YEAR 2 : Hodgens isla 833052 finaljournal - Studio Air

STUDIO AIR 2017, SEMESTER 02 TUTOR : BRADLEY ELIAS STUDENT NAME: ISLA HODGENS

1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ... p.03 PART A : CONCEPTUALISATION A. 01. Design Futuring ... p.06 A. 02. Design Computation ... p.10 A. 03. Composition / Generation ... p.14 A. 04. Conclusion ... p.18 A. 05. Learning Outcome ... p.18 A. 06. Appendix ... p.19

PART B : CRITERIA DESIGN B. 01. Research Field: GENETICS ... p.22 B. 02. a. L-system ... p.24 B. 02. b. Analysis of the ‘Bloom Project’ ... p.28 B. 02. c. Component Design and Manual Aggregation ... p.30 B. 03. Case Study 2.0 ... p.32 B. 04. Technique: Development ... p.40 B. 05. Technique: Prototypes ... p.56 B. 06. Technique: Proposal ... p.59 B. 07. Learning Objectives and Outcomes ... p.62 B. 08. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches ... p.64

PART C : DETAILED DESIGN C. 01. Design Concept ... p.69 C. 02. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes ... p.72 C. 03. Final Detail Model ... p.78 C. 04. Learning Objectives and Outcomes ... p.84 Reference ... p.85

2

INTRODUCTION

I’m a second year architecture and urban design & planning student. I have very little knowledge and limited experience of digital architecture so I am very excited to learn about not just the technical knowledge but also about theories in digital architecture.

3

PART A

CONCEPTUALISATION

4

5

CONCEPTUALISATION A.01. Design Futuring

Precedent 01 | Archigram, Walking City project Archigram, a group of British architects who emerged in the 60s, is renowned for its outrageous ideas and ways of thinking. They gained particular notoriety by challenging Bauhaus functionalism: hitherto the concept of “form follows function” was embedded in almost all architectural design works and design. Archigram introduced many controversial concepts. 1. They incorporated pop culture and cartoon-like style drawings which challenged the idea of architecture communicating only to people in the profession. 2. They introduced the idea of architectural buildings being expendable products rather than permanent structures. 3. They imagined a world with “megastructures”: Ron Herron’s Walking City project explores the idea of the whole city becoming a huge mass object. Their ideas and works were indeed controversial: their denial of Bauhaus functionalism was thought to be outrageous. However, their works definitely initiated some changes in architectural thinking and influenced many others in the profession.

Archigram mainly produced intangible works: they were mostly drawn works. This is important in the sense that they were focused? on producing and perhaps communicating possible architectural themes including the megastructure concept. This Walking City project can perhaps be regarded as “speculative design” which looks into possible future design. The design is “not of style but of ideology and values”1: they were appreciated for their innovative ideas especially with the megastructure concept. This idea later influenced high-tech architecture that was actually built, including Centre Georges Pompidou by Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano. They expanded future possibilities by presenting architectural ideas that may not be built at this point but perhaps might be possible in the future. Their work contributed new ideas and innovative approaches to architectural practice.

6

1. Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona (2013) Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press) pp. 9

Walking City project by Archigram image retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/ tag/archigram

7

La Citta Nuova by Antonio Sant’Elia image retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25402603 8

A.01. Design Futuring Precedent 02 | Antonio Sant’Elia, La Citta Nuova This is also an example of “speculative design” that was produced even earlier than Archigram’s Walking City project. The invention of automobiles inspired many artists and designers to speculate about a future with “speed” and “flux”, and Sant’Elia envisioned an urban environment where automobiles would coexist with the what can be described as a “megastructure” or skyscrapers. Industrialisation at the time prompted designers to produce and present vigorous ideas that imagined a completely different? future, and these architectural drawings allowed architects to communicate their ideas and visions of the future.

