Page 1

ABPL30048

Architecture Desgin Studio Ishani Gunasekara 542396

AIR Design

Journal


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Case for Innovation Architecture, when created with purpose and awareness has much to offer, and is an ever-changing concept which explores new possibilities of experience, tectonics and the possibilities for the future. In order to advance with the 21st century computers have been rapidly integrated into the design and production processes of architecture and allows us to envision an innovative future for the built world. Just in the relatively new field of parametric modelling, our concepts of structure and the spaces we inhabit have great potential to evolve.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Ishani Gunasekara Currently completing my third year in a Bachelor of Environments and majoring in architecture, I am looking forward to engage in the new ideas and design potential studio air will present. Apart from the architectural subjects at the University of Melbourne, I am also undertaking subjects in landscape design and philosophy, as I have always been fascinated in the way humanity perceives, interprets and shapes the world around us. I’m interested in architecture that taps in to the sub-conscience of past and present users by seamlessly adapting to its surrounding context fulfilling purpose, while being memorable spaces that are remembered through the experiences within the spaces.

Through both architecture and landscape architecture design studios, I have tried several different computer design programmes to assist me with the design process. I have a brief knowledge of Google SketchUp, AutoCad and AutoCad Architecture as well as being introduced to Rhino in the first year subject; Virtual Environments. Programmes such as InDesign, Illustrator and a little exposure to Photoshop have helped me to enhance my presentation skills and communication of design. While I haven’t attempted the Grasshopper plugin before, I’m excited to experience the potential for design the program seems to promise and experiment with form and new design ideas.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Architecture as a Discourse

From its ancient origins, architecture has always been a form of communication and expression. From the establishment of canonical rules in the Classical Order, to the expressionists and modernists of recent decades, architecture has represented ideas, beliefs and social and political values and continues to communicate with people millennia after their construction. This language of communication is not one of words, but a meta-language of proportion, material, light and other formal qualities in connection to various sources. The concept of architecture has been described as an autopoietic system, as recently considerd by architect Patrick Schumarker1, engendered by its own means and fuelled by communication within the study of architecture. However, many would agree that it extends far beyond the boundaries of theory and the design process. Architecture is a far more ambiguous idea as described in Jonathan Hill’s Drawing Froth Immaterial Architecture2 and in many cases achieves success through this sense of ambiguity, as something which may only be partially recognised and understood3. Perhaps this is the reason for its seeming immortality; its lack of lucidity allows architecture to be perceived

and interpreted differently by those that encounter it and “the observer becomes more and more the user who gives meaning to the object…”4 Being formed on the basis of shelter, a basic human need, architecture naturally extends itself to all people. As Jonothan Hill describes “The architect, user, site and weather may each be the agent of an object’s ambiguity, but the user is its author.5” The users and occupiers of architectural spaces are ultimately what interact with the architecture, giving great importance to the experience of its spaces. As architect Thomas Mayne suggests, the relationship and dynamics between the systems is what has the power to transform and produce architecture that is more than mere structure6. The way humans interact and function in spaces is a key element that needs to be focussed on in the discourse of architecture. Significant architecture may not always be bold and built at a large scale however it will always impact those that encounter it. A positive experience of architecture makes users aware of themselves and the space they inhabit and often subliminally or literally influence the way spaces are used and remembered. The Wyndham City Gateway Project seeks an installation

Jewish Museum, Berlin Source: http://mafana.files. wordpress.com/2011/10/ guggenheim-bilbao-catia. jpg

Right: Natinoal Stadium, Berlin Source: http://www. dezeen.com/tag/beijingolympics/


