ABPL3004: Architecture Design Studio Air: Final Journal by Tony Duong

‘living architecture’ 2015 Semester 1 ABPL30048: Architecture Design Studio Air The University of Melbourne Journal by: Tony Duong

CONCEPTUALISATION 1

Student Name: Tony Duong Studio Leader: Bradley Elias Studio: #13 (Friday 12.00-3.00PM)

Table of Contents Part A: Conceptualisation

Part C: Detailed Design

4  Introduction

48  C1: Design Concept

8

A1 Design Futuring

53

C2: Tectonic Elements & Prototypes

10

A2 Design Computation

54

C3:Final Detail Model

12

A3 Composition/Generation

62

C4: Learning Objectives and Outcomes

18

A4& 5: Conclusion & Learning Outcomes

63 References

19

A6: Appendix: Algorithmic Sketches

20 References Part B: Criteria Design 24

B1 Research Field

26

B2 Case Study 1.0

30

B3 Case Study 2.0

32

B4 Technique: Development

38

B5 Technique: Prototypes

42

B6 Technique: Design Proposal

43

B7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes

44

B8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

45 References

Figure 1: Virtual Environments 2013: Prototype assembly with laser-cut premium plywood

Figure 2: Virtual Environments 2013: Final model deployed 4 CONCEPTUALISATION

Introduction Hi, my name is Tony. I am a third year architecture student studying Bachelor of Environments at the University of Melbourne. My decision to study architecture grew from an early age, fascinated about buildings and other various design fields.

My background in digital design software is still developing as I continue to explore various CAD softwares. Virtual Environments was the first subject to introduce me to the Rhino, 3d modelling software, as well as the ‘panelling tools’ plug-in for producing intricate and complex geometry.

The subject asked students (that were put into groups) to develop a second skin to be worn on the body that responded to the idea of personal space. I was unfamiliar with the Rhino tool. Therefore, my design project didn’t succeed in exploring much about the design software. Neither did ‘panelling tools’ created any benefit, as the results we were getting did not match well with our concept.

In the end, we still managed through our project by exploring and testing many physical prototypes. In the article, ‘Thinking through making,’ Daniel Charney quoted that “making is the most powerful way that we solve problems, express ideas and shape our world.”[1] The act of making was fundamental to our process to push our designs to the limit. Thus, despite the lack of digital modelling skills, we at least were able to use laser cutters and card cutters for quick prototying. Hence, my success with digital design tools leaned more towards the physical making of the object, rather than the software side of it.

Ultimately, what I hope to achieve in this subject is to not only improve my knowledge of the digital design software, that is, the grasshopper plug-in tool, but to also refine my design processes in hope that it will become useful for future design projects.

1

Daniel Charney, ‘Thinking through Making’, in Power of Making, (South Kensington, London: V&A, 6 September -2 January 2011-2012).

CONCEPTUALISATION 5

PARTA: CONCEPTUALISATION

A1 DESIGN FUTURING

Fig.3 Interior view illustrating the use of recycled materials in the furniture and structure of the Cardboard Cathedral (2013), Christchurch, New Zealand by Shigeru Ban.

Precedence: Cardboard Cathedral (2013) by Shigeru Ban

Designing for the future commonly involves approaching design to reach sustainable outcomes. Some techniques which help promote sustainability include using environmentally friendly materials such as recycled paper to lessen the impact on natural resources and even newer ideas like ‘democratic design,’ changing the role of architects by giving users the freedom to design their own spaces. [2] A more recent discussion, however, has involved addressing the issue of capitalism and its impact on design. The argument is that whilst capitalism still remains an influence to architecture, it is still possible to overcome this issue through creative processes and an engagement with economic resources. [3]

2 3 4

8

Shigeru Ban’s Cardboard Cathedral, Christchurch, 2013, illustrates an innovative approach where recycled cardboard helped to restore the cathedral from not only the church service,but also from the financial issues faced after the church was devastated by the earthquake in 2011. [4] The life expectancy of the project is intended to last 20 to 30 years.

Thus, capitalism is an important issue to consider in contemporary architecture, and some of the best ways to address this issue, as Shigeru Ban demonstrates, is engage with more economical resources.

Tony Fry, Design Futuring : Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, English edn (Oxford ; New York, N.Y.: Berg, 2009), p. 10.

Paul Brislin, Human Experience and Place : Sustaining Identity, (Hoboken, N.J.Chichester: Wiley ;John Wiley distributor, 2012), p. 60.

Ibid, p.65

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig.4 Bird’s eye view of the groundbreaking tensile structure of the Munich Olympic Park (1972), Munich, Germany by Frei Otto.

Precedence: Munich Olympic Park (1972) by Frei Otto The reading ‘Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming’ encourages designers to be unafraid of their design ideas. To be bold and brave about an idea, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ is essential for extending a designer’s creativity. The notion of ‘speculative thinking’ provides an ability to think more freely, creating new possibilities and alternatives for a design. Therefore, it becomes a useful technique for exploring design ideas.

[5] In this particular 1972 Munich Olympic stadium designed

by German architect, Frei Otto. As shown above[fig.4] the building illustrates a tensile structural system, enveloped with a membrane that gives the impression of a shelter that floats in the sky.

Frei Otto’s experiments with tensile structural systems demonstrates bold and challenging concepts, which as mentioned before, encouraging designers to extend their creativity by being brave with their ideas. In order to realise these bold ideas, precise calculations were utilised. Modern computational tools,however, would have sped the process as opposed to using analogue tools. [6] Thus, whilst Otto demonstrates that it is useful to think imaginatively in order to think of wide possibilities for future designs, it is important to understand how to convert an imagined idea into a real object.

5 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything : Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming, p. 9.