9

A.02. Design Computation

Computers and technologies have allowed designers and architects to design and formulate products that are otherwise not possible to produce by their own hands. The benefits of using computers in the architectural design process is that designers can formulate a 3D model that can be virtually presented and shared by intangible media called “data”. This allows for communication with a broader audience: it does not restrict its audience to someone with specialized niche knowledge like architects. The other positive aspect about digitalization of architecture would be that software like grasshopper allows architects to design a process system which allows faster production of architectural products.

However, one might argue that architectural program software like AutoCAD and rhino “might conspire against creative thought”2: many believe that computerization of design process can lead to “fake” creativity. Arguably, computers can be thought of as a tool for that process: Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao was “analog in design and digital in production”3, thus the fundamental creative thinking is not lost in the process. Even the official museum website suggested that computers “enabled him to translate poetic forms into reality.”4

10

2. Lawson, Bryan (1999) ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179 3. Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1 4. Guggenheim Museum, About, < https://www.guggenheim.org/about-us>.

Guggenheim Museum by Frank Gehry Photograph taken by User:MykReeve. - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54632

11

ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2012 Image retrieved from http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=8807 12

A.02. Design Computation

While Frank Gehry took the advantage of “computerisation”, the Institute for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) at the University of Stuttgart achieved an architectural project through “computation”: an architectural design process that basically ‘designs its own design process’. They observed biological principles and translated them into architectural design principles through computation5. One could argue that this can be considered as a case where what the role of so-called creativity is diminished as their “ideas” emerge from observation and data rather than innovative thought.

5. University of Stuttgart Institute for Computational Design and Construction, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2012, < http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=8807>

13

A.03. Composition / Generation

Designers and architects have produced designs by looking at composition, referring to design elements and principles, they worked out the best visual outcome that best expresses the desired outcome. Recently, with the emergence of computers and technical architectural programs, a new trend has emerged where architects have adopted a generative approach with the design process.

Symmetrical composition is widely used in architectural design in a sense, to imply a sense of authority or nobleness: symmetry is often taken as something clean and in a sense normal or natural that satisfies our sense of aesthetics.

Kenzo Tangeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building is an example of an architectural building with clean symmetry where the vertical elements are completely mirrored. People often see this kind of architecture aesthetic.

14

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building Image retrieved from http://www.archdaily. com/793703/ad-classics-tokyo-metropoli15 tan-government-building-kenzo-tange.

16

KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NY, 1999 Image retrieved from http://glform.com/buildings/korean-presbyterian-church-of-new-york/

A.03. Composition / Generation

Recently, some architects have begun to generate architectural product through the use of “algorithms”. Greg Lynn contends that symmetry is “the absence of information”6 and thus algorithms allow the system to look for “a combination of information and generic form.”7 Computation allows systems to generate patterns that produces the desired aesthetical outcome.

6. Lynn, Greg, Organic algorithms in architecture, presented at TED2005, 2006.

7. Lynn, Greg, Organic algorithms in architecture, presented at TED2005, 2006.

17

A.04. Conclusion It seems that architecture now is not just about the end product or the outcome of the design process but rather the emphasis is on critical thinking and the design process itself. Architects now formulate a designing system through digital media to explore many different possibilities. The computational approach allows architects and designers to explore different design processes to produce architectural works. The way designers approach ‘designing’ is changing, and this change is important to meet the needs of the constantly changing society in which we live.

A.05. Learning outcomes It was interesting to explore the idea of “computational deisgn” which was a completely new concept for me: producing a designing system to design a product is controversial in some sense but exciting at the same time. If I had known the new knowledge when I did my pavilion design for studio class last semester, I could have used the knowledge to creat a program to calculate and design a pattern for a window placement.

18

A.06. Appendix OcTree component in Grasshopper is used to create a “human-like form”. Image shows the transformation of the object as the resolution is lowered towards right.

Anemone program is used to create a recursive model: loop component is used to create a model showing the passage of “rainfall” on a nurd surface.