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

which will have “longevity in its appeal, encouraging ongoing interest … and further reflection about the installation beyond a first glance”; qualities which yearn to be expressed in all architecture. To achieve this, the encounter of the design must be memorable and intriguing as well as alluring in its ambiguity. Although the primary audience will be travelling at high speeds, being afforded only a brief glance at the site, the formal qualities behind the philosophy of architectural design has the potential to leave a lasting and significant impact. The work of architect Daniel Libeskind, strongly associated with the Deconstructivist movement strives to achieve this through the notion of visceral architecture7, evoking an emotive response rather

than an informed interest towards the structure. As expressed in Architecture and Visual Culture, architecture is often described through a background of the history of design, and a didactic outlook about the designer’s intentions however, as a societal construct, it should be held “open to interpretation, not only by those with a professional interest, but by anyone”. (Roland Barthes, (1915-80)8. This egalitarian approach towards architecture ensures that it is accessible to the braider public and can be a valuable and successful cultural icon. As an expression of the world around it, architecture has always been contextually driven by factors of its site, the socio-political environment

and the technological advancement of its time. With computer technology being the driver for much advancement in the modern age, architecture embraces the possibilities of the digital world in order to continue as a symbol of the twenty-first century. Already, renowned architectural firms have adopted computation into their practices and have produced forms radically different to any architecture of the past. As drivers of the future, architecture must constantly dare to materialise concepts of the possibilities of the future. A phenomenon that expresses an enthusiasm for the future with a celebration of modern technology, would serve as an inspirational installation for the Wyndham City Gateway Project.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum, Berlin Year: 2001

Top Left: Jewish Museum, Berlin Source: http://www. flickriver.com/groups/ contemporaryjewishmuseum/ pool/interesting/ Bottom Left: Jewish Museum, Berlin Source: http://archikey.com/ building/read/2680/JewishMuseum/201/

Architect Daniel Libeskind is a master of creating distinctive and provocative spaces, disconnected from reality, evoking a new atmospheres. The Jewish museum in Berlin is a culturally and architecturally renowned building for its bold representation of the Holocaust in Berlin and the rest of Germany throughout and after the adversity of WWII. Libeskind’s focus on creating a sense of wonder through architecture gives his buildings an ambiguous and inexplicable character, contrasted with a strong definition of spaces. He focuses on the visceral impact of spaces, giving great importance to the user’s experience of the building, from the approach to the structure, to the lasting effects of memorable spaces within tithe building9. The Jewish Museum hosts a series of sombre, unadorned space, with sharp, controlled blades of light guiding visitors through the building. Acutely angled walls and dark, overpowering spaces have a daunting effect on the visitors, strengthening the poignancy and chaos behind the exhibited artefacts. For Libeskind, architecture is an expressive field. It brings about a vitality to the city and spaces within it, communicating the essence of culture in different places and times. However, what it expresses

may not be new, in fact, like the Jewish Museum, it may disturb us, the idea and the memorability of the experience of architecture is what completes it10. While the items on display are a key element in the building’s design, the lack or ‘void’ of certain artefacts was also an important factor in the concept for the Jewish Museum. High ceilinged, dimly lit space like the Holocaust void represents this lack of physical memory and the invisibility of the Jewish culture and the ‘voiding’ of the Jewish people from a place that was once their homes. The Jewish Museum is unexpected in form and raw in its expression of meaning, possessing a complexity of thought and layers of meaning. The historical and political context of the site is an integral part of the building, giving it a cultural significance and ensuring its significance in the future. With the realisation that many who visit the Jewish Museum will not have a firsthand experience of wartime, stirring a personal reaction was important for Libeskind, to provoke and individual response, and to perhaps leave the visitor with a lasting impression of the chaos and adversity faced by the individuals who suffered11. While the museum itself is a place for lamentation, Libeskind’s outlook on architecture is that it is a field for ‘optimism’, and that architecture must believe in the future, if it is to thrive12. It ‘asks questions’ instead of just giving answers. In order to do so, designers must embrace new technologies and new ways of designing to ensure longevity of the structure and the ideas it expresses.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Herzog De Meuron

Beijing National Stadium, Beijing Year: 2008

Top: National Stadium, Berlin Source: http://mafana.files. wordpress.com/2011/10/ guggenheim-bilbao-catia.jpg Bottom: National Stadium, Berlin Source: http://mafana.files. wordpress.com/2011/10/ guggenheim-bilbao-catia.jpg

