Page 1

**

NATHAN WILLIAM columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

SMITH WORK GSAPP 2010-2011 STUDIOS : SEMINARS/WORKSHOPS : WRITING : APPENDIX


nathan william smith portfolio 523 W 112th St. #62B New York, NY 10025 805.714.4777 nws2108@columbia.edu

Over the past year, I have been studying in the Advanced Architecture Design [AAD] program at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation [GSAPP]. The experience has been grueling, stressful, chaotic, yet one of the best I’ve had, and assume will have, for my entire life. This portfolio is a record of that time presented as a technical slice of refined arguments, proposals, suggestions, critiques and everything that goes along with those.


nathan william smith


00

WORK columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

GSAPP 2010-2011 STUDIOS : SEMINARS/WORKSHOPS : WRITING : APPENDIX




nathan william smith


00

columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

STUDIOS

FORWARD: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ENTITIES [007]

SEMINARS/ PROOF 6 [011] SPEAKERS’ CORNER [033] SUPERMODEL CITY 2010 [057]

WORKSHOPS

WRITING

ADAPTIVE FORMULATIONS [081] DIGITAL CRAFT [095] TOPOLOGICAL STUDY OF FORM [101] MATERIALS AND METHODS IN ARCHITECTURE [105] SEARCH [113] BIO-OIL WORKSHOP [119]

APPENDIX

METROPOLIS [133] ARGUMENTS [141] HISTORY OF THEORY [149]

PROOF 6 [165] SPEAKERS’ CORNER [183] SUPERMODEL CITY 2010 [279]


The interplay between multiple entities: the generation of a responsive architecture. Human life has become more complex and architecture must respond with an embedded complexity, yet which seems simplistic, efficient, and has the ability of creating historical reference. If the third spatial dimension focuses around just that: space, and the forth about a duration within that space, then the fifth dimension imagines concurrent possibilities of duration in the same space which are based on choice and creative control. What this means is that an entity in the fifth dimension can be characterized as the creation of a dynamic object that primarily focuses on action-reaction relationships which determine its form through time. More simply put, architecture created within the fifth dimension allows a vast number of possibilities structurally, formally, and programmatically in respect to time and place. This idea is the central theme throughout the included work created at GSAPP and something which has evolved as a personal methodology throughout my entire architectural progression. This started as a two-fold interest: the creation of a dynamic architecture and the interplay between the conscious and the subconscious, with the limbo condition being the destination and dynamic architecture as the vehicle to get there. By dynamic architecture what I mean is the consideration of space as an ever-changing entity because of time, interaction, and natural fluctuation, not necessarily a physically moving entity. The limbo condition can be understood as the finite space that exists in-between multiple opposing entities and as the key for transferring an ideal from one space to the next. Dynamic architecture and the limbo condition work well together and I employ both techniques as a way of full architectural exploration. In the study of a particular subject, it is just as important to know precisely who, what, when, why, and how that subject is as well as to know the exact opposite, what it is not. It is through this search of falsehood that we find other truths. The limbo condition is then that space existing in-between the truth and the falsehood and is often the place where innovation lies. This is a common practice in a traditional form of architectural study in which an architect uses case studies as examples of structure, form, and program to decipher a future design ideal and the difference that exist between the two entities is that area of innovation. By centering around this area, we can actually see that through the creation of a dynamic model, there exists vast potential within it. The dynamic model shows us multiple opportunities and an ability to question the precedent and the future through various means of exploration. Both techniques have been employed in the following manors: With Supermodel City, the exploration of organism relationships, specifically parasitism, allowed dynamic play through time of a generation of space in the study of city growth.

humans

vs

nature

city growth

culture

physical

With PROOF 6, the relational logic between a thin structural façade and an internal program created interplay between a structurally programmatic-based form in the manifestation of a mixed-use tower.

structure

vs

objective

program

mixed-use tower

subjective

With Speakers’ Corner, global deployability asked the project to respond to site and user needs, yet which also needed to physically act as not only a shipping container, but a 500-seat venue for the spoken word.

spatial typology

site

vs

configuration

global spoken word venue

object

These ideals are also carried through in various workshops, whether it’s creating a torque parameter for a lookout tower in Adaptive Formulations, working on a genealogy of concrete forms in Materials and Methods in Architecture, or critiquing the use of parametricism nathan william smith


as a style in the writing for the History of Theory. Ironically enough, parametricism has the greatest potential in the study of architecture consisting in the 5th dimension through the creation of dynamic systems which have the ability to constantly change an outcome (this is not parametricism as style, but parametricism as methodology itself). Each project has its own form of innovation through the playing of opposing entities. In Supermodel City, the creation of a parasitic-themed game to study city growth through time proved a successful way of showing future possibilities which could not have been studied just through historical precedent. In PROOF 6, the study of L-Systems, which are mathematical equations which approximate natural plant growth, led to a customized version of one based on the specific needs of a mixed-use program and also pushed the limits of using evolutionary computation on thin-structural members to find sets of possible structural solutions that related to the scripted program. In Speakers’ Corner, using a shipping container as a transformer with the ability to not only be deployed globally by utilizing current shipping routes, but also transform into different theater configurations and allow an element of user inter-activity provided a new form of shipping-container-architecture as well as a possibility for a theater of the spoken word. Without the study of the precedent in each one of these cases as well as the creation of the dynamic systematic model, only a small percentage of solutions would have been found. Yet, architecture of the 5th dimension completely changes the current discourse. Instead of designing just the object, architects in the 5th dimension are asked to create the system that designs, transforms, and makes the object. Architecture of the 5th dimension uses computation as a tool, leaving the architect as master of the tool once more and forces a complexity parallel to computational power. It has the possibility of the creation of a multiplicity of innovation or a series of ingenuity, not just the singular. In this model, a singular argument can power the creation of a system, which itself creates a vast array of possibilities which all fit into the genealogy of that base argument. Architecture of the 5th dimension utilizes time as its main asset in order to evolve and respond to various situations and its the job of the architect to create the framework, the constraint, and the argument. The work in this portfolio focusses on 5th dimension architecture and aims at producing a wide array of new and innovative possibilities that envelope our complex world.




nathan william smith


01

STUDIOS GSAPP 2010-2011 columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

PROOF 6 : SPEAKERS’ CORNER : SUPERMODEL CITY 2010




nathan william smith


proof 6 fall 2010

masdar

david benjamin

Premise: The studio of David Benjamin has been recently asking its students to develop models that not only evolve based on intelligent parameters but that have the capability of discovering highly efficient classes made of multiple designs. Catia, another parametrically based software, paired with modeFrontier, multi-objective evolutionary design software, and Robot, Autodesk’s version of structural analysis software, produces a new kind of efficiency based on the principles of evolution, yet with complete flexibility in design. The process is as follows: A parametric model is created in Catia, in this case of 4 floors of a “tall-building,” which has multiple variables that are allowed to change over a certain range (i.e., structural members, floor plates, façade elements, etc). The model is then fed into modeFrontier, with the user advising the software which objectives to evaluate (i.e., minimize structure, maximize floor area, etc). Based on an initial testing population of designs and the particular type of evolutionary algorithm chosen, the software evaluates the initial population according to the objectives and creates new, hybrid generations of possible designs. During this process, the model is also fed into Robot which analyzes the created form based on input data of loads and structural member types and sizes, which then creates evaluation data back in modeFrontier to be analyzed. What results is a multitude of design possibilities all within particular ranges of efficiency, depending upon wished objectives. As scientific and technological as it may seem, this enables the architectural industry to lead projects with architectural designs that are matched with equally efficient structural models and evaluated objectives.

project statistics

FIG 1: night rendering

Project Size:

60000sf

Project Program:

Mixed-Use

Programs Used:

Catia [EKL], ModeFrontier, Robot, AutoCad, Rhino[Vray], Adobe




FIG 2 + 3: design map and structure density opportunities nathan william smith


FIG 4: 500 structural test results [montage]




FIG 5+6: structural filigree diagram and 500 structural models nathan william smith


FIG 7+8: structural test inputs and outputs




FIG 8+9: l-system based program diagram and pareto programmatic model nathan william smith


FIG 10: programmatic test inputs and outputs




Abstract

1.2 Model Set-Up [parameters]

PROOF 6: Structural Filigree

A 4-floor rectangular module is created in Catia, with each side of each floor being broken up by structural points. Each point looks for the next closest point on the floor below it and creates a structural member in between. This works on a top-down method with the assumption that there will be more structural members needed toward the bottom of the tower. Even though the module is based on a rectangular floor shape, the last structural point marks the edge vertices for that elevation and connects to the closest structural point on the same floor, yet in the next elevation, thus leaving the floor as an odd-shaped polygon. This adds more complication to the test.

Using parametric modeling tools, fused with evolutionary computation, my proposed tower focuses on two concurrent architectural interests: structure and program. The model is set to run in two separate tests: A 4-floor structural module which uses programmatic rules to obtain particular objectives and a whole-building programmatic module based on L-System growth, yet created with customized rules based on specific site constraints.

1 Structural Module Using a multitude of thin-tubed members (3� diamater) as a new form of structural diagrid, the skin acts much like curtains. The diagrid can be made more or less dense in particular areas based on internal forces. This strategy would be extremely complicated to be solved by traditional engineering means, but through evolutionary computation, paired with structural testing in Robot, this can be achieved in extremely fast amounts of time while producing multiple results.

1.3 Structural Objective The objectives were created in sets according to different structural requirements [so the test would look for certain types of structural arrangement to be used in MCDM post-processing] All sets were also tied to the objective of finding modules that used the least amount of members yet had the fewest bar failures.

2 Multiple Paretos

FIG 11: multiple paretos - finding the pareto of paretos nathan william smith


FIG 12: single image of 200 programmatic possibilities




A typical procedure with automated evolutionary computation, especially in the context of this studio, is to develop a complex enough problem which has multiple high-performing results (towards exploration) versus a single Pareto design (towards exploitation). My previous structural tests have provided multiple Pareto designs with no clear trend between the best results, but a mix of designs which each perform relatively well, just in different ways. My current test takes this fact into consideration and is actually creating multiple Pareto sets of Pareto designs based on programmatic necessity. Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making [MCDM], a post-testing facet within modeFrontier, the final test results are weighted for each programmatic objective to provide structural modules with imbedded program efficiency.

4 Program At the same time, a whole-building programmatic model is tested based on specific site constraints which are used as objectives. This model is based on L-System growth, yet with a customized parametric logic which pertains to the particular programs existing within building. What results are multiple programmatic solutions which are evaluated

according to relative locations to each other and to site parameters.

4.2 Model Set-up [L-System Parameters] L-System logic was used as a base-code for the creation on initial programmatic logic. This code was then edited based on programmatic desires [i.e. basic programmatic locations, minimum sizes, maximum sizes, etc.] After these conditions were set, they were also used as the parameters inside the EKL script which ModeFrontier could access in order to create high-performing results.

4.3 Programmatic Objectives Objectives for the programmatic module included finding the tallest tower, with the thinnest center cross-section and the largest base.

5 Combining Test Results Using the structural designs as base conditions for programmatically based structural sections, these modules are then embedded in the Pareto result from the wholebuilding programmatic test. What results is a full-building simulation which is based on programmatic desires with a structural

FIG 13: multiple paretos - finding the pareto of paretos nathan william smith


FIG 14: full-tower rendering




system that reacts to the necessity of that particular program.

6 Conclusion Although all tests were extremely successful in completion and I feel that the tests were complicated enough to produce unique and interesting results, I feel that there were steps left in the end which still needed to be completed. Currently, the two tests work in a linear fashion with the structural directly relating to program. What could be even more interested is to have both tests work interactively to a certain degree into the formation of their own test which would create high-performing products of previous tests. Concerning the use of computation in architecture, specifically evolutionary computation, the need to define specific objectives helps the decision process yet I notice two realms which break apart from this study: the subjective and the objective or the construction and the art or the haptic and the illusory. When weighting structural objectives [like examined in Test 1], the results are clear and a level of subjectivity can be applied in order to decipher paretos. Yet, when weighing objectives based on desire or relationships, complete subjectivity leads

pareto designs to be less ideal as objectives become dynamic. But, maybe this speaks of a new form of computation that is needed: dynamic evolutionary computation. The question of the subjective brings into mind the key component which David Benjamin asks his students to consider: exploitation versus exploration. Exploration allows for a subjective read of paretos, thus making it more interesting to find a series of interesting results compared to the most efficient according to the objectives. Yet, in the end, if the argument is still one of subjectivity, I question the relevance of the entire experiment. The way to classify architecture in this realm of computation objectivity is through the act of exploration, meaning that although evolutionary computation is traditionally used to find the highest performing result (complete exploitation), it is the desire of architecture and subjectivity to look at multiple results which are all high-performing. Technical fields such as engineering and science use exploitation as their main output as there is a desire to find a single result. The most typical comment made during critique was learning about all of the results, even though evolutionary computation creates vast multitudes and not just the highest performing. Why is

FIG 15: multiple paretos - finding the pareto of paretos nathan william smith


FIG 16: interior rendering of commercial zone




1

condo

2

office

3

hotel

4

retail/public

nathan william smith


156

152

148

144

140

136

132

128

124

120

116

112

108

104

100

96

92

88

84

80

76

72

68

64

60

56

52

48

44

40

36

32

28

24

20

16

12

8

4




nathan william smith





nathan william smith


156

152

148

144

140

136

132

128

124

120

116

112

108

104

100

96

92

88

84

80

76

72

68

64

60

56

52

48

44

40

36

32

28

24

20

16

12

8

4




this? Because architecture loves anomalies and mistakes and objects which break rules. Finding these options is difficult in a software which has a main goal of considering those as negative results. So, wouldn’t it be just as interesting to study the lowest performing results? In the end, it is all about studying why certain things happen based on initial objectives. A difficulty in the prescription of the testing is that of the 4-floor module. Although this small test was used in order to ensure that utilizing evolutionary computation and testing thousands of models would take a small amount of time, this base made the assemblage of the full tower difficult. Even though I was able to make some assumptions about what would happen structurally as the floor location changed vertically, a more successful approach would be to test a fullbuilding structural module. The ability to do this in an efficient fashion depends all upon computational power. This brings up another good point: the limit. Architectural creations are complex entities and the necessity for the computational power to complete such complex tasks is necessary in the advancement of not only technology, but of architecture itself. This studio pushes this limit to its maximum

creating complex equations that take days to complete. This still brings into question whether or not utilizing such large computational power is more efficient than simply creating multiple study models, digital or physical, yet in a more traditional manor. In the latter, subjectivity is controlled within the creation, not after.