19

PART B

CRITERIA DESIGN

20

21

B.01. Research Field: GENETICS | Conceptual Design Implications The concept of “genetic architecture” has emerged following the computerisation of architectural design process: it borrows from the “evolutionary model of nature” as a means of designing process and the design itself.

Using a genetic algorithm as a design concept implies a “genetic paradigm”01 in architecture where architecture becomes more about generation rather than composition.

Karl Chu argued that the conception of architecture should equal the conception of the universe, thus genetic architecture follows the natural system of the universe in the design process.

Many architects during the Modern Movement respected nature and attempted to reflect “nature” in their architectural design: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water is one example where the architectural building is designed to meet or incorporate the surrounding natural environment.

With computerisation and the idea of “genetics”, this idea of integrating nature into architecture has changed: it has become more about incorporating the “process” or “generation” aspect of nature in design rather than having that relationship with nature reflected in the outcome of the design process.

| Oppotunities This is not just limited to the idea of genetic architecture, but the ability to present a model of how the final form of architecture is produced “may yield a more appropriate metaphor”02. something beyond blueprint.

3D models allow easier communication of a design for anyone working in the industry: often, 2D architectural drawings require another set of documentation for others including engineers.

| Fabrication Concern The fabrication concern with genetic architecture is the complexity: the complexity in the actual design itself and in the production stage. Digitally encoded models can develop beyond what human brains can achieve, yet the models are not necessarily an infinite set of systems.

The other challenge that architects may face is the special skill that is required to produce the actual design.

01^ TEDxBrooklyn - Karl Chu, (2010), < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uDWFSeypM>.

02^Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003).

22

Fig. 02. Interactivator: Networked Evolutionary Design System. John Frazer, Julia Frazer, Manit Rastogi, Peter Graham, Patrick Janssen.

Architectural Association, London, 1995

Metaxy (Karl Chu). X Phylum.

1998 Karl Chu fonds, CCA Collection. Gift of Karl Chu Š Karl Chu

Images retrieved from: http://www.generativedesign.com/asialink/de6.htm http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/events/3425/archaeology-of-the-digital-media-andmachines?lb_url=%2Fen%2Flightbox%2Fmediacopy%2Fsummary%3Fmediaco py_url%3D%252Fapi%252Fmediacopy%252F13132

23

B.02.a. L-system 01 | positive x, y, z value

01 | 1, 2, 1 02 | 2, 1, 1 03 | 1, 1, 2 04 | 5, 6, 5

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 | 2, 3, 4 03 | 3, 4, 5 04 | 4, 5, 6

01 | 3, 3, 6 02 | 3, 6, 3 03 | 6, 3, 3 04 | 6, 6, 6

01 | 1, 2, 1 02 | 2, 1, 1 03 | 6, 5, 5 04 | 5, 6, 5

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 | 2, 2, 2 03 | 3, 3, 3 04 | 4, 4, 4

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 | 2, 3, 4 03 |-3, 4, 5 04 |-4, 5, 6

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 | 2, 3, 4 03 |-1, 2, 3 04 |-2, 3, 4

01 | 1, 2, 1 02 | 2, 1, 1 03 | -6, 5, 5 04 |-5, 6, 5

01 | 1, 2, 1 02 | 6, 5, 5 03 |-2, 1, 1 04 |-5, 6, 5

02 | negative x value for two components

01 | 1, 2, 1 02 | 2, 1, 1 03 |-1, 1, 2 04 |-5, 6, 5

24

01 | 5, 1, 1 02 | 1, 5, 1 03 | 4, 3, 3 04 | 3, 4, 3

01 | 2, 2, 3 02 | 2, 3, 2 03 | 3, 2, 2 04 | 1, 1, 1

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 | 2, 4, 1 03 | 3, 1, 4 04 | 4, 3, 2

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 | 2, 2, 1 03 | 3, 3, 1 04 | 4, 4, 1