For the Olympics held in Beijing, in 2008, the Chinese government sought to commission a new stadium, which would serve as an iconic representation of Beijing at the time and be a radically new and futuristic architectural form. The design proposed by Herzog and De Meuron gained favour amongst the people even before it was built, being dubbed the ‘birds nest’ for it oval form and winding structural skin13. The structure was intended for use beyond the Olympic Games period, and was to be a cultural icon to draw people into its urban precinct, creating space for diverse activities and linking the outside with the inner spaces of the building. They was renowned for its innovative approach to the building’s performance, with the skin acting not only as an visually appealing beacon, but also utilizing modern technology and materials, bringing Beijing architecture into the future. The grid-like structure is a multifunctional, self-supporting system, acting as the faced, and roof and consisting of stairs and walls in an integrated system14. The building itself incorporates sustainable innovation, with rainwater collection systems and a translucent roof which provides sunlight, while the exterior structure allows for passive ventilation

. Inflatable cushion-structures on the roof tops, also add insulation toand regulates wind and harsh sunlight. Like many of their buildings, Herzog and De Meuron architects adopt and integrated approach of traditional techniques of design with advanced digital architecture. The architects design through the use of sketches and hand-made models, and refine their ideas on 3D modelling software, in collaboration with a computation team16. The firm believes that computers should not and cannot take over architecture, as the input of human creativity and problem solving must have a strong presence in the design process17. Therefore, computers are used primarily as a means for feasibility of the built structure and to produce 3D models with accuracy and ease. Drawing in visitors was a key goal for the building, as according to Herzog and De Meuron, “the human crowd forms the architecture”.18 The innovative stadium structure is a prominent example of experiential architecture, drawing users in from afar, providing a mesmerising space inside, with sustainable solutions achieved through modern technology and materials. 15


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Computational Architecture

The use of computers in most cases can be applied throughout the design process. The intertwined phases of design, as outlined in Principles, Theories and Methods of CAD19 can all benefit and be developed with the aid of computers. From the process of gathering information, to the final means of communication and presentation of ideas, the use of computers has been integral to modern design. Computer design programmes were initially used as tools for computerisation, where designers use a more ‘analogue’ approach to design the model and digitize their design in order to utilise the efficiency and accuracy possible through computers20. As a digital replacement for architectural drafting and technical drawing21, the computer at first served as a computerisation tool of preconceived ideas and was generally used for a communication of the idea. Frank Gehry used a similar approach with his design process for the Guggenheim Museum, to determine the eventual structure and feasibility of the elaborate form. However, in more recent years, computer

programmes have been more deeply integrated with the design process itself. In order to solve the conflicts present between designers and specialised computer programmers,22 design programs such as Rhino became more accommodating and usable for designers. The result is the process of design computation, where computers are utilised throughout the design process,including the creation of architectural form. It is describe in Computation Works that computation allows the ‘designer to extend their ability to deal with highly complex situations’,23 and allows a greater exploration of form and space, beyond the capabilities of model making and manual construction. The use of computer modelling programs is fast becoming an essential tool for the modern designer, allowing enhanced design and production possibilities as well as effectively minimising time-consuming tasks. The potential to create an algorithmic output of situation, based on physical parameters set by the designer is in particular creating new possibilities for architectural form. The integration of the design process and computers has brought forth a channel to

explore and share design ideas and conception on a mass digital scale. This has engendered a ‘building of algorithmic thought’ in which many designers are beginning to play an active role. 24 Computation in the design process has allowed for a bridging between the conceptual model and construction of its physical form through the ability to create three dimensional forms in a very precise manner. A coordination of aesthetic and physical aspects has become more readily achievable, with an awareness of construction and feasibility in very early stages of design. As well as having greater freedom for aesthetic for-finding, computer modelling programs allow a testing and experimentation of possible structure and the material behaviour under certain conditions, in a digital format, allowing for the incorporation of formal composition and constructability of design.25 Algorithmic programming, to virtually test the structural and material capabilities of elements has allowed for a greater utilisation of engineering and building technologies, and made way for more economical and innovative structural approaches.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Guggenheim Museum, Bilboa - CATIA digital model Source: http://mafana.files. wordpress.com/2011/10/ guggenheim-bilbao-catia. jpg