7 References n/a

8 Software Dessault Systems Catia [EKL] modeFrontier Autodesk Robot Autodesk Architectural Desktop Rhinoceros 3D ASGVIS Vray Adobe Creative Suite

FIG 17: physical model of 7 floors nathan william smith


FIG 18: night rendering




nathan william smith


speakers' corner spring 2011

global

joshua prince-ramus

Premise: In 1984, an annual conference named TED was formed to bring together thought leaders in technology, entertainment, and design with the mission to disseminate “ideas worth spreading.” Over the ensuing 25 years, TED has grown to be an international phenomenon attracting the world’s top thinkers. In 2009, TED took the next daring step in its evolution, initiating TEDx, or independently organized TED events. TEDx is a program that enables schools, businesses, libraries, or just groups of friends to enjoy a TED-like experience, events they themselves organize, design, and host. As of today, over 1,150 TEDx events have been held in more than 90 countries, including TEDxDubai, TEDxJakarta, and TEDxAmazonia, with more than 700 planned. The irony of this history is that TED’s decision to go virtual—placing its TEDTalks online—ultimately exposed an overwhelming desire for intimate, physical exchanges: TEDx, effectively a modernization of the campfire or Speakers’ Corner, has gone viral. As such, TEDx faces unusual architectural challenges. The dimension of the conferences often pushes the limit of intimacy desired by the spoken voice; existing performing arts venues are typically ill-equipped to technically support solitary presenters; and most importantly, their physical needs are temporary. Students will work in teams of three to investigate possible manifestations of a state-ofthe-art, 500-seat, deployable Speakers’ Corner. Students will engage with TED staff to better understand the conference’s mission and the needs of TEDx events, and TED staff will sit on mid- and final-reviews. In addition to the UK trip, students will participate in a first ever one-day simulcast of the TED2011 Conference in Long Beach, California held the week before mid-review. Projects will be presented to attendees of the first global TEDx organizers’ workshop, to be held in spring 2012.

*group project with alok shetty and shea sabino

project statistics

1: night stages rendering FIG 1: FIG transformer [montage]

Project Size:

1600sf

Project Program:

Auditorium for the Spoken Word

Programs Used:

AutoCad, Rhino[Vray], Adobe




Abstract If the TEDx objective is to “unleash TED to the world and continue the TED mission of ideas worth spreading”. . . Is it able to do so while maintaining the quality of TED?

1 Spatial Quality By quality, what we mean is spatial quality. What we’re comparing is the main TED event and a sample TEDx event. This is being evaluated using 5 essential components: Structure, Stage, Seating, Services, and Audio/Visual. If we look at two events: The main TED event held annually in Long Beach, CA and a sample TEDx event, we can notice a difference in their spatial quality.Why is this so? Because of ELECTRICITY, EQUITY, and ESTATE. Without one of these elements, the quality of the TEDx experience lessens. What happens in the places of the world without one or more of these elements?

2 TEDx In A Box One of the most recent endeavors of TED is TEDx-in-a-box, which is an ingenious idea where a phone loaded with TED talks and a

micro-projector are packaged, ready to be shipped to any place in the world. Using this great idea as a base, we thought, why not go bigger with this idea? What if TEDxin-a-box could supply all of the necessary elements for a high-quality event around the world?

3 Position What we propose is something that is DEPLOYABLE, LOW-COST, ALL-INCLUSIVE, and FLEXIBLE.

4 Shipping Container Logistics If we look at all of the TEDx Events that have happened around the world nd we overlay that data with world population density, we can see that there are many realms of future potential to spread the ideas of TED. What has the ability to go to each and every one of these places? Well, if we look at that same map with all of the world’s shipping routes, we can see that there is a huge existing potential using such routes. But, still, what has the ability to utilize the world’s current shipping routes as well as have the ability to move across the land? Shipping Containers! Shipping containers are currently being used in transport from sea, land, and even air. Shipping containers

Ideas worth spreading

Spreading worth[y] ideas

Alok Shetty : Shea Sabino : Nathan Smith Joshua Prince-Ramus Studio GSAPP S.2011

FIG 2: issue nathan william smith


“unleash

to the world and continue the of Ideas worth spreading ”

mission

vs

low

high

low

high

SPATIAL QUALITY

SPATIAL QUALITY

1

2

Structure

Stage

3

Seating

4

5

Services

A/V

FIG 3+4+5: issue, what’s being compared, and how




become a perfect candidate for other reasons as well. They’re relatively low-cost. They are pre-fabricated and made in bulk, driving cost of production down and production quality up. There are annually 300,000 excess shipping containers in the United States alone. There is also the potential for sponsorship. This could come in the form of container donation or even using the container as a moving billboard.

5 Manifestation Alright, so now we’ve figured out the ability to physically move TED ideas around the world, reaching anyplace imaginable in a low-cost manor, but once it gets to these places, how do we assure that a high-quality TEDx event will happen, especially inside a shipping container? This diagram [fig 05] shows the stages of the container being unfolded to be an all-inclusive event space, charged with the ability to hold highquality talks. The all-inclusivity allows the space to be created using little to no tools and is constructed through the help of 3-4 individuals. Once fully deployed and unfolded, the event space comfortably holds 250 people via raked seating. Another container can be added for a 500-person event space with arena-style seating. The whole

exterior of the container becomes draped and is used as projected simulcast areas, allowing those in close vicinity to watch the talks. The event container is then partially covered with a tensile shade structure. This fabric structure has solar panels embedded within it, powering all needed electricity for the event with energy being stored in batteries which are also provided within the container. An added benefit of the tensile shade structure is its flexibility with the ability to be pulled down at any point, providing shade, sheltering from the elements. The shade sail also acts as the projection surface for the event. Included within the container is also technical equipment for recording, lighting, and projecting. The projectors for the simulcast zones are located inside the outer skin of the container. This allows the container to act as a hype-generator, projecting TED Talks on surrounding environments before and after the main event. Once the event has ended, people exit the event and the shade structure is removed. The shade structure is re-installed next to the container to become the afterevent space. While the after-party is going on, the container is folded back up, ready to move onto its next site.

6 Flexibility - Spatial Typologies

$ FIG 5: essential components for a quality TEDx event nathan william smith


DEPLOYABLE

LOW COST

ALL-INCLUSIVE

FIG 7: position + manifestation

FLEXIBLE




beautiful depending on the nutrients of the soil.

Yet, this is just one example of the possibility of the container. In fact, it was shown in its fullest position, installed on an area with flat ground. But, we cannot assume that any place in the world has such ideal conditions. In order to postulate how the container would react globally, we can simplify most places in the world as fitting into one of these categories: FLAT, SLOPED, SEMI-ENCLOSED, ENCLOSED, and ENCLOSED + RAKE. Thus far, we have looked at how the container space would be installed on a flat plane, but what if the container was floating on a barge down the Ganges and it took advantage of the existing steps by only opening partially to provide an acoustical projection surface. Then, while the container was being packed up, the shade sail was used as an after-event space, or what if it were installed in a town square, or in the armory building on 67th and Park, or if it were taken to a space with existing auditorium characteristics, that it could be re-programmed to act as a simulcast room.

8 TEDxBOx Toolkit The basis for the manifestation is rooted in a exerpt from the TEDxToolkit: “Use as little or as much of this Toolkit as you need.” Imagining how someone might actually set up our proposal, we have created a Toolkit [SEE APPENDIX]. This Toolkit not only becomes a way to explain a person’s involvement in the process of creation, but also as an internal design tool.

8 Conclusion The group decided to focus on a very technical aspect of the premise: how to deploy a 500-seat theater in a global manor. Because of this, almost all critique was centered around the technical: how long will it take to build such an object, how much would it cost, where would you put cameras and projectors and how would they be powered, attached, etc. What this meant is that our focus was even more pointed at figuring out a completely technical object and less about architectural characteristics like thinking about spatial design, curating an environment, or focussing on larger abstract tones.

7 Seed Essentially, our proposal acts much like a seed. This seed is then planted in local soil and what is grown is something uniquely

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

FIG 8: shipping containers can travel on sea, land, and air nathan william smith

_____


FIG 9+10+11: current global TEDx events, population density, shipping routes




nathan william smith

1

2

3

6

7

8

11

12

13


3

4

5

8

9

10

3

14

15

FIG 12: unfolding process




In the end, our critique was simple, as if we had “figured it all out” and was somewhat of a depressing way to end a great project.

TED world, the only thing that exists is the explanation, the record, or the story of the object. The legitimacy of the object itself is never brought into question, but representation is held at utmost importance. Although this is a great tool for clearly communicating ideas, its hard to decipher at what point the ideas are more important, or just vocal style. This act of representation, in the case of architecture, poises the creation as a closed-object as if a review becomes more of a session for selling an idea. By closed-object I’m referring to the way this turns architecture in a finished entity as its more difficult to sell the process compared to selling the thing itself. And architects are typically more interested in the making of the object rather than the object itself.

The truth is that we got lucky very early in the semester by developing an interesting idea: a container transformer. This solidified our architectural path for the studio and became an object which was constantly being detailed and more-closely defined. The benefit of this is that we were able to create an instruction booklet on how one might employ our structure as well as talk with TED developers as though this is a fully buildable project. One huge benefit of the studio was using TED as a faux client. What this forced was clear representation of the project, sometimes not through traditional means of representing an architectural project, like plans and sections, but more aptly into animations, renderings, and diagrams. Feedback, for the most part, was positive and always focussed of the potential instead of failure. The success of the project became more about how well you could explain it as much as it was about theThe design itself. first step to hosting your TEDx event

The creation of a Toolkit, as exhaustive as it was, was a great way to really think about all things in-play in the creation of an object which claims to not only be universal, but easy to assemble. In a way, it acted as a test of our ideals and a constant simplifying of our concepts. But, we also used the toolkit as a way force ouris to decide where you would like to to set up the to continually design and every TEDxBOx - in a flat area(A), on a slope(B), in aselves semi-enclosed space(C), in an each enclosed This brought up an interesting polemic: the component and not rely on a typical hinge, space(D), or outside of an existing venue(E). fastener, or truss. object paired with its explanation. In the

TEDxBOx LOCATION

A

B

C

D

E

TEDxBOx CONFIGURATION A

B

C

D

E

The next step to hosting your TEDx event is decide what type of confiuration you would like the TEDxBOx to be (This should correspond to the location previously picked): arena(1), thrust(2), traverse(3), and proscenium(4).

1*

500 seats

2

250 seats

3

225 seats

4

125 seats

TEDxBOx GREEN ROOMS The final step to setting up your TEDxBOx is creating the enclosure. Included within the TEDxBOx is a flexible shade fabric which can be used to fully or partially enclose the selected configuration. What is left over are the spaces that exist underneath shade fabric, outside of the container. This is the point where you make TEDxBOx your own by adding local materials which might reflect the theme of your TEDx event, reflect local customs and FIG 13+14: global spatial typologies and contraditions, or reflect a current excess. tainer configurations nathan william smith


FIG 15: fully-deployed




nathan william smith


FIG 16: hypmachine in Copenhagen, Denmark




nathan william smith


FIG 17: beginning of event in the Sahara




nathan william smith


FIG 18: intermission in Edmonton, Canada




nathan william smith


FIG 19: event in the Park Avenue Armory




nathan william smith


FIG 20: event in Copenhagen, Denmark




Technically, one of the greatest difficulties is working on an object which acts as multiple things, each having a different property than the next. As a container, the object must be structurally sound in order to be used as a typical container. It also must comply to certain standards in order to utilize current systems of container transportation. Yet, at the same time, it also needs to successfully act as a theater which can be easily set up without any tools and a small number of people. This leads to the question of whether or not these two entities need to be considered as one. Another version of this design could be a theater that gets packaged inside a container, but which is removed and then installed instead of the container and the theater being one and the same. This would allow for a simpler differentiation between entities and could potentially produce a similar result, but might require the use of tools or more physical energy. The premise to this studio is interesting as the typology of a theater for the spoken word does not currently exist. Our understanding of theaters is now based on grand performance, massive sets, and a complicated series of acoustics. Shakespearean Theater

comes closest to such a typology, but is still focussed on the physical drama and body movement as a means of communication where the spoken word is all about the verbal words themselves as well as eye contact and intimacy. Working as a group of 3 allowed for each stage of the project to be extremely critical. Although it was difficult to split-up work evenly amongst the group, it proved to be a vital number in creating a team which was able to make effective decisions as a certain decision was always weighted unevenly (meaning there is always a 3rd party which could sway decisions in particular ways).

