Page 1



Mark Andrew Casey-Losewitz | 389518 University of Melbourne | 2012


PART 1 | EXPRESSION OF INTEREST 1.1 The Case For Architecture

1.1.A | Architecture as Discourse 1.1.B | Computing in Architecture 1.1.C | Parametric Modelling 1.2 Research Project 1.2.A | Discovering Panelisation 1.2.B | Recreating The Voissoir Cloud 1.2.C | Proof Of Concept 1.2.D | The Issues Of Fabrication 1.2.E | Expression Of Interest

PART 2 | THE GATEWAY PROJECT 2.1 Development

2.1.A | Further Brief Analysis 2.1.B | Folding 2.1.C | On Site Analysis 2.1.D | Grasshopper Development 2.2 Final Presentation 2.2.A | Model Photographs 2.2.B | Renders 2.2.C | Final Reflections


ARCHITECTURE AS DISCOURSE Losewitz, Mark, (2012) [photograph] Sagrada Familia, taken by myself on 14 June 2012









A third year Bachelor of Environments student majoring in Architecture. I like to think I have a passion for the subject, I’ve always enjoyed a particular interest in studying and designing the built form. I’ve never undertaken any form of digital architecture that extends beyond Adobe Photoshop or Sketchup, and as a result my skills are particularly limited. I’m starting to become much more aware of digital architecture as a growing method within the field, with many current projects dominating the headlines employing the use of digital design. Some of my favorite buildings as well, such as the Metropol Parasol and Gaudi’s famous Sagrada Familia, have relied upon digital means to achieve their goals. I think as we progress into a new age of design it will become particularly poignant, and as a result I am very interested in furthering my knowledge.

We were required to channel the thought processes of famous Architect Alvaro Siza, and attempt to redesign the Kew Boathouse in a style that represented his previous work. My design centred around the representation of Siza’s rectangular form of which he often employs, the iconic white-wash walls, the use of axis within the design of the plan, and of course the use of natural light within the building.


We were required to redevelop the Discover Centre on Herring Island in Toorak, including the centre itself and surrounding wall. My design was based around the idea of changing planes, where small increases in height of each level, accessed through stairs, allowed for an experiential experience of the space. The design materials centred around local native wood, in an attempt to fit the centre snuggly into its surroundings. Above is an example of my model superimposed onto the site, to give an idea of what it will actuallly look like.



[2] Metropol Parasol | Jurgen Mayer Hermann | 2011


[1] Metropol Parasol | Jurgen Mayer Hermann | 2011


The word discourse itself is fairly ambiguous and indefinite. Initially, despite many questions to tutors and lecturers, I just could not find a way to get my head around the meaning. From my understanding thus far, an architectural discourse is something like a ‘zeitgeist’ or ‘spirit of the times’, that represents the design trend which architecture as a whole is currently following. My initial understanding of digital architecture, from my basic studies up to this point, was that it was simply a tool, not a method of design in itself. Considering the expectations in design studio: earth and water, I always saw computer software such as rhino and autocad as above expectations, in the realms of those students

who were guaranteed a H1. Personally, I was always comfortable with hand drawing my final presentations, so understandably design studio: air and its central theme of digital architecture seem quite foreign and new to me. Obviously, considering my gross lack of knowledge, I have many questions in regards to its role within the architectural discourse. Is it simply a means to an end, created to speed up the process of designing? Or is it a starting point, to which we can build and extend our knowledge beyond the realms of our own creativity. And will my design be negatively influenced by the fact that I as yet know absolutely nothing about any

[3 | 4 | 5]

programs, and will this continue to be the case until i am totally proficient in its use? All of these questions i hope will become clearer as the semester rolls on. My previous research on the subject of digital architecture is sparce. My prior knowledge revolves around the use of basic programs such as illustrator and sketchup, and my interest in a few buildings which i assumed to be designed by computer software. One of these such buildings is the Metropol Parasol in Seville, Spain. On a recent adventure through Europe I was lucky enough to visit this incredible structure, and instantly it has stuck to my subconscious, and become one of my favourite architectural pieces. I never knew

the particulars that I know now, such as that the design is parametric and most likely designed using rhino, at the time I was just overwhelmed by something that seemed so out of the box, something i could never think of myself. And this is the crux of my current perception of digital architecture. If it can help us look outside the box, help us come up with designs that exceed our creativity, as the Metropol Parasol did to me, then it can only be a good thing, a beneficial element of the architectural discourse. This semester should be an eye opening experience for me, I hope.

[7] Grande Stade De Casablanca | NBBJ | 2014



[6] Grande Stade De Casablanca | NBBJ | 2014



[10] Bird’s Nest | Herzog De Meuron | 2008

[11] Sochi Stadium | POPULOUS | 2014

WHY I LOVE IT? The city of Casablanca took my interest on a recent backpacking trip as a melting pot of culture, activity and liveliness. It was a distinct goal of the architects at NBBJ when designing the Grande Stade De Casablanca to ‘create a centre for sports and assembly events which is keenly in tune with the natural environment, geography, and history of the nation of Morocco’ and ‘signalled the 1 unique character and vision of the city’. My experience of the country and the architects goals appeared to be homogenous, so the project instantly drew my interest. The stadiums plan is based around an 8-point star,

which is aimed ‘to emphasise the centrality of the master plan of the city’. The roof is composed of a lightweight membrane surface which is uniquely folded to emphasise symmetry and balance. The facade is made of aluminium which has been perforated in a variety of traditional Moroccan patterns, and at a variety of different sizes, in order to account for wind patterns and allow solar access to the specific areas. Aesthetically, the unique facade encapsulating the stadium, like a piece of paper folded 1 many times, is engaging and captivating. Recent projects such as the Beijing Birdsnest and the proposed 2014 Winter Olympic Stadium in Russia have

set and continue a benchmark for new stadiums that exhibit innovative interesting designs that represent their country and culture. Both have also relied heavily on digital design in their development. Herzog and De Meuron’s iconic Beijing National Stadium, built for the 2008 Olympics, uses multiple intersecting lines lofted in a circular shape around the stadiums basic shape to create 2 an incredibly fascinating facade. Populous’s proposal for the Winter Olympic Stadium in Sochi, Russia, follows on from the Birdsnest, using a lofted pattern of irregular pentagonal shapes to envelope the interior, almost like 3 the magnification of the membrane of a leaf.

The Grade Stade De Casablanca maintains a more rigid exterior design, rather than the lofted curves of the other examples, although still relies on this idea of ‘attached facade’ to achieve visual attractiveness. It has also incorporated the perforations to this facade which directly relate to the initial design objectives. We should explore the ideas of a facade in our design, when combined with pattern and tesselation it can be very effective. The Grande Stade also reiterates the importance of convincingly embodying place through design, which is pertinent to Wyndham city and the proposal.




[12] Riverside Museum | Zaha Hadid | 2011




WHY I LOVE IT? The most defining visual characteristic of The Glasgow Riverside Museum is the extraordinary jagged roof shape, which initially draws the attention of those that view it. Site placement and design is based on Glasgow’s rich shipping history, ‘situated where the city meets the river, ‘flowing’ between the two in a symbolic representation of 4 their dynamic relationship, the museum places itself in the very roots of its origins’, hence it can be deduced that the skyward stretching roof design is intended to represent the masts of a ship. One particular criticism is that the design itself is in stark contrast to the surrounding conservative architecture of the waterfront area. As a result the building succeeds in standing out and belittling the nearby heritage buildings, something that the purpose of the structure itself is to celebrate. We are required to symbolise Wyndham in our design, and it will be important to do so in a positive manner. The museum is a prime example of the current trend of digital architecture, based on aesthetic pleasures and wildly unique forms. Digital Architecture also definitely have played a significant role in its design, where part of the roof has been extruded along the length of the irregular building form with a topological transformation.

[17 | 18 |19] Umicore Building | Conix | 2011

This has created the jagged roof, and is the basis of the aesthetics of the design. Rather than focusing on colour or pattern, this building finds visual stimulation through its shape. The recently built Umicore Office Building in Hoboken, Belgium, has a very similar design method to the Riverside Museum. Both buildings use irregularly shaped structural pieces, which support and create a boundary for large curtain walls. This ensures not only structural continuity but also creates an aesthetically appealing design. The Riverside Museum has taken this aesthetic idea a step further with its topologically extruded roof line, somehow succeeding in ensuring the structural stability of the curtain wall underneath it at the same time. It is this combination of aesthetic appeal and structural durability that we will need to focus on in the design of the road side construction design. It has to be something that attracts the attention of the driver, whether that be through form like the Riverside Museum or a different medium such as pattern or colour, and also be structurally sound, considering the lack of maintentance that the structure will ultimately receive. If we can apply these constraints on our design then we will have taken a step forward in fulfilling important requirements.