01 | 5, 1, 1 02 | 1, 5, 1 03 |-4, 3, 3 04 |-3, 4, 3

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 | 2, 2, 2 03 |-1, 1, 1 04 |-2, 2, 2

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 | 2, 4, 1 03 |-3, 1, 4 04 |-4, 3, 2

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 | 2, 2, 1 03 |-1, 1, 1 04 |-2, 2, 1

25

03 | x1 positive x, y, z value x1 negative x value x1 negative z value x1 negative x, z value

01 | 5, 5, 5 02 |-1, 1, 1 03 | 1, 1,-1 04 |-1, 1,-1

01 | 2, 2, 2 02 |-2, 2, 2 03 | 2, 2,-2 04 |-2, 2,-2

01 | 1, 3, 3 02 |-1, 3, 3 03 | 1, 3,-3 04 |-1, 3,-3

01 | 1, 5, 1 02 |-5, 1, 1 03 | 1, 5,-1 04 |-5, 1,-1

01 | 1, 5, 1 02 |-5, 1, 1 03 | 5, 1,-1 04 |-1, 5,-1

01 | 2, 2, 2 02 |-2, 2, 2 03 | 2, 2,-2 04 |-2, 2,-2

01 | 1, 5, 1 02 |-1,-5, 1 03 | 1,-5,-1 04 |-1, 5,-1

01 | 1, 5, 1 02 |-5,-1, 1 03 | 1,-5,-1 04 |-5, 1,-1

01 | 1, 5, 1 02 |-5,-1, 1 03 | 5,-1,-1 04 |-1, 5,-1

02 | x1 positive x, y, z value x1 negative x value x1 negative y value x1 negative z value

01 | 5, 5, 5 02 |-1,-1, 1 03 | 1,-1,-1 04 |-1, 1,-1

26

01 | 5, 1, 1 02 |-5, 1, 1 03 | 5, 1,-1 04 |-5, 1,-1

01 | 5, 1, 1 02 |-2, 3, 2 03 | 5, 1,-1 04 |-2, 3,-2

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 |-2, 3, 4 03 | 3, 4,-5 04 |-4, 5,-6

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 |-2, 2, 2 03 | 3, 3,-3 04 |-4, 4,-4

01 | 5, 1, 1 02 |-5,-1, 1 03 | 5,-1,-1 04 |-5, 1,-1

01 | 5, 5, 5 02 |-1,-1,1 03 | 5,-5,-5 04 |-1, 1,-1

01 | 1, 2, 3 02 |-2,-3, 4 03 | 3,-4,-5 04 |-4, 5,-6

01 | 1, 1, 1 02 |-2,-2, 2 03 | 3,-3,-3 04 |-4, 4,-4

27

B.02.b. Analysis of the ‘Bloom Project” Fig. 03. Bloom Project. Winner WONDER SERIES Competition 2012 Alisa Andrasek / Jose Sanchez

The ‘Bloom Project’ is an example of where the conceptual deisgn of “genetics” is applied to a tangible context.

Their early conceptual model is produced by “processing” using rhino, grasshopper and python component which allows the 3D model to be created through programming.

In the project, ‘L-system’ is used as their dominant/main conceptual design process, which is “based on a recursive, rule-based branching system”: this allows each model components to grow following the “rules” or the algorithm that is established.

Interestingly, the project does not limit its implication of design concept of “genetics” just to the field of architecture, but rather looks at it as a with a “connection of Architecture and Gaming culture”03. This is reflected in the design of the product: with its interactive nature, which is often the case for gaming, the product allows the audience to participate and ‘generate’ a new form.

The project often associate itself with the surrounding nature which reflects the fundamental idea behind the “genetics” conceptual design as an alternative way of representing ‘nature’ in architecture, and perhaps gaming as well in this context.

03^Bloom project, plethora-project, < https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom>.

