Studio Air Tony Kieu 585912 by Tony Kieu

Architecture Design Studio : Air tony Kieu 585912

Architecture Design Studio Air: 2014 SM2 Tutor: Bradley Elias Tony Kieu 585912

tony Kieu 585912

Contents Introduction Conceptualisation Preface Part A1 Design Futuring Part A2 Computation Architecture Part A3 Composition + Generation Part A4 Conclusion Part A5 Learning Outcomes References & Bibliography Criteria Design Part B1 Research Field Part B2 Case Study 1.0 Part B3 Case Study 2.0 Part B4 Technique Development

5 6 9 15 21 22 23

FUTURE INDEX PAGE

Detailed Design Part C1 Design Concept Part C2 Tectonic Elements & Prototype Part C3 Final Detailed Model Part C4 Learning Objectives

65 79 87 97

Introduction

â&#x20AC;&#x153;When I let go of who I am, I become who I might be - Laozi China, 604-531 BC

My name is Tony Kieu, and I am currently study at The University of Melbourne. Currently in my third year of the Bachelor of Environments, majoring in Architecture.

how the world worked, it’s systems, all the facts and the wonders. I also took Studio Arts in high school where I initially started photography which then had become a passion of mine.

I’m Vietnamese by heritage, my parents were both from Da Nang in Vietnam and escape the Vietnam War as refugees to Hong Kong, and then later Melbourne under invitation from Australia, where was born and raised in Melbourne.

Taking a highly analytic and technical approach to my photography, enforced by my curious nature. My work mainly revolves around representations of urban and human interactions with the city and buildings.

Originally I wanted to become a scientist and took Chemistry, Physics and Psychology in High School. Of a highly curious nature I always wanted to know

My obsession for my work was rewarding during VCE with two of my works being short listed for the ‘Top Arts Exhibition’ amongst another 150

When it comes to Architecture I have a fondness for the style from the pre-modern periods. Particularly classical and Gothic and they’re revivals of the Neoclassical and Neo-gothic periods. I have an appreciation of symbology, art, materiality and attention to detail that I feel is embodied in the architecture of these periods.

This is what my training and education so far has showed me, in terms of what I like. To this point of my architectural education I have been versed in the traditional disciplines of Architecture, particularly in Architecture Design Studio: Earth and Architecture Design Studio: Water.

I’d like to think I’m a level headed thinker but truth is that I am readily taking by awe and sensationalism particularly in architecture. Buildings such as The State Library of Victoria and facades of banks from the Marvelous Melbourne era sweet me off me feet in a sense.

Architecture Design Studio: AIR I can truthfully say intimidates me because I am venturing into a region of Architecture and design that I am not use to. Where I have little pre-conceived knowledge, expertise or the technical skills to perform design exploration. Saying my experience with Rhinoceros 5.0 and Grasshopper is limited at best, and to say

works for exhibition at Federation Square. I’ve always had an ambition to leave a mark upon the world, and at first I believed it was science that would answer the call for me. But I later discovered by drawing from my curious personality of the sciences, and my hobby in photography, Architecture stood to be a subject that fit both the scientific and the artistic side of me.

that is even an severe understatement. But somehow I’ll survive and endeavour to learn the design tools. However, I see the benefits of parametric modelling and computational design and am willing to put aside my safe haven of traditional design methods and computerisation. There are things outside of my known realm of design that I can learn and Studio: Air will be but another building block towards my knowledge and skills for design. I hope this subject will feed my ambition for Architecture and design and prepare me for the shifting and uncertain future for Architects and humanity alike.

Past Work - Photography + Architecture My work that I generally perform when it comes to my photography revolves around the built environment and how humans interact with it. As a result I have a wide range of subjects to shoot with. My favourite are representations of Melbourne’s built environment with what I would describe not as high or low culture, but everyday culture. Things that make up society and how people live, how Melbournians live. Religion, fashion, music, art, coffee, transport, education and history are but some of the themes I enjoy portraying in my photography. I always try to have a person in the work to express man’s experience within a setting.

Bottom - ‘Words In These Walls’ 2011 Tony Kieu Location: Mellbourne, Australia

Below is one of my favourite works, which was also one of two works I had short listed for Top Arts 2011 exhibition. Although I wished my works would eventually be on display at the National Gallery of Victoria and Federation Square, my works didn’t make the final cut.

This is shot in La Trobe Reading Room of The State Library of Victoria. I dubbed this work, ‘Words In These Walls’ because quite literally there are excerpts from books that are engraved/relieved in the stone portion of walls above the bookcases. Humorously I took a literally translation, while most people I encounter take is as a figurative one, because there the books and shelves that line the walls are filled with words. The work is meant to manifest the everyday life that many Melbournians experience. To learn and to be educated I think is a very important facet of our cities lifestyle, with the number of universities and strong academic history and culture; most exemplified at the The University of Melbourne. I do love telling the story about how I took this photo, despite how warm, ambient, quiet and serene it looks, it was quite the opposite. In order to shoot this I had a bit of a bout with security which involved some lying. Not to mention it was the middle of winter and there was no heating.

For my last design subject, Architecture Design Studio: Water the major final project was to design a boathouse for Studley Park, Kew. As well as designing one according to a brief we had to adopt the design processes and style of a master architect. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m very fortunate to have received Rem Koolhaas and to learn his design approach and style To the right are a few excerpts from some of my presentation slides during final submission.

Preface I will treat this journal for Architecture Design Studio: Air as a very personal repository of my inner most thoughts, feelings and opinions on a range of academic subject matter. Simultaneously engaging in critical analysis of the theory and maintaining professional academic points of criticism. This will be contrast with the personal aspects that I will include in the journal that will be more revealing of my stances. Alongside my writing my learning process, explorations and experimentation with Computational/ Parametric Architecture will be documented. Eventually culminating in a final design project which I hope will embody all the learning I have experienced in this subject. To continue on, I have chosen one quote for every chapter in this journal which will appear under the chapter title. It will encapsulate the mood and overall theme, set the agenda, or clarify the underlying importance of the subject content. With what I hope will be a powerful, evocative and thought provoking statement. Lastly all I can say anyone reading this. Come with me on this journey.

Part A1 A1.1 Design Futuring A1.2 LAGI â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;19502050 5

6 8

A1.1 Design Futuring

“We shape buildings, thereafter they shape us” - Winston Churchill London, 28th of October 1944 More than ever before there is a growing uncertainty of our future. Where the future existence of human civilization is for the first time under question. From history we’ve learnt all too common, the stories about cultures, and great civilizations being eradicated, ceasing to exist. From the fall of the Roman Empire to the disappearance of the people of Teotihuacan, and the Indus Valley culture. We may live in a new age now but we cannot escape the actions of our past that have led us to our current situation. Global warming and resource depletion are our greatest threat to our continued existence. Because of growth our endless hunger for fossil fuels, metals, water and food will soon reach a tipping point, if not already has by the estimates of some scientists and environmentalists. There are two antagonistic concepts that Fry introduces in his article. That is ‘Defuturing’ where problems add up to the diminution of the finite time of our collective and total existence, and it’s counterpoint ‘Futuring’ which is the negation of Defuturing. 1 It is within the definition of these concepts that we can analyse the effects that projects

have on wider society as Fry states ‘‘design is a world-shaping ”. 2 Within the past 15 years a revolution in how transparent this information is to the public has been stemmed by the combined efforts of scientists and international media. Documentaries like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ starring ex Vice-President of the United States, Al Gore as well as movies such as ‘The Day after Tomorrow’ and ‘2012’. They show how global warming and environmental apocalypses could looked like and how it could affect us all. The effects won’t be localised either, because as our world is now an interconnected network. Globalisation has permeated every facet of our modern life and society. In commerce, economics, trade, agriculture, education, media, politics, etc. It has enabled us to transcend the limitations of geographical boundaries that have previously restricted our interactions amongst each other across the globe. The positives of globalisation are numerous. Borders between countries are more open for trade, travel and education than ever before; acting

as a catalyst for global cooperation, collaboration,trading expertise and sharing knowledge. But at the same time the side-affects of globalisation has accelerated and exacerbated humanities endless hunger for more resources in order to fuel growth. This has left us in a predicament that could see the end to our global society, indefinitely. Despite the constant bombardment from the media and constant reminders and reinforcement from companies trying to advocating their operations as being sustainable. There has been a cultural whitewashing in the approach of sustainable design. Fry argues that the building industry and regulation standards force sustainability out of necessity not because of a true deep seated desire to be sustainable. Fry’s article ‘Design Futuring’ an argument is made that sustainability has become a buzzword and rather superficial. 3 We rarely build sustainably to satisfy the notion of prolonging our existence on this Earth. But rather sustainability and design has succumb to the forces of hype, buzz and economics. For example the ‘Green Star’ program

in Australia is now mandatory in Victoria for large newly built commercial buildings. 4 Firstly because the government has forcefully encouraged this through formal legislation. Furthermore clients and contractors adopt it because over the buildings life cycle it becomes cheaper to run and maintain due to higher operational efficiency than older counterparts. With no doubt this is a positive aspect of being forced to be sustainable. But the manner and intention in which such processes occur are but hollow and devoid. Throwing in a green roof here, using LED lightbulbs there, orientate your building this way. Design has become checklist of corner cutting and quick solutions, so builders can charge clients more money per square metre in comparison to a non-green star building. Design and innovation needs to stray away from being a checklist of conveniences. It needs to be considered holistically, as buildings and cities become living environments for us that leave indelible changes of our society. “We shape buildings, thereafter they shape us” - Winston Churchill. 5

A1.1 continued. The results of our actions may show, but we cannot continue on such a positive path, a ‘Futuring’ process unless the society and designers adopt a unified desire and approach to sustainability. When ‘sustainability’ has been whitewashed and sensationalised with little substance behind our intention. It can not be Although studying this subject from the point of a student is all is interesting and engaging, the ramifications of what I am studying are profoundly more impactual when I put it into a my personal context. Within my lifetime oil reserves will deplete, the ice caps will continue to melt, the seas will rise. Droughts will persist, storms will rage fury stronger than ever before. But how will that affect me? or say the millions of inhabitants of Bangladesh who will lose 20% of their land if the oceans were to rise just 1 metres 1. Will I still be driving a car? or drinking water straight from my tap at home? Will I be living in constant heat? or will be living an a post apocalyptic world after the oil is depleted These questions to me are very

personal and reflective of the importance of finding innovation, and fixing the problems we have now. The directly reflect a shared interest between myself and ‘Design Futuring’ by Fry. The status of our civilisation is rapidly ‘defuturing’. In my education I know that I’ll will learn many angles of approach to tackle the big questions and generate solutions. Thematically I believe ‘Design Futuring’ has been strategically placed as our first academic content for this subject as our foundation, and to act as pillar that we will revolve around. In Studio:air I will actively attempt to promote ‘Futuring’ in what I do. The subject will encourage me to use tools that are at the forefront of architecture and design methodology. I will be approaching Architecture by exploring new techniques for generation, while considering the broader implications. Computation, automation and parametric design are but some of the tools I’ll be using for this subject, to explore new ways of design that address many of the persisting issues with humanity. Otherwise my fearful dream will become my fearful reality.

