Part B Yu Fang 860020

STUDIO AIR PART B 2018, SEMESTER 1, Moyshie Yu Fang 860020

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS B.1

18-19

B.2A

20-24

B.2B

25-26

B.2C

27-35

B.3

36-37

B.4+B.5

38-47

B.6

48-51

B.7

52

BIBLIORGARHY

53

B.8

16

CONCEPTUALISATION

54-55

TABLE OF CONTENTS

17

B.1 RECURSIVE AGGREGATION

B.1 GENETICS

Recursive tectonics by Ayax Abreu Garcia

THE UNIVERSAL INTERACTOR BY JOHN FRAZIE THE PORT AUTHORITY TRIPLE BRIDGE GATEWAY AND THE KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY BY GREG LYNN

As mentioned before, the true genetic degisn needs to interact with the environmental factors, which needs to parameterize the features related with the project in that certain environment.

The fig.13 is an example of collecting information from environment, which can be further used as paramater. It is The Universal Interactor in 1992.

The system is discribed as “a system 3 racks for standard circuit boards.

Each transmitter or reciver had one or more cotrolling cards in the racks.

Buffered connections from the rack to controlling computer enabled one or more of antennae to be activated at any moment. The data from each antenna was converted to digital form, allowing all the devices to communicate equally. The environmental information was fed to a simplified environmental model which formulated responses based on evolutionary algorithm.” 1

FIG.16: PORT AUTHORITY TRIPLE BRIDGE GATEWAY

The Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway by Greg Lynn is a good example of using the parameters that are not form the structure itself which includes natrual feature such as gravity, wind, sound, kineitc features such as friction and dynamic features.1 to generate the form. It is the first architectural project in history to use animation software for form generation.2 Specificly in this project, the flow of pedestrains and traffic through the site is used to generate the graident field of attraction on the site 3

1.John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995), p77.

1. Kolarevic(2003), “Architecture in the Digital Age- Design and Manufacturing”, p20.

2. PORT AUTHORITY TRIPLE BRIDGE GATEWAY, GREG LYNN FORM, http://glform.com/buildings/port-authority-triple-bridge-gateway-competition/ viewed 26/8/2018.

3. Kolarevic(2003), “Architecture in the Digital Age- Design and Manufacturing”, p20.

Generally speaking, recursive aggregation can be described as the system that applys its outcomes as the inputs for the next round run of algorithm. The circle will never end untill gnerating the satisfied outcome.

The image 12 is a desgin created through recursive aggregation by the arhcitect Ayax Abreu Garcia.1 Compared with the traditonal way of desgin, the advantages of recurisive aggregation method is that its outcome consists of a serious of same component, which means that all the lements are planar and self-similar, so it is easiler to adjust, copy and combine without introducing any new component into the system.2

FIG.12: RECURISVE TECTONICS FIG.14: UNIVERSAL INTERACTOR

FIG.17: KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY

A kind of relationship that runs through all the algorithmic desgin is to design the building as whole, which has been emphasised by the recursive aggregation method. More specificly, the old style of architecutre gives a certain part of building such as wall, column a certain function.

However, the recursive method achieve the structure by repeating the basic component.3 Furthermore, the recursive degisn fuses the design process of structure and exterior and interior of building.4

1.Grey Lynn, organic algorithm in architecture, https://www.ted. com/talks/greg_lynn_on_organic_ FIG.18: KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY design#t-532452, 02/2005.

Another advantage of recurisvie desgin from its nature that is its single component repetation seems fit the “file to fatctory” process profectly which is to use the desgin of building as the base to manufacturing process. In the result of that, design could be developed in constructablity, continuity and efficiency (pre-manufactured compared with working on site).5 The recursive aggregation is the foundation of true genetic architecture, because both of them is based on their components which is the cell created and organised by DNA(algorithm). Howvever, the true process of genetic design includes applying the gene crossover and mutation and the natural selection on design.6 In order to achieve the genetic architecture, the input method of the environmental feature, the algorithm that analyse the data to make selection, and even controllable random changes of paramater to imitate the mutation of organism.