01.01.B |





[20] Guggenheim | Frank Gehry | 1997


COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE Design Studio: Air is particularly focused on digital architecture and design as our main discourse this semester. It is an area of architecture that recently, has caused many disputes, as supporters and sceptics voice their opinions on the benefits of the discourse in the current climate of architecture. On one hand, prominent advocates such as Patrik Schumacher from Zaha Hadid Architects argues that digital media, in particular parametrics can open up new possibilities 5 in terms of form and function. Although other more negative views suggest that digital architecture focuses

too much on aesthetic pleasure with results that seem 6 eerily similar. The benefits of digital media, having done a minor amount of reading and research, appear to focus on the aesthetic elements of a building, offering new inventive forms to the facade of a design. Although is that all digital media can offer? Having a computer assist in design can mean heightened speed and ease, making it easier to fit time constraints. It also makes it relatively easy to go back and correct any mistakes detected throughout the design process, something that


if manually designing, could be very time consuming going back redrawing plans. One has to ask themselves the question, do these benefits justify the hype that currently surrounds digital architecture? Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao was said to signal a turning point in the discourse, hailing the arrival of computers and computer programs in the design process of architecture. It is one of the most visually stimulating buildings of our time, although has the presence of digital media contributed to its social, or functional aspects at all? Architecture is as much a ‘philosophical, social and professional realm as a material one’. While the visual


side of a design obviously plays a critical role in public perception, just as important are the experiential, social and structural factors. This is why I am still sceptical and reserve my support for digital architecture until I have further personal experience with the subject. Digital architecture is obviously still young, and our understanding of its potential is still only scratching the surface. As we continue to nut out its issues and advance its benefits, there is a distinct excitement brewing when you consider that the possibilities that digital architecture could present in the future, in regards to new forms and concepts.





[27] Casa Batllo | Antonio Gaudi | 1877

[25] Park Guell | Antonio Gaudi | 1914





NON-EUCLIDIAN ARCHITECTURE Non-Euclidian Architecture follows the fundamentals of non-euclidean geometry, whereby the design doesn’t conform to basic straight line Euclidian rules. Rather it encourages the use of curves to create a fluid, flowing design instead of the basic straight line geometrics. This concept allowed for innovative explorations such as the Torus, the Mobius Strip and the Klein Bottle, and has paved the way for styles such as Art Nouveau

AND THE LESSONS OF ANTONIO GAUDI throughout the late 19th century and more recently 7 Modernism. Antonio Gaudi’s work throughout Barcelona employs this design technique, creating buildings that stand out due to their natural, organic appeal. Park Guell and Casa Battlo are two such examples throughout the city. Non-Euclidian Architecture is a specific discourse within computational architecture. The works of Antonio

Gaudi have provided a stepping stone for modern day designers, who implement the rules of Non-Euclidianism into their own computer based designs. Due to the computers superior ability to create and represent complex curves, the fundamentals of Non-Euclidian Architecture were always going to manifest in digital architecture, and such have become a critical component of the Computational discourse. So how can we channel our inner Antonio Gaudi and use

Non-Euclidian Geometry to great benefit in the Wyndham project? Gaudi took much of his inspiration from natural forms such as flowers and plants, and it was this inspiration that ensured an eye catching appeal to all of his designs. Considering the placement of the roadside installation amidst the relatively undeveloped area surrounding Wyndham City, the local natural form could be channeled in the design to great effect.


01.01.C |

Magnus MĂśschel & Co.



[31] The Swarm | Bavarian Chamber Of Architects | 2012

Parametric architecture presents numerous advantages to the design process, allowing users to create incredibly intricate designs through the use of graphic algorithms. It allows designers to take one step back and focus on the logic that binds the design together. Not only does it allow for alterations to be continually and easily made throughout the design process, it also makes the generation of complicated designs much 5 quicker and easier. The computerised system is able to maintain consistency between the design and its relationships, thus increasing the designers ability to explore ideas by reducing the tedious effort of rework. Despite its obvious upsides, the parametric discourse has a few disadvantages that restrict both the development process and the overall result. It has been quoted that all designs moulded through computer software are ‘aesthetically egregious’. Many argue that the end result is often overly modern, with very little recognition of historical architectural lessons. pleasure, rather than structural security. The final products are also usually expensive to build,

and may focus too much on aesthetic pleasure, rather 7 than structural security. Also, from my own personal experience, the design process is often impeded if one does not possess a very high knowledge of the computational system, and this takes time to obtain. Parametric design allows for a huge number of wild possibilities in its creations, and obviously this is going to result in a more mixed public critique of any final result. As designs are pushed to their creative extremes, people are often going to either love it or hate it. The use of parametrics on our Wyndham City project will ultimately benefit the design process and final product. Considering the placement of the proposal by the freeway, our design will need to be instantly eye catching to impress the council board. Parametric design allows for very visually appealing designs, and if we can utilise this advantage, our final will be successful.





The Indigo Deli, a restoration of an interior food court in Mumbai, India is a great example of how parametric architecture can be used to create an incredibly striking and distinctive design. The basis of the design centres around a waffle grid that has been lofted using noneuclidean sloped geometry to create the roof structure. One of the particular benefits of this type of design is the ability to utilise and control the filtering of light into the public space. As can be seen in the images, the gaps and holes in the waffle grid capture and percolate light, not only acting to reduce the specific need for electronic illumination, but also make the roof structure itself stand out with a variety of different shades of colour. Initially, this curved grid design acting as a roof was pioneered by Shigeru Ban in his Japan Pavilion built in 2000 at the Hanover Expo. More recent projects such as Baker D Chirico, a restoration on Faraday Street in Carlton and Banq Restaurant by Nader Tehran, utilise a similar parametric design approach in a very similar culinary setting. Daniel Chirico’s recent Parkville project also used a basic lofted grid to create the an aesthetically exciting facade for the interior of his bakery, with each piece rippled for added visual effect.



The Indigo Deli has taken these ideas a step further, rather than just rippling pieces of the grid, but actually rotating them at slightly altered vectors, creating open faces to the grid. They have pushed the idea of non-euclidean geometry to the extreme, rotating and extruding different sections of the grid, intertwining it as a whole into something that is so intricate and complex. In terms of the Wyndham city project, we can take many lessons from the construction and design of the Indigo Deli, and develop these



out to me is the fact that the roof plane just ideas in our own design. One thing that stands abruptly finishes, and the roof is left to be structurally supported by large columns. Instead of this the waffle grid could continue to the ground, as act as a structural member. In our own design, it is critical that it be self supporting, and it would be good if we were able to combine our aesthetic features to act as structural features as well.

[33 | 34] Indigo Deli | Sameep Padora | 2012 [35] Japan Pavilion | Shigeru Ban | 2000 [36] BanQ Restaurant | Nader Tehrani | 2008 [37] Baker D Chirico | Daniel Chirico | 2012




[39] Puppet Theatre | Pierre Huyghe | 2008






The Puppet Theatre Installation is a temporary exhibition attached to the Carpenter Centre at Harvard University, focusing on the parametric design themes of panelisation, repetition and tesselation. The intricate pattern has been created using a series of white polycarbonate triangular panels interlocked together in at a variety of sizes. Every triangle is unique with it own shape. Random triangles on the roof have been extruded upwards indenting themselves against the roof line, breaking up the monotony of the relatively otherwise basic pattern and creating skylights. The glossy, lustrous polycarbonate material instantly catches the eye. When

entering the structure it is almost like you are entering into another world or a dream, as the mottled reflection of light hits the gleaming walls. In 2002, Toyo Ito designed the temporary Serpentine Gallery Pavilion using a pattern based around different sized triangles that intertwined together to create the walls. In more recent times, the British Museum’s Great Court roof renovation by Foster & Partners has taken a basic triangular pattern, and lofted it to span such an irregular gap between the central reading room drum and the surrounding courtyard facades.

The temporary Puppet Theatre installation has continued and advanced this area of the discourse in new and exciting ways. The connections between each triangular piece are structurally stable and the distribution of forces are evenly weighted allowing the design to be free standing, while also allowing easy construction and disassembly. In terms of the Wyndham City project, an easy construction process is vital, and will appeal to the selection panel and the council’s Art in Public Buildings and Places Advisory Group. The use of polycarbonate panels was an impressive choice of material. Not only do they significantly add to

the aesthetic component of the design, they are strong enough to distribute force and allow the structure to stand. My only negative observation in terms of the Wyndham City project is that the Puppet Theatre is an ultimately an interior design, not exposed to the elements of wind and rain. The proposal will need to account for such things, and a more hardy material should be chosen, one that is still visual and structural, yet also shields itself from natural weathering. [44] Serpentine Gallery | Toyo Ito | 2002 [45] British Museum Great Court | Foster & Partners | 2010




01.02.A |

PANELISATION [46] Stalactile | P-A-T-T-E-R-N-S | 2010


My experience of parametric modelling so far has been mixed to say the least. Initially, I really had no knowledge of this area of architecture, some would say my pigheaded insistence and reliance on handdrawn designs had blinded me to a pertinent area of architecture. As we delve further into the fundamentals of computational architecture, it is without a doubt becoming more interesting to me. Initially I felt a little overwhelmed with all the new concepts and ideas, but as things become clearer I can see the obvious benefits to the endeavour. Digital architecture significantly reduces the time it takes to design, and in many cases allows for creations beyond ones own creative boundaries. In previous years, I had often fallen into the trap of

designing very rudimentary shapes, and it has only been in the past 5 weeks where I can see my design mentality begin to shift to more complex ideas, more flexible, unique ideas, a feature of parametric architecture. The idea of digital/parametric theory still seems quite foreign to me, probably because I still feel more comfortable with my own pen, but over time as my knowledge of rhino and grasshopper improve, I can see myself becoming an advocate of it, and that confession surprises even me. I have always been one for the pen and paper, but if digital media such as rhino and grasshopper continue to surprise me with the architecture they produce, and continue to stretch the boundaries of my own design limitations then it can only be a positive ingredient in the soup of my architectural mind.