28

29

B.02.c. Component Design and Manual Aggregation The idea or the concept of ‘L-system’ is explored using ‘manual’ method: components are placed manually, instead of using Anemone system or other generative programs, following the set rules established beforehand (i.e. A = ABC, B= BC, C= AC).

The component has rigid, geometric shape with sharp edges and are slided in to the other component to form a tree-like object.

B C A

A

30

31

B.03. Case Study 2.0 Reverse Engineer

START POINT FOR AGGREGATION

SET UP AXIOM

DRAW PLANES FOR RE-ORIENTATION AXIOM

DUMMY AXIOM POLYLINE DUMMY BRANCH POLYLINES

REDRAW HEURISTIC HANDLE

LENGTHS STANDARDISATION

DRAW PLA FOR RE-ORIEN

INITIAL BR

RULE

01 ) ESTABLISH BRANCH SYSTEM

32

02 ) STANDARDISATION AND INSERTING PLANE

03 ) DEFINE RU

ANES NTATION

MESH

PLACE COMPONENT MESH

ANEMONE

RANCHES

DRAW PLANES FOR RE-ORIENTATION

E

ULE

SELECT GROWTH BRANCHES BASED ON HEURISTIC LENGTH

04 ) SET LOOP - ANEMONE

UNIVERSAL SCALE FACTOR

05 ) INSERT MESH

33

B.03. Case Study 2.0

Process - reproducing the ‘Bloom Project’

00 | Component (attempt)

01 | Establish Branch System

Ln

Pt

Ln

Extr

Srf Srf4Pt

Pt

Vector

BCentric Pt

Z

Ln

Attempt recreating the “adjustable” component as designed in the ‘bloom’ project.

Dummy axiom and branch polylines are created in order to establish the branch system. Dummy branch polylines are oriented to the intended branch growth direction, from the end point of the initial dummy polyline.

34

02 | Standardisation and Plane Insertion

Plane at the end of the branch component for orientation: branches grow accordingly from the new origin throughout recursive process

Dummy Brach Polylines

â&#x20AC;&#x153;standardisedâ&#x20AC;? polylines

Initial Dummy Axiom Polyline

Initial segment is standardised.

Unique length is assignd to each polyline, defining geometric attributes for a heuristic hundle.

Plane inserted at whose origin is at the end of first segment and whose x-axis is aligned with the second segment. This is used to orient origins throughout recursive process.

35

03 | Define Rule

04 | Set Loop - Anemone

Branch

A

Growth Rule

REPEAT

A=

BC

B=

CD

B C D

REAL AXIOM

LOOP START

BUTTON

C=

AD

D=

AB

Each “dummy” branch components are tagged by letters a to d.

Each components are defined/given a set of ‘growth rule’.

36

PLANES FOR RE-ORIENTATION

SELECT BRAN HEURISTIC

Using Anemone, loop component is inserted into the system. Dependeing on the number of “loop” sets, the branch system ‘grows’ accordingly.

New generation is created following the rule sets which is established in the previous stage.

NCH FROM LENGTH

B.03. Case Study 2.0

Process - reproducing the ‘Bloom Project’

05 | Insert Mesh

MESH COMPONENT

LOOP END

UNIVERSAL FACTOR

Mesh component is then added to the system, creating a model following the branch system that is established previously.

37

38

B.03. Case Study 2.0 Re-engineering

39

A = AB B = ACD C = ABD D = ABC 40

A

B A C D

A

B C

A B

C

D

B.04. Technique: Development 41

A = BCD B = BC C = ABD D = ABC 42

C B

A

D

B C D

B

C

A B C

43

A = BCD B = ACD C = CD D = ABC 44

C B

D

AC D

A

B C D

A B C

45

A = BCD B = ACD C = ABD D = AD 46

C B

D

A B D

A

B C D

A D

47

A = AB B = BC C = ABD D = ABC 48

B

A

B

A

B C D

C

A B C

49

A = AB B = ACD C = CD D = ABC 50

B

A

A C D

A

B C D

A B C

51

A = AB B = ACD C = ABD D = AD 52

B

A

A B D

A

B C D

A D

53

A = BCD B = BC C = CD D = ABC 54

C B

A

D

B C D

B

C

A

B C

55

B.05. Technique: Prototypes

2D Printing Process -

Laser Cutting

In order to achieve the process of placing and fitting components at intended positions and orientations in a most efficient, aesthetically satisfying way,the components and its insertion cutout can be cut using laser cutter for accurate mass production in short period of time (compared to manual production).