6 Andrew Kroll, ‘Ad Classics: Munich Olympic Stadium / Frei Otto & Gunther Behnisch’, ArchDaily, (2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/413224/shigeru-ban-completes-cardboardcathedral-in-new-zealand/5217f9f2e8e44e3de6000016_newly-released-photos-of-shigeru-ban-s-cardboard-cathedral-in-new-zealand_anderson_mg_5639-jpg/> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

9

A2 DESIGN COMPUTATION Ideas behind Vitruvius created a manual for architecture as his famous text on the “Ten Books of Architecture” can often be described as prescriptive and about exact calculations. With the arrival of digital technologies and tools, various computational methodologies have been developed to help designers realise visions with precision and speed.[7]On the notion of Vitruvius’ text that could be seen as a manual, it is connected to the idea behind algorithms, a fundamental concept used in computational design processes. Algorithms are not only a ‘set of instructions’ for a design output, it becomes an integral part of our design processes, as we are able to take full control of the rules and definitions to explore further design possibilities.[8]This idea is also connected with parametric techniques, which manipulate data to arrive at multiple outcomes. These computational devices can become a powerful tool in our arsenal, which a selected few will be discussed in the next few paragraphs.

Fig. 5 The Mobius house (1993-1998), Het Gooi, Netherlands by UN studio, which is not a direct form from the previous diagram, but a highlight of the investigations of qualitative data.

Precedence: Mobius House (1993-1998) by UN studio Some computational design methods can help express architectural ideas more clearly. Traditional methods of representation such as sketches can sometimes be vaguely described, and not fully realised. The difficulty in this is communicating that idea across to a computer and from a computer to a materialised object. Again, not all computational methods need to be used to arrive at a complex geometrical outcome.

It can be used to explore formal architectural ideas such as in the Mobius house by UN studio [Fig.6].

The topological surface is not an outcome of its form, but a diagrammatic method for exploring spatial qualities and connections between opposite spaces.

Therefore, computational design is more than just finding a complex non-geometrical form. It extends from that by investigating formal architectural ideas such as spatiality, programming and circulation. Thus, it may be helpful to explore possible functions or user activities through using this design technique. [9]

Fig. 6 A diagram that shows the spatial connections from a morphed surface.

7 Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, p. 1 8 Frank C. Keil, Robert A. Wilson, and MITCogNet., ‘The Mit Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences’, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,, 1999), pp. cxxxii, 964 p. 11 9 Branko Kolarevic, ‘Architecture in the Digital Age Design and Manufacturing’, in Ebl, (London: Spon Press,, 2003), p. 1 online resource (441 p.) p. 13 Peters and De Kestelier, p. 10.

10

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig. 8 The Gherkin (2004), London, UK by Foster and Partners

Precedence: Swiss Re HQ or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Gherkinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2004) by Foster and Partners After the discovery of the capabilities of parametric design, people started to develop further tools for analysing environmental factors. A change of practice begins to occur because we are able to perform accurate simulations of environmental, structural or material analyses as part of generating many possibilities for a design. It helps make more informed decisions on our design ideas and we can receive real time feedback from the analyses we find.

The performative analysis simulation shown in [fig.7] illustrates how the Gherkin can be analysed to respond to wind pressures. Another example by Foster Associates is the London City Hall which also uses the same method for analysing wind problems.[10] 10 11

Performative architecture has also helped forge better connections between an architect and engineer.

To put it another way, it helps the connection of an idea to a material object or from computation to fabrication.[11] As discussed earlier in A1 (Design Futuring), architects are finding ways to improve the dying planet. So, it is possible for us to enhance our designs to be more responsive with the environment through performance analyses.

Fig. 7 An environmental analysis of wind studies for the Gherkin design

Hence, different design processes integrated with digital technologies have generated a whole new way of dealing with the complex issues of architectural design.

Brady Peters, and Xavier De Kestelier, Computation Works : The Building of Algorithmic Thought, Architectural Design (2013), p. 10 Kolarevic, p. 6.

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

A3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION Previously discussed were a few examples of the benefits of computational techniques, which often led to a specific outcome. In this subject, it is repeatedly emphasising on how to think algorithmically because as explained in A2 (computational design), to be more engaged with the process, and make better informed decisions can be done through algorithmic thinking. Computation is emerging into our practice because it provides us with the flexibility to accomodate for our design needs. 11

Precedence: Shellstar Pavillion (2012) by MATSYS The Shellstar pavillion portrayed in [fig.10] is a lightweight structure that demonstrates engagement with different digital design techinques.

Specifially, parametric devices were used to manipulate the mesh geometry into an arrived form. The forms derived are similar techniques developed in Frei Otto’s tensile structures shown in [fig. 4]. It also uses the physics Kangaroo engine, a performance analysis tool used to simulate a real world environment to test for its practicality.

The challenges faced in the project was having the deal with a form that was non-planar. In this case, a Python scripting program was used to accomodate for this constraint as seen in [fig.9].[12] Therefore, it is important to anticipate these problems within computational design processes as it provides a greater flexibility toward our design ideas.

As shown, computational techniques utilised in the process helped MATSYS to continually refine design ideas, optimise for material and structural performance whilst being able to accomodate for difficult challenges encountered in the process.[13] Fig. 9 diagrams which illustrate the computation techniques involved in the process from a simple idea progressing toward sophisticated model.

12 13

12

Peters and De Kestelier, p. 10 ‘Shellstar Pavilion’, MATSYS, (2015) <http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig. 10 Shellstar Pavillion (2012), Wan Chai, Hong Kong by Matsys, image by Dennis Lo

Fig. 11 Spatial view of Shellstar Pavillion (2012), Wan Chai, Hong Kong by Matsys, image by Dennis Lo

CONCEPTUALISATION 13

A3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION

Fig. 12 Material Testing of the Bloom

The increase use in simulation capabilities can help architects formulate better design decisions based on a calculated prediction of a design outcome. Perhaps this is what the creation of the scripted physics Kangaroo has allowed us to do. We are able to explore and test our design ideas at the same time. Therefore, it is only counted as a tool in the process, not the outcome.

Precedence: BLOOM by Doris Sung BLOOM as seen in [fig.15] is a metal skin structure that holds properties that respond to the heat of the sun. It is also an adaptive system that opens and closes to provide shlelter and sufficient ventilation. This ingenious idea challenges the perception of surfaces by being more interactive and responsive to the surrounding environment.[14] As shown in [fig.12] and [fig.13], it is clear that computational processes were involved in a similar manner as the Shellstar Pavillion,as it investigates the performance of building materials. It differs to the previous design, because it has a functional property for users and the environment.