[49] Dragon Skin Pavilion | LEAD | 2012 [50]

The city council is looking for a design that ‘inspires and enriches the municipality’, a design that is ‘exciting and eye catching’, a design that will adequately represent the booming outer western suburb of Wyndham City. The installation is to ‘enhance the physical environment’, ‘encourage ongoing interest in the Western Interchange’ and ultimately give drivers something to signify their entry into the growing city. These are the specifications, the constraints, and as a group we have decided that the digital technique of panelisation is the best method to successfully achieve these goals. The design characteristics of panelisation are difficult



to describe in a single sentence. As a group we were able to identify a few key features. Often, the structure will be made up of smaller, relatively basic elements that intertwine in a certain way to create a greater, more intricate whole. The perfect example of this is the Dragon Scale Pavilion above, where very simple squares have been manipulated and twisted to interlock and create a very dynamic overall form. Considering that the intended market for the roadside installation will be car users flying past at high speed, who wont be able to get a long time to study the design in detail, it is critical that we focus on the designs ability to grab

attention quickly. Panelisation creates eye catching, interesting designs, which focus on the aesthetic quality of the whole rather than the separate parts. This is perfect for an audience who only have a split second to view the installation, the focus will be on the combination of the panels, and how they work together as a whole, rather than the separate pieces. It is also an area of parametrics that suits people who are still learning digital architecture, beginning with a relatively simple idea, yet through simple manipulation can turn into something outstanding. It is strongly connected to the simple ideas of geometry and pattern,


and considering our groups relative lack of skill in computational design, we thought this is the perfect starting point for us to build upon. The structure can also be designed to be self standing using the individual components of the panels, rather than implementing specific structural members that take away from the aesthetics of the design. Through the distribution of force between the connections of the smaller panels, the structure can stand up itself. Again, the Dragon Skin Pavilion is a perfect example of this. If we can achieve this goal, it also means that the need 8 for maintenance is reduced.





[53] ZA11 Pavilion | 2011

[56] Aggregated Porosity | DAL WKSHP | 2011 [54]


As a group we have defined these as our goals - we want our structure to be self standing, ultimately relying simply on the connections between panels to support itself. We also want it to be visually attractive, and we believe that through the use of interesting panels and patterns, we can achieve this. We want to push panelisation forward in these ways, and hopefully with the assistance of grasshopper we can not only achieve these aims, but build upon them to create something truly special. ZA11 Pavilion combines the ideas of panelisation with perception, where the users inside the structure are


gifted with a ‘privileged point of view’. In other words, each panel has been extruded toward a central point within the design, so when you stand on this point, the face of each panel is open and you can see through 9 them all. This opens up so many ideas with the design proposal, most obviously using this technique to reveal something to represent the city of Wyndham as the driver passes by. Whether it be a natural form behind the structure, a message, or an image, the idea that the driver will be gifted this view for only a second or two really interests me. I intend to push this idea further in the future.

The example of the Aggregated Porosity by Biao Hu and Yu Du is a great example of how each panel can not only interact, but combine together to create the perception of movement and fluidity when in fact the construct remains still. The connection of small differently sized diamond panels contribute to an overall 10 design that appears almost in motion. Despite the intricacy of the design, the viewer is able to instantly identify this fluidity, this perceived movement. At first glance the viewer isn’t overwhelmed by the small details, but rather in awe of the overall design. This is what we want to achieve and build upon

Panelisation gives us scope to our design, allowing us to explore many different ideas and thought processes, to fully experience the possibilities of digital architecture, and hopefully achieve a great final result at the same time.



35. JA65, Japan Pavilion Expo 2000 [photograph] accessed from [] on 3/09/12 36. Wayfaring Travel Guide, Banq Restaurant [photograph] accessed from [] on 03/09/12

1. Ten Selden, Ian (2012) [photograph] accessed from [] on 09/08/12

37 | 38. Leeda Projects, Baker D Chirico, [photograph] accessed from [] on 03/09/12

2. Ten Selden, Ian (2012) [photograph] accessed from [] on 09/08/12

39 | 40 | 41. Architectural Scholar, Harvard’s Carpender Centre gets a Puppet Theatre (09/06/08) [photograph] accessed from [ au/2008/06/harvards-carpender-center-gets-puppet.html] on 18/08/12

3. AWR, Metropol Parasol, (16/11/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 27/08/12 4 | 5. Europaconcorti, Progetti: Metropol Parasol, (16/05/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 27/08/12 6 | 7 | 8 | 9. Archdaily, Grande Stade De Casablanca / NBBJ & Yassir Khalil Studio, (27/10/11) [photograph], accessed from [] on 6/08/12 10. Mondo Arc, The Bird’s Nest Stadium, Beijing, China, Issue 44 (Aug/Sept 2008) [photograph] accessed from [ the_birds_nest_stadium_beijing_china.html] on 27/08/12 11. The Russian Enigma, London 2012 > Sochi 2014 (15/07/10) [photograph] accessed from [] on 27/08/12

42 | 43. Atelier 29, Puppet Theatre for Harvard’s Carpenter Centre (10/10/09) accessed from [ html] on 18/08/12 44. TDAic, Toyo Ito: Generative Order (08/03/08) [photograph] accessed from [] on 03/09/12 45. Wikimedia, British Museum Great Court MG 4743.jpg [photograph] accessed from [] on 03/09/12 46. No Coast Creative, Stalactile [photograph] accessed from [] on 01/09/12 47 | 48. Archinect, Student Works:Stalactile, Tessellated Manifolds [photograph] accessed from [] on 01/09/12

12. Arch20, Riverside Museum | Zaha Hadid Architects (18/09/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 16/08/12

49 | 50 | 51 | 53 | 54. Archdaily, Dragon Skin Pavilion / Emmi Keskisarja, Pekka Tynkkynen & LEAD (10/03/12) [photograph] accessed from [ dragon-skin-pavilion-emmi-keskisarja-pekka-tynkkynen-lead/] on 30/08/12

13. Bustler, Zaha Hadid’s Riverside Museum Wins European Museum Academy Micheletti Award 2012 (07/05/12) [photograph] accessed from [ php/article/zaha_hadids_riverside_museum_wins_european_museum_academy_micheletti_award_/] on 16/08/12

52. Modular, Dragon Skin Pavilion by LEAD [photograph] accessed from [] on 30/08/12

14. Hadid, Zaha, Glasgow Riverside Museum of Transport [photograph] accessed from [] on 16/08/12 15. 48 Hour Adventure, 48 Hours in Glasgow (14/12/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 16/08/12 16. Paperdog, Glasgow Riverside Museum of Transport [photograph] accessed from [] on 16/08/12 17 | 18 | 19. Design Home Online, Breaking Industrial Neighbourhood Patterns: Umicore Office Buildings in Belgium (03/12/11) [photograph] accessed from [http://www.] on 13/09/12 20. Archdaily, Vanity Fair’s World Architecture Survey (07/07/10) [photograph] accessed from [] on 18/08/12 21. Wikimedia, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (07/10) [photograph] accessed from [,_Bilbao,_ July_2010_%2806%29.JPG] on 18/08/12 22. La Vie Francais, Guggenheim, Bilbao, Spain (16/06/10) [photograph] accessed from [] on 18/08/12 23. Wallpapers Wide, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Wallpaper [photograph] accessed from [] on 13/09/12 24. Wallpapers Wide, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Wallpaper [photograph] accessed from [] on 13/09/12 25. Oswell, Paul, The One Minute Guide To… Park Guell, Barcelona [photograph] accessed from [] on 08/09/12 26. Losewitz, Mark, (2012) [photograph] Park Guell, taken by myself on 15 June 2012 27. Flickriver, Casa Batllo (11/04/07) [photograph] accessed from [] on 09/09/12 28., Barcelona - Casa Batllo Chandelier [photograph] accessed from [] on 09/09/12 29. Losewitz, Mark, (2012) [photograph] Casa Batllo, taken by myself on 15 June 2012 30. Wings of Wilderness, Hola, Esto es Espana (04/06/2012) [photograph] accessed from] on 09/09/12 31. Schmidt, Wieland, Swarm 3 on Grasshopper 3D (25/03/12) [photograph] accessed from [] on 22/08/12 32. Evolo, Parametric Designed Pavilion: The Swarm (11/03/12) [photograph] accessed from [] on 18/08/12 33 | 34. Padora, Sameep, IndigoDeli_1_Sameep Padora& Associates (08/09/10) [photograph] accessed from [] on 18/08/12