9 References TED www.ted.com

10 Software Rhinoceros 3D [Vray] Maya [Mental Ray] Adobe Creative Suite [incl. Flash]

FIG 21: TEDxBOx Toolkit nathan william smith


FIG 22+23+24: instructions include what’s inside, details, and construction techniques




nathan william smith


supermodel city summer 2010

ruswab

keith kaseman

Premise: Grasshopper for Rhino is visually-driven, parametric software allowing for cross-evaluation of multiple objects and their properties into a synopsis of design. Real data can be employed within the software to simulate growth structures and to develop new relationships between data sets. Yet, the parametric nature of the software allows you to successfully evaluate relationships between any type of objects, real or unreal. This was the premise of the architectural studio Super Model City 2010, headed by Keith Kaseman. Instead of using real data, the focus was to create relationships in the software based on effects, which can then be re-evaluated into the creation of a completely new geometry. For my particular study, the ideology of city was re-formulated into the growth and decay of spatial typologies: reactions from cultural influences and landscape progression. Such movements were heightened into the creation of an over-simulated cross-breeding of formal relationships that ebbed at new questions regarding the initial and future growths of cities. The parametric model allowed for the initial relationships to change, which would then change relationships of relationships, thus making a complex model made with simple logic.

project statistics

FIG 1: ruswab sector c

Project Size:

N/A

Project Program:

Mixed-Use

Programs Used:

Rhino[Vray], Grasshopper, Adobe




FIG 2: study on parasitic relationships nathan william smith


FIG 3: geometric bases, post infection [same parasite]




Abstract

2 Equipment:

The game: A city is a variegated set of cultural influences. It stems from an initial condition (host) and is transformed and mutilated by parasitic operatives that work in differing speeds, locales, powers, and times. You are about to play the most unusual game that has appeared in many years. It is not difficult, but because it is so different you will find it worthwhile to read the rules completely through before starting play. No attempt has been made to teach strategy, as each player will develop his own as he becomes familiar with the game. [adopted from the 1959 rules of RISK]

The host, the parasites, the antigens, the sores, and the antibodies. The game board, X sets of pieces (6 pieces per set), 4 die (speed, location, power, and time), relationship cards, red card stack, and green card stack.

1 Object of the game All organisms (host+parasite+host(n)+parasi te(n)) are each moving towards a particular trajectory. The death of one of the organisms marks the completion of one phase of mutation. Host and parasite(s) have the ultimate goal of survival. The object of the game is to complete as many phases of infection and, in doing so, eliminate all players of the game.

3 Preparation: A host is determined and the parasites are poised for interaction. Each parasite, which has different characteristics as outlined below, can modify the host based on different antigens that determine speed, location (threshold), power, and time of a particular infection. Lay the game board out. Each player is given a set of 6 pieces of the same color. Place the red and green cards on their respective places on the game board. Spread the relationship cards face down, in a shuffled stack.

4 Game Pieces: The host-parasite relationship can be broken into 4 main categories: • Mutualism: Symbiotic relationship

FIG 4: creation of 4 parasitic studies nathan william smith


FIG 5: an imagined region of the city




between host and parasite where both benefit (positive vs. positive). • Competition: Symbiotic relationship between host and parasite where neither benefit (negative vs. negative). • Commensalism: A relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is not affected (negative-positive vs. noncharged). o Host as beneficiary (positively or negatively) o Parasite as beneficiary (positively or negatively) • Parasitism: A relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is harmed (positive versus negative). o Host as beneficiary o Parasite as beneficiary There are X sets of colored pieces. In each set, there are 6 different types of pieces that have the ability to move along the game board and affect play in the game and versus other players in the following ways: Piece M: Makes the game board grow and the piece grow, centered around the space played on, in an equal relationship. Piece CT: Makes both game board and piece shrink, centered around the space played on, in an equal relationship Piece CM1: The space around the piece is transformed, while the piece itself remains

unchanged. Piece CM2: The piece is transformed, while the space around the piece remains unchanged. Piece P1: The space grows and expands, while the piece shrinks and disintegrates in an inverse relationship. PieceP2: The piece grows and expands, while the space shrinks and disintegrates in an inverse relationship. Each piece also has specific properties that are determined by pulling a corresponding card from the relationship card set. These cards not only determine which piece is in play, but how one game piece interacts with another game piece during direct battle between pieces (more information below).

5 Game Play: Each parasite begins to interact with the host according to its typology and the random antigens that determine each parasites speed, locale, power, and time. As each parasite creates an action upon the host, the original host is changed, is mutated, is transformed into a new topography in micro and macro scales. This mutated host becomes the new host (n+1) in which new parasites act upon it until a completely new mutation happens, etcetera. The operatives of

FIG 6: parasitic cooperation nathan william smith


FIG 7: imagined boulevard




both parasite and host force one and another towards depletion. At the point of complete deterioration of an organism (whether host or parasite), a new phase of mutation is entered. Parasites directly affect the host, thus creating new spatial topographies. Once a particular parasite alters the host past a certain threshold (T), sores are created (positive) or antibodies occur (negative) that alter the affects of the parasites and the already-mutated host. Parasites have the ability to affect the properties of other parasites based on each parasite’s operational value at the point of interaction. During this interaction, parasites gain and lose operational power based on each original parasites characteristics. Generally, a certain parasite will have the power to eliminate all other parasites, except those of the same grouping, thus deciding the final form of the host. The typology of this particular parasite will also determine what ultimately happens to the host (whether the relationship is symbiotic or not). Each player rolls the Power die to determine who goes first (person with the highest number as goes first). That player picks a card at random from the relationship card set. Each card has a different type of piece

relationship and determines which piece is played during that turn (this card will be used again, in the future, during interaction between other players’ pieces). The player then rolls all antigen 4 die and moves his/her piece according to the amounts on each die. At this moment, the piece reacts with the game board, thus affecting the structure of the game board for the next player(s). The next player performs the same tasks, picking a card from the relationship set, rolling the die, and moving his/her pieces accordingly. Once the game board has transformed, the sore space(s) (red cards) and antibody space(s) (green cards) will appear. If a player lands on one of these spaces during play, he/she must pull from the corresponding card pile and follow the directions according to the card. Generally, sore cards allow the player to grow new elements on the game board while antibody cards reduce the amount of impact that the pieces have on the game board. If a player’s piece lands on a space currently occupied by another player’s piece, then a piece-to-piece interaction starts. Players then reference the initial cards that pertain to the particular pieces in order to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of each piece, which then determines the power

FIG 8: catalogue of parametric possibilities nathan william smith


FIG 9: imagined zone 2




the game of cultural infection Teams

(up to 4 players per team)

Object of the Game The object of the game is to grow as many cultural organisms as possible on a trajectory to completely annihiliate the opposing team.

vs.

Gameplay Nature

humans

Your Starting Card! organism to play your team

power

Players are separated into 2 teams: the Humans and Nature. Each are allowed to make moves on the same game board with the opportunity to displace the opposing teams creations. Each player is given a set of 4 pieces which each have the ability to make a particular move on the game board and pick 10 cards from the power deck. The game board starts out as a flat surface and teams take turns moving their action pieces on the board according to a series of die that determine the speed, location, power, and time of such a move. Each teams move will displace the game board in a particular way, according to the type of piece played and the dice rolled that determine the effectiveness of their play. First, a player picks a card from the organism card stack to determine which type of piece can be played and which has specific data about each piece (infection options, infection damage, infection cost, growth options, growth structure, and growth cost). That player then rolls the dice to determine how their move will affect the game board and moves one of their corresponding pieces according to the die rolled. Generally, nature organisms have stronger effects yet happen at slower speeds and over longer rates of time while human organisms happen at weaker affects and happen at faster speeds and over shorter rates of time.

statistics/abilities

Team Human: Your objective is to create as many cultural groupings as possible (which is determined in gameplay). Once your cultural groupings reach a certain population density (as determined by the minimum density on each organism card), you can begin to grow structure using your power cards as payment. Team Nature: Your objective is to be constantly shifting inwardly to create the most dramatic changes in the landscape and to deconstruct the cultural groupings of team human.

FIG 10: game rules + players + equipment nathan william smith

Equipment

Dynamic Gameboard

Pieces

Dice

Organism Cards

Power Deck


34

534Troglodyte

Magmar

options damageinfection cost

15 Mutualism Sulfur Burst Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player

0

10 Competition ERUPTION Action Creates 15 damage to player and 50 to opposing player

-15/-50

10 Commensalism Heat Flare Adds 20 Power Points to player 20

Parasitism

Cragtastic Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player 15

Competition

0

Lava Time Adds 10 Power Points to player and does 50 damage to opposing player.

Parasitism

0

Black 10 Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to opposing player

Commensalism

-50

Seepage Adds 20 Power Points to player 10

-20/-75 0

Death 20 Valley Adds 10 Power Points to player and does 50 damage to opposing player.

-50

growth options

growth options 20 Exponential

Mutualism

damage

options damageinfection cost

15 Mutualism Cragtastic Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player

0

40 Competition Black Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to opposing player

-5

Parasitism

0

Black 40 Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to opposing player

Commensalism

-50

damage

Cragtastic Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player 15

Competition

0

20 Parasitism Death Valley Adds 10 Power Points to player and does 50 damage to opposing player.

20 Exponential

Mutualism

-20/-75

10 Commensalism Seepage Adds 20 Power Points to player

Troglodyte

Seepage Adds 20 Power Points to player 10

-20/-75 0

Death 20 Valley Adds 10 Power Points to player and does 50 damage to opposing player.

-50

growth options Exponential 20

min population density: 72 p/acre cost infection options 15 Mutualism Cragtastic Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player 40 Competition Black Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to opposing player 10 Commensalism Seepage Adds 20 Power Points to player 20 Parasitism Death Valley Adds 10 Power Points to player and does 50 damage to opposing player.

damage 0

cost 15

-20/-75

40

0

10

-50

20

growth options -5

20 Exponential

-5

20

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

Vertical Grows 30vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

Vertical Grows 30vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30

40 Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

Scalar Grows in40 a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

40 Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

Scalar Grows40 in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

40 Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

50 Rift Creates an opening between one element and an opposing element

23

Rift Creates an50opening between one element and an opposing element

-15

-15

Cirripedia Troglodyte 23Necator256 human

15

Mutualism

options damageinfection cost infection options damage

cost

Handshake Adds 10 Power Points LICK Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player 0 to player and Mutualism 15 Mutualism Cragtastic Adds 10 Power Points opposing player 0 to player and opposing player15

10 Competition Fire to player and 12 to opposing player 40 Competition Human Sacrifice Action Creates 15 damage to player and to opposing player -15/-15 10Action Competition Black Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to opposing player Creates 20 damage -20/-75 10 Commensalism Ethnic Meal Adds 20 Power Points to player 0 to player Commensalism Seepage Adds 20 Power Points 20

Parasitism

Commensalism

Parade Adds 20 Power Points 10 0to player

10

Adds 5 Power Points to player and does 20 damage to opposing Overpopulation Adds 5 Power Points toParasitism player and Death does 20 damage to opposing player. -20Points to playerParasitism 20to opposing Valley Adds 10 Power and does 50Polution damage player. -50 20 player.

growth options 20 Exponential

Exponential

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

0 -20/-12 0 -20

growth options

growth options

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

damage

-5

Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to-20 subdivide

10

Mutualism

5

15

Parade Adds 20 Power Points to player

Vertical Grows subdivide 30vertically with the ability to-20

30

-20

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

Necator

0 to player Seepage Adds 20 Power Points

Exponential

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

Mutualism

Handshake Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player

Competition

Fire Action Creates 20 damage to player and 12 to opposing player

Commensalism

Parasitism

Parade Adds 20 Power Points to player

Polution Adds 5 Power Points to player and does 20 damage to opposing player.

0 -20/-12

-10

Cirripedia

0

40 50

23

human

min population density: 25 p/acre cost infection options 15

Mutualism

LICK Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player

10 Competition Human Sacrifice Action Creates 15 damage to player and to opposing player 10 Commensalism Ethnic Meal Adds 20 Power Points to player 20

Parasitism

damage 0 -15/-15

cost 15 10

0

10

Overpopulation Adds 5 Power Points to player and does 20 damage to opposing player. -20

20

growth options

Exponential 15 Grow slow at first but increases -5 growth over time

20

-5

20 Exponential

Vertical Grows subdivide 30vertically with the ability to-20

30

-20

40

-5

Grows20 in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors 20 Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its Scalar neighbors -5growth of its Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the neighbors -10 and an opposing element Bridge Creates50a bridge between one element 50 Creates a bridge between one element and an opposingRift element Creates an opening between one element and -10 Bridge an opposing element -15

Cirripedia

50

-5

20

30 Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30

-10

40 Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

40

-15

50 Creates a bridge between one element and an opposing element Bridge

-15

50

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

23

human

10 5

0

5

-20

15

infection options Mutualism

LICK Adds 10 Power Points to player and opposing player

Competition

Human Sacrifice Action Creates 15 damage to player and to opposing player Ethnic Meal Adds 20 Power Points to player

0 -15/-15

cost 15 10

0

10

Overpopulation Adds 5 Power Points to player and does 20 damage to opposing player. -20

20

Commensalism

Parasitism

damage

growth options Exponential

-10

15

-5

20

Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30

Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to subdivide

-20

30

Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-5

20

Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its neighbors

-10

40

Bridge Creates a bridge between one element and an opposing element

-10

50

Bridge Creates a bridge between one element and an opposing element

-15

50

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

-15/-15

-15

min population density: 25 p/acre cost

growth options Exponential

10

-10

40

damage

Ethnic 5 Meal Adds 20 Power 0 Points to player

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

Vertical Grows vertically with the ability to-20 subdivide

min population density: 32 p/acre

infection options

Commensalism

0

growth options

growth options

15 Exponential

40

Commensalism

damage

Overpopulation 5 Power Points to player and does 20 Polution Adds 5 Power Points to player and doesParasitism 20 damageDeath to opposingValley player. -20 15to opposing player. Adds-50 Adds 10 Power Points to playerParasitism and does 50 damage 20damage to opposing player. -20

growth options

50

15

Competition Action Creates 15 damage to player and40 to opposing player Fire Action Creates 20 damage to player and 12 to opposing player -20/-12 5 playerSacrifice-20/-75 Competition Black Hole Action Creates 20 damage to player and 75 to Human opposing