56

The idea of ‘insertion slot’ derives from the components designed for the ‘bloom project’.

Component 01

57

Formative Process -

Folding

The other possible approach for the fabrication of the project is to produce a component as such that its connection/fitting occurs by â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sliding inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; each component (shown to the right). Metal folding method may be used as a way to express an origami-like form: the shape produced by attaching two triangular components from the component one (see previous page).

COMPONENT 02 58

B.06. Technique: Proposal Bridging

Bridging components, which will be a ‘connecting object’, are placed in order to create the seemingless continuity between the two aggregations. The component will retain its original component form, which is a triangular shape, and will have sliging slits. The components (shown above) are placed at a certain angle in response tp the angle in which the last generation present in the aggregation (see below).

Footing

Footing component will also retain a similar form, instead in a more volumetric, 3-dimensional manner in order to hold and support the whole structure.

The components from the model can be inserted to the ‘base’ (see left), and added on using the footing component as a base for the structure. The footing is designed in a way that it has root-like form: representing the idea of “L-system” or the tree-like structure in a more visual manner .

59

Context: the Dulux gallaery The model will be placed as shown in the two drawings: it will not just remain in the gallaery but rather goes out of the gallery to add more dynamics in to the design.

60

B.06. Technique: Proposal

The final design reflects the fascination on the idea of “genetics” architecture and the design concept from the ‘bloom project’: the model explores how digital architecture can be used to incorporate both virtuality and the concept of ‘nature’ or the ‘natural system’ together. ‘L-system’ is the technique used in exploring such concepts, and it was successful in a sense that it allowed to design a quite nature-like form, which has the tree branch characteristics, using computerised process. Like the bloom project, this model can be interactive: not in a way that audience can alternate the model as such, but rather that they can explore and experience the space by walking around , under or even from the side (outside Dulux gallaery where the ground level is higher).

61

B.07. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

Objective 05: developing “the ability to make a case for proposals”

Objectives 02: developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation

Through the research, the idea behind the “genetics” architecture and the oppotunities for such conceptual design process was explored . After the study, it became more apparant why such concept exists and how it can be implemented in the current architectural design process and the design itself. I think the understanding of the “genetics” architecture allowed to openly discuss the possible limitations in the proposal plus the possible oppotunities in using such conceptual design method.

I was able to understand that there are ways in which programming or computer model making allows three-dimensional models to transform or act different accordingly to the given condition: i.e. conditional culling in grasshooper using collision manymany and so forth. For the proposal section, I have managed to generate a 3-D model of the context/given environment and produce a design which fits and responds to the environment in a manual manner.

Objective 08: begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques

Objective 03: developing “skills in various three-dimensional media”

Through visual programming exercises, I was able to produce different kinds of iterations through provided definitions from online learning videos and from tutorial. I was also able to attempt in creating my own definition, including the reproduction of the ‘bloom project’ component: it may be too abstract, but I have started to understand the system/concept of visual programming and started to understand how each component can be connected to create a system or the definition for the rhino model making.

Using three-dimensional digital models, the way in which each generation or the ‘branch’ behaves, using ‘L-system’, were explored and observed.

Through the three-dimensional model, the overall volume were explored and using rendering, the materiality and how the physical forces may affect the structure, were thought carefully in order to reach the final design (proposal).