53. Design Playgrounds, CLJ02: Za11 Pavilion [photograph] accessed from [] on 13/09/12 54 | 55. Archdaily, ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrik Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan (05/07/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 13/09/12 56. Design Playgrounds, Aggregated Porosity DAL WKSHP [photograph] accessed from [] on 11/09/12 57. Evolo, Aggregated Porosity Workshop explores changing densities (29/08/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 11/09/12



1. Archdaily, (27/10/11) Grande Stade De Casablanca / NBBJ & Yassir Khalil Studio [online] available at [] accessed on 06/08/12 2. Archdaily, (01/09/08) Inside Herzog & De Meuron Bird’s Nest [online] available at [] accessed on 27/08/12 3. POPULOUS, Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics & Paralympic Games [online] available at [] accessed on 27/08/12 4. Zaha Hadid Architects, Glasgow Riverside Museum of Transport [online] available at [] accessed on 18/08/12 5. AJ, (06/05/10) Patrik Schumacher on parametricism - ‘Let the style wars begin’ [online] available at [] accessed on 14/08/12 6. nz Architecture, (25/09/10) Digital Morphogenesis - Patrik Schumacher - Parametricism [online] available at [ jsp?tabGroup=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FcontentWrapper.jsp%3Fcontent_id%3D_3605437_1%26displayName%3DLinked%2BFile%26cour %252F09%252F25%252Fpatrik-schumacher-parametricism%252F] accessed on 14/08/12 7. Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28, accessed on 14/08/12 8. Archdaily, Dragon Skin Pavilion / Emmi Keskisarja, Pekka Tynkkynen & LEAD (10/03/12) [online] available at [] accessed on 30/08/12 9. Archdaily, ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan (05/07/11) [online] available at [] accessed on 10/09/12 10. Design Boom, (27/08/11) Digital Architecture Laboratory: Aggregated Porosity [online] available at [] accessed on 10/09/12

01.02.B |

RECREATING THE VOUSSOIR CLOUD Arquigrafia, Voissoir Cloud - Iwamoto + Scott (03/07/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on







The Voussoir Cloud is a site specific installation built in 2008 by Iwamoto Scott Architects, intended to be appreciated from above and within. It ‘explores the structural paradigm of pure compression coupled with 11 an ultra-light material system’. From observation, the cloud has been created using lofted catenary curves centred around and supported by five vaults. On this lofted surface a tessellated pattern of delaunay triangles has been placed and then the edges extruded at vector point determined by the direction of the face of the curve. Particular triangles have been left out, leaving gaps through which light is able to filter through. This not only illuminates the area


underneath the cloud, it also significantly adds to the visual appeal of the pattern. Structurally, the vaults rely on themselves and the three surrounding walls to retain their pure compressive form, each small triangular piece emits force to those surrounding it, maintaining the shape of the structure avoiding it caving in on itself. The folded thin wood laminate material is lightweight and easily manipulated, allowing for relatively simple construction in a short amount of time. Being a temporary installation, the design intent of the project is difficult to discern. Being a public exhibition, it would have been the designers goal to publicize the


design to as many people as possible, and considering that it is part of the Design Studio: Air course across the other side of the world, they have been successful. To be viewed from above and below means that the design must be experiential, you can walk within it, and the pattern must be visually on both sides. This has been achieved. On a strictly visual front, the name suggests that the design look like a cloud, which it does. Overall, the designers have succeeded in fulfilling all of the design intentions. One criticism I can find is that the structure itself is not self standing, and this relates directly to the Wyndham


City proposal. This was one of the designers intentions, and while the panels themselves are under load and support themselves to an extent through the five vaults, the Cloud still relies on the surrounding walls to maintain stability. Our design must be a free standing structure near the freeway, exposed to elements such as rain and wind. This is something we must consider in the next step of our design progression, as we manipulate and develop the form of the Voussoir Cloud, and it is a distinct aim to make sure that the tessellated pattern is transferring the full load of the structure to the ground effectively.





Our first attempt ended up being more exploratory than informed. Ultimately, our group had very little idea how to go about solving this design problem, the Voissoir Cloud was without a doubt a daunting task. We analyzed the form of the Cloud and decided that this was the best place to start. We began by creating basic circles, which we hoped would form the basis of the five vaults.

We divided each circle into five points around its axis, and using the ‘closest point’ function on grasshopper, we attempted to attach catenary curves from one circle to another. While we were able to connect a few curves, we immediately knew that the frequency of catenary curves was vastly lower than what we needed, we needed curves vaulting to a huge variety of different points to create such an undulating form. We were unable to increase the frequency of these around the base of the vaults, and unable to control where they curved to, closest point had them all going to the same place. Ultimately this was the downfall of attempt 1.

By lofting the catenary curves together we were able to create a form that had definite similarities to the Voissoir Cloud, although many alterations still needed to be made in order to continue in its recreation. It was a good starting point, but definitely not close enough to call it a success.

FAILED Attempt 1 failed not only because we didn’t have the number of curves necessary, but also because we didn’t have curves vaulting to the side wall, like the Voissoir Cloud. To counter this, we decided to create a rectangle raised on the z-axis above the base circles. From this we hoped to not only vault the curves from circle to circle, but also from circle to raised rectangle.

We divided the rectangle into evenly spaced points along its length, and vaulted curves from the base circle to the created point along this rectangle. Not only did this fail to recreate the general form of the Cloud, but we had curves vaulting between the furthest possible points, which totally baffled us.

We added curves between base circles, but didn’t even bother lofting it, it was obviously very wrong.




We persisted with the idea. This time instead of vaulting curves to all the assigned points around the rectangle, we created a script in grasshopper that vaulted a curve from each point on the base circle to the closest point on the rectangle. This initially seemed to produce positive results, if not a bit too high.

We attempted to integrate the other circles into the equation, and that is where the issues began to arise. We began to lose the good distribution of vaults, rather we had three or four curves all going to the same point either on the rectangle or a nearby circle. And we also began to realise that if we continued to vault curves between circles, we would begin to have overlapping curves between them that would interupt and ruin the subsequent loft.

We began to realize that our idea was failing. We couldn’t seem to successfully recreate the form of the Voissoir Cloud through vaulting curves. We lofted anyway, to see what it would look like, and the result was as crude as we expected. Our group came to the conclusion that this failure was not the fault of the computer, rather it was our own. Grasshopper was doing as it was told, we had not accounted that the ‘closest point’ function would be in many cases come up with the same point. This was a learning experience.

FAILED This was our final attempt before we decided to seek assistance from Finn. After analyzing The Voissoir Cloud further, we realized that catenary curves were not lofted using closest point, so we decided to attach them manually. Rather than using circles as the base, we decided to change to a point, from which as many vaults as we like can arise. The curves came out perfectly, and we were really pleased with the form that seemed to be developing. It was very similar to the Cloud.

We lofted the central area between each base point, and then lofted the area surrounding this, hoping that both lofts would match up and create the iconic undulation that the Voissoir Cloud possesses. We were unsuccessful, as can be seen in the final vector drawing, where our result looks more like a vintage 80’s hat than an architectural structure. We were close, but the loft was closing in on itself underneath, the connection to the surrounding rectangle was incorrect, and lofts overlapped within the structure, restricting movement within it. We decided that we needed a totally different approach, deadlines were looming and we were falling very far behind our timeframe targets. We needed a better solution and fast, or we risked a total breakdown.



Under the careful guidance of our tutors, we developed a new approach. We began with five basic octagonal shapes drawn on rhino, locked together at similar points where the edges of adjacent shapes meet. These meeting points highlighted above would create the vaults, once lofted.

We divided the octagons with a line between opposing edges, in order to successfully identify the mid point of the shape in order to create catenary curves from side to side.

In order to delete overlapping lofted area, ultimately opening up the interior area, allowing for movement within the space, we differenced the bRep from a newly created cutting box, in order to extract the planar curves. This gave us our completed overall shape.

We created the catenary curves, and lofted them to create working bRep’s.

We drew a relatively simple pattern on rhino, slightly dilated triangles similar to the plates of the Dragon Skin Pavilion, and then mapped this pattern directly onto the surface. The result was pleasing, and while obviously differences to the Voissoir Cloud were apparent, we were content to consider this our completed recreation.


