Thomas Tse 743366 partA journal by Thomas Tse

STUDIO AIR CHUN TUNG (THOMAS) TSE 743366 2017, SEMESTER 1 TUTOR: FINNIAN WARNOCK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part A: CONCEPTUALISING

DESIGN FUTURING

DESIGN COMPUTATION

COMPOSITION GENERATION

A4 CONCLUSION

LEARNING OUTCOME

APPENDIX + ALGORITHMATIC SKETCHES

INTRODUCTION

I am Thomas, currently a third year architecture student in University of Melbourne. I was born in Hong Kong and came to Melbourne in 2014 studying in Trinity College before entering university. I never thought of doing architecture as I came from a science background. Realising a science major would not fit me after I completed my high school, I started to think about what my real interest is. My interest in architecture started when my dad showed me the work of one of his client, who was an architect coincidentally. I was fascinated by his work and thought it would be satisfying that your work will actually get built, and thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s when I got more curious about what architecture means to me. For me architecture create a physical form of what I want to express the experience of space. And this spatial experience affects how people react to the space and circulate through out the place. Through architecture, I am hoping to generate more possibilities of making it more livable. In Studio Air, I am looking forward to what I can explore with the computating skills which can open more possibilities apart from conventional skills into my design onwards.

Second Skin design for Degital Design and Fabrication/ Boathouse design for Studio Water

A1 DESIGN FUTURING NEW YORK HORIZON YITAN SUN, JIANSHI WU UNBUILT, 2016

The New York Horizon represents a new concept of natural spaces and architecture. The project is an unbuilt project which focused on skyscraper that challenged the norm that skyscraper has to be high-rised in Manhattan. Instead of extruding up, The New York Horizon tried to act differently by taking a reverse approach of digging into Manhattan’s Central Park to create a completely different sense of how a skyscrapper would be like1. It suggested the idea that skyscraper isn’t better when you can build it higher and more fancy but a strong sense of the core idea that you’re proposing. In this case, the New York Horizon creates a link between architecture and environment landscape by taking nature as the main focus. The design took reference to the history of the parkland of an artificial land and aim to resculpture it and reconstruct the idea of a better reimagined park. Which the old one has lost the original intention as skyscrapers are surrounding the park which blocked the view and access2. Fry suggested that design is powerful to allow people to rethink and probably to be able to redirect them to options of a better, more sustainable future3. Instead creating a huge amount of

waste by digging the soil, it will be used to create landscapes such as hills and mountains for public to use as outdoor activities. That it doesn’t just create a great view, it creates an interesting space where the public can use which is quite lacking in Manhattan, a developed urban area4. With the reflective facade suggesting the people are within a natural area but not Manhattan city itself. This shows the way of rethinking what is waste and is it not usable. And this is done by inverting the subconscious mind. Although the design itself is unbuilt but it tries to present a new concept of natural spaces and architecture. Unlike most of the building nowadays which consider architecture as primary and natural landscape as secondary such as outdoor natural spaces on certain level, it reversed the approach by putting the landscape in the central area. The project might seems unlikely to happens but it certainly brings a question to people about the future relationships between human and nature, urban and rural. As Dunne and Raby suggested, design define a more preferable future by creating discussion, free imagination

from all sort of possible outcome but not sticking with the current focus5. In which I think the project shows a good example.

eVolo, ‘New York Horizon‘, eVolo (revised March 2016) <http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-horizon/> [6 March 2017] . 2 eVolo. 3 Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’(Oxford: Berg, 2006), pp. 1-16. 4 eVolo. 5 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, ‘Speculative Everything’ (USA: MIT Press, 2013), p. 4-6. 1

Figure 1. “New York Horizon“ Figure 2. “New York Horizon view from parkland”

A1 DESIGN FUTURING Hy-Fi David Benjamin, The Living The Museum of Modern Art and MoMAPS1, 2014

This project aims to create a temporary summer pavilion “to be planted, grow and die6” which nearly zero waste, energy and carbon emissions are produced. That is a new concept of linkage between object and environment in a cycle. Which showed that the David Benjamin is aware of the defuturing from unsustainable use of resources as Fry has suggested and is trying to propose a new way of designing7. The tower is made of 2 types of bricks: organic bricks (made of “biodegradable compostable modules formed from farm waste, mushroom roots and corn stalk grown in steel brick moulds8”) in general structure and reflective bricks for light reflecting into the interior on top section. Stack effect is introduced for cool air to flow from bottom while hot air will be pushed away through the top. Gaps between bricks will help air ventilation. Apart from the performance, materiality is being considered, that the Benjamin aims not only how to generate a desirable performance, but how to use sustainable materials to achieve that.