Computation has allowed architects to easily branch off into non-Euclidian geometries allowed for a more free-form approach like the ‘blob’ concept describe by Gregg Lynn26. Visualisations and digital fabrication of design intentions allows designers to virtually interact and experiment with 3D models and determine a-material concepts such as spatial experience and create intricate interior spaces. While the process of design and architectural development is often segregated and feeds the technological aspect of the project, as is the case with the archtiects and the Digital Technology Group associated with Herzog & de Meuron Architects.27 The use of 3D modelling programmes such as Rhino and its plugins, are becoming increasingly intertwined with the act of finding design solutions and certainly in the evaluation and synthesis of possible design outcomes. The recent introduction of 3D printing has also created new depth for the model-making process providing an ability test new materials and quickly create models with precision even of complex forms. The material and structural performance is a necessity for the

success of any architectural structure. With the use of certain computational programs, the there is a greater opportunity to consider these factors in the design of the building. The ability to create physical evaluations based on material and structural properties engineers and architects can more accurately determine the behaviour of built structures of even the most complex designs and create solutions that are more functional and environmentally sustainable28. There is no longer a necessity for a linear approach to design; structures can even be approached from detailing concepts and can be altered with greater ease after the design has significantly progressed. Such performance-oriented design can be constantly tested for its functioning qualities and its behaviour can be evaluated under different stresses and conditions. Computation can also enhance evidence-based designs, which focus on the users and the encounter of the architectural spaces29. 3D modelling allows architects to more lucidly visualise the qualitative experiences of a space, which can be determined by many factor from the scalar proportion of the structure, to connecting details. The ease of model making allows for a more thorough exploration of spaces and can accommodate a greater range of spatial elements such as lighting, the readability of spaces and the visceral experience. The evidence-based design method allows the architect to analyse and modify a preconceived idea to achieve a stronger impact on those that encounter their designs. The ability to create 3D models of design solutions from very early stages in design has dramatically changed the concept of architectural practice and has transformed it from a process of form finding and external appeal to a discourse of greater abstraction and dependence on the incentives of the designer. It allows for

greater experimentation of form and function in the process of design and make it a more integrated process between concept and physical construction. By taking over mundane and repetitive tasks, computers can reduce the margin for human error and allow designers to focus more strongly on other aspects of the architecture, from the prevalence of the initial architectural idea, to working out details of construction and material functionality. In order to create a structure that truly utilises the technology and opportunities of the 21st century, a reliance on computers and computational media is necessary. Computation has transformed the architectural process and will continue to play a big role in its evolution.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Frank O’Ghery

Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao Year: 1997

Frank O’Ghery Architects are pioneers in integrating computation with the architecture. In the design of the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain, computers were used beyond the conventional methods for drafting and planning. Ghery’s hand-built models were computerized in order to create a feasible design for construction30. This deconstructivist architectural work brought to the urban environment a unique and unpredictable design made possible on through the utilisation of Computer Aided Design (CAD). The building asserts its position as a prominent art museum through its dynamic form and eccentric titanium plated structure. Computer Aided Three Dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA) and visualizations were used heavily in the structure’s design. The complex surfaces and structures would have been near impossible without the use of a CATIA, which allowed designers and engineers to define the complex curved titanium surfaces into equations31. Wood and plastic forms created by the architects were scanned three dimensionally into a virtual coordinate system and completed and refined using CATIA.32

The program was able to digitize the sculptural form and dimensions with speed and accuracy with the cladding material being pre-cut to precision, allowing the construction process to be economical and on schedule. CAD was also used to ensure that each piece would fit into position, giving engineers more time to focus their efforts on the process of manual construction to ensure lasting integrity of the building33. The elusive building established a lasting sense of a futuristic aesthetic and form and remains as an avant-garde and dynamic continuously moving forward in time with the modernist art it represents. The contrast of ‘fluid’ titanium clad steel infrastructure, with solid limestone masses, strewn with expanses of glazed surfaces reinforces a sense of permanence while moving forward to the possibilities of the future.