The Voissoir Cloud proved very difficult to recreate in Grasshopper and Rhino, as can be seen from the multiple failed attempts and dead ends. Our final result, mirrors some of the defining characteristics of the Cloud, although the differences are also very apparent. In terms of shape we were able to relatively successfully recreate the flowing lofted catenary curves that act as the roof, although each loft stands alone with supports to the ground, creating five separate spaces within that are not accessible from the outside or each other, reducing the designs experiential qualities and completely revoking the ability to view the cloud from below. This was a result of mapping the pattern onto the


surface. This also results in the lofts not really flowing together as a roof, they remain five separate entities, and this is particularly evident when looking at the design. In terms of the tessellated pattern which has been placed on the loft, The Voissoir Cloud has used delauney triangles, while we were only able to produce relatively simple curved triangles. While ultimately a different shape, we were still able to alter the sizes of the triangles, getting smaller as you get closer to the top. Each piece in the recreation is hollow, rather than solid, which I believe significantly reduces the visual experience.

Structural stability is very important in the design of the Cloud, and our recreation makes an effort to mirror this. Each triangle is attached to three others surrounding it, with forces being transferred from the smaller pieces to the stronger larger pieces at the bottom. Obviously our design is relatively simple and gives us much scope to develop and improve on ideas. Our goal is to create a self standing structure, supported solely by the connections between panels, similar to the Dragon Skin Pavilion. In order to do this we will need to reconsider our connections, whether each one will overlap in some way or similar to the Voissoir Cloud,

have small bolts holding each one to its neighbours. The design also needs to be more eye catching. This can be achieved in a number of ways, employing the use of colour, solidify the panels, fabricating them in alternate sizes, altering the overall shape of the design or including a visual component in a similar manner to the ZA11 Pavilion. These are our goals for our design as we progress, and if we can incorporate them in alignment with client expectations and constraints of the site, we will hopefully produce a very effective design.

01.02.C |


Shape of the recreation was the first aspect to alter. We experimented with a range of heights and lengths, all changeable through a number slider on grasshopper. Increasing the height makes it look out of proportion, and would be overbearing on the site. Increaing the length makes little difference, and could be used to adapt design to site requirements in the future.

Initially modifying the pattern, we experimented with rudimentary shapes such as stars and rocks, but the result was much too literal, something specifically told to avoid. The use of hexagons that interlock together is more effective. Its sharp edges make it eye catching. Could also be made structural. A good one to consider! In a similar method to the pathway above, we are able to change the scale of pattern through different mapping strategies. The smaller scale pattern makes it look like a honeycomb, it is visually stimulating and definately structural. A good development. The larger scale alterations are really interesting, but structurally they would be impossible to make stable. This very visually stimulating development arose from an interesting mapping method of circles within circles. Further progression reduced the length of each dome, resulting in the ‘sailboats’ design. Personally I love it. I think not only is it interesting, but with further development it could tie into the history of Wyndham and suit the site perfectly. It could also be made structural.


We experimented with the extrusion length and direction to give the design added visual qualities, in order to grab passers by. The example in blue is extruded at a central vector point within the design. This idea of a priveledge point of view could be expanded upon in the future, and could be very effective in revealing something about Wyndham to the driver, if only briefly...

Another interesting adaptation that arose totally by chance, as we attempted different mapping techniques. While just random forms, i have a distinct liking to them, there visual and really draw the eye, especially the second from the right. In terms of structure they would be nearly impossible to build.

This row of alterations builds on from the ‘sailboats’ idea earlier. Elements have been moved around and length of each has been altered. The second from the right grabs my attention. Its very basic, but something about it seems to suit the site, it looks like a road side intallation already. Could be an idea to work on..

I added these two relatively random developments in because of their visual aspects. Obviously it would be impossible to fabricate, but the overall visual themes of either one is really interesting. I love how the lines work together to create an overall form.









The Proof of Concept chosen represents structural continuity, has an basic aesthetic appeal and represents a small step towards our overall aims set out earlier in the semester. Although, due to constraints such as fabrication, our hand was ultimately forced when it came to deciding which development was best, and to be honest I feel like other options were more interesting and may present more options in the future. Our chosen Proof Of Concept displayed above is relatively unchanged from the initial recreation of the Voissoir Cloud. The shape is exactly the same, only really the visual pattern has been altered to a sharper, hexagonal design. No real effort has been made to significantly develop either the structural components or visual elements of the chosen

development. Our Matrix I believe is quite strong, and has a range of different interesting options, but almost all of them are impossible to fabricate, due usually to a ‘meshing’ of lines. In particular the ‘Sail Boat’ development is visually stimulating and with work could be made structurally sound, but upon inspection it was found to be impossible to fabricate, there were just too many lines to work with. This was a huge blow to our group. At this point in time I am worried about the response we will receive at the mid semester critique. But ultimately we have no other option but to present this Proof Of Concept, because it seems at this point that this is the only one that we can successfully make to satisfy the fabrication requirements.

01.02.D |


Fabrication turned out to be a disaster. Not only did we struggle with the tedious task of converting our design to flattened, printable rhino files, we underestimated the difficulty of putting it all together, and made it at a ridiculously small scale. This resulted in an underwhelming final model that personally I don’t believe fully represented the hard work we put in. In order to flatten our grasshopper script, we had to download the plug ins provided by on the ExLab site. This allowed us to flatten each panel of the design to a 2D printable shape, create a useful grid to which we could insert our flattened panels and then create individual tabs on each piece. It was then a simple procedure to bake the grasshopper files into the rhino file provided by the FabLab, and label each line as either a cut or a sear. One area we were unsuccessful with was labelling each piece with a number. We tried endlessly with the grasshopper script but could not insert cumulative

number sequence on each panel to help us know where each piece goes throughout fabrication. This significantly hindered our progress, particularly when constructing the upper section of the model where each piece is minuscule. When we fabricate our final at the end of semester, we will definitely add in a number sequence, we now see how critical this step is to the fabrication process. So what else did we learn from this exercise? The larger the scale, the better representation of the structural continuity of the design. At such a small scale it was difficult to tell if the structure was adequately supporting itself. We will also be aware of fabrication expectations through our design process, and as we continue to develop and critique or design, in the back of our mind we will be aware that we have to actually build it come final crit, and we want this process to be as easy and convenient as possible.

01.02.E |






[53] ZA11 Pavilion | 2011

[49] Dragon Skin Pavilion | LEAD | 2012

Throughout the semester thus far, our group has strived to realise two particular goals in our design, and our progression and development to this point has been sculpted around these.



The ZA11 Pavilion is a student designed and built construct that uses extrusion at a particular vector to allow for a priveledge point for those standing within the design. Our design experiments with extrusions, although not to the depth and success of the ZA11. In the future weeks we hope to come up with something of similar ilk, that captures the imagination of the viewer, is interesting and introduces a particular visual element that reinforces the designs intent.


The Dragon Skin Pavilion, above, fulfills both of these goals. It is a self standing dwelling, experiential from both the inside and out, that relies on the connections between panels to stand alone. The overlap allows for adequate load distribution. The panels not only ensure structure, they are also incredibly aesthetic, working together to create an overall form that instantly catches the eye.




[58] Voissoir Cloud | Iwamoto Scott | 2011

[63] Sheer Wall | Jesse Piatila | 2010


‘‘IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN BRIEF, PANELISATION IS THE PERFECT METHOD TO NOT ONLY CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE, BUT ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAN INTERACT WITH THE TARGET AUDIENCE DIRECTLY, THE DRIVERS’’ The Sheer Wall has used a very similar design technique to the one we used to create our Proof Of Concept. Its pattern is formed throughout joining hollow shapes, with each one extruded in a slightly different direction to give the impression of movement, or fluidity. It also restricts view in particular areas of the design, where the extrusions interupt the eyes line of sight.



The Voissoir Cloud was our primary precedent. The basics of our design are mirrored straight from its successes, and we have aspired for many weeks now to recreate these successes in our own redeveloped way.

To be honest, I dont think we deserve it at all. At this point our design is evidently still just a concept, it is far from a finished product to be presented to a crit and it requires a lot more refining before it is any semblance of a final. Only two weeks before the mid semester presentation we were still developing our idea, still coming up with our focus areas and interests. I understand that architecture is a profession that works to deadlines, but for this project at least I feel we need a little bit more time to nurture our ideas.

Our concept has positives, to which we can develop further in the coming weeks. If we can achieve a self standing structure, that will significantly reduce the need for maintenance on site. Our matrix presented some very visual experiments aswell, and if we can combine these two features together we will have a design that will be very desirable. ‘Visual, Experiential and Structural’, those are our goals, and we believe that if achieved this will directly appeal to the council board.