Fig. 13 Structural analysis of the Bloom

14 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Doris Sung: Bloom at Materials & Applicationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Design Boom, (2011) <http://www.designboom.com architecture/doris-sung-bloom-at-materials-applications/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

14

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig. 14. The ‘Bloom’ (2011-2012), Los Angeles, California by Doris Sung

Fig. 15 A closer detail on the skin of the Bloom

CONCEPTUALISATION 15

A3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION Precedence: BLOOM by Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez I chose this example because the results of the computational design processes in this project had led to a new way architecture is approached.

This resembles the notions described in Fry’s reading, encouraging democratic design for design futures as the control design is generated by the user.

With the aid of parametric modelling as shown in the grasshopper screenshot [fig. 17], individual modules are produced [fig.18], ready to be assembled by the user rather than the designer. It challenges the standard ways of producing architecture, and it becomes a more playful, interactive and a creative approach that gives the user the abiltiies to generate useful spaces for themselves.[15]

Fig. 16 Generated concept through grasshopper

Hence, I find this project interesting in its approach as it breaks away from the traditional methods of architectural design, redefining how products can be made, and allowing endless number of possibilties in the hands of the user. Therefore, generative design processes can be applied to the notion of democratic design approaches as well.

Fig. 17 Individual pieces ready to be assembled

15 Alison Furato, ‘Bloom – a Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez’, ArchDaily, (2012) <http://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-josesanchez/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

16

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig. 18 Playful and interactive spaces can be produced

Fig. 19 Easy to build, accomodating all user types

CONCEPTUALISATION

17

A4 CONCLUSION & A5 LEARNING OUTCOMES Conclusion

Learning Outcomes

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Conceptualisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; provides us with a starting point to understanding digital design processes. I initially discussed about possible ways of thinking about the future, and the importance it brings in our design processes. I offered a brief introduction to some computational design techniques which have been pertinent to exploring possibilities within design. Finally, I wanted to deomnstrate the capabilities of computational design and exploring how it is engaged in a real design practice.

My lack of knowledge of computer programs limited by ability to realise design ideas in the past. Understanding the fundamental concepts behind computational design helped me to see the capabiltiies within each technique. It could have benefited in my previous architectural design studio water project to explore the free form design strategies used in Toyo Ito and SANAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projects such as the Serpentine Paviilion by Seijima or Taichung Opera House by Toyo Ito. I think Part A helped provide a strong grounding to my understanding of digital design theories and processes. I recently discovered or have started to understand the concept behind algorithmic thinking. Algorithmic thinking enables us to engage with the design process, and provide a deeper understanding than just arriving at a result. It has become paramount to learning in this content, which has mentioned repeatedly in lectures, tutorials and readings.

Throughout my research, I am particularly interested in a more exploratory design approach, which is both responsive to the issues raised in A1(Design Futuring).

Hence, I find the example by Dorus Sung to be the most appropriate to my interest for further research.

The project experimented with different materials to learn how to adapt to surrounding conditions. I am also interested in the BLOOM project by Alisa and Jose, as it has been by far the most creative out of all my precedence. It stands out bceause it explores the interactions between users and the spatial qualities produced. Hence, my design approach will be a need to adapt to existing conditions of a site, which is also responsive to user activities.

So far, my skills in grasshopper is still only at a basic level. Hopefully, with more practice, it will help me overcome the difficult challenges ahead.

A6 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES Using the Octree component

Exploring the OcTree component onto a basic curved geometry of the Guggenheim Museum by Frank Lloyd Wright. This exercise helped explore extraordinary forms from simple geometry.

After learning about cull patterns, I am able use points of interest to apply the Octree to the basic surface geometry of the Webb Bridge as opposed to complex outcome from the previous example.

Using the Kangaroo physics engine From the basic mesh geometry above, many interesting forms were generated from the use of the Kangaroo plugin. Specifically, by increasing the force, number of anchors, position of anchors, and the direction of the force can change the behaviour of the geometry quite dramatically. Thus, by learning how to use grasshopper and other associated tools , we are able to spark new and interesting ideas. Having a large design toolset can certainly make us more creative and flexible designers.

Redirect forces>considering wind pressure

Changing the number of anchor points>forms generated

Differently located anchor points>forms generated

Using a low force, simulating gravity

Using a larger force, which could simulate the force from human weight

CONCEPTUALISATION

19

REFERENCES 1 Daniel Charney, ‘Thinking through Making’, in Power of Making (South Kensington, London: V&A, 6 September -2 January 2011-2012).

2 ‘Doris Sung: Bloom at Materials & Applications’, Design Boom, (2011) <http://www.designboom. com/architecture/doris-sung-bloom-at-materials-applications/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

3 Anthony Dunne, and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything : Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming, p. 1 online resource (235 pages).

4 Tony Fry, Design Futuring : Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice.

English edn (Oxford ; New York, N.Y.: Berg, 2009), pp. ix, 278 p.

5 Alison Furato, ‘Bloom – a Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez’, ArchDaily, (2012) <http://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourcedgarden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

6

‘Jury Citation ‘, <http://www.pritzkerprize.com/2014/jury-citation> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

7 Frank C. Keil, Robert A. Wilson, and MITCogNet., ‘The Mit Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences’, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,, 1999), pp. cxxxii, 964 p.

8 Branko Kolarevic, ‘Architecture in the Digital Age Design and Manufacturing’, in Ebl (London: Spon Press,, 2003), p. 1 online resource (441 p.).

9 Andrew Kroll, ‘Ad Classics: Munich Olympic Stadium / Frei Otto & Gunther Behnisch’, ArchDaily, (2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/413224/shigeru-ban-completes-cardboardcathedral-in-new-zealand/5217f9f2e8e44e3de6000016_newly-released-photos-of-shigeru-ban-scardboard-cathedral-in-new-zealand_anderson_mg_5639-jpg/> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

10

Rivka Oxman, and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, pp. xxvi, 429 pages.

11 Brady Peters, and Xavier De Kestelier, Computation Works : The Building of Algorithmic Thought, Architectural Design (2013), p. 152 p.