Figure.1 - Concept image Board #2 Figure.2 Concept Image Board #4 ‘19502050’ LAGI 2012 Freshkills Park, New York, USA 2012 (unbuilt) Artist: Alexandre Hurzeler http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/19502050/#

A1.2 ‘19502050’ | Alexandre Hurzeler My first precedents example for the discussion of ‘Design Futuring’ is and entry for the Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI) 2012. I’ve chosen this example because this semester for ADS:Air I will be designing a project for the LAGI 2014 Copenhagen competition. Analysis of a project now from a previous year would give me an insight into what essential elements are present in designs, whether they are didactic or aesthetic, and what could be improved and be built upon when approaching my own design for the LAGI competition later this semester. “19502050” is a project that seeks to combined renewable energy generation and art. 6 With the goal of increasing awareness about climate change and sustainability. I believe that the purpose of any piece of Art, Science or Architecture is to introduce a concept, new technicalities, ideas, ways or representation and thinking. “19502050” would act as a wind and solar energy generation project and light art installation. A set of retrofitted freight container would be placed in the area to represent the carbon emission and energy consumption of a 5 year period. The containers that represent the year 1950 to 2010 would be pre-

made and placed on the site, with the remaining power generating containers to be installed in 5 year intervals, with more modules making up the collection until the year 2050. 7

should be seen in our contemporary architectural and design ethos. One where we can aspire to create a globalised ‘Futuring’ culture.

‘19502050’ in my opinion holds to the aspiration that Fry advocates in ‘Design Futuring’. It serves a didactic role in spreading awareness about sustainability. What helps differentiate the substance between this project and other projects is that there is a continual attempt to improve the project. With three new containers added every 5 years, each container would house and represent the forefront of wind and solar energy generation. Students and engineers could collaborate, develop and continually seek more efficient technologies to install into the new containers. The program could be participated in like a competition, further fostering a dedication to collaborative innovation, as well as spreading awareness. This project exemplifies the true meaning of sustainability as should be intended where design, science, technology and humanity combine synergistically to shift ways of thinking. Although ‘19502050’ is not particularly architectural is it represents a working process that

Part A2 9

A2.1 Computational Architecture A2.2 Guggenheim Museum Bilbao A2.3 Heydar Aliyev Centre A2.4 Fibrous Tower

10 11 12 13

A2.1 Computational Architecture “Those who look for the laws of Nature as a support for their new works collaborate with the creator “ - Antonio Gaudi 1914

There is a great misunderstanding that computation and computerisation are the same thing. I myself before this subject referred to many project as ‘parametric’ when in fact they were not. This wide misconception I would attribute to a shared quality that computation/parametric architecture has with popular and contemporary architecture. Computation/Parametric designs have often appear abstract and sculptural due to the geometries formed. 8 The true difference between what is computerised and what is computational in design is elegantly framed by Oxman & Oxman’s research paper ‘Theories of the Digital in Architecture’.“In effect, formation precedes form, and design becomes the thinking of architectural generation through the logic of the algorithm. Computerisation however is the use of computers and other digital technologies to represent projects in the 3D easier than say drawing. Or any fabrication methods being too complicated by hand that require the intricacies and pinpoint accuracy of computers.

to precognition? Secondly was the manner of your design exploration and trials based upon procedural actions? If answered no to the first, and yes to the second I would say the work was done computationally. Computational Architecture is not as most believe a new thing. The digital age of computers especially in the 2000’s has given architects, designers and engineers alike new levels of computing power to explore, discover and realise the design in real time. This was not always so, even before the 2000’s with computers still present. Antonio Gaudi documented well and modelled his design process using computational methods to simulate his outcomes, well before the age of modern computers. 9 Much like how I would use Grasshopper and Rhino to model, except I am performing it digitally with the advantage of modern technology, unlike Gaudi who worked analogously.

I believe that to differentiate the difference a standard needs to be put in place. Through metacognition and personal questioning, I’ve come up with two questions I believe could determine whether you were working computationally. Was your design outcome pre-conceived or subject

A2.2 Guggenheim Museum Bilbao | Frank Gehry One such misconceptions is Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The long curvilinear lines and geometric masses gives the Museum an abstract and sculptural form bearing resemblance to many computational works. However in answering the two questions I posed before on whether the design exploration was computational. I cannot comment on the actual process Gehry’s performed on to reach the final form. What I can say is Gehry’s final form for the building was all but pre-conceived as shown in Gehry’s original parti sketch shown below. Many of the shapes and lines are directly transferrable in the sketch and image of the completed building below. I imagine computerisation has enabled the fabrication of the building, calculating each titanium panels shape, dimension and flexure with greater precision for fabrication. 10

Left - Figure.3 Concept Drawing Right- Figure.4 Perspective Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain 1997 Architect: Frank Gehry

A2.3 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre | Zaha Hadid Architects To differentiate the difference further with I’ve chosen Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre in Baku, to illustrate the difference between what is computerised architecture and what is computational. The Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre owes its form to a preconceived design. Using more traditional practice of architecture, where form is inspired through diagram, parti or drawing, much like how Gehry has generated his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.

There is also a second differentiation that should be discussed. It is still possible to solve problems using parametrics, yet I would not classify it as parametric design. As the ability to computerise the architecture and use parametric processes to solve problems would not be considered design, but either problem solving or a utilisation of advanced computerisation. For example, the curved panels of the Heydar Aliyev Cultural centre requires panelled sheets where no two panels are the same. This has to be modelled parametrically in order to compute the required curve dimensions in order for fabrication. However the project has not used computational methods as the overall inspiration and over-arching design principle to realise and explore itself. This is very much similar to Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum.

Computational design and likewise Parametric design require that the work be done in a bottom up hierarchical process, where the “logic of associative and dependency relationships between objects and their parts-and-whole relationship, by changing the values of parameters within the schema of the relationship” 11.

The easiest analogy that could describe this situation is, you have a brand of car say Toyota, you may paint it and manufacture it within the same way, using the same methods to realise it’s final form. However it does not have the same essence as a true Ferrari, your Toyota does not have a luxury sports car engine. As is that you may dress architecture and design in the same style of dressing and process of working, but the essential creation of it is subject to the underlying fundamentals of its design.

Left - Figure.5 Southeast Elevation Right - Figure.6 Civil Twilight Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, Baku, Azerbaijan 2012 Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects http://www.zaha-hadid.com/ architecture/heydar-aliyev-centre/

A2.4 Fibrous Tower | Kokkugia

A good question to ask is why use computational architecture at all? Using this example of architectural computation research by Kokkugia. ‘Fibrous Tower’ has no interior supporting columns, no traditional supportive beam or column. Although a piece of polemic architecture and research it demonstrates untraversed territory in architecture and construction.

holistically as a system rather than a linear chain of force-load paths. 13

The inspiration for form of ‘Fibrous Tower’ and it’s purpose come from the species of plant known as the Strangler Fig. A parasitic plant that grows around a tree trunk like a vine, eventually killing it’s host by starving it of soil nutrients, water and sunlight. After the host tree dies and rots away the Stranger Fig remains self supporting and is hollow in the interior where it’s host tree once lived, as if the tree was never there. 12

Computational Architecture has long sought to recreate the rules and laws of nature, and form them into a quantifiable algorithm of processes that express a form. In this case Kokkugia have deduced the form into an algorithm in Grasshopper of means I do not know of yet, and has expressed it in what would be a revolutionary construction method.

In this piece of research the facade system is also the buildings supportive structure. The fibrous branches and trunks support each other through non-traditional load paths, and support each other

There has been view that god or mother nature is the greatest architect and designer, due to the simple rules that spawn complex geometries and structures that are efficient, beautiful and functional. The ‘Fibrous Tower’ has a structural reasoning much like a Stranger Fig.

This is all well and good, being progressive in design opening up new ways of construction, manufacturing and fabrication that are highlighted in the fore mentioned article by Oxman & Oxman. But my critical point of analysis is that for any genre of design needs to display a reverence

to phenomenology. “A memorable experience in architecture can be distinguished when all our senses are engaged simultaneously due to phenomenological imperatives during the design process”. In essence I believe that computational design needs to adopt a branch of experience to culturally normalise it within design as a whole. This is not a direct criticism of Oxman & Oxman’s work as it was not upon their agenda to discuss experimental qualities in their theory of digital architecture. Nevertheless, what would a persons experience be in a building that was designed through computation or parametric means. Certainly having no discernible columns or supporting structure within the ‘Fibrous Tower’ would revolutionise the way space is organised, and how space can be utilised in skyscraper style residential/commercial settings. 14 If we use space in different manners I believe that the experience within it will also change.