As Fry has identified, people should change their way of thinking because we are currently using the planet’s finite resources, that the idea of creation and destruction is critical in order to find a balance in between9. And I think this project is seeing the design in a similar way which Fry introduced. That the designer is trying to create his design as a cycle: create something from earth and in the end return to earth. Which is a recyclable and compostable design as after the tower is deconstructed the soil will be sent to Build It Green for further usage. The design idea is really about design futuring, as before he builds, he already think of deconstructing the tower after a certain amount of time. I find this project to be very fascinating as someone can really push sustainable design to nearly zero waste. And it really shows how materiality can impact architecture as well as linkage to local material and agriculture. As Dunne and Raby have identified, “Dreams are Powerful. They are repositories of our desire.”. And I thinks this has certainly affected and driven this design to this far.

Amy Frearson ‘Organic tower grown from agricultural waste wins MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program 2014’, Dezeen (revised 6 Feburary 2014) <https://www.dezeen. com/2014/02/06/hy-fi-by-the-living-at-moma-ps1/> [6 March 2017] 7 Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’(Oxford: Berg, 2006), pp. 1-2. 8 Frearson ‘Organic tower grown’ 9 Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’(Oxford: Berg, 2006), p. 2. 10 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, ‘Speculative Everything’ (USA: MIT Press, 2013), p.1. 6

Figure 3. “Hy-Fi” Figure 4. “Hy-Fi Top View”/ Figure 5. “Hy-Fi interior”

A2 DESIGN COMPUTATION Digitized Stone ZA architects UNBUILT, 2015

Traditional stone masonry has been providing the ability of creating solid structure through long traditional history. What comes with the masonry work is usually the huge dark shadow to create the idea of mass.

adding a better aspect of allowing light and air flow, that it overcomes the original disadvantages.

This idea is being challenged by this project by adopting digital fabrication into the stone masonry. As Oxman has argued, parametric design focuses on relationship between a small component and whole structure11. Which in this case is the design of masonry work as it is first developed in a whole structure and slowly generating a unique small component with all the structural performances calculated in the program.

The model has a very complex geometries which is created from the parametric form finding model, calculation of structure load can be hard and time consuming without simulation software. Through parametric programs, model and prototype can be generated digitally for experimentation quickly13. Robotic construction method is also used to build them precisely and efficiently. These methods have now developed as a new demand for practices as new solution of design. Which Oxman has argued, created a connection between conceptualising, designing and finally fabricating14.

Smart masonry, named from the design, has the same structural function, lighter, allows air and natural light to go through12. This is a significant design computation to keep its original properties while

Therefore this project has shown how computation can generate a more complex and unexpected results, performance simulation as well as constructing it using robotic skills.

Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, ‘Theories of the digital in architecture’ (London; New York: Routledge, 2015), p.3. 12 Materialist, ‘Technology Digitized Stone: ZA architects Develop Smart Masonry’ <https://www.materialist.com/ digitized-stone-zaarchitects-develop-smart-masonry/> [[9 March 2017] 13 Oxman and Oxman, ‘Theories of the digital in architecture’, pp. 4-5. 14 Oxman and Oxman, ‘Theories of the digital in architecture’, p. 10. 11

Figure7. “Smart Masonry Robotic Construction” /

Figure6. “Smart Masonry” Figure8. “Smart Masonry Form Finding”

A2 DESIGN COMPUTATION Ninety Nine Failures Pavillion The University of Tokyo Digital Fabrication Lab TOKYO, JAPAN, 2013