12 ‘Shellstar Pavilion’, MATSYS, (2015) <http://matsysdesign. com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

20

CONCEPTUALISATION

Image Reference Fig.1 Tony Duong, owned image,“Second Skin Project for Virtual Environments Semester 2 2013” Fig.2 Karissa Rosenfield, ‘Newly Released Photos of Shigeru Ban’s Cardboard Cathedral in New Zealand’2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/413224/shigeru-bancompletes-cardboard-cathedral-in-new-zealand/> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

Fi.g.3 Andrew Kroll, ‘Ad Classics: Munich Olympic Stadium / Frei Otto & Gunther Behnisch’, ArchDaily, (2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/109136/ad-classics-municholympic-stadium-frei-otto-gunther-behnisch/> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

Fi.g.4 Andrew Kroll, ‘Ad Classics: Munich Olympic Stadium / Frei Otto & Gunther Behnisch’, ArchDaily, (2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/109136/ad-classics-municholympic-stadium-frei-otto-gunther-behnisch/> [Accessed 12 March 2015].

Fig.5 ‘Mobius House’, UN Studio, (<http://www.unstudio.com/ projects/mobius-house> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig. 6 ‘Mobius House’, UN Studio, (<http://www.unstudio.com/ projects/mobius-house> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig..7 Jonathen Massey, ‘Risk Design’, Aggregate, (<http://we-aggregate. org/piece/risk-design> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig.8 Ian Volner, ‘How Arup Became the Go-to Firm for Architecture’s Most Ambitious Projects’, ArchDailt, (2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/428945/how-arup-became-the-goto-firm-for-architecture-s-most-ambitious-projects/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig.9-11 ‘Shellstar Pavilion’, MATSYS, (2015) <http://matsysdesign. com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig.12-15 ‘Doris Sung: Bloom at Materials & Applications’, Design Boom, (2011) <http://www.designboom. com/architecture/doris-sung-bloom-at-materials-applications/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig.16-18 ‘Bloom Urban Toy Sculptures by Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez’, Designboom, (<http://www.designboom.com/design/bloom-urban-toy-sculpturesby-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

Fig.19 Alison Furato, ‘Bloom – a Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez’, ArchDaily, (2012) <http://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourcedgarden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez/> [Accessed 19 March 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

21

22

CRITERIA DESIGN

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

23

B1 RESEARCH FIELD: MATERIAL PERFORMANCE

Fig.1: Research Pavillion (2010) by ICD/ITKE: Constructed in long modular strips.

The Research Pavilion by Institute of Computational Design(ICD) and Institute of Building Structure and Structural Design(ITKE) takes its computational design approach in a new direction by focusing more on the material performances. In the early stages of the process, the form finding is explored in physical models, understanding the qualities and behaviours of plywood, as opposed to starting out with a parametric model. [1]From experience, plywood is a stiff and flexible material that experiences great deflection lengths as the plywood becomes longer.

Embedding material properties and their behaviour provided a different computational approach from the traditional form finding techniques.[2] With this project, a number of structural analyses and simulations were used to determine the strength of individual parts working together.

To allow for an ease for assembly process, it is clear from [fig.1] that the complexity of the building can be broken down into modular strips.[3]The construction becomes easier as it relies purely on the bending of the material. This strategy is mentioned in the Oxman text about managing a complex system through a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy.[4] The most important part to consider in this project is to establish and understand the relationships between each entity and especially how each are joined together. The project was highly focused on the interactions between each material component, whilst taking advantage of the stiffness of the material so that each member is responding to the forces from each other to create a structurally sound system.[5]Thus, it is important to research the logical relationships between material components in order to be fluid between a physical and parametric model.

1. ‘Icd/Itke Research Pavillion’, (Universitat Stuttgart, 2010).

2. Achim Menges, Material Computation : Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design, (Hoboken, N.J.Chichester: Wiley ; 3. John Wiley distributor, 2012), p. 47. Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (London;New Yor: Routledge, 2014), p. 169.

4. Ibid. p. 157.

5. Menges, p. 50.

24

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig.2:Voussoir Cloud, SCIArc Gallery, Los Angeles (2008) by Iwamoto Scott: View and spatial experience from above

Fig.3 Analysing cellular strtucture

The structural concept was inspired from Frei Otto and Antonio Gaudi’s chain models. The structural concept allowed possibilities of using lightweight materials. It is under compression forces, mostly in the base. Due to the density of the cellular structure, it slowly becomes less compressed when near the roof. Similar to the Research Pavillion 2010 previously, the project takes advantage of the material to make an efficient structural system.[6] Using this strategy helped open up different spatial experiences, which can be felt from below and above. There were some fabrication concerns relating to the complexity of different cell geometry.

This was overcome through a script to define the accuracy of the curvature of each cell.[7]

6. ‘Voussoir Cloud’, (IwamotoScottArchitecture, 2008).

7. ‘‘Voussoir Cloud’ by Iwamotoscott with Buro Happold’, (Archivenue, 2009).

CRITERIA DESIGN

25

B2 CASE STUDY 1.0 Reorganise cells

Using the Voussoir Cloud definiton and changing the parameters within the definition can help explore possibilties for a design. Most importantly, these iterations should not have any context as it helps provide options that could be selected later on.

The idea of this matrix was to see how an initial geometry evolves with the following actions.

A

INITIAL GEOMETRY

B

C

D

E

F

26

CRITERIA DESIGN

Extern forces

nal s(wind/

ACTIONS Flatten/ Heighten

Inflate/deflate and

Smooth

CRITERIA DESIGN

27

B2 CASE STUDY 1.0 ACTION Reorganise

A

Select 5 Pts>Voronoi cells

External forces(wind/ gravity)

Flatten/ Heighten

Inflate/ deflate and other external forces

Unary force

Move

Unary force

x=0

z=20

x=0

Smooth

Iterations=101

y=0 z= 4

INITIAL GEOMETRY

B

Centre points of hexagonal cells

Unary force

Move

Unary force

x=0

z=0

x=0

Radial cells

Unary force

Move

Unary force

size=7

x=0

z=20

x=3

Unary force

Move

Unary force

x=0

z=5

x=0

S=10 C

Iterations=63

Iterations=100

extent=3 D

E

Rectangular Grid

Trianglular grid

Unary force

Move

Unary force

S=20

x=0

z=2

x=6

Iterations=100

Iterations=60

x=10 F

Hexagonal grid

Unary force

Move

Unary force

S=15

x=0

z=0

x=0

x=7 y=5

28

CRITERIA DESIGN

Iterations=50

B3 CASE STUDY 2.0 SELECTION CRITERIA BASED ON DESIGN BRIEF

Using a ranking method, selection is based on personal view of the most interesting and complex geometry that holds potential to work with a bridge existing on the Merri Creek site. The focus is mainly on user activities and possible conceptual forms. Similar choices hold similar ideas, which are grouped together.