Above - Figure.7 Strangler Fig (Ficus watkinsiana) Middle - Figure.8 Facade / Floor-plate perspective section Right - Figure.9 Full project perspective Project: Fibrous Tower (un-built), Hong Kong 2008 http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/fibrous-tower/ Architects: Kokkugia (Snooks + Smith) www.kokkugia.com

Part A3

A3.1 Composition + Generation A3.2 Catenaries + La Sagrada Familia A3.3 Subdivided Columns

16 18 19

A3.1 Composition + Generation “Architecture starts when you carefully put to pieces of brick together. There it begins.” - Ludwid Mies Van De Rohe

Biomimicry in Architecture, Design and Engineering is a technical theory has been reoccurrent throughout the study of the Architecture and the Sciences. Da Vinci’s sketches on the golden ratio in man and nature 15, adopting it to Art and Architecture. To the famous illustration by Lavoisier’s ‘primitive hut’ depicting the theorised origins of classical greek columns through representations of tree trunks. 16 Biomimicry seeks to emulate the internal logic of natural processes. Due to the complexity of nature, models are used to simulate the processes by approximating the elements of the process to a framework that can be manipulated. 17 For example the structural logic of the Fibrous Tower’s design discussed previously can be reasoned down to what I believe to be a fibre point attractor algorithm working together to simulate the natural Strangler Fig’s growing process. I cannot comment on Kokkugia’s working method as I’m still new to this field of design, if I could ask them how I would. This is a great example of how the design process was informed by the ‘thinking’ of the algorithm. This thinking automated the structural logic of the building by setting the variables within the

parameter framework to result in a feasible project from now into the future. This weeks paper by Brady Peters ‘Computation Works - The Building of Algorithmic Thought discusses many real world applications of computational architecture. As well as a portrayal of how contemporary architectural practices are using programmers and architects versed in computational design to solve design issues. There are wider implications from the outcomes of computational architecture. The ‘Fibrous Tower’ is a great example because its structural system is completely external opening up the entire interior floor space. This could have profound implications on construction time, energy efficiency, wastage. But also design options for urban and interior planning, higher occupation density in a world where we are running out of spaces in cities. Without computational architecture a project such as this would not be technologically feasible as rationalising the support system, considering nonlinear forms of force load paths would be an engineering feat.

A3.2 Catenaries + La Sagrada Familia | Antonio Gaudi Computationally works similar in engineering difficulty has been attempted before manually before the age of computers. Gaudi used physical models as form of computation problem solving for the knave ceiling of ‘La Sagrada Familia’, pictured to the right. He has done so using Catenaries in his simulation to find the optimal load path and arch geometries to support the knave ceiling of La Sagrada Familia. Catenaries are within the same family as arches, they are effectively arches which hang from the top and drape down at a midpoint due to gravity, like a metal chain between two fence posts, or the dip in the wires between massive electrical pylons seen commonly along freeways. The first image to the right i the model of Gaudi’s La Sagrada Familia as is hanging from a ceiling. However it is important to note to any readers that he wanted to construct arches and not catenaries in La Sagrada Familia. But due to arches and catenaries being the inverse of each other Gaudi models the knave upside down hanging from the ceiling to calculate the geometry of the hang. “As hangs the flexible line, so but

inverted will stand the rigid arch.“ 18 By simulating with weighted bags, Gaudi simulates and scales the forces that would be experienced by structural members. The strings would represent the stone columns and arches, and the bags the forces. The strings naturally conform to parabolic shapes, giving them the most efficient curve with an apex that shows which shape would provide the most efficiency in dealing with certain forces. To actually see the result you have to flip the catenary model vertically to see it’s resemblance to what Sagrada Familia’s knave looks like now, as seen on the next two images to the right. The model is in elevation view, however the photograph of the building is of reverse ceiling plan view. The point of reference for the reverse ceiling plan view in reference to Gaudi’s 3D catenary model would be the centre of a black ring at the bottom of the second image, where a piece of card is seen. From this location looking up towards the highest vault is perspective seen in the third image.

Above - Figure.10 Catenary Model Middle- Figure.11 Catenary Model (Flipped) Right - Figure.12 Perspective in reverse ceiling plan Project: La Sagrada Familia, Barcelona (1882-2028 expected)

Architect: Antonio Gaudi (1852-1926)

A3.3 Subdivided Columns - A New Order | Michael Hansmeyer This project I feel embodies the title of this weeks subject content. Using a traditional Doric column as a standard model, Hansmeyer has set a number of algorithms and parameter specifications for the varying algorithms to form endless number of iterations of columns using cellular subdivision methods. In some of these columns up to 6.8 million faces after being subdivided 8 times. The most minute details can be seen and expressed within the sculptural columns. 19 The base model column contains the data points that specify the proportions, dimensions of the columnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s base, shaft, capital and maintains data on the columns fluting. The algorithms take these parameters and applies them heterogeneously in an iterative process across the column. While maintaining said proportions, dimensions of the column components. This leads to the resulting form which adheres to the original local parameters of the columns surface topography. Rather than spearing off on a tangent to form spherical or irregular shapes.

Thus far Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve described the generation of the subdivided columns. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to continue with the compositional strategies Hansmeyer has employed to both synthesise the columns physically. As the columns are subject to recursive subdivision, which divides a surface into a smaller surfaces. The fabrication of such a column would prove to be difficult. Hansmeyer cut sections at 1mm intervals from base to capital, and utilised laser cutting to maintain accuracy and preserve details in every section. The results you can see in the image on the left, which is photography not a render. Alternatively I imagine additive process 3D printing would be feasible to fabricate the columns, barring the issue of print quality and fidelity.

Left - Figure.10 Room of Subdivided Column Iterations Project: Subdivided Columns - A New Order, Gwanju Biennale, 2010 http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/ columns_info.html Architect: Michael Hansmeyer

These fabrication processes here could possibly become a practice for larger scale projects and buildlings. Particuarly in The Netherlands and China research projects where entire buildings have been 3D printed. Perhaps this could be a part of the future of building and construction.

A4.1 Conclusion Previously stated before I believe this course has been structured thematically. With each week of subject matter exploring new facets of design theories, social and environmental impacts and methods of design. Each weeks content I believe is inter-related to any number of the other weeks. For me personally ‘Design Futuring’ is the most important theoretical framework presented in the coursework thus far, as it serves as a reason why I’m learning about computational architecture, design, generation, fabrication and composition. Design Futuring is a means to an end, a process that constructively builds upon ideologies and issues that are growing in our modern world. Throughout this semester, I want to address sustainability and design directly through the courses foundation. It’ll recurrently serve as a powerful reminder of ‘why’ I choose to learn future subject matter in this class. I will endeavour to remain innovate, seeking new solutions to current models of design and theory. In what I hope will be beneficial to both myself, my classmates, the design community

and ultimately in some small way the world. It’s significate for me to design in such a way. In the writings of my first chapter A1.1 Design Futuring I very candidly explained my inner most fears and thoughts about the projected outcome of our world. It’s so scary to think, that within my lifetime I could see the greatest extinction of humanity than ever seen before. It seems like such a farfetched idea, something only seen in pop-culture, movies and books. The reality is the that Earth, will always be there, the Earth will survive, it will remain as a rock floating throughout space. What matters is we won’t always be here. When we say we have to be sustainable to ‘save the Earth’ that is a lie, we have to be sustainable ‘to save ourselves’. Until we can think in that way I don’t believe we’ll ever truly reach sustainability. History has a way of teaching us that in the most dark and dire times epiphany is reached. I just hope it won’t be too late.

A5.1 Learning Outcomes To be quite frank and honest past Architecture Design Studio: Earth and Water have failed to encourage sustainable thinking and design. It’s just an expectation that is an attempt to consider sustainability in the design. There is never a marking criteria, academic development or constructive feedback on genuine attempts to integrate sustainability into works. Secondly part of the issue I believe is that architecture students are simply expected to ‘integrate’ sustainability. I’d like to be clear when I say that integration is the joining of two or more parts. What have I learnt or deduced from the subject matter in the course presented so far. Is that for design to be truly sustainable it has to permeate the entire culture and mindset when it comes to design. No longer can we design and construct a building, ‘then’ integrate sustainability. Not only does this promote a false sense of entitlement when it comes to design, using buzzwords like ‘sustainable’ and ‘efficient’ when what you’ve truly done is just thrown on a couple of gimicks.

References Footnotes 1

Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring’, in Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford University Press, Berg 2008).

Green Buildling Council Australia, ‘7.1 Commerical Buildling Disclosure’, 7. Regulations and Standards (2011).

Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring’, in Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford University Press, Berg 2008).

Ursula Hartenberger, ‘Why Buildings Matter’, The Guardian 2011.

6 Land Art Generator Initiative, ‘’19502050’’2012) <http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI- 2012/19502050/#>. 7 Land Art Generator Initiative, ‘’19502050’’2012) <http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI- 2012/19502050/#>. 8

Rivka Oxman. Robert Oxman, ‘Theories of Digital in Architecture’, (London, New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10.

9 ‘Structural Design in the Work of Gaudi’, Department of Structural Design, Escuela Tic nica Superior de Arquitecrura, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Avida Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain, (2006) <http://oa.upm.es/703/1/Huer ta_Art_002.pdf>. 10

Irene Nero, ‘Computers, Cladding and Curve: The Techno-Morphism of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain’ (Florida State University, 2004).

Rivka Oxman. Robert Oxman, ‘Theories of Digital in Architecture’, (London, New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10.

15 World Mysteries, ‘Geometrical Construction of the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci’2002-2009) <http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_17_vm.htm>. 16 ‘The Idea of the Primitive Hut’, Universiteit Leiden (Leiden University), (2013) <http:// www.hum.leiden.edu/lucas/legitimacy-of-architecture/project/the-primitive-hut.html>. 17

Gwyllim Jahn, ‘Communications 3 Complex Systems, Generative Design’, ed. by Tony Kieu (Melbourne: University of Mel bourne, 13th of August 2014).

18 ‘Structural Design in the Work of Gaudi’, Department of Structural Design, Escuela Tic nica Superior de Arquitecrura, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Avida Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain, (2006) <http://oa.upm.es/703/1/Huer ta_Art_002.pdf>. 19 Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Columns - a New Order’ <http://www.michael-hansmey er.com/projects/columns_info.html>. Figures 1+2

http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/19502050/# LAGI-2012/19502050/#

http://landartgenerator.org/

Sydney Pollack, ‘Sketches of Frank Gehry’2005) <http://www.cineplex.com/Movie/sketches- of-frank-gehry/Photos>. 3

4 ‘5 State-of-the-Art Architectures You Dont Want to Miss’, 2014) <http://www.vbest.org/5- state-of-the-art-architectures-you-dont-want-to-miss.html>.