1. Recursive Tectonics, Laka, https://lakareacts.com/winners/recursive-tectonics/, viewed 25/8/2018.

2. Recursive Tectonics, Laka.

3. Recursive Tectonics, Laka.

4. Kolarevic(2003), “Architecture in the Digital Age- Design and Manufacturing”, p13.

5. Kolarevic(2003), “Architecture in the Digital Age- Design and Manufacturing”, p31-33.

6. Kolarevic(2003), “Architecture in the Digital Age- Design and Manufacturing”, p23.

18

Recursive Aggregation

The Korean Presbyterian Church of NY is more practical example which is built in 1999, New York. There is a repetation of stair shown as fig.17. However, every pice has been give a unique demension and connection angles. Refering to the video,1 a dynamic shape is created on its exterior by its parameter-based design.

And more importantly, the dynamic feeling has been kept for the interior space. As shown in Fig18, the pattern lead people’s sight toward to the altar. I think this project shows the idea of “parts as a whole” in genetic architecture.

FIG.15: PIZEO-ELECTRIC GRASS AS AN INPUT

FIG.13: RECURISVE TECTONICS

In order to statisfy the need of environmental factors for genetic desgin, input method that translate reality to date is needed. The fig.14 is called Pizeo-electric grass as a input. The electric grass transmits the strength of wind by its deflection generated by the wind.1 Through the date can be deduced by the controlling computer which will be able to give forecast of next wind pattern. 2Then the pattern of wind could be used by computer which effects the outcomes.3

In conclusion, the recursive aggregation is a method of desgin that use limited numbers of components to generate forms through a circle of algorithm. Its advantages compared with the traditional way of architecture make it to be a very ideal carrier of genetic architecture. The real genetic architecture needs the system to respond the environment and able to create new possibilities and test them. If the recursive aggregation is the car, the genetic architecture shifts the position of architect from the driver’s seat to the passager’s seat. However, as architect, our role in the future is not just seat back nicely and quietly as a passager. We are asked to be superior whose job contains the design, construction and performance of building.

1.John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995), p78 2.John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995), p78.

3.John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995), p78 GENETICS 19

B.2A L-SYSTEM In the 1960s, the biologist Aristid Lindenmayer proposed a string-rewriting algorithm that can model simplified plants and their growth processes with an astounding ease, which is called L-system today.1 The main body of L-system is a rewriting system that needs intitial string and a set of rules to specify how to generate the new strings. 2 The L-system applies the rules to all the strings( the strings as seed) to generate products at same time. It means that its core is parallel, which means generating various division at same time could be possible. It shows the biological motivition of L-system which makes it different with the Chomsky grammers.3 A L-system needs the Axiom, in th case of using L-system to generate tree branches, it the intitial branch as the refernce for the direction and position of iterations. It also needs the dummy branches which is manually set as possibile direction of growth of the next generation. And a set of rules which decides the direction of new branches. Then the system is potential to run infinity times until getting the satisified result.

There is a example of simple L-system shows the process that applying the rules on the seed to generate iterations.4 seed: A rules: Rule #1: A = AB Rule #2: B = BA N=0: A N=1: AB (A BECOMES AB ACCORDING TO RULE #1) N=2: ABBA (A BECOMES AB ACCORDING TO RULE #1, WHILE B BECOMES BA ACCORDING TO RULE #2. IN RESULT WE GET ABBA) N=3: ABBABAAB N=4: ABBABAABBAABABBA 1. Michael Hansmeyer, Conceputation Architecture, L-system(2003), http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/l-systems, 2003.

2. Intro to the L-system, Morphocode, https://morphocode.com/intro-to-l-systems/, viewed 02/9/2018.

3.Frazier, Evolutionary Architecture. p. 58.