RESPONDING TO FORCES 1

The geometry in this is most distinguishable from the rest of the iterations. It has been influenced by multiple forces such as wind or sunlight, which holds potential as a form that could be analysed further.

A SPACE THAT HANGS CAVED SPACES 2

The form derived is an inverse relationship of the Voussoir Cloud. Spaces are experienced in a focused area, enclosed by a sagged net. It provides opportunity for social interaction such as meeting and communal activities.

FLAT SPATIAL FIELD 3

Although not as complex compared to the rest, it is suspended at a very low height, which changes the way users occupy the space. It would be interesting to experiment the behaviour of elastic materials, which when influenced by human weight forces, the form changes and reacts. It may even lead to selection 2. This could be a simple design that adapts to user activity, where the users influence the form.

WOBBLY SUSPENDED STRUCTURES 4

Different sized suspended connections could help accomodate for existing conditions on site such as the length or width of a bridge.

Users may feel an unusual or surprised experience as it is a non-standard geometry.

CRITERIA DESIGN

29

B3 CASE STUDY 2.0 Precedence: NET LINZ, (2014), OK Centre for Contemporary Art,Linz, Austrria by Numen Net Linz is a social space, which is both difficult and fun to walk through. Instead of their past horizontal ‘Net’ explorations, Numen attempts a vertical design, which is confined in a narrow space between high walls.[8] This case study depends on tension and weight. Points are pinched to provide lateral stability. Sandbags are suspended underneath the whole structure to influence the weight and strength of the tight rope material.[9]

Fig.5: Net Linz (2014) prototyping vertical nets

Fig.3: Net Linz (2014): Studies on horizontal nets

Fig.4: Net Linz (2014):: Circulating through net

Fig.6: Net Linz (2014): Showing entry and structure

8. ‘Net Linz’, (Numen, 2014).

9. ‘Numen/for Use Combines “Height and Wobbliness” in Net Staircase for Linz Gallery’, (Dezeen magazine, 2014).

30

CRITERIA DESIGN

B3 CASE STUDY 2.0: REVERSE ENGINEER

1

2

3

Approximate geometry

An intended form should be established from the beginning of the process.

Perhaps iterations from B2 is an example of a starting geometry.

Mesh object

Once referenced as a geometry, it can now be computed and recognised as a mesh object.

Triangulate mesh to set up spring forces

Triangulations will help define the strength of the material if further steps are taken to subdivide the triangulated mesh.

Extract naked edges and anchor points

Anchor points define the locations of where the geometry can find rigidity or stillness such as a stiffened naked edge.

Find form through Kangaroo

Finally, under the influence of mesh relaxation, the form is realised and can be used for further development.

4

5

CRITERIA DESIGN

31

B4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT Case Study 2.0 is a continuation of exploring ideas. At this stage, however, there are some geometries, which were intended to relate to the brief and existing site conditions.

The purpose of these iterations was to extend the study of the Net Linz project. The project mainly focused on a entirely horizontal fields or entirely vertical fields. Some of the attempts made was to combine their research and understand a different spatial experience felt with horizontal and vertical fields at the same time.

There were also geometries,which were explored to determine a different way of circulating a building.

Run Kangaroo

A

B

C

D

32

CRITERIA DESIGN

Hole

Cull poin

l Anchor nts

Material appearance

Thick frame

Thick net

CRITERIA DESIGN

33

E

F

G

H

I

34

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

35

B4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT Run Kangaroo

Hole

Cull Anchor points

Material appearance

Thick frame

A

Edge anchor points

Distance=5

Cull pattern: True, false

Weaverbird subdivide

Exoskeleton: Rs=8, Cytoskelton Re=5, Division=15 Radius=4.5

B

Edge anchor points

Distance=5

True, false,false

Subdivide triangle,3 levels

Exoskeleton:Rs=11, Cytoskelton Re=11,Division=15 Radius=8

C

Edge anchor points

Distance=11

True, true, false, false

Subdivide triangle,2 levels

Exoskeleton,Rs=25, Cytoskelton Re=23,Division=41 Radius=8

D

Edge anchor points Distance=1

False, true, false, false

Subdivide triangle,4 levels

Exoskeleton,Rs=25, Cytoskelton Re=23, Division=41 Radius=11

E

Edge anchor points

True, false

Subdivide triangle,8 levels

Exoskeleton, Rs=14, Re=28, Division=9

Cytoskelton

Subdivide triangle, 6 levels

Exoskeleton, Rs=20, Re=20, Division=5

Cytoskelton

Subdivide triangle,3 levels

Exoskeleton, Rs=6,Re=6, Division=16

Cytoskelton

Catmullclark(smooth corner), 2 levels

Exoskeleton, Rs=6, Re=6, Division=10

Cytoskelton

Catmullclark(fixed corner),3 levels

Exoskeleton,Rs=10, Cytoskelton Re=10, Division=10 Radius=7

Distance=5

F

Edge anchor points

Distance=2.5

True, true,false, false

G

Edge anchor points

Distance=5.2

True, False, true

H

Edge anchor points

Distance:

False, true

Pt. Charge Charge=20 I

Edge anchor points

Distance: Pt. Charge Charge=15

36

CRITERIA DESIGN

True,false,false, false

Thick net

Radius=8

Radius=7

Radius=4.5

Radius=10

B4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT Attempting to combine the projects

by Numen by exploring vertical to horizontal fields. Potentially, it becomes a portal for users to enter and leave.

This iteration is starting to look more like the Tape structure by Numen.

The form is hugely affected by the selection of anchor points.

Organic and unusual forms are possible. Places that could be anchored are clearly expressed in the thicken naked edges

Here is another extension of the Net Linz project, which aims to create a bridge between humans and the environment.