The project has named Ninety Nine Failures because of the experimental approach of defining a structure by tensegrity. The process is said to have no failure but unexpected outcome, which aims to According to Kalay, designers undergo problem solving through solutions generating and testing them against the goal15. In this project, around 50 different geometries were being tested which are developable, This imply the ability that computation can generate far more complex geometry in large quantity within a short time. To work to the ideal result, a repeat process of digital generation in Grasshopper and Kangaroo; physical model testing helped to identify performance and potential problems of the design. And that’s why computers are great analytical engines which saves time and rarely make mistakes16; but firstly you must understand how to instruct the computer to computate what you want, which is difficult. And that’s

why we are learning this subject to try to make the program operation same as our design ideas. The result components were inflated to produce the preferred effect, which is made of 3 metal sheet layers combined with edges sealed17. To make sure the design will work for the final product, a 1:3 model was built to study the tension change, which digital program allow this process quickly with its scaling. A digital simulation test was programmed and stimulated which is another advantage of using computation method18. If correctly programmed, the design will be more possible to work without having problem such as structural failure after it is built, which saves time and cost to remake. Spacing between components allow light to go through as well as minimizing the wind load impact of the structure. To speed up the process, coherent data will be generated together and cut and weld by robotic arm. Which can assist construction and avoid human error.

Yehudo E. Kalay, ‘Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and methods of Computer-aided Design’ (Canbridge: MIT Press, 2004), p.13. 16 Kalay, ‘Architecture’s New Media’, p.2. 17 Lucy Wang, ‘Ninety-Nine Failures Pavilion is Built from Ninja Star-Shaped Steel Pillows’ (revised Jan 2014) <http:// inhabitat.com/ninety-nine-failures-pavilion-is-built-fromninja-star-shaped-steel-pillows/> [9 March 2017] 18 Oxman and Oxman, ‘Theories of the digital in architecture’, pp. 4. 15

Figure9. “digital model”

Figure10. “actualised pavilion” Figure11. “model generation and simulation” / Figure 12. “joint details”

A3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION VAULTED WILLOW MARC FORNES + THEVERYMANY Borden Park, Edmonton, Canada, 2014

This project aims to explore play and curiosity through self-supported lightweight structure. The structure is digitally generated by assembling overlapped shingles as whole structure19. Its form finding started with a 2D catenary curves. With the input of various parameters into algorithms and then undergoes tessellation and finally inflation20. A series of performance simulations were analyzed digitally such as deflections and stress ratio. These simulations will analysis the actual performance of design when physically constructed. Which this is something that becomes more effective and accurate with computation tools through modelling as suggested by Peter21.

will be done in order to make it works, so it is always good to consider the actual performance during your whole process of design generation. From this project, I think it is critical to test your material based on the whole design. As suggested, the shingles are overlapped to generate a stronger physical structural performance. Similarly, a ceiling installation may also faces situation of materials as an outcome affecting each other and the original materiality will be changed, such as stiffness. Therefore, do not limit yourself to certain materials because their physical performance can be overcome by combining with another/same material.

One problem that has been realised in the project is that the structure coating doesn’t fit the local extreme temperature in long term. And changes is applied by using another option within budget. I think that the use of materials and environment factor should have been considered earlier. Otherwise you may suffer problems such as it is not performing as you planned and turns out you run out of time. As lots of changes

Figure14. “fabrication layout” / Figure 15. “Top view” Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-edmonton/> [14 March 2017] 20 Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson’, The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT press, 1999), pp. 11-12. 21 Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2 (2013), p.13 22 CodaWorx, ‘Vaulted Willow’, CodaWorx <https://www. codaworx.com/project/vaulted-willow-edmonton-publicart> [14 March 2017] 19

Figure13. “deflection simulation”

Figure16. “Constructed pavilion” Figure17. “Prototype” / Figure18. “Details”

A3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION ZA11 PAVILION Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan Cluj, Romania, 2011

This project acts as a strong medium to attract people to the event that it is holding. Materials, tools and budget are limited such that designers need to work out their design from this restricted environment. Therefore, the design exploration needs to be constrained as well to meet the given resources such as materials and scale to be fabricated23. Rather than computerization, this project is evident of using computation design which is more superior as suggested by Peter24. Curved surface, is generated with a hexigonal grid inside. The grid is then extruded inwards to form the overall shape and is modified.

straint. However, when come to actual work, there is always a limit. How thick is the material, is it creating enough stiffness or is it flexible? What are the environmental factors that can affect the design, wind load? Can it resist rain? This is very possible to happen in my Studio Air project. So consider real-life factors before the design is actualised to save time modifying or realising that it won’t work. Within these constraints, how to maximize the potential of my design is what I hope can be achieved.