Guggenheim Musuem, Bilbao Source: http://openbuildings.com/ buildings/guggenheimmuseum-bilbaoprofile-1314


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Neri Oxman

Imaginary Beings: Mythologies of the Not Yet Year: 2012

The innovative research and prototypes by Neri Oxman rely on the ease of computational power and digital modelling available today. Her theories on material computation are derived from naturally occurring structural systems that can be algorithmically applied to artificial human construction34. Unlike Ghery, Oxman strives to generate organic forms, driven by the function of materials. With the ability to create diverse forms using digital modelling, Oxman argues that many designers can get lost in the seemingly freeform world of modern design and overlook the material properties and behaviour constraints and a fabrication process that is inert to them35. With the ability to express a plethora of geometries, she describes that ‘the world of architecture is becoming saturated with formal expression’, and that architectural firms continue to design in a topdown method36, with aesthetic form dominating the outcome, although the incorporations of computers has created a platform for a change of this paradigm. Oxaman’s research strives for a future in architecture where the “incorporation of material performance

is directly and explicitly united with the geometric representation” of form37. With the utility of computers, the designer perhaps has a greater responsibility to actively synthesise and modify solutions and be creative in their approach to design issues and briefs. While computers can offer a range of possible design outputs and possibilities, it is important for the designer to understand ‘real-world’ issues and apply their knowledge to decipher the best solution and strongly consider the future performance of their designs. As architect Herzog claims, “technology is very important as a tool, but technology in itself doesn’t do anything, doesn’t create anything. Computers cannot do anything without the assistance of the human brain”.38 Oxman’s exhibition, “Imaginary Beings, Mythologies of the Not Yet”, showcased possibilities through the structural research conducted about the structural formations in nature as well as the capabilities of digital printing, with different materials, to create versatile and highly effective designs.

Prototype for a Chaise Lounge 2008-2010 Beast is a 3D printed prototype for a lounge chair, created with an aggregate of both tensile and compressive material, which morphs to suit the user. Source: http://web.media.mit. edu/~neri/site/projects/ beast/beast.html


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Parametric Architecture

In the few decades that computation has been involved in the architectural design process, the way computer modelling has been applied to the design process has caused a noticeable shift of our conception of architecture. While the process of parametric modelling has been applied to architecture before the introduction of digital design, within different industries, the term parametric has been given various definitions. Most infer that entails of families of components and requisite control of data39. By curtailing aspects of a model based on given data, the constraints themselves help to construct the form and space the object inhabits. The algorithmic parameters also create a set of relationships between the elements of the design and allow the final product to change in response to the control choices. Analogue Parametric Modelling While the notion of parametric modelling is often associated with computers, it is not exclusive to a digital process. Designers such as Antonio Gaudi and Frei Otto speculated about form as a result of

algorithmic changes, experimenting with unconventional typologies guided by simple and complex patterns from natural precedents such as the form of soap bubbles40. Creating predominantly tensile structures, some of his physical models searched for an economical way to create forms, by imitating the ways that nature naturally holds structure. In a similar way, the hanging chain models of Gaudi, explores the effects of tensile force and motion inspired by the Gothic representation of load transfer through arches and defined buttresses41. The significance of the relativity of the holistic form, to all its elements is an important notion considered in parametric modelling today. Parametric computation allows designers to alter small parameters of their design that can eventuate as drivers of the overall form.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Zaha Hadid Architects