Commensalism

Parasitism

cost

LICK10Adds 10 Power Points to player0 and opposing player Handshake Adds 10 Power Points to player andMutualism opposingCragtastic player 0 to player and Mutualism Adds 10 Power Points opposing player

Competition

5

options damageinfection cost infection options damage

-10

50 Bridge Creates50a bridge between one element Creates a bridge between one element and an opposingRift elementCreates an opening between one element and -15 Bridge an opposing element -15and an opposing element

23

human

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

50 Rift Creates an opening between one element and an opposing element

minp/acre population density: 25 p/acre min population density: 32 minp/acre population density: 72 cost infection options

20

40 Grows 40 in a single area while altering -10 the growth of its neighbors Scalar Grows in a single area while altering the growth of itsScalar neighbors -10 Grows in a single area while altering the growth of its Scalar neighbors

-15

Troglodyte 40Cirripedia 256

nature

Exponential 20 Grow slow at first but increases -5 growth over time

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

an opening between one element and an opposing element Rift Creates50

-15

Necator

minp/acre population density: 32 p/acre min population density: 25 minp/acre population density: 72

cost infection options

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

50 Rift Creates an opening between one element and an opposing element

40

nature

-5

256

nature

min population density: 72 p/acre

min population density: 72 p/acre cost infection options

growth options

Exponential 20 Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

-5

256

nature

nature

min population density: 72 p/acre

min population density: 50 p/acre

cost infection options

256Troglodyte

Troglodyte

256

nature

nature

Grow slow at first but increases growth over time

FIG 11: organism cards




level added or subtracted to each piece, depending on which is stronger and which is weaker. The game ends once a player eliminates all of the other player’s pieces, which will then decide the final relationship and spatiality of the game board.

6 Conclusion Adding culture as a methodology was a way to strengthen the experimentation of growth and decay so that such a test did not purely result in physical action and reaction. Yet, this is exactly what did happen, just under the name of culture. Further steps need to be taken in order to embed the model and overall test with more detail, value, texture, and flavor. The request of embedding any and all creations with a sense of tone is something that I’ve taken from this studio and have used it in other projects as a way to design even the representation of the manifestation. But toning or flavoring goes beyond a simple aesthetic; it begs at that question of what type of phenomenological quality is trying to be evoked through designed space. This aims at showing more than just the object itself, but as a representation of the ephemeral and of the subjective, quali-

ties which might not reside in the typical architectural representation of drawing. The drawing moves beyond mere representation and becomes a design unto itself and can be used as a way to re-work the architectural design through the flavor. The flavor is essentially the style of the creator, something which is sometimes subconsciously injected into all creations of the designer. Designing a city is a difficult task and involves a constant questioning of the current city, if the typology of city can even be classified as a simple entity. Sure, architecture provides the framework for the city, but it is ultimately the inhabitants which alter the city into the depth of place in which people inhabit and live. This project aimed at studying the relationship that people have with the city and worked at creating a framework that allowed such dynamisms to happen. Yet, I now think that creating this possibility makes it too easy. Its the rigidity of the current city that makes people emotional, opinionated, and critical. Allowing inhabitants freedom of change solidifies nothing. Buildings are the dependable things in a city and when they are allowed to by as dynamic as the human body, they fail at being classified as places of refuge. Yet, the ideal of showing the complexity and internal chaos that happens

FIG 12: process map nathan william smith


FIG 13: parasitic evolution




nathan william smith


cultural infection the game




within and around a city is a great theme to utilize in the creation of spaces. This would be more of a reaction than an action though, unlike this studio project which created the action of reaction, not viceversa. This project also concerns a questioning of using computation, parametricism, and randomness as architectural modes of creation. Grasshopper is a tool with the potential of creating efficient models based on specific parameters. This project forced a misuse of the tool as a way to also learn how to use it properly. Instead of using actual metrics, relationships were used as a base and futher compounded on each other in the creation of a fully-relational model. Yet, without the use of metrics, scale is difficult to determine and is something that I struggled with for some time. In this sense, it could be at any scale because the relationships would just be scaled along with the model itself. Although this presents an interesting polemic in the creation of the scaleless object, scale is what makes it architectural.

7 References RISK by Hasbro.

FIG 14: possible cultural growth nathan william smith

8 Software Rhinoceros 3D Grasshopper Autodesk Architectural Desktop ASGVIS Vray Adobe Creative Suite


FIG 15: an elaborate collection of growths and passageways




FIG 16: early conceptual sketch SEE APPENDIX FOR MORE nathan william smith


FIG 17: close-up + section




nathan william smith


FIG 18: section




nathan william smith


02

columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

SEMINARS/ WORKSHOPS

GSAPP 2010-2011 ADAPTIVE FORMULATIONS : DIGITAL CRAFT : TOPOLOGICAL STUDY OF FORM MATERIALS

AND

METHODS

IN

ARCHITECTURE

:

SEARCH

:

BIO-OIL

WORKSHOP




nathan william smith


adaptive form fall 2010

n/a

adam modesitt

Premise: The focus of this class is to learn various parameters using Catia as the modeling tool. All projects within the class focussed on the creation of models using powercopies and knowledge templates, with advanced sessions dealing with automation through scripting within Catia. Weekly projects allowed for personal exploration using the various internal tools with emphasis on pushing the capacity of the particular tool.

project statistics Project Size:

Varying

Project Program:

Lookout Tower + Parking Garage Catia [EKL], AutoCad, Rhino, Adobe

Programs Used:

FIG 1: parametric sea




Abstract Based on DNA structure as a formal desire, this lookout tower used a mix of tensile members and compressive steel members for structure. The design focusses on the stair and final outlook with intermediary moments of pause for partial views. This allows the user to not only enjoy the view from the top of the structure, but to allow a full range of perspectives from various heights and angles.

parametric staircase with the ability to take multiple forms, it also became the point of failure as the dynamic nature of it is not expressed in the final creations [in other words, it has to be static at some point] It might have been more interesting to work on some form of modulated detail, cladding system, or stair module which gets replicated according to nodes or some other form of input.

4 Reference

1 Torque Parameter

N/A

The base model of the tower includes a torque parameter, which allows the model to twist into a circular form or unravel as a square form. This parameter affects the tensile and compressive structure as well as the intermediary platforms and embedded as a degree parameter. Although this is used as a conceptual feature, the final form would be a set parameter.

5 Software CATIA [EKL] Rhinocerous 3D [Vray] Adobe

2 Formal Aspirations Based formally on a mix between the structure of DNA strands and sprirographs, the lookout tower claims to be simplistic in approach, solely focussing on stairs, platforms, and the necessary structure. The procession is over-accentuated through the structure as it winds up the tower along with the stairs.

3 Conclusion Although it was interesting to design a

typical

suggested

- single access - focus on end goal - controlled experience

- multiple access - multiple viewing platforms - dynamic experience

FIG 2: comparing typical nathan william smith


fall 2010

adam modesitt

lookout tower

Project Size: Project Program:

Lookout Tower

Programs Used:

Catia [EKL], AutoCad, Rhino, Adobe

FIG 3: torque parameter




glass railing

metal exterior s

metal tensile st

metal internal s

FIG 4: exploded axonometric nathan william smith


FIG 5: tower, in situ




0.0 deg

02.5 deg

05.0 deg

07.5 deg

10.0 deg

12.5 deg

15.0 deg

17.5 deg

20.0 deg

22.5 deg

25.0 deg

27.5 deg

FIG 6: parameters nathan william smith


FIG 7: catia model




42’-0”

38’-0”

34’-0”

30’-0”

26’-0”

22’-0”

18’-0”

14’-0”

10’-0”

6’-0”

nathan william smith


FIG 8: section




Abstract The final project for the first session of this Catia-based class started with a parking structure base model and an open premise, as long as the final product was parametrically created using Catia. My focus was to use the facade as a visual bridge from the adjacent structures and various module structures which can ultimately be changed. These modules were then instantiated on the created bridging-surface and used different types of materials and forms to create different designs. What results is an ultimately parametric model consisting of modular pieces which can be mass-produced and installed on the internal steel structure (also part of the parametric module).

1 Garage Facade Main lines were taken from the garage structure which were then broken into an even grid. This grid was then offset according to various points of importance including the entrance and the 2 side buildings.

2 Structure Each offset point is then attached to its original position and to a corresponding

point to create a dynamic grid structural system of steel members. This creates a structural module which is applied across the entire facade.

3 Facade Skin The facade is then covered in one of three options: a bubbly plastic facade, a pointy plastic facade, and a glass facade which is attached using spider grips. All of the plastic facades also correspond to points of importance and are scaled in accordance. Although this creates a new notion of facade beyond the underlying structure, the relationship between plastic and steel becomes hidden under the plastic. As a way to reveal the structure, a glass facade can be used which is attached to the structure using spider grips.

4 Conclusion Employing complicated modules along a grid is an efficient way to achieve a complicated result in a simple fashion. This is what makes the glass version more successful than the plastic versions as the complexity resides completely within the module itself and through tweaking of various parameters, changes accordingly. The other problem with

1

2

3

4

5

6

FIG 9: process nathan william smith


fall 2010

adam modesitt

parking garage facade

Project Size: Project Program:

Facade

Programs Used:

Catia [EKL], AutoCad, Rhino, Adobe

FIG 10: rendering with glass panels




the plastic versions is that they hid the interesting structural element which attaches the outer facade to the vacant facade of the parking garage. Although, the plastic versions also had potential into programmatically morphing into other forms of objectcs. Earlier renditions show that as the plastic pieces get closer to the ground, they become seating elements or bike-locking elements. More complexity could have been embedded into the model through constraint. Although the double-curved facade produces an interesting aesthetic, the viability of its construction as a glass facade comes into question. The current model breaks up each square panel into a triangulated glass panel. For basic purposes, this works, but adding a constraint to square panels to not allow them to warp would have made a more realistic model.

5 Reference N/A

6 Software CATIA Rhinocerous 3D [Vray]

A

B

FIG 11: panel options nathan william smith

C


FIG 12: rendering with glass panels




nathan william smith




digital craft summer 2010

n/a

josh uhl

Premise: Computing in architecture has changed methods of representation, retooled construction techniques, and made communication of complex information instantaneous. In this state of ubiquitous computing, the architect is asked to not only grasp these new technologies but to shape them into the built environment. As the edge between the virtual and real become increasingly thin, the architect must not only be proficient in this interactivity, but tool it toward new ideas and potentials that are rife within this expanding territory. Digital Craft investigates the concepts, techniques, and working methods of computer aided ‘drawing’ in architecture. Students will study the operative relationship between 2d and 3d data, exploring the reaches of their analytic and representational potential. While the class is a foundational course in architectural computing, it will build on the student’s advanced ability to question, shape, and interrogate space and time. The full-semester course will be focused on a project that is generated primarily with the use of Rhinoceros and 3dsMax. After the initial development of a virtual model, we will investigate tools to further the analytic and representational capacity of the data within the model. Studies will be in the form of drawings, physical models, images, and animations. There will be one assignment with 4 milestones. Each of these milestones will be posted on the class web page for grading.

project statistics

FIG 1: case study: seattle public library

Project Size:

362,987sf

Project Program:

Library

Programs Used:

Rhinocerous 3D [Vray]




nathan william smith


FIG 2: exploded axonometric of surfaces




Abstract

ing within the library. Modeling the entire building without an expansive understanding of these systems was difficult.

I chose to focus on the Seattle Public Library, particularly the detail of the diagrid facade that makes up the entirety of the building.

One element not shown here is the animated version of the model in which I imagined the original form of the building to be a cube which is then contorted into its final form.

1 The Diagrid

3 References

The structural facade is made up of multiple layers of glass and an internal expanded metal mesh which acts as a partial solar reflector to only allow certain amounts of light to come inside the building, evenly lighting the space but left at a certain density to allow clear views from the inside to the outside of the space.