Zaha Hadid Architects, ‘Heydar Aliyev Centre’2012) <http://www.zaha-hadid.com/archi tecture/heydar-aliyev-centre/>. 5+6

Mari-3, ‘Inside the Strangler Fig’, Deviant Art, (March 2009) <http://mari-3.deviantart. com/art/Inside-the-Strangler-Fig-144165391>. 7

Roland Snooks, ‘Fibrous Tower’2008) <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/fibrous-tower/>.

12 British Broadcasting Corporation Worldwide, ‘How the Fig Tree Strangles Other Plants for Survival in the Rainforest - David Attenborough - Bbc Wildlife’2007) <https://www. youtube.comn/watch?v=UCUtpmwacoE>.

10+11 ‘Sagrada Familia Catenary Model’, Revel&Roam, (<http://revelandroam.com/wp-content/ uploads/revel-and-roam-barcelona-gaudi3.jpg>.

Roland Snooks, ‘Fibrous Tower’2008) <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/fibrous-tower/>

12 ‘La Sagrada Familia Nave Ceiling’, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ ba/Sagrada_Familia_nave_roof_detail.jpg>.

Yirao Lee, ‘Integrating Sensory Experience in Parametric Architecture through a Phenom enal Lens’ (Victoria University of Wellington, 2010).

13 Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Columns - a New Order’ <http://www.michael-hansmey er.com/projects/columns_info.html>.

Bibliography 5 State-of-the-Art Architectures You Dont Want to Miss’, 2014) <http://www.vbest.org/5- state-of-the-art-architectures-you-dont-want-to-miss.html>.

Sydney Pollack, ‘Sketches of Frank Gehry’2005) <http://www.cineplex.com/Movie/sketches- of-frank-gehry/Photos>.

Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 08-15.

‘Sagrada Familia Catenary Model’, Revel&Roam, (<http://revelandroam.com/ wp-content/ uploads/revel-and-roam-barcelona-gaudi3.jpg>.

British Broadcasting Corporation Worldwide, ‘How the Fig Tree Strangles Other Plants for Survival in the Rainforest - David Attenborough - Bbc Wildlife’2007) <https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=UCUtpmwacoE>.

‘The Idea of the Primitive Hut’, Universiteit Leiden (Leiden University), (2013) <http:// www.hum.leiden.edu/lucas/legitimacy-of-architecture/project/the-primitive-hut.html>.

Giles Tremlett, ‘Sagrada Familia Gets Final Completion Date – 2026 or 2028’ ‘ The Guardian Friday 23rd September, 2011.

Tony Fry, ‘Design Futuring’, in Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford University Press, Berg 2008).

Green Buildling Council Australia, ‘7.1 Commerical Buildling Disclosure’, 7. Regulations and Standards (2011).

Ursula Hartenberger, ‘Why Buildings Matter’, The Guardian 2011.

Gwyllim Jahn, ‘Communications 3 Complex Systems, Generative Design’, ed. by Tony Kieu (Melbourne: University of Mel bourne, 13th of August 2014). Irene Nero, ‘Computers, Cladding and Curve: The Techno-Morphism of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain’ (Florida State University, 2004).

Yirao Lee, ‘Integrating Sensory Experience in Parametric Architecture through a Phenom enal Lens’ (Victoria University of Wellington, 2010). World Mysteries, ‘Geometrical Construction of the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci’2002-2009) <http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_17_vm.htm>.

‘La Sagrada Familia Nave Ceiling’, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Sagrada_ Familia_nave_roof_detail.jpg>. Land Art Generator Initiative, ‘’19502050’’2012) <http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI- 2012/19502050/#>. Mari-3, ‘Inside the Strangler Fig’, Deviant Art, (March 2009) <http://mari-3.deviantart. com/art/Inside-the-Strangler-Fig-144165391>. Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Columns - a New Order’ <http://www.michael-hansmey er.com/projects/columns_info.html>. Rivka Oxman. Robert Oxman, ‘Theories of Digital in Architecture’, (London, New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10. Roland Snooks, ‘Fibrous Tower’2008) <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/fibrous-tower/>. Structural Design in the Work of Gaudi’, Department of Structural Design, Escuela Tic nica Superior de Arquitecrura, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Avida Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain, (2006) <http://oa.upm.es/703/1/Huer ta_Art_002.pdf>.

Criteria Design Part B1

B1.1 Research Fields

B1.1 Research Fields The time has come to discover, research and explore methods of computational design. So far within this subject the learning has been focused on heavy analysis of theory and underlying principles of computational/parametric design. The material system I’ve chosen to research and specialize in, is Strips & Folding. Although the subject has categorically laid out the different genres of design methods, many overlap or have techniques and algorithms than are helpful to constructing one another. I’ve chosen to research Strips & Folding and Structures simultaneously, because upon reflection of the task at hand with this semesters major design task LAGI 2014. Ultimately I’d need to explore construction methods and structural feasibility, in order to fulfill the full potential, and as such choosing Strips & Folding with Structures will fulfill greater understanding in the design for me.

Part B2

Case Study 1.0 Seroussi Pavilion | Biothing B2.1 Research Fields B2.2 Case Study 1.0 B2.3 Exploration & Iteration

B2.1 Case Study 1.0 Seroussi Pavilion | Bio-thing The Seroussi Pavilion’s research piece by Biothing is within the Strips & Folding category within the research fields presented on the LMS. The theorised pavilion has a design where it growth is formed out of self-modifying patterns of vectors, evaluated within an artificial magnetic fields. Elements react to attraction or repulsions within the field which leads the creation of curves and lines, which follow paths of natural flow, with maximum efficiently without colliding with another element within the entire field. I particularly liked this example for it’s pleasing aesthetic appearance, the replication of natural growth like curves and the arches it created. Something thing resonated with me especially during this stage when considering design outcomes for the semester project LAGI 2014. In this exploration I will attempt to stretch, disjoint, and reconstruct the possibilities of the definition that has been supplied by the subject, using various tools and approaches, geometries and patterning methods. Each species will comprise a whole page by itself with eight iterations for each species. All of which will appear in the pages thereafter this one.

The First Species (Matrix Squiddies) Is the most similar to the original definition. I decided to add an extra function, ‘Force Spin’ within the original definition, as it was the most natural form of exploration, by addition, to aid in finding alterations algorithm to change the outcome. At this stage experimentation with the definition is reserved and naive to the full potential. The Second Species (Zerg Hive) Rather confident now in understanding some of the capabilities of the definition. I decided to venture outside of the predefined curves given and to instead randomly generate seeds within a Voronoi. The resultant fields were then run through a number of graph functions to explore alternative outcomes within the field. The Third Species (Undulating Waves) In the same style of the previous species, replacing the style or representation. Using the ‘Quad-Tree’ to explore how clustering of ‘square leafs’ could influence the direction of curves within the fields, but also the density.

The Fourth Species (Poz & Neg) I returning to the original curves of the definition after exploration that had gone off tangents from the original definition. My understanding of magnetic fields was that there were always positive and negative points in which the original definition had negative points. My species here is an exploration to see the outcome where positive attraction points and negative repulsion points are placed in close proximity and how that affects the flow. The Fifth Species (Hexgrid-Swirls) This last species combines the ideas of my previous four species in what I hope to be the culmination of my exploration. The definition has been broken and spliced with another definition to allow the field to deformed be a hexagonal grid. The new definition also takes into account the ‘Spin Force’ of my first species, attractor and repulsors of my fourth species. The clustering effects of the third species and lastly the varying graph functions of my second species.

Species 1 - The Matrix Squiddies Attractor Spin

Attractor Spin

Species 2 -Zerg Hive Power Function 50 Points

Gaussian Function 50 Points

Sine Function 50 Points

Parabola Function 50 Points

Power Function 25 Points

Gaussian Function 25 Points

Sine Function 25 Points

Parabola Function

25 Points

Species 3 - Undulating Waves Seed 1 Leafs 3

Seed 2 Leafs 3

Seed 3 Leafs 3

Seed 4 Leafs 3

Seed 5 Leafs 2

Seed 6 Leafs 2

Seed 7 Leafs 1

Seed 8 Leafs 1

Species 4 - Poz & Neg Attractors Points 3 Strength -0.5 Repulsor Points 4 Strength +1 Attractors Points 4 Strength -0.5 Repulsor Points 4 Strength +1

Attractors Points 5 Strength -0.5 Repulsor Points 3 Strength +1 Attractors Points 4 Strength -1.0 Repulsor Points 5 Strength +5

Attractors Points 4 Strength -1.0 Repulsor Points 8 Strength +3 Attractors Points 4 Strength -1.0 Repulsor Points 5 50 Points

Attractors Points 4 Strength -1.0 Repulsor Points 6 Strength +3 Attractors Points 4 Strength -1.0

Repulsor Points 3 Strength +3

Species 5 - Hexagrid Swirl 12.0, -40.3, 36.4, 38.8 2.6, 4.8, 3.8, -2.5 39.8, 40.9, 14.2, 7.3

18.5, 43.5, -45.3, -39.2 1.0, -1.2, -4.2, -1.8 37.0, 13.1, 5.0, 33.9

-41.7, 43.8, -8.7, 41.7 -4.4, -1.9, -4.1, 1.7 36.2, 27.7, 23.6, 16.9

17.6, 19.7, 48.0, 12.3 -2.3, 2.8, -3.5, 4.6 41.4, 10.4, 49.3, 40.0

-7.7, -5.7, -2.1, -2.8 -1.5, 2.1, -3.3, -2.0 3.8, 43.6, 10.0, 25.8

17.4, -44.6, 48.1, 43.0 -0.9, 4.5, 2.7, 0.5 21.6, 28.7, 4.7, 39.7

-33.1, 15.2, -37.5, 27.4 1.7, -4.8, 2.6, -4.5 47.7, 35.3, 39.6, 36.2

8.1 , -24.2, -13.5, -12.4 2.0, -2.6, -2.9, 0.0 44.4, 2.2, 26.8, 48.6

B2.3 Outcomes Through the design exploration and iterations I’ve chosen the best outcomes for my exploration that I feel are sufficiently complex in design methodology, rich in complexity, visually appealing, and furthermore have the best chance of being fabricated. My first choice appearing on the top right of the next page is one of my iterations from hexagonal grid deformation of a field. I found this to be one of the more successful iterations because of composition of the form and it’s features. Notably a rather cohesive spiral shape and added features of two central holes within the design. This lead me to think about the possible outcomes this sort of design could enable me to do with my LAGI 2014 design, with the holes being a central focus within the design with function spreading outwards in spiral. The next choice is one of my Quad Tree iterations. This design resonated with me specifically because of the clustering nature of field and. How it has been forced into one particuarl quadrant of the square. It also appears to be follow an exponential pattern, with one quadrant out of the four, containing within itself another 4 quadrants. I found this highly appealing from both an aesthetic pattern and mathematical reasoning.