The Guangzhou Opera House, Guangzhou 2003 - 2010

When discussing parametric design, the work of Zaha Hadid Architects cannot go unmentioned. Having adopted the technique early in their practice, the firm has been a pioneer in using scripting methods to design their unique architecture as well as delving into research based on the applicability of parametricism to many design strategies including designing the urban landscape. They have created buildings that have only before been conceived in whimsical sketches and avant-garde notions of the future. They may have been considered inconceivable when computers were first introduced to architecture, however the inimitable architectural forms produced by Zaha Hadid speak of a spectacular and perhaps uncertain future.

form is inspired water-word boulders on the river’s edge, the architectural design of the structure is a unique and ambiguous form, with a contoured profile, contrasted with angular elements42. Zaha Hadid used multiple 3D modelling software, including Rhino for the exterior triangulated grid structure, to create the crystalline form and Maya for the sinuous curves of the auditorium’s interior43. The geometries were achieved using algorithms derived through splines, blobs, NURBS and particles organised by scripting programmes and techniques44. Designed as a ‘volume within a volume’, the building is layered with unique construction techniques and structural systems enabled by computation and parametric modelling programs45. The exterior triangulated Most of the modern designs by Zaha steel shell crates a self-supporting Hadid architecture utilise parametric lattice while framed glass to allow algorithms to conceptualise form and natural light into the interior. Intricately structure. The Guangzhou Opera but granite tiling has be fit in a House is an intriguing built product of tessellated pattern that was achieved this digitized architectural process and through Rhino. The internal geometry outwardly shows signs of parametric of the auditorium is contrastingly fluid, modelling in all of its aspects, from developed in Maya through doubly surface details, to the buildings’ visible curved NURBS surfaces and moulded structural system. While the main out of digital files46. The use of digital

Top: Guangzhou Opera Hosue http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/ guangzhou-opera-house/ Top Left: Frei Otto, Apparatus for computing minimal path systems, Institute for Lightweight Structures (ILEK), Stuttgart, 1988 Source: http://www.patrikschumacher. com/Texts/Parametricism%20-%20A%20 New%20Global%20Style%20for%20 Architecture%20and%20Urban%20Design. html Bottom Left: Inside Gaudí’s hanging model for the Colònia Güell Source: http://www.danieldavis.com/ahistory-of-parametric/

modelling allowed the building to be conceived on a 3D scale, rather than in a planar environment, creating intriguing and unique approached from different sides of the building47. The ability to control surfaces and instantly create outputs based on certain parameters allowed the building to better reflect the architectural idea and the undulations of the surrounding environment.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

MATSYS

Shellstar Pavilion Year: 2012


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Top: Shellstar Pavilion Source: http://matsysdesign. com/2013/02/27/shellstarpavilion/ Bottom: Shellstar Pavilion Source: http://matsysdesign. com/2013/02/27/shellstarpavilion/

Experimentation with forms in tension and compression in order to discern interesting and functional forms is still being conducted, based on the classic techniques developed by Gaudi and Otto. Programs such as Rhino provide scripting tools that allows testing to be done digitally, with precision, before building models. Designers such as MATSYS have created multiple experimental forms using Rhino plugins such as Grasshopper, Kangaroo, Lunchbox, Python and Rhinoscript. The Shellstar Pavilion is a lightweight temporary structure designed using Rhino and associated programs to create a lightweight structure, which maximises spatial performance, while minimising structure and material. It is based on the idea of a purely compressive structure, considered by Gaudi and Otto48. The use of parametric modelling, made the design and construction process a speedy one, taking only 6 weeks to finalise the design, fabricate the elements of the structure and assemble the pavilion on site49. The overall form was designed using the Kangaroo physics engine on Rhino, and was crated through the use of ‘thrust surfaces’, aligned with

structural vectors, creating a digital parametric environment and allowing the form to create itself, based on the forces added to it.50 Nearly 1500 cells were used to create the physical model and were modified and justified using the Python plug-in, in order to ensure that each cell could function as an individual component in the built form and cohere to the holistic structure51. The connected peaks act as arches, transferring load through a thin metal frame, which supports the structure. Using the physics properties available in Kangaroo, the designers were able to create a structural stable form, covering a large surface area, needing very minimal structural support and material.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

