 88.0}

1 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

3 4 5 1

4 5 1 2

3 4 5 1

4 5 1 2

2 3 4 5

4 5 1 2

3 4 5 1

4 5 1 2

4 5 1 2 5

5 1 2 3

1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3

1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3

1 2 3 4

C.3

Knotting This knotting technique bears similarities in the patterning system of the woven framework.

C.3

3.1

Time lapse stills Gradual growth of greenery over time. Plants grow and emerge from the existing mound on site. As one moves through the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;groveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the growth gradually becomes sparser and opens up to Wyndham.

C.3

C.4 Algorithmic Sketches

Alternative configurations Alternative patterns and configurations using the same technique used in the final model. Having established a system for the generation of patterns, these few sketches were produced within a very short amount of time and illustrate the potential for the definition to produce numerous other designs.

C.4

C.5 Learning Outcomes

n the process of developing a design concept, our group found a way to appreciate parametric tools as a means to generate design, seeing an opportunity to fuse two seemingly polar opposites of handcraft and digital techniques into the project. The final outcome was mixed. Overall, the concept was interesting but there was a weakpoint in the final model in the resolution of material and consructional components. The use of paper to make the knotted components of the model received mixed reviews. Paper was chosen specifically for its ability to be twisted into yarn and become knotted to form clusters that could also integrate the needs for plant growth. Its temporality was a feature that contributed to the design concept. The visual heaviness of the post-and-beam system used to hold the strands became a considerable drawback. To a large extent this relates to a commonly observed criticism in the use of parametric tools. Digital models have the ability to consider only known structural and/or material behaviours and parameters.3 The success of a fabricated model however is also dependant on unknown parameters that would not have been accounted for in the design.4 This is a stage, in which one may lose sight

C.5

of the full-scale constructability of a given design - a situation which we encountered. In saying this however, an exciting part of the project came about from the final definition - the data set. Obtaining this information confirmed the plausibility of realising the model as a full-scale installation. Having looked at several precedents such as the MIT Robot Arm and TomĂĄs Saracenoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 14Billions, it was encouraging to find relevance between the nature of our project and contemporary experiments and realised projects. With more time, further reasearch into tools to structurally analyse our design would have been beneficial and may have yielded more refined and desirable outcomes. At a personal level, the project has broadened my view of digital tools in architecture as another source of inspiration and has introduced me to projects and ideas I may not have otherwise come across. Following on from this experience, I hope to investigate further into the fabrication of parametrically controlled assemblies and implementation of data from digital models.

References Notes 1

Adanur, S. 2000. Handbook of Weaving, (Lancaster: CRC Press, 2002), p.2

Harvey, V.I. ‘Macramé: New Applications for the Ancient Art of Knot-Tying.’ Art Education. Vol. 19 (1966), p. 27 2

Bruckermann, O. ‘Digital Efficiency vs. physical necessity,’ in T. Sakamoto et al. (eds), From Control to Design: Parametric/Algorithmic, (New York: Actar-D, 2008), p.151 3

Ibid.

Images

Fig. 1.1 Provided by StudioAIR, The University of Melbourne, 2013. All diagrams unless indicated are by the author. Photos by Gokmen, A. Tang, E. and Wang, J. May, 2013. 89

C.5

EMILY TANG University of MElbourne 2013