Objective 07: develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming Throughout the assignment, I was able to further understand the computational geometry and how to use programming including grasshooper as a mode to produce a system definition to as a design process. I was able to understand how each components connect each other to produce some pattern or action in the design and was able to create own definition and started to explore possible ways in which each components can be put together to bring a new designed model onto rhino software.

62

63

B.08. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketch Interim Presentation

Interim Presentation: block

64

Interim Presentation: flower-petal motif

65

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

66

67

68

C.01. Design Concept

|

FEEDBACK

Feedback from the interim presentation suggested that there was a lack of visual communication in expressing the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;adjectivesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the components thus the aim is tp have set adjectives and design a component that expresses the key terms. The feedback also pointed lack of visual communication especially a lack of rendered images to demonstrate the materiality and experience around the object. Following these feedbacks, the aim of this exercise is to create a distinctive components and have a strong visual communication.

69

C.01. Design Concept |

KEY CONCEPT

The key methodology for the project is to incorporate L-system: a â&#x20AC;&#x153;generative logic... where it is used to simulate plant growth.â&#x20AC;?01 Drawing from the idea of growth and/or simulating something that is evolutional, the key concept for the project is to create a structure that suggests a sense of motion or growth, not only by its generative nature but also from the individual components as well.

|

Component

In the process of designing the component, first of all, key adjectives which would help describe the component were revised: 01_ geometric 02_ sharp/acute 03_ rigid are the stylistic concepts that appealed the most, and components are redesigned following these key adjectives.

From the criteria design (part B), the trianguler component design is retained as a base shape to achieve the listed key three adjectives, which, the trainguler shape itself already achieves the key adjectives.

70

|

Tectonics

Following the L-system concept, generative rules are set to create a bush-like structure. The system is designed so that the components keep on growing: increasing in number and projecting outward, to create a form that could potentially inform a natural object.

This sharp, geometric, in-organic shape after being put through the generative logic of L-system suddenly becomes something that is organic but still retains a projectile feel.

71

C.02. Tectonic Elements & Protoypes PROTOTYPE 01 The first component had a distinct triangular shape with few apertures functioning as a socket to connect to the next generation of components. Trianguler and rectanguler apertures on the right side of the component functioned as a ‘grip’ where the component can be held to carry. It is also to express the ‘projection’ and/or sense of motion starting from the end point to the other end.

Although light-weight material, mountboard, was used for the 1:10 scale model, the components were experiencing deformation as the structure extended out. Components started to bend due to the accumulated weight as it built on : the highlighted surface on the socket 1 was especially experiencing a serious bending.

Prototype 01 experienced structural issues and these are addressed and altered for Prototype 02.

72

1

2

3

73

PROTOTYPE 02 PROTOTYPE 02 The second component had a less of a distinct triangular shape but still retained the ‘projecting’ element by adding apertures that follows the projecting lines from the end point. Trianguler and rectanguler apertures are added to eliminate some of the surfaces in order to create lighter component.

Mountboard is kept as a material for the model for its light-weight nature. Mountboard was also suitable as it can be laser cut to creare the components: laser cut was suitable to duplicate the detailed design of the component. Due to samller surface area, the middle section of the component became the “weak point” where the bending and shearing started to occur often as the structure ‘grew’.

In order to address the structural concerns for the protoype 02, weak point of the component is altered to give the component more strength under tension.

74

2

1

3

75

PROTOTYPE 03 The final component retained most of the second prototype, but added with extra support on the weak point. The design style of the component is kept: extra trianguler apertures added suggesting a projection line by suggesting a sense of flow from the end point of the component.

Due to the added support around the end point, the component was less bending and shearing when the structure ‘grew’.

The final component not only achieves the three key adjectives, which are geometric, acute and rigid, it is also successful in evoking a sense of motion or growth: this ultimately ties back to the concept or the idea of “genetics” in architecture.

76

77

C.03. Final Detail Model

78

“ Cellular Leaf ”

79

80

81

C.03. Final Detail Model

82

C B

B A

A = BCD B = BC (following A comp.)