The third iteration I’ve chosen is one from the Voronoi field explorations. I am rather contentious about this method firstly because I feel it lacks latent potential for further exploration. Secondly because the Voronoi function is humourously and notoriously touted within computational design and even has it’s own pop-up warning in Grasshopper. I’m not afraid of being judged but I wish for my work to be original, and not to the subject of a function that in general gives pleasing outcomes. It may sound strange, I want pleasing outcomes to be more difficult to create and to be more original and responsive to experimentation than plugging into a Voronoi. Nevertheless despite this, I still believe it is a highly appealing design outcome, although the technique itself I believe lacks latent potential in future growth, I feel has given me more personal and intellectual growth when considering possible ways to apply learnt techniques to other iterations. For example the parabola graph type that I first learnt of in this species, out of all functions I experimented with I’ve deduced that the parabola is the most structurally agreeable for fabrication due to the compressive strength of an orderly arch. Which reminds me a lot about the catenary studies from La Sagrada Familia I documented in my Module A.

Design Speculation This type of design when applied architecturally I feel best suits a pavilion or inabitable space, sadly enough this doesn’t stray away from the function of the Seroussi Pavilion, I guess it is just innate that a structure like that would be suitable for a pavilion space. Other ways I could think of applying the fields is to flipped upside down eat out a surfaces such as a ground plans instead of imaging the design to be a ground sitting structure as most would. I feel as if the qualities portrayed in these types of designs calls for rigid arch structures that assume shape and have a light airy feel, as well as being self supporting. In relation to that I feel that it could create an effect of such as a space could be freeing and invoke senses of flow and fluidity when it came to circulation.

Pseudocode ==========================================

hexagrid field deformation

1 ‘hexagrid construct’_(input_X + input_Y) 2 ‘Search’_for_’discontinuity’ 3 ‘Move’_’Discontinued Points’_’Ref’ -> Line 6 4 ‘extrapolate_outcome’ -> ‘median_average’ 5 (Input_‘median_Average’ -> line 6 6 ‘genepool’_’Randomize’ (input_4) x 3 7 ‘ref’_’genepool’ -> (pcharge + ptspin + strength + radius) 8 ‘merge_field’ -> Line 6 9 ‘field_line_constructor’_(input_line_5+8) ========================================= quadtree parabola 1 ‘populate_2d’_(Input_Seed_X) -> 2 ‘quad tree’_(input_leaf_3) 3 ‘output_line_2’ -> ‘divide’_(factor_10) 4 ‘refer’_’line_3’ ->ptcharge 5 ‘mergefield’ 6 ‘field_line_constructor_(input_line_5) 7 ‘output_line_6’ -> ‘set_as_curve’ 8 ‘output_line 7’ -> ‘divide’_(factor_5) 9 ‘input_graph’_(type_parabola) 10 ‘multiply’_(line_9+depth_factor_-1.9) 11 ‘output_line_10) -> ‘move’_(axis_z) 12 ‘intepolate_curves’

==========================================

voronoi cell arcs

1 ‘populate_2d’_(Input_Seed_X) -> 2 ‘voronoi_(cell_radius_5) 3 ‘output_line_2’ -> ‘divide’_(factor_10) 4 ‘refer’_’line_3’ ->ptcharge 5 ‘mergefield’ 6 ‘field_line_constructor_(input_line_5) 7 ‘output_line_6’ -> ‘set_as_curve’ 8 ‘output_line 7’ -> ‘divide’_(factor_5) 9 ‘input_graph’_(type_parabola) 10 ‘multiply’_(line_9+depth_factor_-1.9) 11 ‘output_line_10) -> ‘move’_(axis_z) 12 ‘intepolate_curves’

Part B3

Case Study 2.0 Beijing National Aquatic Centre (Water Cube) | PTW Architects B3.1 Case Study 2.0 39 B3.2 Reverse Engineering 40 B3.3 Outcomes 41

B3.1 Case Study 2.0 Beijing National Aquatic Centre (Water Cube) |PTW Architects For my second case study I’ve chosen to reverse engineer the building colloquially known as the Water Cube. As Beijing’s 2008 Olympics Swimming Facility, much like the The Bird’s Nest Stadium, the Water Cube needed to provide a grand vision of a new and modern China. I find it very fitting that parametric design and computational tools were utilised in the design process for the Water Cube, as well as the Bird’s Nest Stadium. It is no wonder that China chose to use what would be considered as advanced design and engineering to signify it’s place upon the world stage, especially when it is widely considered that the square focus of the world during the 2008 Olympics on China was the perfect time for China to figuratively re-introduce itself to the rest of the world as a new and modern China.

structure in itself is rigid with a network grid of offset members in a space frame, that support the overall structure. What I’m hoping to draw from this is a possible way to engineer and fabricate my eventual structure for LAGI 2014. My exploration and research into fields is one that has been highly experimental in form finding. This is all well and good, except I feel there is a lack of innate structural feasibility as the fields themselves are not self supporting, but grid-like lattice structures are. Studying the Water Cube will help to bridge the gap between computer generated lines and physically engineering, and what I hope is that I’ll be able to use the principles from this study to assist me in future design processes.

The Water Cube falls under the category of Structures in the subjects case study categories, and I’ve chosen use this example as my reverse engineering project for a number of reasons. The

Left - Figure.1 Water Cube Grasshopper Definition

B3.2 Reverse Engineering My attempt to reverse engineer The Water Cube began with a systematic thinking of how to deal with each face of the facade, and then copy the technique to the other faces. The definition became incredibly long what I believe is an insane amount of paths between outputs and constructs back into more outputs, etc. Although quite simplistic I found the definition difficult to work with because of itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s systematic complexity. I began to run into many procedural problems where for example I had offset functions occurring on planes instead of curves, or a cube not being drawn properly because my item list selecting edges instead of vertices to create faces and plans from three points, this was all inherently because of the confusing inefficiency of my definition, by extracting each face one by one. The documentation process is as follows.

The first step involves drawing a box from two points. Step two I create planes are drawn upon each face that are to be part of the facade. The third step I populate a 2D grid of points among each of the five faces to be part of the facade, however not visible in my diagram as points to not render in line work drawings. Each populated point grid is of a different seed number so no two faces are the same. Step four I draw individual voronoiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on each face using the 2D grid of points. Lastly step five I offset the voronoi to produce edges thick enough for structural members then extrude away from each faces respective plane which were created from step two.

B3.3 Outcomes Gaussian Function 50 Points

I’m generally quite satisfied with the initial reconstructions of the Water Cube, shown from the four iterations to the right. The iterations differences run between three parameters, face counts, extrusion distance and initial seed values the 2D point grid.

Gaussian Function 50 Points

The differences between my reverse engineered definition to the original that my definition only takes into account the structure on a 2D level, as facades, however the actual Water Cube takes the structure beyond the facade, as the space is the facade itself, and is therefore three dimensional. If I were to recreate this definition I would aim to take try to take into account the three dimensional nature of the structure and make the cells extend past a skin and more into the ‘flesh’ of the building per se. Speculating on the future directions this direction could take I am rather mixed between both the tessellating pattern that works will with such a definition, but also structural possibilities. I feel very bound to the current form, being that of a cuboid, as it inherently gives the definition it’s character, through the proportions and spacings required on the facade. If I were to break away from a cuboid sphere I’m not sure what the possible outcomes could be, that is a matter for the next section.

Part B4 Technique Development

B4.1 Exploration & Iteration 43 B4.2 Outcomes 47

B4.1 Exploration & Iteration Inherently the facade is an ordered pattern, so I looked for other patterning methods. I eventually came across the Quad-Tree function which calls its cells leafs. The Quad-Tree operation functions in a different way, by dividing itself surface into a series of leaves that can within themselves may contain a varying number of cells, in a sort of recursion. I found the Quad-Tree function to be very delicate and particular with it’s parameters, pushing parameters even a little in value would throw off the entire aesthetic or make it unfeasible to build. For example extruding the edges of the faces made members far too thick to construct. Likewise increasing the number of leaves per section actually decreased the complexity of the structure, which in turn reduced any sort of intrigue or evocative display of aesthetic. Iterations three, four and five on the next page (appearing top to bottom) are but some of the examples that start to show these repetitive qualities that lack variation and evocation. Eventually I did find the right values for each parameter, and varied them by small fractions that would not upset the balance of the aesthetic. Iterations six and seven are highly successful in my opinion, they bridge a perfect balance between member thickness, design complexity, evocative image and variation that could be exploited for design purposes. The next two species revolve around another definition of geometry tiling upon the facades. Such variables in this definition directly affect the size of the geometric grid, the individual size of each shape, and lastly the degrees of rotation and enlargement away from original grid lines. I’ve experimented with this definition and plugged it

into Case Study 2.0’s reverse engineered definition. It was noted earlier within the comments about my definition for the Water Cube, that it is not perfect and is subject to many bugs and limitations that prevent certain functions, constructors and plug-ins that I wish to use. I for one could not get a 3D Oct-Tree, Delaunay Edges, Meshes or Weaverbird Catmull Clark subdivision to occur within my definition, without it breaking crashing. As a result my experimentations with my Case Study 2.0 definition, is limited and I fear that my inefficient and complicated definition is not suitable in aiding future experimentations and iterations. If I were to fully explore more species that were to be sufficiently diverged from my current, I believe I would need to debug or re-create the definition which I am currently unable to do with my current knowledge of Rhino and Grasshopper at this point in time. The iterations that follow have very minute and intricate detailing and as such should viewed while zoomed in. As vectors they will remain clear and crisp upon magnification to allow the very fine details to be revealed that give different qualities within the iteration. Hexagonal Grid Series #7 has the greatest example of intricate detailing in my opinion with fine triangles nesting between hexagons in the line work.