4. Intro to the L-system, Morphocode

FIG.19: TREES GENERATED FROM L-SYSTEM

20

L-System

L-System 21

22

L-System

L-System 23

B.2B ‘BLOOM’ PROJECT ‘Bloom’ project by Alisa Andrasek / Jose Sanchez

FIG.20: ‘BLOOM’ PROJECT

The Bloom was designed for Lodon 2012 Olypmic Games by Alisa Andrasek / Jose Sanchez as Fig20.1 The Bloom can be designed, altered and dismantled by the public.2 The Bloom is consist of a series of repeated, identical components called “cells”3 shown as Fig22. Every cell can have maxium three connections with others ,which allows it to form 2D and 3D complex as Fig 21.4 This project uses recursive aggregation algorithms to generate the intital form. Some very basic features of recursive aggregation such as the impotance of whole and the flexibility of form are obvious on the Bloom Project.5 Compared with the normal recursive aggregation that i did in the next part, the Bloom is more close to achieve the real genetic desgin. The Bloom introduces the public to the design process. The final form is unpredictable and will keep changing with different people come and play. Instead of making the form from a certain set of algorithm, the form change of Bloom project is random, that every kind of possibility has potential to be applied on the next pice. This process imitates the process of mutation which is considered as the foundamental cause of evolution.

Furthermore, I think the evolution of Bloom project is similar with the natrual way because that the form of Bloom fits the environment. Specificly, the Bloom as a toy or art, its form at one certain moment determined by people’s preference at that moment. For Bloom, people’s selection is its natural selection

1.Plethora-project, https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom/, viewed 5/09/2018.

2.Plethora-project 3.London’s Other Distributed Social Game: A Collective Gardening Experience, Antonio Pacheco, http://www.evolo.us/londons-other-distributed-social-game-a-collective-gardening-experience/, 22/08/2012.

4.London’s Other Distributed Social Game: A Collective Gardening Experience, Antonio Pacheco 5.London’s Other Distributed Social Game: A Collective Gardening Experience, Antonio Pacheco 24

L-System

BLOOM PROJECT

25

B.2C COMPONENT&AGGREGATION A B C Parasite

D E

Tri-space

FIG.21: ‘BLOOM’ PROJECT

Outrage

DNA

FIG.22: COMPONENT OF ‘BLOOM’ PROJECT

Nodose

26

BLOOM PROJECT

Helical

COMPONENT&AGGREGATION

27

AXIOM=ABDE

The Garden of Eden

A=CD B=ABC C=AC D=BC E=AD NUMBERS OF GENERATION=12

Pespective view 2

Top view

28

COMPONENT&AGGRHGATION

Pespective view 1

COMPONENT&AGGRHGATION

29

AXIOM=ABCD

Core support

A=CB B=CD C=ABC D=AD NUMBERS OF GENERATION=10

Pespective view Top view

30

COMPONENT&AGGRHGATION

COMPONENT&AGGRHGATION

31

AXIOM=B

Tobi-Kadachi

A=AB B=ABCD C=CD D=BD NUMBERS OF GENERATION=7

Top view

Pespective view

32

COMPONENT&AGGREGATION

COMPONENT&AGGREGATION

33

AXIOM=B

Rayquaza

A=ABD B=ACD C=ABC D=AC NUMBERS OF GENERATION=5

Pespective view Top view

34

COMPONENT&AGGREGATION

COMPONENT&AGGREGATION

35

B.3 Case Study 2.0

AGGY-ATTACK AGGREGATION PROCESS

03

01

5. Set the designed component into Grasshopper as the unit for aggregation.

The component should be placed and oriented along the Axiom handle.

Adjust the position of dummy branches to move the dummy components to make sure each component is intersected with the parent component.

Also, make sure the dummy branches will not colliding with each other.

08

06

8. Turn on the component at the very back in grasshopper to generate the socketed nurbs components which could be used to anaylse the connection between components.

To do this after aggregation is for generating the aggregation more efficiently. Once we decide the final form of our aggregation, this set of betteries could be enable.

3. Create a point as the starting point where the aggregation will grow from

1. Create an polyline with 2 pieces joined perpendicularly as a reference for the direction and position of growth. Set this curve to the Axiom handle component in Grasshopper.

It necessray to make sure 2 pieces of the line is perfectly joined at a right angle.

04 09 6. Set the rules of aggregation and start to generate aggregations.