N/A

4 Software Rhinocerous 3D [Vray] 3DStudio Max [Mental Ray] Autocad Adobe

2 Conclusion Although I primarily focussed on the diagrid, if I were to do this project again, I would have focussed more on a system of compenents in which the diagrid is a part of. By only studying the diagrid, I was less focussed on the more complex systems exist-

annotated sectional analysis 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

01 02 03 04

05

06 07 08 09

10

11 12

13

FIG 3: annotated sectional analysis nathan william smith

Steel I-Beam Structure Rubber Gasket Seismic Support Steel Glass Gasket 1/2" Glass Lamination Sheet 1/2" Glass Glass Gasket 1/2" Glass Expanded Metal Mesh 1/2" Glass Glass Gasket Aluminum Mullion Cap


FIG 4: physical model




nathan william smith


topological form spring 2011

n/a

jose sanchez

Premise: “Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory – precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory, ... It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself”. Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation. The workshop will focus on generation of visual constructs dealing with the notion of simulation and representation. We will undertake simulation as the origin of a reality, not as a representation of a formal construct, which can deal with the generation of behavioral models and abstract events without a tactile origin, hence avoiding representing an environment or event. The simulation gives origin to sequential representation of an unknown event that progressively yields to the generation of a tangible visual fabric. We’ll start by looking at Maya’s Fluid Dynamics as a form/space generator, along with its traditional use of generating dynamics-based special effects for games and films. This will be followed by an in depth understanding of Mental Ray advanced rendering features, including Global Illumination, Final Gathering, Caustics, Importons, Irradiance Particles and Ambient Occlusion. The advance Mental Ray lecture will also cover the Mia_Material_X advanced shader, which was developed for architectural and industrial design use. Other technologies covered in this workshop are Image-Based Modeling with Maya’s Paint Effects and Advanced Displacement, Advanced Particles Systems and Mathematical Expressions, Forward and Inverse Kinematics, Motion Capture and Maya’s Hair System, which we will use as another alternative to generate real material behavior from a mesh. Finally, we’ll learn how to use Maya’s Inverse Kinematics along with Muscles, Bones and Capsule as surface control systems. We will use one of the following scenarios as a guideline: 1. Simulation gives origin to sequential representation. 2. Representational constructs generate of new perceptive reality. 3. Visual narrative as a generative formation of a simulation, an environment without atmosphere or perceptive origin.

project statistics

FIG 1: glowing particles

Project Size:

N/A

Project Program:

Material exploration

Programs Used:

Maya [Mental Ray], After Effects




Frame_108.0

Frame_158.0

Frame_512.0

Frame_632.0

Frame_681.0

Frame_902.0

Frame_1367.0

Frame_2147.0

FIG 2: frame set nathan william smith


FIG 3: particle formulation




nathan william smith


mat. + methods spring 2011

n/a

keith kaseman

Premise: This seminar + workshop is geared to develop and then amplify a keen level of sophistication with which one may both comprehend and deploy concrete in the world. We will cultivate this heightened acuity by operating on several interwoven fronts: CONCRETE INVESTIGATIONS A) Sample Exploration / Production: Individual participants will be required to produce at least one 4”x4”x2” concrete sample per week of the semester. The exploration and development of this physical library of samples will evolve through the collective thrust of the seminar. Iterative refinement will be coupled with systematic experimentation at every step along the way. B) Field Trip(s): Pending class size and logistics, the intent is to take at least one stellar field trip – destination to be determined. CONCRETE PROCEDURES Pursuing specific tracks developed by mid-semester through the RESEARCH and INVESTIGATIONS up to that point, teams of two will work on a final project – a refined, physical concrete construct that demonstrates a refined set of PROCEDURES. The physical, “full-scale” construct is to be constrained by a working envelope (not volume) of 8ft cubed. Finishes, textures, dimensional properties concrete mixes and behaviors and potential utility will be developed through this project, with all associated procedures documented in a new specification format. Highly articulated composite molds will be required to achieve such goals, though the technologies with which the concrete construct is to be realized may range from low- to high-tech, depending on participants’ access and acuity.

project statistics

FIG 1: charred remains

Project Size:

8 cubic feet

Project Program:

Concrete

Programs Used:

N/A

Project Team:

Chris Yu Rebecca Caillouet 


Abstract Poised around the basis of accentuating anomolies, this study in concrete aims at answering the question of who and what concrete wants to be. Being that concrete is typically used as a liquid, we question whether or not concrete cured as a monolithic material in basic formwork is the best way of representing the properties of the material itself. Our study begins as a three-fold process using composites, geometry [formwork], and process as different ways to control how we work with such an abstract material. The fact that concrete takes whatever form it is cured in and that the process of producing concrete is relatively simple, there is a large amount of possible inputs into the process. By focussing on three points of variance, we hoped to control a certain part of discovering who and what concrete wants to be. As a way to control the process of studying concrete, we aim at creating a gradient or series of results, incrementally adding, tweaking, or forcing a multitude of inputs. Not knowing where this gradient might end, we hope to exhaust the process to the point where it cannot be classified as concrete any longer. What should ensue is a lineage of studies and could have the potential of forming a larger family, with members corresponding and forming to others.

1 Composites Composites are typically used in concrete as aesthetic or structural additions. Our composite study aims at questioning how much can be added to concrete before it becomes some-

thing other than concrete. We are also interested in using composites which don’t aim at simply solving a structural or aesthetic venture, but which work within the concrete as a record of how it is made. Composites which can also be removed after the curing process also peak our interest as a way to subtract the added material and distill the left-over form. Thus far, our studies have mostly involved objects made from sugar, which can be melted or burned out of the completed form. Marshmallows have produced the greatest results as they are able to mostly hold their form while the concrete is curing. At first, the marshmallows were difficult to remove through the burning process. Plus, the results looked something of charred remains. Melting the marshmallows in hot water has produced clean results and leaves interesting cavities at varying degrees. The concrete then forms its own internal structure.

2 Geometry The way to control geometry in pouring concrete is directly through the formwork. Initial studies have used typical plywood formwork, but created too much constraint in the process. Other studies have used nylon as formwork as a way to express the fluidity of the wet concrete. The marshmallows aid in this formwork study as they become temporary ways of filling the formwork. The nylon also creates an undetermined formal creation, an ideal which is at the heart of our study.

3 Process The creation process involves an initial formwork creation of stretched nylon. Various forms have been used to anchor the nylon

hey there,

concrete chris yu : rebecca caillouet : nathan smith

FIG 2: developing a dialogue between who and what concrete wants to be nathan william smith


goal: to create a dialogue between who and what concrete wants to be

hey there,

concrete

chris yu : rebecca caillouet : nathan smith

FIG 3: experiment 2 result




to. In one particular study, holes cut into a piece of wood and the nylon was allowed to hang vertically through the holes. Some of the nylons were tied at various points to force the stretching of the nylon. Another study was made inside a typical box made of foamcore and the nylon was stretched inside, acting as more of a predetermined formal creation. Marshmallows of varying sizes are then added into the nylon. In the first study, marshmallows were allowed to clump at various points within the formwork, creating bulges in between stretched portions. The second study was simply filled with marshmallows as a way to secure the mass of the form. Concrete is then poured in the nylons. The mixture we use has a higher water content as it needs to completely coat the marshmallows and slip through points of bulging within the nylon. This produces an inherent problem as the less-viscous mixture seeps through the nylon, making it hard to remove after curing. The concrete is cured for a short period and the nylon is carefully removed. At this point, the marshmallows are somewhat sticky as the water from the concrete has caused them to slightly melt.

low. Another reason this process was less successful was that heating marshmallows actually causes them to expand and stick to the concrete instead of leaking out of the form like rubber or plastic might have.

2.3 Composite Removal - Melting [water] Placing the cured forms in hot water for a period of time allows the marshmallows to turn into sugar once more and leave the form. Eventhough this produces cleaner results than burning, the process is still physically intensive as the deeper-reaching marshmallows have to be carefully removed while semi-melted.

2.4 Nylon Removal As previously stated, the nylon becomes very difficult to remove as it clings to the wet concrete. Being that the marshmallows are causing cavities within the form, some of the pieces are fragile and nylon removal ends up breaking alot of the creations. We are in the process of experimenting on different tactics to remove the nylon including burning and sanding. A mixture of dry to wet sanding is able to get most of the nylon off yet changes the finish of the concrete itself. Yet, this is something to make not of because the formwork removal process is then inherent in the final creation.

2.2 Composite Removal - Melting [fire] Although burning out the marshmallow produced an aesthetic unto itself, this creates a form furthest from the inherent properties of concrete and more like, well, a burnt marshmal-

1 3 2

composites

geometry

hey there,

concrete

variables chris yu : rebecca caillouet : nathan smith

FIG 4: our controls nathan william smith

process

4


harnessing the residual developing the anamolies recatagorizing mistakes formwork - object - formwork gradual decay/mutation + aggregation

hey there,

concrete

interests chris yu : rebecca caillouet : nathan smith

FIG 5: using nylon + marshmallows + gravity




problems as even though the nylon allows the concrete to flow more freely, it adds weight to the forwork, causing it to sag. Rotating the mold solves this somewhat, but also forces the concrete to take direct form of the stretched nylon.

3 Conclusion Still not sure if we have answered the question of who or what concrete wants to be, we continue to test our procedures in the creation of more concrete formations. We feel that concrete has an internal structural property and the removal of an initiallyplaced composite aims at revealing this nature. Although, the use of composites might seem like a tangential approaching in discovering the root of what concrete should be, we feel that studying what its not is just as important and a good way to indirectly find essential truths.

The remainder of our studies should be more far-fetched in experimenting with other composites, form work, and process. We should also focus on how this works as part of a larger family into the creation of a genealogy of study. Originally, we had thought about revealing the anomalies as an overexaggeration through the casting process, but have found it difficult to show that.

4 References

Experimenting on what concrete wants to be is a difficult process as itself is a formless object, in need some form to respond to. Our fascination with using nylon hopes to blur this boundary in letting the liquid form take on whatever shape that gravity gives to it. Again, this is loaded with problems as we still have to constrain a portion of how gravity reacts to it. For example, hanging nylon aims at allowing the concrete to flow freely and take whichever form it pleases, but tends to consolidate at the end of the formwork. The stretchiness of the fabric paired with gravity creates ball-like objects of concrete, which is at least different then pouring concrete into a wooden box. Stretching nylon within another form also has its

N/A

5 Software N/A

family

E

H exhaustion point

E

IMBED WITH VARIABLES

A

D

F exhaustion point

D exhaustion point

hey there,

concrete

experiment diagram chris yu : rebecca caillouet : nathan smith

FIG 6: diagram showing lineage process nathan william smith


FIG 7: results from test 2




nathan william smith


search fall 2010

toru hosegawa + mark collins

n/a

Premise: Design computation encompasses a broad range of approaches and techniques. This course examines fundamental concepts in computing, including recursion, procedural geometry, design space exploration, agent-based and physics-based simulation through simple visual code examples - designed for visual thinkers. Using object oriented programming and Processing as a starting point, the seminar explores the practice and promise of these new means of design conception through a process of experiment, play and re-wiring. These workshops support a focused research led by the student in the exploration of an emerging topic or technology in design computing. The results of the class are visualizations that reveal the hidden algorithmic logic and generative potential at work inside each code. Course Goals and Methodology This workshop will explore generative design methodologies through the application of algorithmic techniques - we will be looking at fundamental coding principles (recursion, feedback, modularity and I/O) while working within an object-oriented framework, opening the door to complex simulation and animate formation. Artificial life, material intelligence, interactivity, and other second-order principles will be approached from the vantage point of “dynamics” and “search” - or the introduction of directed intelligence into a dynamic process of making. Development - A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage. Behavior - The aggregate of responses to internal and external stimuli. Behavior and development are understood to be a sum, or aggregate, of a multitude of innocuous decisions. Each is a dynamic, or a process ‘in time’ that necessarily feeds-back and self-regulates to promote higher levels of form and organization. Students will develop a focused inquiry into a specific area of algorithmic dynamics. Here, “dynamics” is meant as a inclusive term for all kinds of activity: formal development, flocking, embryology, automata, FEA, fractals and l-systems are all examples of time-based recursive practices. The class is meant to flesh out a vocabulary and structural understanding of a wide array of algorithms, to look for correspondences among dynamics, mapping and search heuristics. By casting a wide net, we hope to see opportunities for portability and the development of a critical stance towards algorithmic ‘tooling.’

project statistics

FIG 1: map 1

Project Size:

N/A

Project Program:

Data Mining + Visualization

Programs Used:

Processing, Adobe




Abstract

by using that data to create a new search and linking the networked data with a networked visualization allows the reader to understand a deeper connectedness that exists between articles, differing times, and even differing topics. We hope to simulate this through an interlocking system of subway routes with Headline words displayed as subway stops. Yet, because of the dynamic nature of the keyword search function and the recursive nature of our module, a large amount of visual

Using the New York Times API as a resource for gathering information concerning news articles since 1981 and a customized version of the Flesch-Kinkaid Readability Test, we are using a particular seed Keyword to generate future Keyword searches, based on similarity. The data is visualized as an intricate grid of subway lines with each line representing a particular keyword search and a certain number of stops, (other marked keywords) which depend on the particular readability (IQ) of that particular article. A random stop-word is picked to create a new search (the new seed) of articles, which are then evaluated in the same way and grown off of the previous subway line. Recursion is allowed within the model to create an interweaving subway pattern that ultimately shows the inter-connectivety of various New York Times Article Headlines.

possibilities arrise.

2 New York Times API The New York Times API offers a multitude of search functions including whole article searches (starting from 1981 until the current date) as well as searches pertaining the the New York Times Blog, most popular articles, campaign articles, and best selling newspapers. We have chosen to work within the article search API and are using a keyword with a particular date range (2000-2010) to achieve a wide amount of possible results. Within the article search, different facets can also be applied to narrow down particular search results by region, newspaper section,

Keywords: New York Times API, Flesch-Kinkaid Readability Test, NYTimes Articles Subway Map

1 Introduction With the advent of digitial social networking, individuals want the ability to sense their interconnectedness to the rest of the population. Yet, such a fascination with a certain connectedness has existed in our social modia for quite some time. The New York Times is a great resource for current political, social, and analytical information, but how does that wide array of text link to our lives, besides the daily occurance of such material? By using keyword seed searches, based on their readibility and cleaned for all redundancies and common words (i.e.:if, and, the, etc. . .), our model displays such commonalities. Visually displaying such an IQ

or author.

3 Flesch-Kinkaid Readability Test This test approximates the readability ease for a particular English paragraph based on the number of sentances, the number of words per sentance, and the number of syllables per word. Higher scores mean a higher ease of readability and lower mean a lower ease of readibility (scholarly papers), yet higher intelligence. The formula is as follows:

article word

output.2

output.1

Headline Word

Headline Word

article word

article word

Headline Word Seed Keyword

article word article word article word

output.3

Headline Word

Seed Keyword Seed Keyword

article word article word

article word

article word

Seed Keyword Headline Word

article word

Headline Word Headline Word input line

article word

Headline Word

Headline Word

article word

FIG 2: hexagonal grid structure showing variable possibilities of further line creation. nathan william smith

Headline Word

FIG 3: map showing (3) articles being searched and their growth relationships.

article word





206.876 - 1.015(Total Words/Total Sentances) -84.6(Total Syllables/Total Words) Readability IQ

4 Visualizing The data is simulated as a network of subway lines, with different stops referring to the I.Q. of that particular article. This is all overlayed on hexagonal grid to create the subway-line form and to determine straightness of a particular line.