MID SEMESTER REVIEW THE WAKE UP CALL This week has provided time to step away from design studio: Air, to have a break and gather my thoughts. Time away is often a critical step when you hit a wall, when you cant seem to move forward a break can refresh you, resulting in a fresh mindset which paves the way for a new way forward. It can give new life to a project, instead of being obstinate about your concepts you can once again look on your own work with a critical eye inciting new and creative ideas. The response from the mid semester critique was underwhelming at best. Our design was criticized for lack of refinement; it apparently failed in the goals we had initially set out of structural stability and aesthetic appeal. The model was too small to adequately represent if the concept was structurally stable, was poorly made and didn’t exhibit a sound understanding of fabrication. Visually the pattern we had employed was too basic, and no real visual element was really introduced, such as a privilege point of view. The tutors were careful not to totally destroy our spirit, but were forceful enough in their words to suggest that our concept needed further refinement before our path forward was revealed. They said we were stuck in our approach, we had ideas and goals but had done little to develop it into a true concept, they seemed to realise we had really hit a wall. Initially, I was angry to hear this. We had put so much time into constructing it on the computer despite our lack of grasshopper skills, making it fabricateable, fighting through heartbreaking failures and unsuccessful attempts. I was also disappointed that our proposed concept wasn’t the culmination of our ideas. In the 50 developments we had many other concepts that we chose, attempted to develop, only to realise that it was either impossible to fabricate due to ‘meshing’, or in our minds, too much of a final product already to develop further into a better refined result. We kept being pushed back and back, until the design we chose was only a few steps in front of our recreated Voissoir Cloud. It was difficult to stand up in front of the class and present a concept that you know doesn’t represent the work you put into it, isn’t to your full potential. So when the critics said the words i knew i was going to hear, it was finally realising my failures without any justifiable excuse. It took me a week away from the subject to mull what the tutors had said over, and to admit to myself that they were exactly correct. I had initially been blinded by deadlines, stress and failures into believing that our design deserved praise. With a new refreshed outlook, i can now tackle the subject with a more level headed rational approach. Our troubles began in Week 6, when we were unable to successfully develop our recreation into our own idea, we had confined ourself by the Voissoir Cloud, and were unable to move away from it into something

new. I feel as though the course is partly to blame for this, making us choose particular computational themes and recreate a piece that represents this theme, it became hard to consider anything outside this confined box of the Voissoir Cloud. We had tried so hard to recreate it; it seems stupid to stray away from its ideas. This reluctance to step away from the Cloud, combined with a distinct lack of time, only two weeks, our lack of grasshopper skills and the ambiguity of the course expectations resulting in a less than desirable final product in the mid semester presentation. But the beauty is we still have 4 weeks, we still have goals and ideas that are relevant to the topic, and we have time to right the ship and correct the issues we have brought upon ourselves. We have had our wake up call, and its time to move forward. From here we must develop our own concept, one that isn’t constrained by the Voissoir Cloud, one that both represents structural and aesthetic themes and satisfies the constraints of the brief and the site, something we will look at in the coming weeks. Also rather than identifying our themes as ‘structural’ and ‘visual’, as we did in the crit, we need to streamline this into an actual idea. We need to develop these further so that these words can be replaced with ‘overlapping plates that distribute load’ and ‘privileged point of view’. Once we have these we will rid the design from its current ambiguity and we will have opened a new door, giving ourselves a path toward our final product. This is what we should have done in Week 6, but better late than never, we will have to do it now. I’m glad we had the mid semester crit, it has opened my eyes to our issues and failures. We have our path now, only time will tell if we will be successful in the development of our final design.



58 | 60 | 61 | 63 | 64 | 65. Triangulation, Voissoir Cloud (07/06/11) [photograph] accessed from [] on 30/08/12 59. Rotwang Haus, Voussoir Cloud (10/11/10) [photography] accessed from [] on 30/08/12 62. Archdaily, Voissoir Cloud / IwamotoScott (15/08/12) [photography] accessed from [] on 12/09/12 63. DMY International Design Festival Berlin, Jesse Pietila [photograph] accessed through [] on 18/09/12 ALL IMAGES TAKEN OF OUR MODEL WERE TAKEN BY MATT AMBLER (2012) ON THE 12/09/12



11. Triangulation, Voissoir Cloud (07/06/11) [online] accessed from [] on 30/08/12



[64] Eastern Freeway Lights | Scottphotographics | 2012



[66] Gateway Sculpture | Unknown Architect | 2012

- Going back to look into what we are expected

[65] Installation on the Craigeburn Bypass | Bonzle | 2012

Upon completion of the EOI it was clear that we hadnt addressed the brief to an adequate degree. We lacked the clear direction that comes with breaking down the brief. Ultimately we had focused to much on refining and experimenting with grasshopper that we lost the context of our design, where it will sit and how it will be grounded to the site. So we as a group, sat down to define the criteria for the design again, and to outline the main characteristics to hopefully set us back on the right path. These were our notes NATURAL SPACE - The site is directly between Melbourne and Geelong, it exists as a natural connection between the two major metropolis’s in the state. Wyndham, while urban growth is a major sticking point, its beautiful natural heritage and links to nearby mountains cant be overlooked. MOVEMENT OF DRIVERS - The only audience to the design will be flying past at 100km/h. We have to find a way to convey the message of the design in a very short amount of time, or conversly, make the design large enough to stretch a significant stretch of road so that the driver had enough time to view it and take it all in.

ENCROACHMENT OF HOUSING - Urban growth is Wyndham’s major calling card, apart from this it has very little going for it. We all agree that growth must be incorporated into the design somehow, whether it is represented in the design, or acts to reinforce or contrast it. We discussed the idea of contrasting urban growth, and all agree that it could be a very interesting take on the brief. To have the design exist within a soon to be ultra urban area, somehow remaining as a beacon to Wyndham’s natural past - This is something we hope to look into as the

semester draws to a close.

MAINTAINING OUR PROGRESSION OF DEVELOPMENT THUS FAR - While our failures were evident in the EOI presentation, we are all very keen on keeping the basis of our ideas in tact, and building on what we have, rather than starting over. 1. Structural stability. 2. Visual aesthetics. 3. Relationship with drivers. These have been our main goals so far this semester, and they will remain so as we continue forward. To restart now would be wasting much time and effort that we have sacrificed to this point. Hopefully, with a clear head and new brief-conscious path, we can merge our achievements and goals into something successful.


As can be seen in this diagram, the concept of folding allows us to create dynamic arching forms from a single piece of flat board. Through the principles of origami and folding each side of the flat plane, we should be able to create archs that sit together to create a tunnel similar to that of the Cardboard Banquet. The real benefit of this is in its construction. If successful,


we will be able to create our roadside installation from only a few large pieces, rather than going through the long process of connecting each individual panel.

One of our major failures in the EOI was our poor fabrication methods. This benefit to folding will totally rid us of any hassles with construction, and will also make transportation to the site easier on the back of trucks.

02.01.B | [68] Cardboard Banquet | Studio 2 | 2009

[67] Cardboard Banquet | Studio 2 | 2009

This week our group, under the encouragement from our tutor Finn, have decided to move in a new direction away from panalisation to the concepts and ideas of Folding (Origami). It is important to our group that we still keep the relevent and quality aspects of our design, although unfortunately panelisation was not giving us the full range of opportunities that we were looking for in terms of our initial set of goals, so we were forced to look

elsewhere for inspiration.

BENEFITS OF FOLDING - The benefits of folding mainly centre around ease of fabrication. We had many issues with our model at EOI, and with our limited knowledge of grasshopper, we were unable to successfully find the right position for each panel. One of our new goals after mid semester was to re-evaluate fabrication, and make sure our new design is easy to put together on site. Folding, as illustrated in the small diagram in the top right corner, allows construction

of folded origami style arches from single sheets of material. Rather than finding the correct position for an innumberable number of panels, a folded design only needs 10 to 15 large arched segments that can be easily connected to one another to create an interesting whole structure. THE CARDBOARD BANQUET - An example of a structure designed through ‘folding’. It is experiential, people are able to move inside the structure which relates directly to our brief and the idea of cars moving underneath overhead arched members. In the image to the right, it is clear that each arch is not one complete unit, rather it appears to be smaller pieces connected together to create each arch. I think we can improve on the efficency of the design by folding one larger piece to achieve the same results. This would

significantly reduce construction time and effort, but will need to be structurally tested to ensure stability.






The Emperor’s Origami Lung is a conceptual urban design creation with its basis in the ideas of Folding. This piece was suggested by Finn earlier this week, to give us an idea of the possibilities within the Folding area of design, building on our previous expolorations. My initial impressions of the piece was that it was of no relevence to our scheme. Purely on a first impression basis, the design seems to be set in the wrong context of an urban landscape, and finds inspiration in the growth and development of flowers. The whole project just seemed to futuristic and unrealistic, and hence for the first couple of days i completely disregarded it.