AXIOM GROWTH RULES NUMBERS OF GENERATION

02 07

4. Create geometries and set them into the Obstacles(set on multiple breps) in Grasshopper. They can be pierced by components which plays the role of environment which will effects the generation of aggregation later.

9. Bake the socketed component into Rhino.

05 2. Draw polylines( same as the Axiom handle, 2 pieces of the line must be perpendicualr with each ohter) around the Axiom handle.

Refer those lines as the dummy branches in Grasshopper. Those lines decide the direction and orentation of the aggregation.

36

CASE STUDY 2.0

10 7. The growth of aggregation will avoide the geometries which plays as the surrounding environment with the increase of generation numbers.

10. Move on to the aggregation for the next component or rendering process and pray your system will not crash.

CASE STUDY 2.0

37

B.4&5 TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING

PRIMARY COMPONENT

SECONDARY COMPONENT

COMPONENT 1

The component is considered to be made by CMC Milling method.

The CMC Milling is able to create smooth unflat surface and holes.

For modeling, the component is break to a few pieces which are easy to assemble.

For the secondary component, it will use 3D print to create

Break down the component to simple geometries .

38

B4+B5

The process of assembling parts together .

BE4+B5

39

SYMBIOTE

RULE SET 1 AXIOM= BC A= AB B= ABD C= ACD D= BC NUMBERS OF GENERATION= 5

A B C D

40

B4+B5

B4+B5

41

WRIGGLE

RULE SET 2 AXIOM= D A= C B= AD C= CD D= ABC NUMBERS OF GENERATION= 5

42

B4+B5

B4+B5

43

COMPONENT 2

NERVE CELLS

The component is considered to be made by CMC Milling method.

The CMC Milling is able to create smooth unflat surface and holes.

For modeling, the component is break to a few pieces which are easy to assemble.

For the secondary component, it will use 3D print to create

RULE SET 1 AXIOM= AD A= BD B= ABC C= AC D= BC NUMBERS OF GENERATION= 5

A B C D

44

B4+B5

B4+B5

45

MEDUSA

RULE SET 2 AXIOM= BCD A= CD B= AD C= ABC D= BD NUMBERS OF GENERATION= 7

46

B4+B5

B4+B5

47

B.6 TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL AGGY-ATTACK AGGREGATION PROCESS

Without any doubt, architecture is one of the hardest major in the campus.

The courtyard of MSD is the individual study space, so what happens in the space everyday?

Your final presetation and due time of drawings might be tomorrow and the software crashed; your can’t find anyone of school computer which is available then you desparately search on internet for the crack for your computer; you think you should rock a assigiment and your tutor tells you all you did is rubbish.

We, architecture students, we are going to face many kind of problem through different stage of our learning.

However, architecture is the way we choose. So, instead of making architecure easiler, why don’t we face those challenges in a better mood.

My design is to cheer us up. Now, the central space of MSD is too cold blood. Maybe the designer wants to achieve a beauty of constancy of one material. A large amound of timber is used in this area. In my perspective, it seems like a gaint pice of yellow which jams the space. I think this space is boring and depressive, which is not helpful for architecutre students who is facing high pressure of study everyday.

So, I put some decoration at the facade of hanging studio. Reason 1 is that the haning facade occupies space above the individual learing area, whcih is obvious enough to help my design separate its influnce. Reason 2 is attaching one the facade will not take any functional space, because it is always crowd in that area.

Back to my design, I think it gives 3 different feeling due to how far you stand from it. From very far, the overall shape and color of aggregation is emphasised.

It can create a feeling of beauty and elegancy on the timber background, just like a bunch of sakura blooming on the tree. Moving toward to it, the composition of it is revealed. The components looks like a group of dumb people dance and jump around, quite funny and interesting. Toward further to the component itself, the component is named as parasite, which is designed to look nasty. A very opposite feeling expected to bring people some interesting experience.

