ARCHITECTURE DESIGNING STUDIO
AIR
STUDENT JOURNAL YUN ROH 387552 TUTOR: ROSIE GUNZBERG CHRIS GILBERT
CONTENTS ABOUT ME PART A. CASE FOR INNOVATION A.1. Architecture as a Discourse A.2. Computational Architecture A.3. Introduction to Parametric Modeling A.4. Algorithmic Exploration A.5. Conclusion A.6. Learning Outcomes REFERENCE
ABOUT ME
Hi there, my name is Yun and I am in my third year of Environments, majoring in Architecture. To be honest, I never really had a particular interest in architecture until high school. It was then I decided to pursue my dream as an architect on Open Day at the University of Melbourne, because looking at the models and presentations designed by current students, with their exquisite quality and visual techniques, I found myself thinking this might be it. So I might have a slightly late departure jumping into the architectural field than majority of you. But my passion towards it stays still and is always true. I had an opportunity to learn AutoCAD and other supplementary programs such as Photoshop, from a small Korean Traditional architectural firm at which I did a short internship. The only experience I had with Rhino was in last year during Visual Communications Rhino workshop. Neither have I really experienced parametric design before, so these Rhino and Grasshopper come to me as a bit of overwhelming challenge at the moment. Making my design visually appealing was always my weak point but through this Studio I hope I can learn how to make my design aesthetically appealing, as well as learning computational design to full extent through exploring parametric design and developing visual tactics. I am ready to embrace computer as a design tool that will guide me through the course and moreover, in the future where I picture myself as an architect.
PART A
CASE FOR INNOVATION
“architecture needs to be thought of less as a set of special material products and rather more as range of social and professional practices that sometimes, but by no means always, lead to buildings.” Williams, Richard (2005). ‘ Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), pp. 102-116, p.108
Case for Innovation
A.1. Architecture as a Discourse
T
he definition of architecutre has been differently interpreted through time and culture. Perhaps buildings and designs to be interpreted as an “art” or “aesthetic” surely has advantages: it broadens people’s imagination. Heinrich Wolfllin in The Buildings of England only focuses on stylistic quality of architecture, defining architecture as “discrete objects that have their own integrity regardless of site”.1 Yet it raises problems such as limiting greater public engagement, by creating “Talking only to each other” effect amongst architects and designers. that when a building fails to achieve aesthetic brilliance, it no longer has a value as an architecture.
There surely are many perspectives and aspects that must be taken into consideration other than its aesthetics when looking at an architecture. Architecture then needs to be mutable, contingent and arbitrary and to encompass individual, social and cultural backgrounds of general public. For instance, living in a highly compacted metropolis (Seoul) I always had a perception on the high-rise buildings that they were ugly and matchboxlooking, but after reading the articles from this week I personally started to accept the fact that it can be regarded as another form of architectural phenomenon as it satisfies human needs, and it was designed with due-consideration of population increase. Architects should not neglect the fact, even though they look rather crude and unappealing. It is only possible through looking at an architecture as a sign, not art.
Architecture and urban experience If you only consider architecture as a sign or symbol, there is a possibility that the public may lose the true intention of the architect. It is then looking at architecture as urban experience that architectural discourse can be best achieved, engaging architecture with its context.
TOD'S OMOTESANDO by toyo ito
Case for Innovation
“Architecture has to follow the diversity of society, and has to reflect that a simple square or cube cannot contain that diversity” - Toyo Ito
I
n Omotesando, the so-called mecca of fashion in Japan, exclusive boutique shops are lined up showing off their sleek structures. Given the characteristics around the site, by selecting concrete as a building material, the building proposes strength and boldness which is missing from the adjacent ‘glass architecture’2. I personally like this idea as it successfully stands out among the other buildings, it fits into the context ‘just like fashion’ all about visual, showing off – visual approach Fast moving fashion industries – needs to pop out. Not exclusively relying on frontage but utilizing every sides of the building. Surely there is something more than just showing off that makes this building valued and innovative. When it comes to Toyo Ito’s work, I am always fascinated by his adornment towards nature. He sets ‘trees’ as an agenda, which are natural objects that stand by themselves, with their shape having essential structural rationality. The pattern of overlapping trees creates a rational flow of forces. Having adapted the branched tree diagram, it shows structural rigidity.