It also holds potential to be suspended from a bridge, and provides a central

This form gives the impression of a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;gooeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; appearance, which could suggest a material that sticks rather than hangs from threads or cables.

CRITERIA DESIGN

37

B5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE #1 1 Find an overall framework or form

4

38

Arrived form

CRITERIA DESIGN

2

3

Set up anchor points with screws

Test elasticity of material by pinching different points of interest

5

Testing for different spatial qualities

CRITERIA DESIGN

39

B5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE #2

This time, instead of pinching different point locations, this prototype illustrates the material behaviour under rotation.

Clearly seen at left, the material will only extend to a certain point. Its elastic properties provided both a constraint and an opportunity for design because it determines the rotation angle needed to reach a certain form.

The intention of these prototypes were to combine the the Net projects done by Numen and determine the possibility of linking both horizontal and vertical fields together. How does a user experience space in different fields or different dimensions?

40

CRITERIA DESIGN

B6 DESIGN PROPOSAL

Fig.7: Site Location

SITE CHOICE JUSTIFICATION 1. Site presents a large variety of flora and fauna (such as birds and ducks). A highly complex,attractive and sensitive eco-system.

OPPORTUNITY

2. It lacks human interaction, and thus, connections to streets,pathways and river need improving. The bridge alone has only allowed some improvement to connect northern suburbs Reservoir to Fawkner, but can be further improved.

PROBLEM

3. Merri Creek Management Committee reports that paths and bridges run the risk of flooding. Forseeable issue could be resolved through computational design.[12]

PROBLEM

4. A survey of Merri Path users suggest wider paths, litter-free areas and lighting installations. Feedback provides a strong indicator of community needs and wants. This can become part of PART B design criteria.[13]

OPPORTUNITY

5. Space under existing bridge provide an opportunity for design.

OPPORTUNITY

10 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Merri Creek and Environs Strategy Chapter 4.3 - Trails and Accessâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;, (Merri Creek Management Committee).

11 Ibid.

CRITERIA DESIGN

41

B6 DESIGN PROPOSAL

TIGHTENING THE CONNECTION The design is to create a stronger connection between suburbs, pathways, the community and the immediate environment. Bridges are not enough to provide a connection between suburbs and its surrounding environment. This part of the Merri Creek is shown to be ignored and overlooked because there is no direct pathway from footpaths toward the river. Instead, many people find themselves troiubled to find their way araound the bushes, trees and shrubs to take a closer look at the wonders within this beautiful part of the river. The proposal will enable users from above, below, or from far away to gather and interact with each other in order to be fully immersed with the environment.

42

CRITERIA DESIGN

B7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Objective 1 - “Interrogat[ing] a brief”

Objective 5 - “the ability to make a case for proposals”

I am beginning to see how the modules relate to the brief as it has been structured in an ordered fashion.

I think that I haven’t engaged with the literature enough to back up my arguments. Also, arguing a case for a design proposal could be improved if I evaluated my process more. So far, I have tried to explore ideas and some attempts on relating back to the brief, but not enough in depth analysis or synthesis is achieved. I think I can do better by listening to feedback from other presentations, and find different evaluative tools to improve my arguments in a design proposal.

We started to use research as a starting point to our process in Part A because the more knowledge we gain from the beginning of the process, the better informed we are throughout the rest of it. Then, Part B helped us to take consideration of the context after we’ve explored different ideas. Therefore,I learnt that we can become better architects or designers through engaging more with our design thinking, research, and the tools available to us.

Objective 2 - “An ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” I am beginning to understood the power of parametric modelling. It is true that it can generate multiple design possibilities from only changing a few parameters from a Grasshopper definition.

However, the process of documenting the models takes multiple steps compared to just a sketch.

By generating these possibilities, however, it provides us with more options to choose from and to explore further. I wished I could explore more species or geometries in order to create a storage of ideas for use in different projects.

Objective 3 - “skills in various dimensional media” So far, there has been considerable engagement with the computational tools, but not enough with the diagramming and digital fabrication. I think that through understanding the tools needed to translate a design concept into a realised project is an important skill. I was limited to analogue models due to the materials used in developing my ‘material performance’ technique(such as elastic fabrics). In spite these troubles, I still think that, where possible, digital tools can aid the process. It does not have to be the absolute tool for creating a product. It is still simply a tool.

I think what I want to explore a bit more is my algorithmic process. I think I can do better by defining a clearer relationship between the design explorations, and design choices and the specific requirements of the design brief.

Objective 6 - “develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architecture projects” I am starting to communicate my ideas a little better from developing diagrams from Adobe Illustrator. I think that in a contemporary world, I can illustrate and explain my ideas with greater clarity.

Objective 7 - develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming” Through the weekly tutorials on learning grasshopper, I was able to understand basics of how data flows. Usually, my technique is to read a definition, and understand the action that is used to manipulate data that has been used as the start.

Objective 8 - “begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application” I think the above mentioned summarised all of my experiences in digital design processes in architecture. I think parametric modelling is a useful too, and I think there is room for improvement. I think that I want to explore the brief in more detail in order to make my design more focused. From now, I want to engage with the techniques and digital tools that are offered as much as possible so that I can become a more flexible and versatile architect.

CRITERIA DESIGN

43

B8 APPENDIX:ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

From a vertical staircase to a horizontal field.

This represented the clearest and simplest exploration of form that could be the result of a twisted box.

Panels also suggest solar entry into the structure.

The second sketch at right represents a geometry that is constrained by the amount of anchor points selected before running the Kangaroo Physics engine.

Being able to define the nodes or anchor points, helps architects make more informed design decisions, but also allow them to manipulate the data in accordance to their intentions.

The triangulation also gives an impression of the possible material used.

44

CRITERIA DESIGN

REFERENCES IMAGE REFERENCE 1 ‘Icd/Itke Research Pavillion’, Universitat Stuttgart, (2010) [Accessed 27 March 2015].

2 Achim Menges, Material Computation : Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design, Architectural Design (Hoboken, N.J.Chichester: Wiley ;John Wiley distributor, 2012), p. 144 p.