[69] Emperor’s Origami Lung | Thomas Hillier | 2010


Upon further inspection throughout this week, as we began to create our grasshopper definition, the advantages of the Emperor’s Origami Lung began to reveal themselves. The majority of Folding techniques are completed in a relatively rudimentary basic structure, similar to that of the Cardboard Banquet, where a single piece is folded into segments of diamonds with a central axis line down the middle, resulting in the same visual look every time. The Emperors Origami Lung is completely new in its form, and attacks Folding head on with very complex and unique folds. They are very visually appealing, although i would guess impossible to recreate.

The question we must ask ourselves is how we can build on the ideas presented in the Emperor’s Origami Lung, without actually being able to directly copy the folding techniques. Considering The Lung sits within an urban centre, the site specifics also dont suit our proposal. One particular area we hope to build on from the Lung is idea of creating an undulating form that isnt necessarily symettrical or regular. Each ‘spore’ within the Lung is relatively regular in its shape, and i feel as though with more experimentation with shape, a more interesting form could have been achieved. In our design, to ensure an interest level for passing

by drivers, the shape of the structure needs to be as undulating and irregular as possible. The more it moves around, comes in to meet the driver then rises away, the more movement the driver picks up in the corner of his eye as he passes by, the more effective the design will be in grabbing the persons attention and subsequently people will engage with the design more. Obviously, our one concern is that we dont want to interupt the driver to the point where he/she takes his eyes of the road and endangers their own life. This must be considered in the final proposal.



L.E.A.D ARCHITECTS [73] Straight Edge Pavillion | L.E.A.D | 2010


An incredibly influential precedent project that we looked into was the Straight Edge Pavilion, once again designed by L.E.A.D architects who also designed and built the Dragon Skin Pavilion, a project that we took inspiration from earlier in the semester. Quoted by L.E.A.D as a ‘highly experimental wooden structure’ built in only 7 days from C.N.C water jet cut pieces of 7mm plyboard. The structure consists of cubesegments distributed onto a double-curved surface. The straight cube-edge allows for very strong plywood connections using a standard, hand-nailed box joint. By having the opposing edges not connecting orthogonally,



a double curved surface can be created and L.E.A.D architects were able to produce an algorithmic procedure to calculate and distribute cube-segments onto the surface, and automate the generation of production drawings. A major feature of the Straight Edge Pavilion is its experiential quality. The connections between each cube edge create an arching structure that stands alone without assistance from supports. One can move within the structure, to view the folding pattern from within. This directly relates to the brief of the Wyndham roadside installation. If we could recreate a similar arching tunnel over the road using a similar method of cube edge

connections, that can be viewed by drivers from within. There are a few areas though that i believe we can improve on the design, to tailor it to our specific brief. The Straight Edge Pavilion is made from 519 unique pieces that had to be labelled and then tediously put together like a puzzle. One of our main goals now its to make fabrication relatively easy, so small pieces are unacceptable. If we can somehow connect each small piece into one over-arching piece, reducing the number from 519 to approximately 15 or so larger arches. This would reduce construction time and effort considerably and is a legitimate goal that i believe with the use of grasshopper we can accomplish.

The form of the structure is also relatively rudimentary. It would significantly add to the visual aesthetics of the design if the ridge undulated up and down rather than collapsing inwards. From within an undulating form would look much more interesting. Finally, if we are able to lift one of the edges off the ground, allowing sight lines from within the structure to the outside, this would allow light into the design and reduce the feeling of claustrophobia. Perforations within each honeycomb panel would also allow light to filter within.

02.01.C |

ON SITE ANALYSIS [78] Site A | Matt Ambler | 2012

SITE A [79] Site A | Matt Ambler | 2012








These images are of Site A, taken by Matt Ambler, from an assortment of angles, necessary in order to analyse and work out how our design will sit on the hill. Image 1 gives a good idea of the general size of the site, with the photo taken from the overpassing road near the service station to the north. Things to note from this image - The space between vegetation and road is limited, so our design if overhanging across the road will need to be structurally supported well in from the road. Image 3 shows how prominent the You Yang mountains are to the site, almost dominating the horizon view to the north west. The Macedon Ranges are also clearly evident on the horizon line, as can be seen on the right side of the panorama at the bottom of the page. Image 4 is the best image we had to show the beauty of the rolling hills that surround the site. One thing that is particularly evident when at the site is how expansive the land is, with very little development directly adjacent to the site. It is actually very beautiful. Obviously, with Wyndham’s rapidly growing culture of urban development, this land will soon be overrun and destroyed.


SITE A We decided that Site A is the most suitable position for our design. Having visited the site, it is clear that the middle of the road recieves the most exposure from passing traffic on either sides of the road. Views to the other sites B and C are often restricted from the central hill that exists in site A, approximately 4-6 metres high. Considering that people in cars are the only audience to this design, maximum exposure will be centrally upon the hill in Site A, so that is where we intend to place it. The natural formation of the hill gives us the perfect stage on which to place our design, crowning it as the centrepiece sculpture in the area.




These images project the urban growth surrounding the site within the next 30 years. At present housing only reaches the tip of the image, approximately 500 metres from our site. Although within the next 30 years, considering Wyndham as the most rapidly growing area in the state, it is reasonable to suggest that the entire area surrounding the site will be engulfed by mid-level urban housing proposals to cater for the booming population. In 30 years time, housing will reduce sight lines to all the major natural features within the area, not to mention destroying the beautiful flat pastures that exists their today. The natural surroundings will be completely destroyed by housing development, and this will completely alter the feel of the site in the future. This must be considered in our design.






In order to create a relatively complex folding definition on grasshopper, we were forced to do much research of case studies that had been completed before us to give us an idea of where to start. <> This website suggested by Finn was critical in our development of our final presentation.



Extra linework was removed to clean up the structure and make it fabricatable.

6 The areas in between each folded arch were mapped aswell to make the structure whole.

We started with basic irregular curves using the create loft tool then creating curves on this initial loft. This created the overall form of our structure.

5 A new set of curves were drawn, slightly offset from the initial ones, to create the parameters for the folding technique.


3 We began to create the first edges of folding, through connecting points on the curves.

This was continued until we had completed 5 arches, with spaces in between for the other 4 arches.

Each panel of the folded arch was done one by one on every second arch along the length of the structure.

DEVELOPMENT OF FORM After our visit to the site, and analysis of nearby land use and natural forms, we were able to decipher an overall form for our structure that took into account not only the natural features of the landscape, but also integrated our theme of Folding. With the growth and urban expansion in the area surrounding the site in recent years, it is expected that this intrusion will continue into the natural landscape within the next couple of years, until the whole area is outer suburban development. The iconic flat natural landscape that we loved so much will be totally gone, replaced with housing estates. The views of the nearby Macedon Ranges and the You Yangs will be no longer. The natural environment will be devastated by the urban development of man, and from this we stumbled across our design intention A DESIGN THAT EXISTS AS A REMINDER OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE SITE, CREATING AN AXIS LINE BETWEEN THE MAJOR NATURAL POINTS OF REFERENCE WITHIN THE AREA.

The form of our design is a combination of its two points of reference and inspiration. One on hand, the overall form of the You Yang mountains has been recreated, in an attempt to make our design look like a mountainous form. We want people who view the design to be reminded of a mountain, and to consider the other mountains in the area when looking at our creation. It is our aim to remind drivers of the local natural heritage of Wyndham. On the other hand, the jagged hard edges of Folding have been incorporated aswell, so that structural stability is maintained and the design exists within the context of ‘origami’. IN 10 YEARS TIME, WHEN URBAN GROWTH HAS TOTALLY ENGULFED THE LANDSCAPE OF WYNDHAM, OUR DESIGN WILL STAND ABOVE THE MID LEVEL HOUSING, AS A SYMBOL OF THE NATURAL PAST. IT WILL LOOK TOWARDS THE YOU YANGS AND THE MACEDON RANGES IN THE DISTANCE, CREATING AN AXIS BETWEEN THE THREE, FRAMING THE MOUNTAIN RANGES ABOVE THE URBAN SPRAWL BELOW.




Triangular perforations were added along the ridge of the structure, to allow for light to filter through the structure, allowing the growth of vegetation within site A. It was our hope that in 10 years, after trees and shrubs have been given time to grow, the mountain design will sit within a heavily vegetated area bordered by the two roads. As urban growth continues to progressively dominate the fields surrounding the design, Site A and our design will sit as a fully vegetated expansive area with the dominant mountain at the centre, in complete contrast to the housing estates surrounding it.


Triangular perforations were continued down two of the arches in the centre of the design, as can be seen above. This was to frame the views between the main natural viewpoints between the You Yangs, Macedon Ranges and Port Philip Bay. It was our hope that driver will be able to look through these perforations towards these natural features in the distance. Driving from Melbourne to Geelong, the driver will be able to look out his right window and for a moment will be able to see the You Yang Mountains through our own structure. Obviously, it will only be for a second. This axial viewpoint is more a representation of our designs themes of relationship to surrounding natural forms, as it is a literal view.