The tight and narrow site condition also put the design into difficulties yet the tree shaped load bearing concrete wall allows internal space free of internal columns for more effective use of interior space. Ito’s designs have been often inspired by modernism. The use of reinforced concrete and free standing walls with wide open internal space, that he believes the modernist architecture to have brought a significant change in architectural paradigm. These days architects tend to neglect and put down ‘fashion’. Yet Ito represents the legitimacy of ‘fashion’ as a form of architectural design process that commercial buildings are also a part of society that needs to be appreciated, through the vivid structural tactics as well as organically developing his design from nature.
Case for Innovation
FALLINGWATER BY FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
F
rank Lloyd Wright is believed to be America’s greatest modern architect, intimately connected with the development of modernism around the world. So what makes him so special? Not only was he a pioneer who consistently reinvented and changed his architectural style moving with time, he also was a strong nature lover. His design approach was always underpinned by the idea that refers not only to the building’s relationship with nature but also how the elements of the building (furniture, surrounding environment, etc) come to work as a unified organism. Here is the so-called Fallingwater, one of his masterpieces that sits upon a fall in rural southwestern Pensylvennia. Perhaps anyone with slightest interest in architecture must have heard this work at some point. Some may not enjoy this architecture, maybe due to its poor engineering causing structural faulties or could be of some othe reasons. Yet one cannot deny that there is something much more special in this particular architecture.
who loves tracking, know exactly how well this would work. Fallingwater shows plain walls and roof yet the horizontal and vertical blocks are used in very particular ways to provide a contrasting mood. He also introduces domestic materials into his design such as local stones used in the fireplace that comes up through the floor, giving the sense of harmonising with nature3. This idea makes no reference to the previous architecture and entirely brand new way of thinking about the creation of space, planning and decoration. The living space is incorporated by the waterfall where there is an opening that you can walk down to the suspended platform that floats above the water as a part of it. Surely the user experience would be maximised in this sense.
The whole ideas in Wright’s mind is melted in the architecture. Of course not to doubt that he never followed standardised way of dealing with domestic or commercial architecture at that time around the world. Through these design approaches and continuously reinventing himself rather then depending on the precHis intimate relationship with the nature is edents or history is what makes Wright the most clearly visible in this work. The very idea of influential modern architect of the era. His effort designing a building on a running fall and beto precisely articulate his idea in order for the ing enveloped by the glamorous forest is what architecture to harmonise with its context is fascinates me the most. I, as a person who comes what we all should be keeping in mind with. from a country with numerous mountains and
“Computation augments the intellect of the designer and increases capability to solve complex problems.� Brady Peters and Xavier De Kestelier
Case for Innovation
A.2. Computational Architecture
I
t seems inconceivable today to imagine designing buildings without the help of computers. ‘computational design’, the relatively new phenomenon, has been a substantial influence to designers serving their role as an assistant hence it has been widely adapted in architectural industries. Architectural design is the cumulated activity of analysis and creativity dealing with both externally imposed problems and internally drawn inspiration. When computers first came into play, design process aided by computer changed architectural practice dramatically by replicating drawings and creating the main benefit: efficiency. It was much easier to share drawings with multiple parties yet this was still a traditional process which was paper-driven, still with constraints in terms of representation and production as they were only working with orthogonal projections (plans, sections and elevations). One could only conveniently design rectilinear buildings that do not specifically refer to how nature exists around humans, or the way how we perceive spaces. Yet the development of digital media and emerging technology have rapidly expanded what we thought to be formally, spatially, and materially possible, yielding the realm of architecture with invention and innovation.
Does computation encourage “fake” creativity? Still there is skepicism persisting towards computational design in many areas of practice including architectural field that is: computer surely is a superb analytical tool yet it may conspire against creative thought by encouraging “fake” creativity. The fact that a designer uses other geometric material produced with the help of computer, other than standardized materials such as brick or concrete, does not make the person’s creativity “fake”. There is not in any way that makes the design and manufacturing processes fundamentally different form that of traditional architecture. In fact there is numerous range of possibilities while one use computer to produce the outcome. Yet the outcome is very much constraint by what computers can and cannot do. We cannot say that computers create “fake” creativity, yet they are simply constraining and redirecting our creative process.