3 ‘Merri Creek and Environs Strategy Chapter 4.3 - Trails and Access ‘, Merri Creek Management Committee, (<http://www.mcmc.org.au/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288 %3Amces-43&catid=32%3Amces&Itemid=341> [Accessed April 23 2015].

1 ‘Icd/Itke Research Pavilion 2010’, Universitat Stuttgart, (2010) <http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=4458> [Accessed April 30 2015].

2 ‘Net Linz’, Numen, (2014) <http://www.numen. eu/installations/net/linz/> [Accessed 30 April 2015].

3 Pleatfarmer, ‘Voussoir Cloud’, Pleatefarm, (2009) [Accessed 30 April 2015].

4: Map, ‘Landchannel’, <http://www.land. vic.gov.au> [Accessed 20 April 2015].

4 ‘Net Linz’, Numen, (2014) <http://www.numen. eu/installations/net/linz/> [Accessed 30 April 2015].

5 ‘Numen/for Use Combines “Height and Wobbliness” in Net Staircase for Linz Gallery’, Dezeen magazine, (2014) <http://www.dezeen. com/2014/10/25/numen-for-use-net-staircaselinz-gallery-austria/> [Accessed April 30 2015].

6 Rivka Oxman, and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, How Designers Use Parameters (London;New Yor: Routledge: 2014), pp. 153-70.

7 ‘Voussoir Cloud’, IwamotoScottArchitecture, (2008) <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIRCLOUD> [Accessed 30 April 2015].

8 ‘Voussoir Cloud by Iwamotoscott with Buro Happold’, Archivenue, (2009) [Accessed April 30 2015].

CRITERIA DESIGN

45

46

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

47

C1 DESIGN CONCEPT DESIGN PROPOSAL REVIEW Design Concept: Creating a stronger connection between suburbs, pathways, the community and the immediate environment.

Concept in context: In a fast paced world ,of this day and age, more and more surburban people are moving towards the stressful, concrete, urban environments. By taking on the biophilia concept discussed in Dr. Dominique Hes’ lecture on Composition/Generation (2015), the design will assist in bringing humans closer with its suburan environments.

[1] Concept and brief: In response to the brief, the design will be located in the northern suburban area of Merri Creek, Fawkner. It is roughly 10km away from Melbourne, and it is specifically chosen for being an often neglected part of the river.

This represents an opportunity for a public intervention, which seeks to tie the connections between the social and physical environment from a local to wider scale. It will be achieved by encouraging more human interaction with its surrounding environment as well as enabling users to change their own spaces according to their needs.

This democratic design approach allow spaces to be generated by the user and adapt to its physical context.

The proposal will use material performance techniques in order to achieve a living public intervention that will successfully respond to its social, physical and natural environment.

DESIGN PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Review of feedback: •There is opportunity for the design to become more interactive if the bolts from the first prototype were treated as winders.

•It relates to the concept of ‘tightening the connection’ literally, but also in a figurative sense as it is meant to bring the social and physical environment together. By tightening the connection, it affects the overall form. Therefore, having this playful option can significantly change the spaces dramatically and create an interactive environment.

•In order to get the windmill action, there needs to be a sophisticated, detailed and more interesting way than just a windmill.

•There is a clear algorithmic process translated from both the physical model and diagrams from the reverese engineer task. However, it needs more refining and detail involved.

•Continuing from this process, the box framework could be better expressed if applied at particular points of interest.

Combining that with the windmill action could be more purposeful and creative at the same time.

•The finish of the model could also be better.

1

48

Lecture 3, ‘Composition/Generation’

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C1 DESIGN CONCEPT REVIEW OF SITE

10000

N

4000

Figure 1: Site Map

Physical aspects: Approximate area=40 sq. m. The design will accomodate an area of 3x6m on the underside of the bridge.

Social aspects: Users on site include local residents and visitors, cyclists (even from outside of Fawkner/Reservoir suburbs), birds and pets. The scale is however limited to maximum of 5 people. The decision to use a small scale was based on frequency of users and the physical scale of the site, and the limit to which the building can hold.

Program: The design will propose a suspended structure, which allows for users to gather, play and interact with the social and physical environment.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

49

C1 DESIGN CONCEPT PROGRAM REVIEW In response to crit’s feedback, the portal frame could be highlighted at particular areas of interest. The following diagram illustrates 3 key features, which highlight the experience of a typical user on site.

1

Approach to site.

•This is the attractive point of entry for most users.

2

Underside of bridge •The main area for suspending form of structure.

•It is also at the core of the activities.

3

North side river view •Favourable views should be maintained in the design.

•Allows for users to observe and capture the experience within a biodiverse area.

50

PROJECT PROPOSAL

N

C1 DESIGN CONCEPT REVIEW OF ALGORITHMIC PROCESS From crit’s feedback, the algorithmic process has a strong relationship between the physical and digital model. This is the main technique that will become the basis for the construction process.

Additionally, it can be supported by the use of digital fabrication tools for better finishes or detailing.

1 Extrude Srf>Delete •Frame could extend to 6.0m to fit with underside of bridge.

•Frame can be further developed with contour commands.

2 Mesh brep

•Possibly choose a fabric with adequate stretch such as Lycra and other knit fabrics.

3

4

5

Triangulate mesh to set up spring forces.

Select points to set up anchor points.

Run Kangaroo physics engine.

•Pinching locations require a better finish.

•Consider different methods of holding the mesh in place.

•Finally, the final form should be generated. It should ensure certain spatial qualities are emphasized.

•Perhaps capping the bolt is an option.

•Pinching locations could also highlight areas of interest.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

51

C1 DESIGN CONCEPT ENVISAGED CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Portal Frame + Skin The construction of the prototype is made up of a simple portal frame system. The fabricated frames become a singular rigid frame, whilst the 3mm MDF strips acts as the supporting beams. The middle frame spaced at 300mm from each end stiffens the structure.

The critical area of this structure is to provide strong joints. Therefore, the notches added to the strips and frames may need to adjust to add friction when they are slotted together.

The skin used is a textile fabric with elastic properties. It remains tightened at anchored points on the structure.

52

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

PROTOTYPE #1: REUSED MATERIALS Began reusing past fablab work to overcome waiting time for the second prototype. Photo (left): By changing the orientation of thread direction of model, there was a shift in spatial experiences.