The form of the design is meant to represent a mountain, combined with the concepts and principles of the Folding technique. When housing has engulfted the nearby natural area, our design will remain a level above the mid-level housing estates, connected forever to the nearby mountain ranges of the You Yangs and Macedon. When somebody looks across the horizon, it is our hope that the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Origami Riseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; will sit proudly on the horizon line next to the You Yangs and Macedon, another piece to the local natural history of the site. Hence, building onto the next significant feature, the design needs to be quite big.


The design is excessively large, almost too much so. But in order to justify its stance as a mountain, we had to exaggerate the height as much as possible. Standing 25 metres high, taking up the majority of Site A, the design will exists as a beacon on the horizon for miles in either direction, and that was our goal. When somebody looks above the housing layer far in the distance, we want our design to sit on the horizon in a similar fashion to that of the You Yangs. We also had to make the design experiential for the driver, and have accomplished this through the lifting of either end to allow full view through the design.


A BRIEF COMMENT ON WHERE WE ARE AT We are now only a few days away from the final presentation, and i thought it would be a good opportunity to comment on where we are at in terms of the semester, and a great chance to comment on our progression before we receive the feedback during the crit, which will most likely change my opinion. Our group has really struggled up to this point, and im very happy with how our final presentation is shaping up, considering our relative failures at the mid semester EOI presentation. In terms of course structure, i feel as though the semester was too seperated from time before the

EOI, and the time after the EOI. To totally ignore any form of site analysis for the first 8 weeks of the semester was rediculous. Especially considering that in the last three weeks, with serious consideration of site context, we as a group have been able to formulate a relatively effective argument based purely around the natural features of Wyndham, not on what grasshopper can and cant do, which is what we did in EOI. In the mid-sem presentation we were expected to produce a concept and idea that had been developed through experimentation with grasshopper and rhino, although i feel

that it is much more effective to build a definition that is dictated from site specifications first, and utilise the benefits of grasshopper as an overarching theme working towards the initial goals set from the site and brief. In my opinion this is where grasshopper is most helpful, helping architects and designers realise goals that they dont necessarily rely on grasshopper to formulate, but rather use their own creative thinking specific to their design criteria. I think this is where we as a group fell down. Initially, we were so caught up in the recreation of the Voissoir Cloud,

and experimentation with grasshopper that we totally disregarded site specifications and critique of the brief. Only when we actually went out to Wyndham and viewed the site directly, did our creative minds begin to formulate good ideas in terms of a proposal.

For future semesters it will be a focus of mine to go to the site, view its unique characteristics, and then build my proposal around them, rather than creation of a design that has no parameters or grounding to reality.

[83] Abetxuco Bridge | Pedelta Structural Engineers | 2006


3000 1000 750 50











100 50



950 65






One construction issue we came across during fabrication and conceptualising the design on site, was that we had planned to transport the arches as single pieces on the back of trucks, although considering the huge size of this mountainous design this would be impossible. Each arch would be at least 25 metres high, which is much longer than an average truck. At this point this is one issue we are yet to resolve. Possibly we could break down the arch into smaller segments, but that would take away from the choice of Folding as our over-arching theme. We chose Folding because of its ease of fabrication and to break the arch down would go against this very basic principle to our design. If we reduce the size of the design, it wont be as visible on the horizon level, and again will impact on our successful fulfillment of our initial goals. This is an issue that we hope to resolve before the final presentation in a few days time...

MATERIAL SELECTION We decided that the most appropriate material for our design would be Cor-ten steel, a weathered variety of steel that looks rusticated and old to the eye, but maintains its strength against the exposure to natural elements. The main basis to our choice was Cor-tenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relative strength, stability and overall look. Considering that large pieces of steel will need to stand alone, with minimal connection to the ground, rather relying on the connection and force distribution between each arch. Cor-ten will be strong enough to reduce the gravitational load distributed around the structure, and will be able to successfully counter the load transferring it into the large structural supports built into the ground. We were also drawn to Cor-tenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interesting rusty colour, which we believe will look very effective when viewing our design from a distance. It will suit the horizon and make the design stand out from the expansive housing.










END OF SEMESTER REVIEW THE FINAL WORD - CRIT RESPONSE Just briefly a few notes on the response we recieved in the final presentation. Overall, i think we recieved a pretty positive response from Finn, Hannes and the other architects. The obvious suggestion that they made was to make the structure smaller, to negate the issue of transportation of arches to site, and then the isses that would arise through fabrication. They also suggested that we had ultimately ‘created a babushka hill’ - a hill built over the top of the other hill, and we should have taken more care to use the height of the existing hill, to once again reduce the overall size of our structure. If we had more time with this proposal, these would have been the issues that we addressed. The size of the design would have been significantly reduced and we would have looked into innovative connections that would allow us to join such a monolith structure. As we went up to present each member of our group knew we had ultimately made a pretty big mistake with the huge size of the mountainous design. It was an issue that arose late in our development, one that was brought about because we designed the definition on grasshopper without any consideration of placement on site, other than knowledge that it was ‘to be somewhere in site A’. When we actually placed the design onto the hill, in order to have edges overhanging the road we had to increase the size a tremendous amount. Also in order for it to represent a real mountain, it had to be as big as possible. This was the trade off we had to make, and going into the crit we knew it was going to be questioned. But all we could do was present the other positive areas of our design, and bypass the obvious negatives to do with size. Overall im really happy with our final design. In week 8 i had serious concerns about our group, and the direction in which we were heading. But i feel as though we really brought everything together well, found a definate path and then we just went with it! And while the outcome wasnt perfect, it addressed many of the issues and constraints of the proposal, and overall was a successful design.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS Sitting here now, only hours from officially submitting this journal and ridding myself of this subject forever, i think i can see much more clearly than throughout the semester in regards to computational architecture. In the past 12 weeks, my perception of the grasshopper process was clouded with doubt, failure and disappointment, and as a result im sure some of my entries into this journal have been littered with negativity and anger. Our group definately had our share of ups and downs, mostly downs to be honest, consistently having to overcome the many issues that grasshopper presents on a regular basis when attempting to design. As i was putting the finishing touches on my journal this afternoon, i looked back to the first couple of pages, to where i had documented my previous work from Design Studio: Air & Earth. And it struck me how simple my designs were, how rudimentary, lacking in any form of freedom, of movement or creativity. They were just simple basic structures, with straight walls and a roof. It was the first time i had really seen my work in this way, i had always been relatively happy with my results from previous semesters. I guess that Design Studio: Air, while incredibly difficult, has provided me with a new outlook on architecture that i lacked before. I guess it is my reward for so much time and effort and constant heartbreaking failure. I feel as though i am able to look at design with a new freedom, a new creativity to attempt sinuous, undulating forms, that go against the grain of my basic knowledge. I want to experiment with new ideas now, to look into curving a wall instead of leaving it straight. I want to experiment with panels, with facades, and other visual add-ons, and i want to do this because i know i now have a new part of me that understands the possibilities of computational architecture, if only in a small very basic way.

And if this is the ultimate benefit of computational architecture, to help young architects break free of basic thinking, encouraging exploration in new exciting areas, then it is a critical piece of learning and i am forever thankful that i know possess it Mark Casey-Losewitz | 2012



64. ‘Photo of the day’, Scottphotographics (2012) [photograph] accessed from [ shot-of-the-day/%2311/eastern-freeway-car-lights-melbourne-australia2.jpg] on 11/10/12 65. Installation on the Craigeburn Bypass, Bonzle, (2012) [photograph] accessed from [ a?a=pic&fn=labm9rpw&s=4] on 11/10/12 66. Gateway Sculpture, Scott Leggo Images (2012) [photograph] accessed from [ cityscapes-architecture/gateway-sculpture/?PHPSESSID=4e0b3b1673ad70ce0e5a6c96e74a76b4] on 11/10/12 67 | 68. Cardboard Banquet, Studio 2 (2009) [photograph] accessed from [ cardboard-banquet-cambridge-uk-by-studio-2-university-of-cambridge-rentaro-nishimura/] on 08/10/12 69 | 70 | 71 | 72. The Emperor’s Origami Lung, Thomas Hillier (2010) [photographs] accessed from [http://www.thomashillier.] on 11/10/12 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77. The Straight Edge Pavillion, LEAD Architects (2010) [photographs] accessed from [http://www.l-e-a-d. pro/projects/straight-edge-pavilion/2061] on 11/10/12 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82. Site A, Photographs taken by Matt Ambler (2012) [photos] on approximately 01/10/12 83. Abetxuco Bridge, Pedelta Structural Engineers (2006) [photograph] accessed from [ File:AbetxukoBridge.jpg] on 11/10/12 Photos of Final Model taken by Matt Ambler on 31/10/12


Final Journal  

By Mark Losewitz