4.1 Seed Keywords Each seed keyword generates an article title and article body, which are then cleansed of any redundancy and common words. The whole text is then fed into the Flesch-Kinkaid Readability Test to generate that particular articles I.Q. This number is then used to determine the length of the physical subway line and as a parsing parameter to find the longest words within the text (with all Headline words included) and added as stops along the subway route.

4.2 Hexagonal Grid After a Seed Keyword is searched, the headline words and longest article words appear as stops. This grows from the Seed Keyword Stop and moves in the direction based on a hidden hexagonal grid and through the possibility of three options: straight, left 1, and right 1. Because of included functions, the line has a higher probability to move straight or towards a matching keyword from a previously searched article versus a lower probability to move left or right. The line creation dies once it reaches the last point, based on the IQ, or cannot move further (because all options are taken up with nonmatching variables).

5 Conclusion Creating relationships based on keywords from the New York Times includes alot of assumptions and produces alot of anomolies. We have noticed that most searches based on Names of People turn up as obituary articles and even though the search parses through the entirety of the article, the API will only display a certain percentage. Because of this, keywords might produce article samples which do not include the keyword. Yet, our model produces an interesting and intricate way of comparing items of social concern to items with particular relations in the creation of a hyper-network of possibilities. This can be used to not only create a map of a particular item, as a visual display of certain references, but also determine certain topics which are either popular in society, in the New York Times, or within certain generations. The dynamic nature of the search function allows interaction by the user, via the script, to create an intricate

nathan william smith

search-based web.

6 References Kincaid, J. P.; Fishburne, R. P., Jr.; Rogers, R. L.; and Chissom, B. S. (1975); Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel, Research Branch Report 8-75, Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN New York Times API. http://developer.nytimes.com/

7 Software Processing Ben Fry and Casey Reas http://processing.org/about/





nathan william smith


H 2O

bio:oil winter break 2010

david benjamin

los angeles

Premise: A GSAPP Workshop by David Benjamin and the Architecture Bio-Synthesis Project In association with Geoff Manaugh, BLDGBLOG, USC, and the Bartlett

carbon dioxide storage

scrubber particulate removal

catalytic reduction boiler

nox

particulate

so2 co2

This one-week intensive workshop in Los Angeles will explore transportation fuel and its relationship to the future of landscape and cities. We will study early 20th Century oil exploration in Southern California, mid-century growth of Los Angeles and its car culture, and recent technologies for producing green diesel through synthetic biology and the manipulation of DNA. We will pay particular attention to the impact of these transformations on both cites and rural landscapes. If the twentieth century involved boring into the earth for petroleum fuel, might the twenty-first century involve cultivating the earth for biofuel? If the past 100 years involved building cities of steel, glass, and asphalt, might the next 100 years involve building cities of living materials and developing infrastructures for new non-automobile modes of transportation? This workshop will involve research, writing, and design related to these topics.

alga

project statistics

FIG 1: algae harvesting in waters outside of LaCygne powerplant

Project Size:

13000sf

Project Program:

Mixed-Use

Programs Used:

Catia [EKL], ModeFrontier, Robot, AutoCad, Rhino, Adobe




1 Collaboration The workshop is part of a collaboration between GSAPP and Geoff Manaugh, BLDGBLOG, and the University of Southern California School of Architecture. It will overlap with Manaugh’s Spring 2011 Studio, and a SuperWorkshop in which students from the Bartlett School of Architecture will visit Los Angeles and conduct related research. Students in the GSAPP workshop will work with students from USC and the Bartlett, as well as with Manaugh and Bartlett instructors Mark Smout and Laura Allen. The GSAPP workshop will also be related to the forthcoming exhibition “Landscape Futures: Instruments, Devices, and Architectural Inventions,” curated by Manaugh for the Nevada Museum of Art. GSAPP student work will have an opportunity to be included in the exhibition’s accompanying publication.

2 Architecture bio-synthesis project This workshop will involve a continuation of research from the Architecture BioSynthesis Project at GSAPP, one of the first serious research projects to date based on collaboration between the fields of architecture and synthetic biology. It will build on the Fall 2010 GSAPP seminar on this topic, and produce documentation for future studies at Columbia.

3 Synthetic biology Synthetic biology is a new approach to engineering biology, based on manipulating DNA and establishing an open source database of predictable, re-usable biological parts. Since the field involves newly available technologies that can radically alter natural cells, it promises amazing applications for synthetic medicines, synthetic clean energy, and synthetic building materials. Since the field is still very new, this is a perfect time to contribute to a discussion about its standards, applications, ethics, and aesthetics. Current applications of synthetic biology include low-cost drugs for malaria, clean biofuel, and cells that can count and perform as simple self-replicating computers. Eventual applications may involve designing coral that removes carbon from the air and deposits it into building materials, or programming a seed to grow into a building. Diverse industries and corporate players are already investing heavily in the synthetic biology, and breakthroughs are already making news headlines. Human genome project pioneer Craig Venter claims, “Over the next 20 years synthetic genomics is going to become the standard for making anything.” Synthetic biologist Stephen Davies compares the buzz to the advent of steam power during the Victorian era: “Right now synthetic biology feels like it might be able to power everything. People are trying things; kettles are exploding. Everyone’s attempting magic right and left.” This workshop will examine fuel, landscape, and cities through the lens of synthetic biology. It will offer an immersion in this new field of science and a cuttin-gedge exploration nathan william smith

of possibilities for collaboration between architects and synthetic biologists. It will investigate the many ways that synthetic biology will change our world and our architecture, and it will explore how architects might respond to or even lead these transformations.Yet the class will also study the anxieties, fictions, images, and aesthetics of this new science. We will draw on our research to have an open-ended and critical discussion about the social and cultural implications of these new technologies.

4 New Transportation Fuels New fuels are one leading application of synthetic biology. Amyris Biotechnolgies is a start-up company that has manipulated the DNA of yeast cells to turn them into microscopic biofuel factories. The genetically-modified yeast cells produce farnesene from simple sugars. Farnesene can be easily converted into a substitute for petroleumbased diesel or jet fuel. Since the raw materials for this type of fuel are renewable sugars rather than non-renewable petroleum, this new green diesel emits 80% less carbon and is much more sustainable than oil. In addition, green diesel is compatible with existing pipelines, gas stations, and car engines. Yet the technology is not simply magic in the lab. Producing a relevant amount of fuel requires huge amounts of sugar, which must be cultivated and harvested. This micro-scale biological technology demands macro-scale land resources. Amyris has decided that using sugar cane is its best option, and it has developed partnerships with sugar cane and ethanol companies in Brazil, the world’s most efficient producer of sugar. The result is that large agrarian tracts are gearing up to produce sugar for fuel. Eventually, the 20th Century’s addiction to drilling for fuel may be replaced by the 21st Century’s need for growth of fuel. And in this context, the implications will be vast and complex for rural landscapes, cities, vehicles, and ecosystem models like the Carbon Cycle. In this workshop, we will visit synthetic biology labs, survey Southern California landscapes devoted to both fuel and agriculture, and talk to researchers on fuel, automobiles, and natural ecosystems. The workshop may also involve a short hands-on lab experiment in which students would experience first-hand the latest techniques for modifying, splicing, and “programming” DNA.

5 LANDSCAPE FUTURES This workshop will also contribute to a broader body of research initiated by Geoff Manaugh. “Landscape Futures” includes a design studio at USC and an exhibition at the Nevada Museum of Art, and it involves “research on how landscapes, and our perceptions of them, can be radically transformed by architecture, technology, and design. . . . A central question of the research is how the future tools of landscape investigation— new spatial devices on a variety of scales, from the inhabitable to the portable—can be imagined, designed, and fabricated.” The


GSAPP workshop will overlap with and contribute to a USC/Bartlett workshop on “the built and natural landscape of Los Angeles, a region prone to forest fires, drought, flash floods, noxious fog, landslides, debris flows, climactic extremes, seismic activity, surface oil seepage, and methane clouds.” Together, the workshops will meet with Matthew Coolidge of the Center for Land Use Interpretation, Nicola Twilley of Edible Geography, David Gissen of California College of the Arts, the Arid Lands Institute at Woodbury, and the USC Hydrocarbon Research Institute. The workshops will explore a specific perspective on Southern California, and develop a variety of hypotheses about landscape futures.

6 Synthetic Genomics How Synthetic Genomics fits into the field of a new bio-fuel study is through their manipulation of algae cells to maximize fuel created from the fats inside the algae cells. More specifically, Synthetic Genomics is working on a way to make the algae cells continually secrete the fats used for fuel conversion as a way to by-pass the need to destroy the algae in the process of fuel production.

6.2 Algae Current ventures in bio-fuel production include the transformation of soy, corn,

sugar cane, palm, and algae into a renewable energy source. While each have their benefits and downfalls, algae has the most potential. 2000 gallons of fuel per acre can be made yearly using algae. This is 2.5 times as much as palm oil, 5 times as much as sugar cane, 10 times as much as corn, and 20 times as much as soy. Plus, the harvesting of each bio-product has the potential of using more input energy than energy created. This is currently the case for corn and sugar can oil production. Plus, an added benefit of algae as a source for bio-fuel is that it is regenerative and feeds off of one of the planet’s most aggressive competitors: carbon dioxide.

6.3 Algae Production - Inputs In order to grow algae for fuel production, there are 4 necessary components: carbon dioxide, water (with nitrogen and phosphate), sunlight, and a location (open or closed systems). Carbon Dioxide is a material readily available as it is the element which is currently causing global warming and being excreted by the commercial, residential, industrial, transportation, and electricity generating sectors. In order to replace petroleum completely, only 15,000 square miles would be needed for algae production. Location and water source act as parallel inputs via closed or open systems. Closed systems are man-made systems in which algae is grown in tubes, plastic bags, beakers, etc. Closed Systems require more nutrient input (Nitro-

FIG 2: current ventures of synthetic genomics




gen and Phosphate), which causes a severe problem in producing a low-cost renewable fuel as Nitrogen is currently 350% more expensive than crude oil itself. Open Systems tend to have these nutrients naturally in them such as lakes, ponds, or reservoirs. Sunlight is the most accessible and cheapest input.

6.4 Algae Production - Process Once algae is successfully grown, the algae cells are starved of their nutrients in order to increase lipid content. The internal oil product is then secreted from the algae (no information was found on whether or not oil secretion damages the algae cell. This could have a high impact on algae acting as a renewable energy resource). Sugars and fats are seperated from the oil solution in a solvent which is then evaporated. The fat can the be transformed into biodiesel, biomethanol, biogasoline, bioethanol, biobutenal, and vegetable oil. The average growth process takes 10 days in order to get the highest lipid count in each cell. A longer growth process produces more lipids and vice-versa.

6.5 Genetically Modified Algae What Synthetic Genomics hopes to do is create a strand of genetically modified algae which does two things: (1) secrete the oils needed for fuel production constantly, thus speeding up production time and making algae completely renewable as the process of nutrient starving and cell destruction doesn’t need to take place and (2) produce algae cells with higher lipid content, or with those that have the ability to produce lipids more rapidly.

6.6 Facts and Figures Currently, its estimated that using this process in a closed system will cost $800/ barrel of fuel equal to that of gasoline and an open system is half that price. What this means is that from the limited testing done already, this option would make fuel alot more expensive then it is now, unless oil prices surpass the previous figures, which they soon will.

6.7 Other Benefits of Algael Biofuel One amazing benefit of using algae as a biofuel is that it uses a waste product of the current fuel system, one which is believed to be the largest problem in global warming: Carbon Dioxide. If we could create ways to utilize and harness the current waste, we not only get a free source of algae biofuel nutrients but also, the algae acts as a cleaning agent for the current environment. Plus, unlike the current fuel cycle, a linear system, the algae biofuel cycle is just that; a cycle. The recursion within the cycle allows the algae to be harvested and re-used for future production. This also works on a larger cycle in which algae is constantly being reproduced off of the waste

nathan william smith

products of our current environment.

7 Manifestations If we can classify architecture as a study of design within and for the built environment, we begin to think of how this new bio-fuel system affects that environment. My interest centered around how to create new systems of recursion through architecture.

7.2 CARBOx and ALBIOr CARBOx is an element with works on existing cars as a carbon dioxide collector. This acts much like a catalytic converter. ALBIOr is an element which grows genetically modified algae and instantly produces bio-fuel from the carbon dioxide collector. Although both have the potential to work together, this can be thought of as a new system which can be introduced gradually. In Stage 1, the CARBOx collects all carbon dioxide output from a car which can be deposited in a carbon dioxide collection center to be used as nutrients for algael bio-fuel in an off-site location. A secondary unit can be added to the front of the car and acts as a vacuum, capturing carbon dioxide in the air. Stage 2 involves adding the ALBIOr product which uses the collected carbon dioxide in the growth of a mobile algae biofuel producing unit. What this means is instant fuel produced from the sun, water, and waste. Stage 3 imagines this complete system as part of automobile design and production. This complete creation focusses on the most important space experienced in Los Angeles: the car. Instead of cars becoming the things that destroy the environment, they ironically become the exact things that aim to save it.