Material: Premium plywood, zinc coated thread rods and knit material.

Connection: Tension cables.

Success: •Bolt and washer helps prevent tear of material. However, it may start tearing in a larger scale model.

•Diffused lighting and flexible space.

•Desirable prismatic form is achieved.

Failure: •Not very strong against lateral loads, but can still hold itself.

• Horizontal bar may be very obtrusive. Consider orientation to either be only vertical or only horizontal.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

53

C2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

PROTOTYPE #2: FABRICATED MODEL There were many problems with this fabricated model. Structure was very loose at the notches and kept swaying. Thus, tension cables were used temporarily to hold up structure. Also, corners were not square. However, this was expected from the digital model.

Material: Laser-cut MDF, zinc coated thread rods and shirt material.

Connection: Tension cables.

Failure: Some unrolled strips were too long, too slender and made structure too loose in terms of the connection.

54

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Failure: Trying to consider context of sunlight and views. There is little quality in having small cut holes in fabric. It also loses some strength from the cut.

Opportunity: There is still opportunity for the pulled ceiling to become a canopy as a shading device.

C3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL

PLAN

5000

3000

6000

NORTH ELEVATION

PROJECT PROPOSAL

55

C3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL ASSEMBLY PROCESS Design has become more resolved. The spatial experiences and immediate context has started to become more connected together as soon as the north and south facades opened up. The decision to keep a consistent horizontal field was based on giving users the ability to adjust the height and depth of the stretched fabric.

Material: Pine Timber, Zinc coated thread rods and black textile fabric.

Connection: Steel thread rods, Laser-cut premium plywood cleat plates and screws.

1. Simple framework: Create a simple 1:10 scale portal frame.

Connection: Reused laser-cut premium plywood plate connected with screws.

2. Skin: Staple textile fabri bottom with a staple gun.

4. Fix anchor points: Use washers in conjunction with the nuts to fix with the fabric.

5. Height adjustment: Wind the nuts to the correct depth/height.

Problem: Without large washers, fabric tends to rip.

6:Outcome: Pulled ceiling canopy. Accommodates fo easily.

Benefit: Height of canopy which succeeds in creating design outlined in the desi to C1).

56

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL Although, the design appears to be functioning well in the model, in a real life application, the structural material used would be of a lighter material with good compressive and tensile strength. The fabric would also be of a stronger mesh fabric in order to deal with wear and tear. The winding operation would need to be more practical due to the effect of one nut inside and one nut outside. Nonetheless, this model adequately suggests how the operation would be envisioned in real life.

ic over the top and

Success: Opening facade to North and South views.

3. Locate anchor points: With the thread rods, carefully locate points as shown in plan.

Parameter check: Also, allow the nut to remain at its intended height internally.

g becomes a or up to 5 people

is adjustable, g a democratic ign concept (refer

PROJECT PROPOSAL

57

C3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL: RENDERS

58

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

59

C3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL: RENDERS

60

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

61

C4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Objective 1 - “Interrogat[ing] a brief”

Objective 5 - “the ability to make a case for proposals”

I think that I have succeeded in trying to cover every part of the brief. More importantly, I think that I have been able to keep the concept relevant by asking more questions about the brief and sourcing the information from various areas. For this reason, I was able to confidently explain my concept to the crit panel and allow my presentation to feedoff from the concept.

I think I have been able to develop a strong case for my design compared to the comment I made in Part B. It was initially single- lined statements with less depth. To overcome this, I consulted the brief, the lecture on Composition/Generation, the site, the concept and every source that was useful to making this case work. I think the more I consulted with the brief and the more I made those connections with my concept and site, the stronger the design cases. Therefore, I think that I have achieved to make a strong case well in Part C.

Objective 2 - “An ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” I think that it is useful to learn grasshopper for generating a wide range of possibilies, which I have been able to do in Part B. However, I personally experience difficulty in realising the ideas from context studies or construction methods inside Rhino. The precision gets lost in the lack of skill and also communicating the ideas clearly between the program and your own ideas. Hence, I prefer to use the software as a way to play around with ideas or explore ideas. I do, however, would like to keep improving my skills to make it useful in future.

Objective 3 - “skills in various dimensional media”

Objective 6 - “develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architecture projects” I believe that I was able to establish a strong concept. I believe that my technical skills have grown and has room for improvement. I think that I am capable of analysing my process, various tests such as prototypes to get to a design outcome that is well resolved. However, I think that I need to make my process more robust, efficient and clear in order to take it to a level of a contemporary standard.

I think that I have improved considerably when using various design softwares compared to Part B. I started engaging with my journal, with different diagrammatic methods, with different photography skills etc. It has not been my best, but I think that taking into consideration of everything that the subject teaches is making me become more professional with my work. I feel more confidence to communicate my ideas through images, diagrams, and renders. I am still learning, but I am happy that I have had the opportunity to explore these tools and use it to my strengths.

Objective 7 - develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming”

Objective 4 - “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air”

Objective 8 - “begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application”

I find that air is a metaphor for everything. From the collective tools, research, design processes, thinking, and ideas, they are all related to thinking beyond time and place. Therefore, collectively, I believe it makes architecture beyond what it is originally. It is about thinking into the future and I believe that it is the same for my own journey. I, too, have become a different architecture student than the person from the start of the semester.

62

PROJECT PROPOSAL

I think that I have a basic understanding to the computational geometry and data structures, how they are used and where it becomes useful.

Although, my process was never restricted to using the program to reach an outcome. Rather, I played with tools and used it as inspiration for my design. I don’t think that I have exceptional level of understanding, but at least it assisted in the process.

I think that it is quite clear from the previous objectives and within my journal where the digital tools became useful. I would have loved to see myself using entirely digital/computational techniques throughout the process. However, I quickly realised that our design process takes us to different places no matter what tool we use.

REFERENCES 1 ‘Composition/Generation,’ Dr. Dominique Hes, Lecture 3, accessed 17 March, 2015.

1 Map, ‘Landchannel’, <http://www.land. vic.gov.au> [Accessed 20 April 2015].

PROJECT PROPOSAL

63