Algorithmic Challenge With the Grasshopper techniques I have learnt in the last few weeks, I was able to create some sinuous forms, similar to parts of the model I constructed in the Virtual Environments studio, in a fraction of the time. After extruding the curve along a wavy path, I was able contour the surface and create offsets of those contours to form a grid. By then extruding the grid, I was able to create a simple, but more intricate digital model than the closed curved volumes I created in my first year. With more practice, there is a large array of potentially interesting forms that could be taken out of the simple lines I initially produced.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

The techniques and understanding I have through this brief study of parametric modelling and use of computers in architecture have certainly change my idea of the role of computers in current and future architectural practice. While I was aware that computers could ease the process of design and enhance communication of design, the real potential for computation in architecture goes far beyond digitization of preconceived ideas. While less attention needs to be given to calculations and repetitive tasks, designers are still learning to achieve coherence between designing functional and valuable structures, as opposed to merely creating forms that are aesthetically appealing and

captivating. With the application of new computational research methods and programs such as Neri Oxman’s natural computation and the Kangaroo, perhaps the time saved through computational efficiency needs to be applied into ensuring that architecture develops as a sustainable and effective solution to future urban demands.


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

References 1. Patrik Schumacher, 'Introduction : Architecture as Autopoietic System', in The Autopoiesis of Architecture (Chichester: J. Wiley, 2011), pp. 1 - 28 2. Hill, Jonathan (2006). 'Drawing Forth Immaterial Architecture', Architectural Research Quarterly, 10, 1, p53 3. Hill, Jonathan (2006). 'Drawing Forth Immaterial Architecture', Architectural Research Quarterly, 10, 1, p52 4. Hill, Jonathan (2006). 'Drawing Forth Immaterial Architecture', Architectural Research Quarterly, 10, 1, p53 5. Hill, Jonathan (2006). 'Drawing Forth Immaterial Architecture', Architectural Research Quarterly, 10, 1, p54 6. Ted Conferences ‘Thom Mayne: How architecture can connect us’ (2005) <http://www.ted.com/talks/thom_mayne_on_ architecture_as_connection.html> 7. Carl Fredrik and Valdemar Hellberg ‘Case Study: Jewish Museum, Berlin’ (2012) <http://visceralintricacyexperientialresearch. blogspot.com.au/2012/09/case-study-jewish-museum-berlin.html#.UhbaYhtmiSo> 8. Richard Williams, 'Architecture and Visual Culture', in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), p109 9. Ted Conferences, ‘Daniel Libeskind: 17 words of architectural inspiration’ (2009) <http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_ libeskind_s_17_words_of_architectural_inspiration.html> 10. Ted Conferences, ‘Daniel Libeskind: 17 words of architectural inspiration’ (2009) <http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_ libeskind_s_17_words_of_architectural_inspiration.html> 11. Libeskind, Daniel. The Space of Encounter. New York: Universe Publishing, 2000. 12. Ted Conferences, ‘Daniel Libeskind: 17 words of architectural inspiration’ (2009) <http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_ libeskind_s_17_words_of_architectural_inspiration.html> 13. Herzog & de Meuron ‘The National Stadium, a new kind of public space for Beijing’ (2007) < http://www.herzogdemeuron. com/index/projects/complete-works/226-250/226-national-stadium.html> 14. Emily Pilloton ‘Beijing Olympic Stadium by Herzog & DeMeuron (2007) <http://inhabitat.com/beijings-olympic-stadium-byherzog-and-demeuron/#ixzz2caK8ZO3J> 15. Emily Pilloton ‘Beijing Olympic Stadium by Herzog & DeMeuron (2007) <http://inhabitat.com/beijings-olympic-stadium-byherzog-and-demeuron/#ixzz2caK8ZO3J> 16. Brady, Peter (2013) Computation Works: The building of algorithmic thought. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 8 – 15 17. Brady, Peter (2013) Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 56 – 61 18. Herzog & de Meuron ‘The National Stadium, a new kind of public space for Beijing’ (2007) < http://www.herzogdemeuron. com/index/projects/complete-works/226-250/226-national-stadium.html> 19. Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture's New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25 20. Brady, Peter (2013) Computation Works: The building of algorithmic thought. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 8 – 15 21. Oxman, Neri (2004) Material-based Design Computation. P99 22. Brady, Peter (2013) Computation Works: The building of algorithmic thought. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 8 – 1523. 24. Brady, Peter (2013) Computation Works: The building of algorithmic thought. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp11 25. Oxman, Neri (2004) Material-based Design Computation. P133 26. 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 27. Brady, Peter (2013) Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron. Architectural Design, 83, 2, p 59 28. Digital Crafting ‘Sean Ahlquist: Computation and Simulation’ (2010) <http://www.digitalcrafting.dk/?p=1269> 29. Georgia Tech School of Architecure ‘PHD – Evidence Based Design’ (date: unknown) 30. Katie Cacace, Marita Nikaki and Anna Stefanidou ‘Guggenheim Museum Bilbao’(1999) http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb. topic502069.files/guggenheim 31. Gehry's Guggenheim in BilbaoAuthor(s): Martin PopsSource: Salmagundi, No. 124/125 (FALL 1999 - WINTER 2000), pp. 1749 32. Katie Cacace, Marita Nikaki and Anna Stefanidou ‘Guggenheim Museum Bilbao’(1999) http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb. topic502069.files/guggenheim 33. Katie Cacace, Marita Nikaki and Anna Stefanidou ‘Guggenheim Museum Bilbao’(1999) http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb. topic502069.files/guggenheim 34. Oxman, Neri (2004) Material-based Design Computation. P103 35. Oxman, Neri (2004) Material-based Design Computation. P99 36. Oxman, Neri (2004) Material-based Design Computation. P103