Parametric design for exact geometry generation, labeling before fabricated by CNC milling and finally combined with assembly logic which formed the final piece. The outcome of project is a free-form ring consists of 746 different pieces which can be subdivided into hexagon shapes. This allows both sheltering and its unusual form attracts people25. The shortcoming of this approach can be limiting the potential of design because of the conFigure19. “Form finding method”

Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http:// www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescupatrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [14 March 2017] 24 Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2 (2013), p.10 25 Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion’ 23

Figure18. “Grasshopper script”

Figure 20. “ZA11 Pavilion built” Figure 21. “Detailed joint method”/Figure 22. “Pavilion close up”

A4 CONCLUSION

Part A explores designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s task to generate design that can speculate possible future which create discussion and free imagination, possibly redirecting a more preferable future. Through this the conventional view towards what ceiling design can be broken and generate possibilities of interesting outcome. Computation design has become more common and adaptive in designing, transcend conventional practices by generating design through conceptual, digital complex form finding and fabrication as a whole. Consider my design approach, materiality will be considered heavily along with parametric tools to support form generation as these would be what a ceiling design would critically considered. The material analysis will also support parametric design as material performance will be used as parameters input for final form output or else design might not work as expected physically. Client perspective will also need to considered. Based on different requirement from client, the design will be generated differently. In order to generate unexpected results, student will required to work individually and at last work as a team to create their final product. During the process, prototypes will be created to ensure the final outcome will be transformed precisely from digital to physical without unspotted error in parametric tools.

A5 LEARNING OUTCOMES

Throughout the 3 weeks case studies and readings, I’ve learnt that designer doesn’t always give solution, sometimes it’s more important to create something that bring discussion for possibilities. Then I’ve started exploring some parts of the parametric modelling, with the program I am able to generate a far more complex form efficiently. That it is another way to explore design possibility. However, it doesn’t reject conventional ways of designing because computation is just following the algorithms that you put in, it doesn’t design anything itself. Therefore, rather than replacement, it is important to understand both practices. And these knowledge can be applied on my 2nd skin design of my Digital Design and Fabrication course. I wasn’t able to use grasshopper for spike patterning despite of the tutor’s recommendation because I wasn’t even good in rhino. With the skills and knowledge that I understand so far, we can set parameters to limit the model’s generation with the knowledge of different materials that we tried. That instead of doing experiments on both rhino model and physically, and rebuild some of the parts again and again, changes can be applied easily without the lost of information in grasshopper as well as baking different prototype. As a result, same model can be created and modified with grasshopper, saving a lot of time and resources for testing. Regarding the spike pattern of my design, a lot of time is spent on creating the overall shape of the model as from rhino you need to create the panels one by one as each of them are different. However, grasshopper can let me create a geometry and then using affline transformation, to create different sizing with the help of domain range and shuffle command. A more interesting shape can be generated and again, less time consuming.