48

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

49

50

TECHINIQUE PROPOSAL

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

51

B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES &OUTCOMES

BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCE 1. FRAZIER, JOHN, EVOLUTIONARY ARCHITECTURE (LONDON: ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION, 1995)

12.RECURSIVE TECTONICS, LAKA, HTTPS://LAKAREACTS. COM/WINNERS/RECURSIVE-TECTONICS/

2. KOLAREVIC, BRANKO, ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING (NEW YORK; LONDON: SPON PRESS, 2003)

13.RECURSIVE TECTONICS, LAKA, HTTPS://LAKAREACTS. COM/WINNERS/RECURSIVE-TECTONICS/

3. MORPHOCODE, GETTING STARTED WITH RABBIT: INTRO TO L-SYSTEMS <HTTPS://MORPHOCODE.COM/INTRO-TO-LSYSTEMS/> 4. 8. PLETHORA PROJECT, WINNER WONDER SERIES COMPETITION 2012 <HTTPS://WWW.PLETHORA-PROJECT.COM/BLOOM/> My biggest outcome in Part B is that I was really enjoying the process of doing it.

I understad what is the true genetic algorithm design. Although I don’t think I am able to individually write a whole set of the aggregation in Grasshopper for now, but at least I have a preety clear unstanding of the system.

Further, what we’ve been taught in the architectural history subject didn’t include the history of algorithim design.

The missing of past 50 years of how architecture shifted to algorithm is filled by the readings.

Instead of just playing with the Grasshopper, we are asked to do soem practical considerations such as fabrication of component and choosing site for our design. I think this is a very beginning practice for the furture.

Sharing the our design and idea in class is really helpful for me to get idea from other’s advantages and mistakes, which is help to perfect my own work.

IMAGES

5. RECURSIVE TECTONICS, LAKA, (HTTPS://LAKAREACTS.COM/ WINNERS/RECURSIVE-TECTONICS/), VIEWED 25/8/2018.

14.UNIVERSAL INTERACTOR, John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995) 15.PIZEO-ELECTRIC GRASS AS AN INPUT, John Frazier’s ‘Evolutionary Architecture’ (1995) 16. PORT AUTHORITY TRIPLE BRIDGE GATEWAY, GREG LYNN FORM,HTTP://GLFORM.COM/BUILDINGS/PORTAUTHORITY-TRIPLE-BRIDGE-GATEWAY-COMPETITION/

6. LONDON’S OTHER DISTRIBUTED SOCIAL GAME: A COLLECTIVE GARDENING EXPERIENCE, ANTONIO PACHECO, HTTP://WWW. EVOLO.US/LONDONS-OTHER-DISTRIBUTED-SOCIAL-GAMEA-COLLECTIVE-GARDENING-EXPERIENCE/, 22/08/2012.

17. KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY, GREG LYNN FORM,HTTP://GLFORM.COM/BUILDINGS/KOREANPRESBYTERIAN-CHURCH-OF-NEW-YORK/

7. MICHAEL HANSMEYER, CONCEPUTATION ARCHITECTURE, L-SYSTEM(2003), HTTP://WWW. MICHAEL-HANSMEYER.COM/L-SYSTEMS, 2003.

18.KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY, GREG LYNN FORM, HTTP://GLFORM.COM/BUILDINGS/KOREANPRESBYTERIAN-CHURCH-OF-NEW-YORK/ 19.TREE IMAGE GENERATED BY MYSELF 20. PLETHORA PROJECT, “WINNER WONDER SERIES COMPETITION 2012” <HTTPS://WWW.PLETHORA-PROJECT. COM/BLOOM/> 21. PLETHORA PROJECT, “WINNER WONDER SERIES COMPETITION 2012” <HTTPS://WWW.PLETHORA-PROJECT. COM/BLOOM/> 22. THE BARTLETT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE UCL, BLOOM

BY ALISA ANDRASEK AND JOSÉ SANCHEZ <HTTPS://ISSUU. COM/BARTLETTARCHUCL/DOCS/ANDRASEK_01_BLOOM_S05_UPDATE>

52

LEARNING OUTCOMES

BIBLOGRAPHY 53

B.8 ALGORITHMIC SKETCH

54

ALGOTRIHNMIC SKETCH

ALGOTRIHNMIC SKETCH

55