7.3 Algae Processing Plant This architectural solution is similar to that of the CARBOx and ALBIOr in the way it collects waste from an existing object, yet is situated on a nuclear power plant, and either uses an existing water supply to grow algae or works as a closed system to grow algae internally. Either option cleans up harmful wastes created by power plants and the energy created can be used to power the power plant or adjacent cities.

7.4 Algae Processing Stations in the Los Angeles River This creation multiplies the algae processing plant into the fruition of stations which move along the Los Angeles River and harvests algae growing in the river. The plant also acts as a vacuum, pulling in carbon dioxide (smog) from the Los Angeles air, thus not only cleaning the air in LA, but also providing a free source of nutrients for the algae growth.

8 Conclusion Using algae as a biofuel definitely has its


clear benefits, as previously stated. Comparing algae production costs to the current market value of oil makes biofuel made from algae still more expensive, yet has a greater lifespan through its renewability compared to crude oil, and thus offsets the total price of the fuel when compared to its lifespan. If architecture is and can be that mode of creation which inspects problems in our current culture and uses spatial creation as a means to solve them, even as abstractly as a carbon dioxide collector for a car or a processing plant on an existing plant, architecture is then that thing that provides a resource of opportunity. This then means that architecture has a bold new character, not just saved for high-end residential buildings or skyscrapers, but for the everyday object, which ultimately plays within the realm of the built environment. These creations might be thought of as an indirect approach to space or at least the prose to a possible future of spatial exploration. Yet, it is this creation of constant prose which questions the role of architecture in society and holds it as a valid mode of artistic, technical, and scientific creation.

G ESSIN PROC B LA

G

IN CESS PRO B LA

ING

S ES OC PR AB L

FIG 3: algae harvesting in los angeles






bio-fuel creation/use cycle using 350% more expensive than oil

2500

N

nitrogen

2000 1500

P

inp

phosphate

CO2

1000

carbon dioxide

water

sunl

500

2 kg commercial

residential

industrial

transportation

electricity generation

carbon emissions from fossil fuels

prod

Tg of CO2 (2006 U.S. Data)

Coal

Petroleum

ALG

Natural Gas

1 kg dried

micro

extraction

1:1

starve of nutrients

secrete oil product

0.6 kg oil

seperate sug

10% less energy vs. gasoline biomethanol

biogasoline

biodiesel

ENER

energy input/output process fuel

co2

co2

fuel

fuel

CO2

car fuel

1

power fu

sca

(size + ener

oil

algae

6,000 gall per

Petroleum nathan william smith

Algael




g photosynthetic microbes (algae)

puts $

$

$

$ $

$ $

$ $

O

light

.4mm

GAE

15000 sq. miles

location

bio-engineering

duct

C

total area needed for algae production

growth length

max diam

1

to replace petroleum

10

day

days

lipid content

oalgae

n process

fats from gars

1:1

evaporate solvent

transform fat to biodiesel

2000

RGY

bioethenol

vegetable oil

biobutenal

$400 CO2

$800

CO2

1400 1200 fuel

fuel

1000

city fuel

r plant uel

800 600 400

1000000

ale

rgy needed)

lons of oil year

200

+

12 9

3 6

=

soy

up to 20,000 gallons of oil per year

corn

sugar cane

palm

algae

bio-fuel creation from natural sources gallons per acre per year




sun

CARBLOw

co2 ALBIOr

co2 CARBOX

energy inpu

2

ALBIOr

H 2O

co2

FUEL TANK

H 2O

H 2O

1

CARBOX

1 H2O

Water

CBX

X O RB

CA

catalytic converter

HC CO NOX

Hydrogen Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxide

nathan william smith

CBX

H2O CO2 N2

Water Carbon Dioxide Nitrogen

+

co2

=

$

Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen output, collected by the CARBOX can be taken to an algael processing plant to be used in the creation of biofuel (with incentives).


SMOG

algae co2

FOSSIL

ut/output process

2 CARBLOw

co2

ALBIOr

2 H 2O

ENGINE co2

catalytic converter

2

3

CBX

+ ABr +

=

co2

CBX

ABr

CARBLOw

Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen output, collected by the CARBOX can be used in local-mobile algael growth ( ALBIOr ) for instant biofuel. Adding the CARBLOw allows the vehicle to work as a vacuum, using free CO2 currently existing in the atmosphere, therefore cleaning the air and feeding the algae.

Newer vehicles will already be equipped with this technology in order to reduce (and eventually fully eliminate) carbon emissions.




H2O

H2O

co2 carbon dioxide storage

scrubber particulate removal

catalytic reduction boiler

nox

particulate

so2 co2

algae

nathan william smith


H2O

PROC

LAB

ESSIN

H2O

G

bio-fuel co2

LaCygne Power Station LaCygne, Kansas, USA


nathan william smith


03

WRITING GSAPP 2010-2011 columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

METROPOLIS : ARGUMENTS : HISTORY OF THEORY




nathan william smith


summer 2010

enrique walker/hollyamber kennedy

metropolis

Metropolis Hollyamber Kennedy (C) 20 August 2010

The Web We Should Be Weaving In the case of the arguments presented by Team X concerning the post-war urban environment, their architectural hypotheses regarding the reconstruction of cities can be understood as working only within the construct of the text, the diagram, and the plan, rather than as a built manifestation of such ideals. The constraints of the haptic environment become idealized when addressed in the illusory realm. Therefore, physical site constraints morph into fantasy-like situations that describe utopia. The transmogrification of surrealist principles to realistic structures in the urban scale is hardly achieved as these physical velocities start to disintegrate initial ideas of the master plan. This can be seen in the arguments proposed by Team X, but specifically within the arguments of Shadrach Woods and his implementation of the stem and the web as growth structures and patterns for new city assemblages.

“Web must be a highly-flexible system in a rapidly changing world.”

The proposed imposition of the web within, through, and on top of any existing urban condition by Shadrach Woods was an ingenious idea. With the ability for maximum growth and the allowance of a layered system of movement, the web, according to Woods, allowed one to suppose that the city would always be an organic and bustling metropolis. In a typical web plan, the separation of the car and work structures compared to that of the pedestrian allowed for the possibilities of people to reinhabit the streets and the plazas, thus making a more “humanistic” city. The infill zones created by the web become activators of program, allowing all movement paths of the web to intertwine around spatial creations. Yet, the failure here exists within the simplicity of thought in the way these webs come to fruition as either sprawling networks of transportation (think of the proposal for the new quarter of Bilbao, Spain) or as random growth patterns of pedestrian decking, as in Frankfurt Romerberg. Both examples miss the opportunity of a more complexly integrated web as they deal with this growth structure in a minimally layered, 2-dimensional sense, in only plan or only in section, but not in perspective. I would suggest that web structures be considered as highly complex assemblages, not only linking major arteries, but also intertwining built form with open space and transportation lineages in all dimensions, especially in the vertical and in respect to time. The difference, as I am arguing, is to not separate the varying speeds of transportation or to allocate for super specific areas of building block or greenery, but to allow all velocities to simultaneously interact with each other and with the larger urban fabric, thus giving a completely dynamic urban system. Programmatic zones could be activated through the natural growth of these intricate lineages and not only allow varying paths of movement to sweep around them, but also through them, under them, and in them. This would offer the inhabitant a multi-layered perspective of the city and would create an unstructured structure in which elements grow naturally in response to the initial condition of the area, varying velocities, and in relation to other naturally-growing elements. In a way, this is what has become of regimented cities such as New York, in which the grid plan sets specific rules for program and transportation, yet the inhabitants transform this rigid structure by activating the streets and sidewalks with their own programmatic agenda. As a prime example of similar dynamic design ideals that, when implemented, become static, the grid-plan organizes the city according to a cardinal axis and does not address the issue of natural constraints, besides that of the rivers which surround it and the reconstruction of natural elements in its central core. These un-planned, naturally existing areas of the city become massive zones of activation, with the hopes of the inhabitant actually perceiving natural growth inside of such organized chaos. At the time of the creation of the ideals of Woods, including the theory of the web, differing sentiments towards existing and historical built form arose. On 


nathan william smith


one side of the spectrum, designers such as the Smithsons held the belief that new typologies of the city required completely new forms and therefore, could not rely on historical precedents, as these precedents did not reflect necessities and urban culture of contemporary society. On the contrary, designers such as Ernesto Rogers felt that the historical aspect of a city was of the utmost importance; therefore he argued that the initial move for any new urban design must be one in the same as the initial framework of the city. Woods landed somewhere in between these two by proposing new principles that indirectly connected to the existing urban fabric in order to establish new spatial relationships between old and new. This allowed new constructions to be rooted to or plug into an existing network and feed from that initial energy, but to not completely demolish the existing nor rebuild it. To completely disregard any existing city structures or to try to replicate these same structures leaves any new argument devoid of historical truth or innovation. Historical truth provides a certain richness and culture in any particular city. No matter what the initial construct, this past city has been modified by the inhabitants into the creation of a culturally idealist city. At the same time, to base a new design solely on that of the historic leaves little room for innovation. Innovation provides the city structure with an intelligence that allows the city to react to possible futures. When a design focuses on the space that exists in between these two extremes, it becomes well-rounded in a way that learns from historical context and is also able to predict future growth. The written arguments proposed by Woods concerning a web-designed urbanity are a lot stronger than the actual proposals yet, at the same time, his view about designing within the area between historical context and futuristic ideals provides a holistic view on urban design. A city that can take into account its historical context, while considering current constraints, and by dealing with ways in which it can naturally grow, has potential to be a construct that works alongside of the constantly changing human dynamic.




nathan william smith


summer 2010

enrique walker/hollyamber kennedy

metropolis

Metropolis Hollyamber Kennedy (C) 20 August 2010

Lincoln Center, Stop Teasing Me I arrived at 66th Street and Broadway expecting to be extremely critical of Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s newest creation. I figured that if this current project at Lincoln Center dealt with existing site conditions in a similar way as their ICA building in Boston disregarded the adjacent parking lot and waterfront, then I would have much to discuss in the form of negative criticism. At first glance, my eyes exploded with views of new modernist glory and my initial inclination was to pray to the architecture gods, asking their forgiveness for having ever spoken in such negative terms. Although it was love at first sight, once I started courting Lincoln Center, I began to understand its schizophrenia in terms of its social agenda. The existing Brutalist Juliard building of Pietro Belluschi (also referred to as Alice Tully Hall) is dissected with studied precision as a way to give the passerby a chance to peer into this hidden gem, an “architectural striptease,” as one of the project architects, Elizabeth Diller points out. “You understand you can really just go in and tease out incredible things that are there, you don’t have to overlay them or redo them; you can bring them forward.” In its preservation of the existing structure and its infusion of modern typologies, the new Julliard School of Music is a mixture of glass, acting as the formaldehyde for the brutalist specimen, and of travertine, which was gathered from the same quarry as the material of the existing building; thus brooding a re-creation of the past. Bellushi’s mastery is slyly transformed into a new topology of architectural gesture to the point that the joints between old and new become a blurring of materials and space. Yet, though this new re-vamped Lincoln Center “spills out to the street, and the city spills back into Lincoln Center,” thus providing an interface that “is no longer so hard-edged,” a new social edge is created, dividing the privileged and the not. Although the new glass walls create a visual connection between interior and exterior performances, it’s as if the building now taunts the general public into showing them what they cannot have. Here, one can really see what Ms. Diller meant by the architectural striptease. With security guards at every entrance and the glass box covering the new café that is filled with suit-wearing upper class, the new topology seems to be more of the preservation of the rare artifact, much like the glass structure that incases the Mona Lisa, than the celebration of openness. Is this the creation by the architect, or the standards by which the school operates? To further this cruelty, a triangular stage arises at the corner of the site, forcing perspectives of the sitting observer internally, thus acutely preserving the inside/outside economic dichotomy. As one travels south on Broadway, one can sense the happiness of the sun as it once again has the ability to touch the ground on 56th street between the Lincoln Center Theatre and Alice Tully Hall, an opportunity that it hasn’t had for over 30 years. The removal of Milstein Plaza (which was actually the name of the concrete bridge that had existed between the two buildings), establishes a new relationship between both sites, not based on the physical, but rather on the spatial. The newly designed parabolic roof-scape that begins to stretch across 56th street becomes a beckoning by the Lincoln Center plaza to the re-skinned Alice as if it wishes to lick its neighbor. This doubly-curved grassy knoll provides an interesting vantage point, a sun-bathers dream, a snow tobaganers fantasy, and the perfect spot for the budget-minded picnicking couple. But how long will this playful characteristic last? The glass box under such urban park is slated to become a modern restaurant in the upper west side. Will the purveyors and patrons of such high-end food customs be willing to accept the playfulness of other social classes who are sitting directly above them? Does this grassy surface then become another edge that divides those who have and those who do not? Does the situation turn from caviar and steak to saltines and sandwiches in a matter of 18 inches? These issues also beg the question of who these newly created spaces are actually for. In general, the


nathan william smith


atre spaces tend to have cafes, restaurants, and lobby spaces that are programmed specifically for the use of the show-goers, the clientele of the event. Conversely, the agenda of DS+R and Lincoln Center leadership opposed to this traditional grouping and were more focused on “democratizing the campus.” Theoretically, this new democratic model would make the after-event less private and less special for the consumer, but would create a more evenly special event for all. I would agree that the campus does become a democratic space for the students, the performers, and the customers, but less for those simply wishing to enjoy the planned space. Does this turn from theoretical operations to physical creations mean that it is the architect who is tainting such democratic intentions or the architectural client? One of the gems of the Lincoln Center site, the Metropolitan Opera House, is flanked on either side by two new green areas: the previously mentioned parabolic roof park and the yet-to-be exposed Damrosch Park. These green spaces provide new topologies of event space as ways to visually and physically activate such a hard plaza through the softening the existing hard ground-scape. And yet, the parabolic roof park, located on the north side of the opera house, seems crammed in between the sidewalk and the existing pool. It is almost as if this object were added as an afterthought as a way to allude to the newly deconstructed Julliard School and thus provides a transition from the rigid modernist plaza to the less rigid new modernist Julliard School. On the south-side of the Opera House is the existing Damrosch Park, full with opportunity. With more available open-space and being the location of a summer concert series and winter circus, this area seems more apt for a green roof surface with, instead of a high-end restaurant underneath, a ticket booth and concession for such temporary events. In a similar way that Bryant Park is bi-annually transformed from a grassy movie theatre to a frozen pond, Lincoln Center could be transformed from grassy bleachers to a snowy ski slope. I acknowledge that my opinion might seem somewhat disparate, as I am transferring between a feeling of love and of dislike, but I’m oscillating my thoughts from the visual and the sensory to the physical and the politically. I think that the revisions and newer creations by Diller Scofidio + Renfro at Lincoln Center are beautiful and are aiming in the direction of a democratic, new modernist assemblage, even though they do not fully achieve complete egalitarianism. I cannot help but think that this has something to do with the tainting of the project by the business of Lincoln Center, and less by the architects themselves. Yet, if the architects are found at fault for creating such anti-democratic space, then my suggestion would be to mitigate the tease and allow Lincoln Center to make up its mind. The preservationists may say that they are angry at the de-construction of Belluschi’s pre-existing creation simply because they are afraid of change, but I challenge that thought to more aptly point out that they dislike indecision. If anything were to save my relationship with Lincoln Center, it would be through the essence of more: more green space, more transition, and more creation. Allow the project to infest the local area into a transformation of new modernism through the DS+R lens and for these movements to play out in a larger scheme that actually begins to blur the edge from the privileged and the not. This way, if the disjunction between an idea and verbal proclamation of such an idea with the physical creation still exists, then at least it might it be able to be blurred once applied to a larger field (sarcasm intended).