A6 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

2 ATTRACTOR POINTS, SWAP DOMAIN RANGE

1 ATTRACTOR POINT/ SET DOMAIN AREA

3 ATTRACTOR POINTS/ EXTRUDED GRID

ATTRACTOR CURVE

BOX MORPH

SPHERE/ ARC/ PIPE

SPHERE/ LINE/ PIPE

IMAGE SAMPLER/ SPHERE

IMAGE SAMPLER/ EXTRUSION

REFERENCE 1. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, ‘Speculative Everything’ (USA: MIT Press, 2013), p. 2. Amy Frearson ‘Organic tower grown from agricultural waste wins MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program 2014’, Dezeen (revised 6 Feburary 2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/06/hy-fi-by-the-living-at-moma-ps1/> [6 March 2017] 3. Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2 (2013), p.10 4. CodaWorx, ‘Vaulted Willow’, CodaWorx <https://www.codaworx.com/project/vaulted-willow-edmonton-public-art> [14 March 2017] 5. eVolo, ‘New York Horizon‘, eVolo (revised March 2016) <http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-horizon/> [6 March 2017] 6. Lucy Wang, ‘Ninety-Nine Failures Pavilion is Built from Ninja Star-Shaped Steel Pillows’, Inhabitat (revised Jan 2014) <http://inhabitat.com/ninety-nine-failures-pavilion-is-built-from-ninja-star-shaped-steel-pillows/> [9 March 2017] 7. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-edmonton/> [14 March 2017] 8. Materialist, ‘Technology Digitized Stone: ZA architects Develop Smart Masonry’, Materialist <https://www.materialist.com/digitizedstone-zaarchitects-develop-smart-masonry/> [9 March 2017] 9. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www. archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [14 March 2017] 10. Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, ‘Theories of the digital in architecture’ (London; New York: Routledge, 2015), p. 11. Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’(Oxford: Berg, 2006) 12. Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson’, The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT press, 1999), p. 13. Yehudo E. Kalay, ‘Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and methods of Computer-aided Design’ (Canbridge: MIT Press, 2004), p.

IMAGE REFERENCE Figure 1. eVolo, ‘New York Horizon‘, eVolo (revised March 2016) <http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-hori zon/> [6 March 2017] Figure 2. eVolo, ‘New York Horizon‘, eVolo (revised March 2016) <http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-hori zon/> [6 March 2017] Figure 3. Amy Frearson, ‘Organic tower grown from agricultural waste wins MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program 2014’, Dezeen (revised 6 Feburary 2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/06/hy-fi-by-the-living-at-moma- ps1/> [6 March 2017] Figure 4. Amy Frearson, ‘Organic tower grown from agricultural waste wins MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program 2014’, Dezeen (revised 6 Feburary 2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/06/hy-fi-by-the-living-at-moma- ps1/> [6 March 2017] Figure 5. Amy Frearson, ‘Organic tower grown from agricultural waste wins MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program 2014’, Dezeen (revised 6 Feburary 2014) <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/06/hy-fi-by-the-living-at-moma- ps1/> [6 March 2017] Figure6. ZA architects, ‘Smart masonry’, ZA architects < http://www.zaarchitects.com/en/public/125-smart-masonry. html> [9 March 2017] Figure7. ZA architects, ‘Smart masonry’, ZA architects < http://www.zaarchitects.com/en/public/125-smart-masonry. html> [9 March 2017] Figure8. ZA architects, ‘Smart masonry’, ZA architects < http://www.zaarchitects.com/en/public/125-smart-masonry. html> [9 March 2017] Figure 9. Archdaily, ‘Ninety Nine Failures / The University of Tokyo Digital Fabrication Lab’, Archdaily (revised January 2014) <http://www.archdaily.com/469193/ninety-nine-failures-the-university-of-tokyo-digital-fabrication-lab> [9 March 2017] Figure 10. Archdaily, ‘Ninety Nine Failures / The University of Tokyo Digital Fabrication Lab’, Archdaily (revised January 2014) <http://www.archdaily.com/469193/ninety-nine-failures-the-university-of-tokyo-digital-fabrication-lab> [9 March 2017] Figure 11. Archdaily, ‘Ninety Nine Failures / The University of Tokyo Digital Fabrication Lab’, Archdaily (revised January 2014) <http://www.archdaily.com/469193/ninety-nine-failures-the-university-of-tokyo-digital-fabrication-lab> [9 March 2017] Figure 12. Archdaily, ‘Ninety Nine Failures / The University of Tokyo Digital Fabrication Lab’, Archdaily (revised January 2014) <http://www.archdaily.com/469193/ninety-nine-failures-the-university-of-tokyo-digital-fabrication-lab> [9 March 2017] Figure 13. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017] Figure 14. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017] Figure 15. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017]

Figure 16. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017] Figure 17. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017] Figure 18. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, ‘11 Edmonton’, TheVeryMany <https://theverymany.com/public-art/11-ed monton/> [14 March 2017] Figure 19. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan- hambasan> [14 March 2017] Figure 20. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan- hambasan> [14 March 2017] Figure 21. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan- hambasan> [14 March 2017] Figure 22. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan- hambasan> [14 March 2017] Figure 23. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, Archdaily (revised July 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan- hambasan> [14 March 2017]