C = CD (following A comp.)

D = ABC

D

C D

| RULE

A

| Process 01 | Each components are laser cut for accurate production and faster processing (compared to manual).

02 | Components are inserted manually into the assigned sockets following the set rule.

03 | Components are inserted / placed on the base / terrain.

83

C.04. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

Objectives 01: “interrogating a brief” by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital technologies During the brief formation process, the idea of thinking computational design for architecture as a “facilitator of flow”. Rather than considering the ‘form and function’ for the final objectt, a process of producing and defining a system for the final design was thought throughly during the brief stage.

Objectives 02: developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation I was able to understand that there are ways in which programming or computer model making allows three-dimensional models to transform or act different accordingly to the given condition: i.e. conditional culling in grasshooper using collision manymany and so forth. For the proposal section, I have managed to generate a 3-D model of the context/given environment and produce a design which fits and responds to the environment in a manual manner.

Objective 03: developing “skills in various three-dimensional media” Using three-dimensional digital models, the way in which each generation or the ‘branch’ behaves, using ‘L-system’, were explored and observed. Through the three-dimensional model, the overall volume were explored and using rendering, the materiality and how the physical forces may affect the structure, were thought carefully in order to reach the final design (proposal).

Objective 04: developing an “understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere Thorughout the semester, the idea of combining “architecture and air” was explored and integrated into the design proposal: the design demonstrated its relationship with surrounding atmosphere by ‘components projecting out into the space’.

84

Objective 05: developing “the ability to make a case for proposals” Through the research, the idea behind the “genetics” architecture and the oppotunities for such conceptual design process was explored . After the study, it became more apparant why such concept exists and how it can be implemented in the current architectural design process and the design itself. I think the understanding of the “genetics” architecture allowed to openly discuss the possible limitations in the proposal plus the possible oppotunities in using such conceptual design method.

Objective 06: develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analysis of contemporary architectural projects Through the conceptualisation research exercise, I was able to analyse the contemporary examples of ‘digital in architecture’ in conceptual, technical and design context. Concepts behind the digitally processed architecture design and the techniques used to produce the design are explored and compared to see and experience many different ideas developed behind each projects,

Objective 07: develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming Throughout the assignment, I was able to further understand the computational geometry and how to use programming including grasshooper as a mode to produce a system definition to as a design process. I was able to understand how each components connect each other to produce some pattern or action in the design and was able to create own definition and started to explore possible ways in which each components can be put together to bring a new designed model onto rhino software.

Objective 08: begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques Through visual programming exercises, I was able to produce different kinds of iterations through provided definitions from online learning videos and from tutorial. I was also able to attempt in creating my own definition, including the reproduction of the ‘bloom project’ component: it may be too abstract, but I have started to understand the system/concept of visual programming and started to understand how each component can be connected to create a system or the definition for the rhino model making.

References

PART A: Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona (2013) Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press).

Guggenheim Museum, About, < https://www.guggenheim.org/about-us>.

Lawson, Bryan (1999) ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons. from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press).

Lynn, Greg, Organic algorithms in architecture, presented at TED2005, 2006.

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge).

University of Stuttgart Institute for Computational Design and Construction, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2012, < http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=8807>

PART B: Bloom project, plethora-project, (2012), < https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom>.

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003).

TEDxBrooklyn - Karl Chu, (2010), < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uDWFSeypM>. http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/events/3425/archaeology-of-the-digital-media-and-machines?lb_url=%2Fe n%2Flightbox%2Fmediacopy%2Fsummary%3Fmediacopy_url%3D%252Fapi%252Fmediacopy%25 2F13132 http://www.generativedesign.com/asialink/de6.htm

PART C: Dulux Gallery, Melbourne School of Design, (2017), < http://explore.msd.unimelb.edu.au/landmark/ dulux-gallery >.

85