Species 1 - Tetris Party Power Function 50 Points

Gaussian Function 50 Points

Power Function 50 Points

Gaussian Function 50 Points

Power Function 50 Points

Gaussian Function 50 Points

Power Function 50 Points

Gaussian Function 50 Points

Species 2 - Brickwork

Species 3 - Schizo-Hexes

B4.2 Outcomes I’m generally quite satisfied with the initial reconstructions of the Water Cube, shown from the four iterations to the right. The iterations differences run between three parameters, face counts, extrusion distance and initial seed values the 2D point grid. The differences between my reverse engineered definition to the original that my definition only takes into account the structure on a 2D level, as facades, however the actual Water Cube takes the structure beyond the facade, as the space is the facade itself, and is therefore three dimensional. If I were to recreate this definition I would aim to take try to take into account the three dimensional nature of the structure and make the cells extend past a skin and more into the ‘flesh’ of the building per se. Speculating on the future directions this direction could take I am rather mixed between both the tessellating pattern that works will with such a definition, but also structural possibilities. I feel very bound to the current form, being that of a cuboid, as it inherently gives the definition it’s character, through the proportions and spacings required on the facade. If I were to break away from a cuboid sphere I’m not sure what the possible outcomes could be.

Revising my selection criteria this time around as compared with the end of Case Study 2.0, I feel less confident in the potential of this particular definition in terms of expansive exploration choices.

However the ones that I have chosen which appear to the left, I feel are the greatest executions of my current exploration process. From earlier in the semester, Kalay’s 2014 article computer aided design on Computer Aided Design spoke about stages of the design process. Problem Analysis, Solution Synthesis, Evaluation and Communication are the four areas that were to be addressed in the design process. I feel at this stage in the design process for this case study, that I am currently evaluating my outcomes. Indeed even before evaluation I molded my selection criteria with ‘Problem Analysis’ in mind, which is conveniently described as ‘feasibility analysis in Kalay’s article. I’ve largely chosen my four successful outcomes based off feasibility when addressing my selection criteria. Furthermore, they all provide a unifying aesthetic which is highly tectonic in representation. The first two examples are off the QuadTree species and I personally feel they are the most buildable out of all the iterations I have presented so far. They are both highly intricate, complex and provide intrigue and inspire a sense to look further or deeper at how each cell meets, and to look what cells sizes are positioned next to each other.

Part B5 Design Proposal

B5.1 Design Proposal 49 B5.2 Selection 54 B5.3 Site & Landscaping 53

B5.1 Design Proposal | LAGI 2014 My design proposal for the LAGI 2014 brief is two fold. A joint between a concert venue space, and a market. I’ve chosen to do both of these functions because I believe that with the large space of the site not only could it accommodate both functions within a structure half the size of the site, but also that it would attract more people to the site and therefore create greater impact among the community and reach more people. Considering the all my past exploration and research into the design fields from Case Study 1.0 and 2.0. I have chosen to adopt a design path that will lead employ the techniques I have learnt from Case Study 1.0, in particular my fifth species dubbed ‘Hexa-Swirl’. In this particular example I’d been using a hexagonal geometric grid to distort a magnetic vector field. In addition to this I’d remove any initial curves and wanted to make the iterations as random as possible. As a result I’d chosen to three ‘gene pools’ each with five values that can be randomized at intervals of

1%, 10% and 100%. With fifteen points all together iterations diverge quickly, the same iteration never re-appearing again, however similarities between iterations does occur. I will begin to experiment with a number of geometric grids and have them distort fields based upon the original grids. In addressing the briefs need for energy generation and constraint of only using solar derived energies as placed on during this subject, I have decided to use an array of Solar Photo-voltaic panels which are to be arrayed between the members of my structures, eventually creating a pavilion roof, providing a rainproof roof cover, means of energy generation, and a final form. This in itself has a few further alterations and outcomes I can see in the future design process. Perhaps areas of the structure won’t have any panels and will allow light to flood in instead.

Top - Figure.2 Venice Market Middle- Figure.3 Marakech Bazarr

Bottom- Figure.4 Sidney Myer Music Bowl

53 53

B5.2 Selection Out of all the possible outcomes that I received from the iteration process, I came to a conclusive decision that iteration two from the radial series was best suited to my goals, and has elements that I feel would be able to accommodate the feasibility of my design. Firstly the pavilion like shape has members that could form a structure, whether it be self sustaining would be most likely but a construction system would need to be fleshed out. A number of openings are also present throughout the structure, having no set entrances I feel as a functioning market place, access from all points around the perimeter is highly appealing for a circulation path. Lastly the shape can be subject to further alterations, and to surface between each line work which represents a member. This again will need to be a highly thought out process as construction execution will be the final key in my design which will bring it to life. One criticism I can make of the design is that it does appear to be highly over-engineered or have too many members. I will most likely need to scale down the parameters in the model to reduce the amount of curves in the model to have a simple enough basis to begin structure and materials, but complex enough that the model still retain the original aesthetics.

B5.3 Site & Landscaping During the design process for the LAGI 2014, it was important to make sure that the structure/object did not merely sit upon the ground plane. The original site’s land is barren and flat with little to no variation in elevations throughout. Landscaping will need to be performed, as it’ll play an integral part to the design in order to achieve success, after all its the ‘Land’ Art Generator Initiative. With the direction and instruction from Brad Elias, my tutor I was able to utilise the values from the fields I had created, and input them into a definition made by Brad that would terra form the land in a wave based on the values I inputted. The result is that of a rolling hill, but what is amazing is the actual land alteration opened up perfect region on the site to place my structure.

The direction of the hill faces the south-east where the sun will be for most of the day, so this landscape elevation will allow me to array my structure to face this direction to catch as much sunlight as possible. The landscaping also opens up the possibility for a excavated area under the large mass of the hill that is to hold my concert venue, most likely in the style of an amphitheater or music bowl that will sit underneath my structure’s surface.

Bottom - Figure.5 Landscape Line-work Right - Figure.6 Project on site

Part B6

Prototypes

B6.1 Fabrication Process B6.2 Construction & Engineering

58 59

B6.1 Fabrication Process I believe that the only true way to enable such a design to be create as a draft model, would be through additive 3D printing. This is for multiple reasons, including the fact the curve geometries are rather complicated and would require precision to achieve a clean outcome. Such examples of accurate and intricate detailing, not possible by other means can be seen below by a 3D printed necklace made from rapidly cooled ABS plastic. I have no yet had the opportunity to test my design out in a 3D print because I need to rationalise a few more elements to allow the structure to be self supporting so that it may be printed without collapsing during fabrication. This is rather a tumultuous task, because the actual construction of the structure I believe wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need traditional supporting structures or columns.

Right- Figure.7 3D Printed Necklace

B6.2 Construction & Engineering The real life construction of the structure I believe to be based on rather simple ideas. The famous art icon ‘The Cheese Stick’ on the Tullaramarine Freeway and City Link in Melbourne is used to base some of my assumptions in the feasibility of construction.

Due to the limitations in resources and modelling capabilities, I will not be able to validity of this claim. However in my future work for my design proposal I will be including a number of extra detailed drawings to show my structures construction detailing.

The structure is a single giant cantilevering ‘cheese stick’ column that penetrates the ground, to what I assume to be at a great depth to offset the weight. The foundation would play the key role in allowing such a large structure from falling over.

The physical model however would not be able to represent the details below ground, as I wanted to 3D print the final models. I could however construct a joint detailing model at a scale of perhaps 1:20 or 1:50 out of normal model materials to represent the construction detail. The drawback however being that the materials won’t possess the structural properties of the real building, so I still wouldn’t be able to accurately ascertain the validity of such my structure. I will still aim to provide means of representation for conceptual purposes.

The construction drawing detailing over the next page illustrates how this column would penetrate the ground, encased in concrete. A major difference however is that in the ‘Cheese Stick’ icon it comes in at an angle. Likewise with the structure of my building most of the members will be entering the ground at varying angles, some almost completely vertically, others with magnitudes similar to the ‘Cheese Stick’.

Top - Figure.8 ‘The Cheese Stick’ Bottom- Figure.9 Construction Detailing of column foundations

B7.1 Learning Objectives & Outcomes I believe that first and foremost it’s important to step back and remember why I’m studying this subject at all. Till this day the in-depth study of A1.1 Design Futuring resonates with me, particularly because of the wider implications of societies actions upon the world. This studio’s over-arching theme is to design, to improve and to create. To equip us students and future architects with the knowledge to increase standards of living, that is what I believe is the overall theme. However in Module B the concentration on academic and theoretical topics takes a step back. For the past 5-6 weeks this studios gaols were to introduce us into the actual nitty gritty of parametric design. Getting us to design, explore, experiment and adapt different material systems. For these past 5-6 weeks I am particularly grateful because it has taught me how design can be derived from an origin you barely recognise. Where rules, and definitions are changed with the slightest variations, spawning massive changes in form. I think that is truly powerful. What has intrigued me the most

throughout the academic readings this semester is the ability to implement structural analysis as well as utilise parametric tools to solve construction and fabrication tasks easier, faster and more efficient than ever. Herzog & De Meuron and Skidmore, Owings & Merill both have their own computational design teams. What is surprising is that programmers, engineers and other technological professionals assume these roles, not just architects. I think this can be a good thing, because when it comes to the realm of computational design the inclusion of varying professions aiming towards better design, I feel can never be a bad thing. Particular examples I found most enlightening in my learning process was reverse engineering the ‘Water Cube’. Never had I been engaged in designing something in reverse, it really flipped the ideological norm of design for me, where you construct from imagine the simple and work towards the complicated. But this time I had to imagine the complicated and derive simplicity, derive rules, and write my own interpretation of a definition.