Case For Innovation A: Introduction

37. Oxman, Neri (2006) Get Real: Towards Performance-Driven Computational Geometry 38. Matt Tyrnauer (2010) ‘Architecture in the Age of Gehry’ <http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/08/architecturesurvey-201008> 39. Brady, Peter (2013) Computation Works: The building of algorithmic thought. Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp12 40. Patrik Schumacher (2008) ‘Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design’ < http://www. patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20-%20A%20New%20Global%20Style%20for%20Architecture%20and%20 Urban%20Design.html> 41. Daniel Davis (2013) ‘A History of Parametric’ < http://www.danieldavis.com/a-history-of-parametric/> 42. Zaha Hadid Architect ‘Guangzhou Opera House’ < http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/guangzhou-opera-house/> 43. Architect Magazine ‘Guangzhou Opera House’ (2011) < http://www.architectmagazine.com/cultural-projects/guangzhouopera-house.aspx> 44. Architect Magazine ‘Guangzhou Opera House’ (2011) < http://www.architectmagazine.com/cultural-projects/guangzhouopera-house.aspx> 45. Architect Magazine ‘Guangzhou Opera House’ (2011) < http://www.architectmagazine.com/cultural-projects/guangzhouopera-house.aspx> 46. Architect Magazine ‘Guangzhou Opera House’ (2011) < http://www.architectmagazine.com/cultural-projects/guangzhouopera-house.aspx> 47.China Urban Development Blog ‘The Guangzhou Opera House: An Architectural Review’ (2011) < http://www. chinaurbandevelopment.com/?p=600> 48. MATSYS ‘Shellstar Pavillion’ (2012) <http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> 49. MATSYS ‘Shellstar Pavillion’ (2012) <http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/ 50. MATSYS ‘Shellstar Pavillion’ (2012) <http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/ 51. MATSYS ‘Shellstar Pavillion’ (2012) <http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/

CFI 542396 ishani gunasekara  

First Submission