So if we use computers creatively, what can they give us? Technology is developing much faster than any other fields such as social, business and political changes. Today in architectural area, the most important collaborators such as architectural designers, engineers, fabricators and builders work all separate from each other. Computing serves a fundamental role to bring the different parties together by creating a uniform flow of data housing different types of information to deliver great benefit. Unlike traditional process, computing encourages team-building and interdisciplinary.
Such symbiosis let the design subsequently move back and forth and communicate with designers, that today; computational design became compatible with intuition and creativity. Computational design, acting as the fourth eye, then enhances designers to see rules as things to be interpreted freely and to see contingency or the natural phenomena as opportunities for creative change and innovative adaption to circumstances. My stance on computation in relation to architectural study is that the future of digital realm is paramount, and everything now we see is a potential and fun for our work.
Case for Innovation
DISNEY CONCERT HALL BY FRANK GEHRY
T
here the maestro contemporary architect, Frank Gehry, gives a clear and successful demonstration on how computer can be utilized. His architectural approach generally involves “form-driven� designing process, first exploring and deciding the sculptural definition. Due to the complexity of the design constructed of iterative and non-linear geometries, integration of computer was necessary. The firm Gehry Technology then played a pivotal role in the process of importing his design into a 3D design environment. What makes this project great piece of architecture is in the successful establishment of digital fabrication. To construct a building like this could be expensive, difficult to manufacture and is of structure with a lot of embedded energy. The Disney Concert Hall is very much against the modernistic idea of honesty, transparency, harmony with all of the structures exposed on the building. Yet in this work such idea is not visible. He does it in a very successful fashion. - does not lose creativity - fun
Computational Design Research Pavilion by ICD-ITKE
T
his is a temporary research pavillion that successfully demonstrates the latest developments in material-oriented computational design, simulation, and production processes in architecture. First impression one can have on this is that the architecture allows people to fully engage with the spatial experience. This “structure-driven� computational design is clearly an exceptional exercise since it tries to look inwards as to what architecture will be like in the future. This is an experiment in understanding how architecture can behave, through analysing material performance and more importantly, the experimenting with structure via computer. It tries to understand a single structural component first, then replicate the very component using parametric design technique into something that starts being habitable place, a shelter and a load bearing structure. This work again demonstrates the symbiosis of humans and computers advanced by the help of computer successfully and intellectually analysing possibilities and shortcomings, constraining and redirecting the human in terms of creative thought.
Case for Innovation
Case for Innovation
A.3. Introduction to Parametric Modeling Is parametric design a temporary trend? What is the relationship between parametric design and architectural world and why do architects choose to adopt such complicated interface? What seems to be the future of parametric design? This chaper will discuss the ongoing discourses on parametric design. The term Parametric has various definitions which makes it a vague field of study. One definition that addresses the idea of parametricism is “a set of equations that express a set of quantities as explicit functions of a number of independent variables, known as parameters.” In other words, it is a geometric outcome that people produce out of the inputs (independent variables) through the connection of explicit functions (nodes). Well known examples can be a spreadsheet or Grasshopper. What seems to be clear though is that parametric modeling brings about a designer a new condition to generate a model, and clearly provides a new way to explore design through the explicit connection with parameter. When it comes to dealing with explicit geometry such as Rhino, changes to model can be such a pain that a designer might have to build
a new version every time he/ she wants to make changes. With parametric model, even a tiny bit of changes into a model is actually feasible as one is making changes inside the model. This way the design can be achieved with great efficiency and it is all able due to the explicit connection between parameter and geometry. This development has led to a nonstatic design environment, as the architect is able to manipulate and adjust the conditions of design at different stages. Also, being able to control the really fine details of the project is the advantage of parametric models. Parametric modeling does not technically let an architect to just draw sketches and come to work out how it works later on. With algorithmic thinking people are forced to think about these relationships between an object and parameter. Therefore, by limiting oneself the person actually frees him/her to design and think about this
project rather than thinking about what is going to come later on. Constraints a person is putting upon himself could actually be a positive thing in his design process. Such process eventually gives parametric model a dynamic, fluid and organic form composed of interdependent and bifurcating structures. There are many examinations that need to be taken to further define the parametric design. It features such a complicated set of equations therefore the steps can be ‘lost in translation’ thus requiring a clear and concise communication between computer and the designer. This is disadvantageous as when bringing many individuals into one project there is limitation regarding other people reading into the equations.