B7.2 Feedback The feedback I received during the interim critique was positive towards my exploration using parametric tools. Although the exploration, definition and algorithmic processes were commended, the resolution of my work was not at a level of completion that was needed by this time of the semester. Major stumbles within my overall proposal mainly fell upon the poor link between function and how that has informed my algorithmic process. I do admit however that I have prescribed the function to the design itself, function informing the design. I’m not sure how to ratify this problem at this stage. Although my design isn’t resolved clearly enough at this stage, I feel as I’ve already reached the tipping point in time for the design to be finalize. So whatever changes I make within the next few weeks will need to be focused on resolving my idea for completion to present a convincing project proposal to the LAGI 2014 brief.

1. Resolve solar-panel surface using photo-voltaic modules 2. Document speculated construction technologies for real world application 3. Model prototypes and final models of site, construction detail and project on site. 4. Clearly communicate function integration with the project and it’s response to the site, context and brief

From here on in I need to extend the technique I’ve currently been using for my design proposal and complete the following.

B8.1 Algorithmic Sketches

References Figures 1

Water Cube Grasshopper Definition (Personal Reference)

2 Venice Market < http://writetotravel.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/friday-photo-venice-food- market.html> 3

Marakech Bazarr < http://www.geographylists.com/syria_aleppo_souk.jpg>

4 Sidney Myer Music Bowl <http://c0056906.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/115356-1. jpg> 5

Landscape Line-work of Refshaloen (Personal Reference)

Project on site (Personal Reference)

3D Printed Necklace <-http://mashable.com/2014/03/03/3d-printing-fashion/>

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Cheese Stickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; < http://maryannadair.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/cheesestick11.jpg>

Construction Detailing of column foundations < http://dc344.4shared.com/doc/-0Oh9__W/ preview.html>

Detailed Design Part C1

C1.1 Design Concept 66 C1.2 Refining Concept & Technique 67 C1.3 Brief Interrogation & Integration 78

C1.1 Design Concept

Now in the last trimester of the course it is time to delve deeper and move design theorisation into practical application. Part B Design Criteria has primarily dealt with conceptualisation of the potential outcomes that have been produced from explorations. This potential is what Part C Detailed Design will dealt with. This process will be but a long and arduous ones with many problems to solve including addressing the needs of construction methodology and theory, detailed prototyping, digital fabrication and design integration to name a few. The interim presentation critique has been an insightful exercise in exposing the weaknesses in my design. The weaknesses that prevent my project from producing well considered fruitful outcome for the LAGI design competition. What I took away from the critique was that my design was under-developed at itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current stage. Lack of structural rationality, solar energy integration, function and overall form. I completely agreed with the feedback given and from there I will seek to concentrate on these issues.

This would be a prudent design to reassess my overall objectives and the techniques that I will be using to clarify the working process moving forward. I wish to create a music bowl that digs into the opening of my designs form. The design will have a supporting structure of steel that will support a membrane of photo-voltaic cells which stretch between the steel members. Currently my design (right) appears as a very skeletal structure that fails include a rationalised support structure. The membrane that stretches between members is also not present which I need to ratified before proceeding further. This is so because my intention is to have the solar power integration within the membrane component itself. Without a means of solar energy generation Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m afraid that the design fails to address the LAGI design briefs third letter, Generator.

C1.2 Refining Concept & Techniques Moving forward with concept development and further refinement a few keys areas need to be addressed to aid in the feasibility of the project. 1. Development of algorithmic process to create solar membranes 2. Rationalisation of structure through the algorithmic process 3. Tectonics, materiality, fabrication and constructibility

1. Development of algorithmic process to create solar membranes

with, individual lines which combine in chains to create longer poly-lines.

The design in it’s current form represents a husk of a skeleton that needs be turned into surfaces, as Rosie Gunzberg explained during the interim critique, ‘the design will look a lot different once you have turn it into surfaces’. Indeed my intention during the interim presentation was to have the design present as a surface however it proved incredibly difficult to resolve the algorithmic process to allow me to isolate individual elements in my definition, so that I may manipulate them.

This has allowed me to rationalise and segment the design into manageable sections. Dealing with these sections resolved a major issue I was having before. Before I wasn’t able to segment and individually apply processes like lofting, exploding and meshing without conflicting occurring between the many fins/arms of my design.

Due to the complexity of the form generated by the algorithm manipulations such as lofting were not possible to perform unless the form was broken into groups. With some help from tutor I was shown how to approximate curves with poly-lines which provides a simpler unit to work

I learnt that Each fin/arm had to be treated independently in the algorithmic process and each required a specific setting in terms of the loft behaviour. Over the next page are the 22 groups of poly-lines that represent each individual fin/arm of my design extracted individually from the definition.

C1.2 Refining Concept & Techniques cont. The loft behaviour was very important in reconstructing curves, as it determined whether the loft would be loose or tight, how many points would be use to construct the loft and whether the loft would be simplified. Fin/Arm groups 18-21 presented a special case in the lofting process. One single large lofted surface was appearing when two smaller surfaces were intended to be created. The group had to be broken up into two smaller groups because of a divergent split in the direction of the polyline causing a loft to occur where no wanted. The examples to the right demonstrate this with fin/arm group 19, with the split surface being the preferred outcome. I believe that this development in the process will be the final change in the general form of the design and further work will focus on the structural rationality of the project. With the surfaced fins/arms in place this now allows the project project to house a membrane of solar-pholtaic cells in order to generate electricity. This is one step further to fulfilling the overall latent potential of my design and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s application to the LAGI Design Brief. However at this moment the structural rationality of my project has yet to be developed to a level that would be considered tangible.

C1.2 Refining Concept & Techniques cont. 2. Rationalisation of structure through the algorithmic process

to manufacture and build the structure.

Within Part B Design Criteria I lightly considered the possible ways a structural system could be conceived. Using the ‘Cheesestick’ art installation on the Tullarmarine/ City-Link freeway I devised that my previous skeletal structure itself would penetrate the ground and lean at very unstable angles. This method would also require large scale foundations to be built that would penetrate the ground at many metres to support the overlying structure.

In order to tackle both the issue of developing an economic construction phase and a viable building method I will use my algorithmic definition to find the data buried within the algorithm to rationalise a structural system.

I now realise is not feasible when applied to such a large scale of a site. The ‘Cheestick’ is but only one large cantilevering column, however my design possess 750 individual curves in the model which results in 750 columns that would be considerably heavy and difficult to construct. The LAGI brief stated that the project proposal had to consider a timely, economical and efficient method of construction that would not cause negative impact negatively upon the site and it’s surrounding. Furthermore the construction phase should try to limit the amount of greenhouse gases produced when considering the embodied energy costs in order

My overall concept for my design was formulated by a randomly generated field that would be deformed by a radial grid. One of the very first processes in was to input a radial grid which had variables of sizes, and x - y extents. The logical flow of the algorithm progresses from this radial grid into the final form which I have lofted in part 1 of my refinement phase. Over the next page it is demonstrated how the final form I have generated through lofting groups of poly-lines is directly related to the original radial grid that used to deform the field lines. The arms/fins of my design stretch along the segments of the grid which in turn means that every point touching the grid can be used to derive a vertical support by using the vertices of the inner network of quadrilaterals.

There is the issue that part of the structure is overhanging without support. To solve this the top overhanging portion fo the fin/ arm the original poly-lines that I used before lofting will be re-run through a start-end command that will extract the end points of each poly-line allowing a vertical support to be run at the overhang by using the endpoints as an input. Additionally the structural system must consider the lateral support structure not just the vertical. The solar membranes which I have theorised need to be attached to a rigid structure that will allow the membrane to be spread over. The vertical supporting structures which have now been devised wave the way for beams to be laid over vertical elements, like a traditional post and beam structure (p.75)

C1.2 Refining Concept & Techniques cont. The structural layout of vertical columns has now been rationalised, albiet with some inconsistencies such as a large array of colums clumping together where multiple fins intersect. This will have to be solved manually be deleting the excessive amount of vertical supports and replacing them with a single or several larger columns instead of the 40+ seen in the current outcome. 3. Tectonics, materiality, fabrication and constructibility The third point in my conept and technique refinement will occur in part C2

C1.3 Brief Interrogation & Integration

Before proceeding further Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve chosen to revisit the initial conditions of the design brief. Part B Design Criteria had a directive of making us think about parametric design methodologies and experimenting. The design process needs to be a marriage between the design process and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to the site. Through analysis of the brief I believe the three of the most important directives of the design brief are the following. Must consist of three dimensional sculptural form which solicits social contemplation from viewers on broad ideas like ecology, human habitation, resource generation and energy consumption. Capture energy from nature To be pragmatic and constructible through tried and tested means At this current moment of the design process rationalisation of the underlying structure has been expressed, like-wise so has the framework for solar integration with the lofted surfaces.

What plagues me most though is the last directive. To be pragmatic and constructible through tried and tested means. Although my current rationalisation of structure has been performed and what I would be deem finalised, it is not to the appropriate scale. I have devised an overall grand scheme of vertical supports and beams that gives the general idea of what the overall structural frame looks like. What hasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t been communicated though is the performative elements of the structural system. In order to do this the structure must be explained and devised at a more suitable scale. Between 1:100 and 1:5 scale. Perhaps a detail joinery model of how individual beams connect or a model showing how each fin/arm would be constructed. The underlying problem that I have to solve also addresses part of the third point within my refinement which is about to begin. 3. Tectonics, materiality, fabrication and constructibility

Part C2

C2.1 Tectonic Elements & Prototype 80 C2.2 Digital Fabrication 82 79

C2.1 Tectonic Elements & Prototype

To begin adressing the true structural feasability of the design I will treat my prototyping in the same approach that I used to resolve my final form. That approach being to concentrate on individual groups of the design rather than the overall structure. I’ve rationalised the general workings of the design but it is time to go down to a smaller scale and represent smaller elements of the design.

To make sure that this scale of a prototype could be used along all the fins/arms I chose two seperate ones to prototype. One being largest in the entire group and another for it’s flexure (pg.81)

I’ve chosen to look at the individual fin/arms themselves to see how each individual one could be constructed. The method could be applied to every fin/arm giving a greater sense in the tactility of the support structure at a smaller scale. Furthermore being a great starting point to devise a fabrication method at a scale that could be translated into real world construction. I’ve utilised a wafflegrid definition to resolve the fin/arm components of my design. The wafflegrid provides two advantages, firstly it approximates the curvature of each fin/arm accurately and it provides a lattice like structure with interlocking joints.

C2.2 Digital Fabrication The site model was a very important endeavour for me personally. Due to my design being very thin no single rendering or drawing could in the way I knew my design. The extremely thin fin/arms dissapear when viewed obliquely. To see the entire project properly I felt a full three dimensional experience was required in a physical model. This way respresentation of aesthetics remains strong and the design is placed within itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s site and context to scale. However this poses an issue, the largest site model I could make efficiently is at a scale of 1:1500. This would require my site model to also be at this scale, and have to maintain high resolution of my design. It was a real challenge to consider my options to build physically, use laser cutting or to use 3D printing (which I had never done before). Ultimately I decided a 3D print would provide the best outcome for the design at such as a scale. Not only would it have to be 3D printed by out of the four types of 3D printing available, ABS plastic, PLA plastic, photopolymer and powder the one method that would be viable to me

would be a powder print. Having never 3D printed before it was a very slow and ardous process. Taking the better part of 5 days just to flesh out the inconsistencies in the Rhino file. Many of the issues encountered where numerous non-closed meshes and countless crashes while trying to mesh tens of thousands of faces from polysurfaces. Through curiousity I experimented with the Weaverbird plug-in for grasshopper. Using it to sysematically smooth the mesh removing inconsistent sharp edges and bumps with a Catmull-Clark subdivisioin command. In addition to other commands such as thickenmesh and mesh triangulation. The result is what I believe to be an excellent 3D print of high quality that represents the massing form in every way that intended. Placing the 3D model into a laser-cut site model also compliments the model through the contrast in texture and colour.

Part C3

C3.1 Final Detail Model C3.2 Solar Analysis C3.3 Solar Technology C3.4 Final Design Proposal

90 91 93 95

C3.1 Final Detail Model In my construction process Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve used digital laser cutting with 3mm Medium Density Fibre Board (MDF) as a form of fabrication to create this particuarly prototype. After the MDF is laser cut, pieces are removed from the board and grouped according to the labelling number at each end to signify which is a horizontal and which is a viertical member. The assembly is completed by notching pieces together at their respective shared joints detailed by the diagram to the left, which eventuates in a lattice structure that has a slight curvature. The curvature is slightly noticeable in the diagrams on pg.8182 but far more noticeable in person, as the scale of 1:100 shows diminishes the true curvature. To simulate solar panels membrane I wish to use in my design, the stretching of a thin clear plastic tarp sheet I purchased from Bunnings Warehouse is stretched over the lattice frame and fixed to the frame using a two pronged staple that penetrates the interior of the frame like two bolts.

C3.2 Solar Analysis

With use of the LadyBug and Honeybee plug-ins for grasshopper solar analysis of the RefshaleĂ¸en site and placement of my building was performed. Upon analysis of the sites solar potential the northwestern most corner appears to receive the most solar activity year round. The difference hardly noticeable within the Summer solstice and Equinox, but the Winter shows the the sudden extreme with half solar radiation exposure vastly different from the western side compaed to the eastern side. For this reason Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve chosen to place the buildling in the most north western corner of the LAGI site. The solar analysis concludes a very high level of solar hours and solar activity amongst the over 70% of the surface area of 12,500m 2 during the summer solstice time of year. Furthermore the vernal and autumnal equinox present a high exposure to sunlight to produce solar energy with minimal lost in light intensity. However in the Winter solstice the difference is quite large with many

Summer Solstice

Equinox

Winter Solstice

C3.3 Solar Technology The solar membrane in which I have previously mentioned numerous times is a organic polymer inkjet printed solar cell currently under development at CSIRO’s Materials Industtries Flagship. I contacted Dr Fiona Scholes in the hopes I could request a sample of this technology that I had heard about in lectures at my studies here at Melbourne University and also in the news. Although looking at the pictures of the product were all well and good, I wanted to get a real feel of how bendable the material was and it’s qualities and aesthetics in person, as I wished to incorporate it into my design.

capability and able to be manufactured at lengths of 10m/s with a single printer, producing between 10-50W/m 2. This is half the efficiency of current day solar panels, the printed solar cells work better over extreme temperature ranges especially where it would be cold in Copenhagen, and they absorb a wider spectrum of light providing more consistent energy generation. Because they can be manufactured at 50% the cost of current solar cells and at speeds that eclipse current solar panel production I deem that it would be possible to manufacture the 12,500m 2 of material that my design requires.

After receiving the solar cell on loan from CSIRO thanks to Dr Fiona Schole, I believed that such a light and thin solar material could be produced en masse and array in a vast sheet over the skeleton that creates the surface of my structure, much like how I had represented it with my prototype models.

With these statistics I can approximate the following about my design.

In addition to getting a feel for the material and technology, Dr Schole was able to educate me on the inner workings and science behind the technology, as well as the perceived applications of the material like placed on walls and in windows.

This is a firm affirmation that my design could generate the power that the LAGI brief is searching for in it’s design.

She also explained it’s potential for solar energy generation. It is projected to ventually cost $1 per watt hour production

Power 93-466 Copenhagen Homes depending on time of year and Produce 125-625KW at a production of 10-50W/m 2.

Figure.1 Dr Fiona Scholes, CSIRO

Figure.2 Printed Solar Panel in my posessio

Figure.3 Unlaminted sample of printed cells

Figure.4 Solar Cell Printer

C3.4 Final Design Proposal In my final proposal for the site, in combination of the exploration, prototypes, research and model projections I hope that I have paid justice to all four letters of LAGI. In addressing the three directives that I believed to be the most important, I believe that my design intermarries use of the land that promoties social interaction and contemplation from patrons of my buildling, it generates enough energy to power hundreds of Copenhagen homes and from the rationalisation of structure and prototyping the pragmatic nature of economical construction should be met. Must consist of three dimensional sculptural form which solicits social contemplation from viewers on broad ideas like ecology, human habitation, resource generation and energy consumption. Capture energy from nature To be pragmatic and constructible through tried and tested means Lastly I believe that my project holds to the four letters of LAGI. A re-using of the land, use to promote art, generating power to the people of Copenhagen and setting an initiative by using next generation cutting edge technology to promote sustinability.

C4 Learning Objectives The final critique I believe was a a mixed result for me personally. I was praised on my research and integration of the solar technology and taking the initiative to obtain it as well. However what I failed to resolve to a clear degree was the integration of my function with-in the buildling itself. As a result the scheme lacked a degree of belieavablility that wasn’t communicated thoroughly enough. My 3D printed site model in context however fulfilled my desire to clearly communicate the overall aesthetics of the design to scale within the site which I believe I couldn’t have done with other means. The prototypes models however did not receive much attention or critique with side comments stating that the prototypes didn’t really do what they were mean’t to intend (as I interpreted it). I believe now at the end mark my I’ve put in my best effort and engaged with the subject on a level that has taught me more than I’ve ever learn’t in any other studio. I acknowledge that some of my core skills as an architecture student are not as developed as others within the cohort but I believe I’ve grown a lot and learn’t many new skills that I can say that I was completely clueless about even 1/3 the way through the semester. Overall I’m satisfied with how my project how turned out for the LAGI design brief, perhaps with some extra time I could resolve the details that have plagued my design. I will definietely be doing so when incorporating some of my Studio: Air work into my portfolio. To many I believed this subjects content

was incredibly non-traditional form of architectural design. Pushing many students including myself out of our comfort zones and teaching us a whole new language to interpret design and explore when designing. After completion of this subject I can personally see why this subject is important and why it is a vital component in the repetoire of the architecture major. I am now able to create and manipulate forms and geometries in ways I never knew could be done. Learning the parametric design as a tool has armed with me the ability to broaden my horizons in terms of what is architecturally possible. This is very important to me personally because in University it is a time to learn and experiment, to push the boundaries in preperation for the future. Fabrication and prototyping was a very important facet to this subject. Prototyping/fabricating had not been emphasied before in previous studio subjects, and this subject seems to truly mesh together architectural design with pragmatic construction considerations, encouraging the use of parametrics to rationalise both the design and construction. I now know how to make customised construction models that adapt to inputs using the same algorithmic definition repeatedly.

I am truly grateful that this subject was taught to us. The theory development during the first 1/3 of the semester gave me a personal framework in considering the ‘why’ of architecture. Why do we design, why do we need this, how do we do this. The concept of Design Futuring still resonates with me and still reminds me of the first stepping stone I took when embarking into this subject. I remind myself again from an excerpt of my Part A journal. I’m designing because I want to help and improve the world, not for fame or money otherwise I would have chosen another profession. Now more than ever the world is at a tipping point on the scales, and on the verge of an irreversible issue with climate change. Architects use to be at the forefront of societal changes in the way buildlings were construction, carrying ideologies throughout societies. I hope that one day we as future architects will play the same role in shaping the direction of our future, especially when at a time we consider that the whole of humanity is actually at stake in the near future. Hopefully one day I’ll make my mark and help the work in a way. I can say wholeheartedly that this subject has gotten me a step towards there. Arming with with the knowledge of parametric design, and the thinking ethos behind it. I am satisfied with my progress within the subject, as long as a learn’t and get one step closer to making that change in the world that I want to see.

Footnotes 1 <http://csironewsblog.com/2012/03/08/csir%E2%99%80- why-we-love-what-we-do/dr_fiona_scholes/> 2 <Personal Image> 3 <http://www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk/media/thumbnails/ resized/560x369/uploads/files/1/eight19-plastic-solar-cells. jpg> 4 <http://popupcity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Printed- solar-cells-1.jpg>

Bibliography News@CSIRO, CSIRO, Melbourne <http://csironewsblog.com/2012/03/08/csir%E2%99%80- why-we-love-what-we-do/dr_fiona_scholes/> Eight19 begins organic solar trials in Africa, University of Cambridge Enterprise, Cambrdige, 2012 <http://www. enterprise.cam.ac.uk/news/2012/5/eight19-begins-organicsolar-trials-africa/> Solar Cells For Cheap, Cheap Soon The Pop-Up City, Amsterdam, 2013. <http://popupcity.net/solar-cells-for-cheapcheap-soon/>

100

101