TECHNICOLOR BLOOM BY BRENNAN BUCK
T
echnicolor bloom is a full-scale prototype installation that produces doubly curved, digitally designed geometry, using standard fabrication technology. Some may describe it as ‘just a sexy modeling but nothing more in it, lacking discourse’. Yet this work adapts tessellation algorithms to produce initial patterns, parametric design, with its associated discourses of efficiency and was suppressed in favor of specific design intention and the precise control of visual effects. Once one enters the space, the person can feel the proliferating continuity of surface morphology, the structural patterns across those surfaces, and the various interrelationships of depth and color from one surface to the next. The user experience is amplified through the dynamic, intense, yet elegant piece of installation.
Case for Innovation
Case for Innovation
Mafoombey Acoustic Space by Martti Kalliala & Esa Ruskeepaa This work is an award winning corrugated cardboard sound installation designed by two Finnish architecture students. The brief was to create a space for listening to and experiencing music within the set of dimension of a 2.5m cube structure. The resulting design is a very powerful sculptural form which plays with the difference between the cubic volume and the irregular free form interior. The project was executed with 3D software and scale models, sectioning free form into cubic volume of stacked cardboard. The interior contours of the cube were designed mostly via 3D computer modelling. Once an appealing form was decided upon, the 3D model was sliced into horizontal layers in order to produce the cutting files for the computer-controlled cardboard cutter. I personally enjoy this work, looking inside the installation there seems to be dynamic and relaxing atmosphere co-existing together.
A.4. Algorithmic Exploration
Case for Innovation
A.5. Conclusion
Every human has different perspective on architecture and as a result it has continuously opened up the paradigms of discourses. Through the history social and cultural values have been reflected in architecture, communicating and engaging with our life experiences. Then there comes technology. Today, wih the help of digital media, architecture comes more as fun and enjoyable field of study, that allows us to nevigate the realm of what we previously considered impossible. Parametric design is one of them. Not only does it contribute to asesthetics of design, it also reflects discourses on architecture. Through consistently moving back and forth with history and precedents, and developing the ideas with computer, it is conceivable for me to bring out a design outcome that socially and culturally maximise their experience with the people of Wynnum
Case for Innovation
A.6. Learning Outcomes
Architectural computing is fundamental necessary in today’s architectural world, and it simply makes people difficult not to adapt such technology to assist them in these days. Since I never experienced this type of computing program, it came to me as an overwhelming task at first. Yet the more I experimented with rule based the geometry, the better I started to understand how the interface worked. My previous projects and their representation always ended up being rectilinear and orthogonal. With the help of this fluid and soft form generating tool, it might have been more natural, as in better reflecting on how we perceive spaces. Through this Gateway Project I would like to demonstrate how contraints of the computational tool can free yourself from imagination.
Reference Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 116 Riken Yamamoto, ‘Toyo Ito’, (Phaidon Press Inc.; Ill edition, 2008), pp. 147 - 176 Kenneth Frampton, ‘Modern Architecture 1851-1945’, (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1983), pp. 398 Definition of “algorithm” in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil eds(1999) in The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (London: The MIT Press) pp.11-12 Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 116 Lynn, Greg (1998) “Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy”, in Fold, Bodies and Blobs: Collected Essays ed. by Greg Lynn (Bruxelles: La Lettre volée), pp. 169-182 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25 Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28 Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48 Dean Bruton and Antony Radford, ‘Digital Design: a Critical Introduction’, (London Published 2012) p.9-14 Lisa Iwamoto, ‘Technicolor Bloom’, in Digital Fabrications, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), pp. 56-60
Case for Innovation