nathan william smith


summer 2010

craig buckley

arguments

Arguments Craig Buckley 20 August 2010

Packed with AmMO Headed by former screenwriter Rem Koolhaas, and founded by the highly-acclaimed text Delirious New York, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) has a twin described by the office’s mirrored acronym: AMO; the think-tank of Koolhaas’s operation which performs through the exploration and graphical analysis of various projects. Most architectural offices work simultaneously on research, analysis, and design or have subsets of teams who work in this un-architectural realm, but do not typically differentiate between such. This begs the question of why OMA differentiates between the architectural part of the office and the traditionally unarchitectural part. Although AMO is described as the second head of the office with the ability to attack its own set of ideals, I question whether it is being used as a graphical counterpart or as a scouting mechanism to search for new architectural possibilities, as a journal which Koolhaas uses to postulate the future of architecture, or even as a demolishing entity that levels out pre-existing cultural ideals into the creation of an area marked with an AMO stamp. “What we have been successfully doing in the last five years is invading territories where we had not been invited.” On a simple level, Rem Koolhaas and his associates can be considered as hopeful creators. It is through his more recent work involving the magazine Volume in which he ascribes to be a creator of his own physically architectural projects, of a recently evolved form of architecture, and of culture. As a contributor to Volume, along with Mark Wigley (GSAPP, C-Lab) and Ole Bouman (Archis), Koolhaas (AMO) returns to his scholastic roots, with a mix of visual graphics, in order to save the future of architecture. The thing that sets Koolhaas and his offices apart from its adjacencies is the creation of the context in which such manifestations are fabricated. He imagines an active world versus a reactive through the production of diagrammatic texts that explain his plight. In a way, he works backwards from the traditional sense of obtaining architectural projects into the fruition of his own. Yet, by establishing the context as its own creation under the guise of an AMO product, OMA has the power to do almost anything: “Escape from the architecture ghetto is one of the major drivers and has been from the very beginning. . .The luxury of our position now is that we can almost assemble any team to address any issue.”1 The problem with this, as an architectural practice, is that AMO levels out all instances of original context and initial culture by shuffling an existing set of data into the pointed field of an OMA creation. Koolhaas heavily despises the design of buildings by builder or engineer but is suggesting a similar model of cultural blindness. AMO then serves the purpose of justification rather than a researching entity to prove that the physical creation is culturally correct, no matter if the texts come before or after building. The creation of three of AMO’s most recent texts/graphic novels: Al Manakh, Al Manakh 2, and Roadmap 2050, puts OMA in the position of the creation of new architectural projects via the prescriptive knowledge provided in the books. The texts become performative guides, aiding particular problems by supposing their solutions. The first text, Al Manakh, started as a creative collaboration that assumed a possible future of destruction in the middle-east and offered a guide to return to a state of normalcy with added structure. Written and published before the recent economic upheaval, it categorized the situation at that time as being on the path of eminent downfall. The story is framed with 4 specific moments of failure (The oil-funded initial starchitect era, the builder/engineer era, the broader starchitect era, and the “un-designed” era) with Koolhaas coincidentally leaving himself and OMA out of each failure zone. The only images of the uncompleted proposals of OMA in the middle-east show up as small, diluted images amongst 


nathan william smith


overly-saturated views of other failed proposals by other builders. As stipulating such, he considers himself as part of the solution and not the problem, thus separating himself from his like-minded contemporaries. Losing competitions to fellow ‘starchitects’ and to large engineering and building firms poses a personal problem to OMA, being that “it will soon be very difficult for top-rate architects to be distinguishable from [these firms]” . The direct problem of this occurring is that it takes the architect out of the procedure of building. As if to point out his own highly-held view of himself, Koolhaas feels that the only entity that is capable enough to perform such a task is that of not just any architect, but a certain prestige. The reason for the creation of such a guidebook starts resembling the response to fear more so than an intelligent speculation of possible futures. Al Manakh is retaliation against those opposing the forces of OMA and who are thus acting against the prescriptive knowledge of AMO. This idea leads into a newer response of OMA with the creation of “Generics”: a new head of the OMA beast that hopes to create buildings “of performance and functionality” by providing simple solutions in the form of architecture. Devoid of architectural signatures, the simply performative creations of this sort, as exemplified by OMA’s design for the Dubai Rennaissance, comes closer to solutions of New York’s skyscraper era. This regressive tactic makes Koolhaas a certain hipster of the middle-eastern designed fad of “extravagance.” While most designers reserved their architectural critique of the middleeast, the Volume team used everyone’s silence as a way to make their argument even louder. Instead of quarrelling with the decision at hand, Koolhaas took one step forward into prescribing what could happen after such a catastrophic event. AMO assumed that the future would be bleak and by supplying the vaccination, was hoping to save such catastrophe. Even though it might seem that Koolhaas is acting according to his statement that he made in the first issue of Volume, through the creation of a non-physical architecture by writing a guide, he then becomes the omnipresent source of knowledge and data concerning the exodus. By posing “issues by spatial intervention”5, the architect performs a role that is more proactive versus simply active, thus proposing the future project. The guide becomes more than a responsive text and can be used as a new context to deploy spatial creations. Instead of allowing the scenario to present itself, the data shown by AMO provides groundwork for OMA to physically speculate in the form of building. As speculative as the first Al Manakh was, in Al Manakh 2, Koolhaas is providing the framework for a recapitulation of the current situation of the middleeast. The first Al Manakh, funded by the Dubai’s International Design Forum, which Koolhaas is part of, assured AMO the capability to produce a second guide, based more on factual information and less on opinion and critique. Roadmap 2050 is structured similarly to Al Manakh 2 in the presentation of data in graphical form yet in the speculation of possible futures of a more-sustainable Europe. Being associated with these texts, Koolhaas is securing his future in not only the building of physical objects in the middle-east and sustainable structures for Europe, but also in the fabrication of future texts that require graphical research. According to Koolhaas, the traditional form of an architecture based on the physical creation does not currently define the practice and being so, involves himself with Volume and in the creation of AMO as means to pioneer a new future of architecture. “If architecture, step-by-step, has been ex-communicated from the building process, seen in contempt by its very engineers, forced to emphasize its greatness on more and more irrelevant grounds, the time may be near when architecture either dies or resurrects as something else.” With projects ranging from catwalks for Prada, the curatorial master plan for the Hermitage in Russia, and Al Manakh, the left-brained AMO has put itself in the fluid position of the creation of architectural extras, or items that are deemed as background to the final product of the traditionally-physical form of architecture. Along with his contacts at Volume, Koolhaas explains such reasoning as the creation of a new form of architecture, an architecture based solely on intelligence with the products ranging from publication to object. Ironically enough, the texts created by AMO seem to argue for the traditional form of a built architecture. Even though these texts might be thought of as progressive manuscripts for a new typology of architectural creation, they are still pointed in the formulation of a building. These texts become new typologies of architectural manuscript, but not architectural practice, design, or structure. 


nathan william smith


Can such a future of the complete death of architecture as we know it actually exist? Even though architects have always described themselves as makers of buildings (master-builders), it has become more recently apparent than ever that non-architectural teams (engineers, developers, builders) have the ability to create similar formal structures. Not only are such teams presenting themselves as worthy advisories to architects, but often have the ability to create buildings directly related to clients needs, yet without taking into consideration context. The architectural relationship to context to some degree is what determines a successful building. Without such a context, buildings transform into visual symbols, with the extravagant buildings planned for the UAE as perfect examples. As symbols, these forms hold a strong resonance, yet do not perform as habitable spaces which take into consideration environmental pressures, cultural aspirations, and programmatic efficiency. Does the UAE always want to be perceived as that symbol of opulence or strive for a deeper cultural representation as a successful urban scenario? The idea of a building-less architectural world is profound, in both positive and negative ways. It harkens back into the creation of the post-world-war manifesto concerning architecture. Yet, even at the time of the manifesto, people like Shadrach Woods and other members of Team X still thought in the idea of the physical creation as the final proof, using text as the precursor. Without building, does architecture just become the intellectual hyper-graphic like Content? In reality, the architects of today are nothing more than socialists who have found comfort in expressing their ideas through built form which, in the sense that Bouman is explaining it, might not necessarily is the best form of expression for our socialist ideals. Yet, what other profession asks its constituents such a high degree of intelligence in consideration of the effect that their creation has on the world? Architects are trying to overcome the disjunction between architecture and the building industry, where the building industry has currently taken over the traditional product of architecture: the building. Architecture is now left with the void of the physical forms that it has characterized itself by since its emergence. The intelligence, the thought, the social aspirations, the politics, and the tasseled shoes are the only remnants that architects have, so we might as well exploit them. This isn’t necessarily about scouting projects in the sense of looking for a more intelligent built form through particular filters, but more about scouting new grounds for architecture and architects to exist. What the first issue of Volume is suggesting is to go beyond the traditional means of physicality and imagine new trajectories for architecture. If we are to assume that Koolhaas is in fact writing on a newly profound architectural movement in the creation of a building-less architectural world, then where does that leave the current practice? This idea sounds more like the field of architecture is giving up its ideals and allowing itself to be pushed to other realms of intellectual design (city planning, social planning, cultural planning) with the point being that it must be intelligent. As trained designers, it is obvious that architects will have an instant agitation towards the thought of habitats solely created by builders. By posing this new architectural identity, AMO puts the OMA at the forefront of such a movement and establishes itself as pioneering such an act versus following an architectural trend of writing during economic downtimes. Here, the office operates as architectural almanac writers in the historical and future context of an entire profession. “In a Darwinian sense, the architectural species can only survive if it exhibits a biodiversity of forms and a constant supply of mutations that provide an agility in the face of changing environmental conditions.” By using AMO as a scouting operative or as a performative operative of progression, Koolhaas always wins. Architectural creations have traditionally attributed themselves upon the basis of cultural ideals of a particular area and time. It is this basis that offers initial constraint into multiple considerations of built form and informs the implications that a building might have upon a particular culture. But can architecture pre-suppose the process into the creation of a new culture through the architectural lense? Working as “an instrument of cultural invention, and reinvention,” this newly suggested typology works through the creation of its own culture, alluding to the fact that architecture can be used as a cultural creator more than a cultural gauge. In this sense, operation like this is similar to Gehry 


nathan william smith


and his attributed ‘Bilbao Effect’ that can be successfully be applied anywhere. Is this the kind of progressive thinking that we should be focused on? Rem Koolhaas and his office trio work as a synonymous machine with the pure reason for economic and prestigious gain. Although I would like to believe that he is proposing a new architectural ideology and using AMO as an example of such, I can’t ignore the fact that through all of the writing, there still is the final hope of physical building, especially in the case of the “Generics.” With AMO acting as a separate entity to OMA, the writings and proposals can be as far-fetched and politically charged as Koolhaas wishes them to be, but usually just for shock-appeal.

Bibliography Bouman, Ole. “Architecture as Harmless Practice or. . .” Volume 1 (2005): 4, 14. De Graff, Reiner. “Manifesto for Simplicity.” Serpentine Gallery Manifesto Marathon. October 19, 2008. Hawthorne, Christopher. “Towers of Power.” Los Angeles Times. August 19, 2007. Collections, Dubai. Koolhaas, Rem. Ed: Fairs, Marcus. “Rem Koolhaas.” Icon 13 (2004): Koolhaas, Rem. “A Refusal of Obligatory Extravagances.” With/Without. Edited by Shuman Basar, Antonia Carver, and Markus Miessen. 92. Dubai: Bidoun Book, 2007. Koolhaas, Rem. “Dubai: From Judgement to Analysis.” Lecture on OMA’s engagement in the Gulf and the effect of the economic crisis on the region. Sharjah Biennal. March 17, 2009. Wigley, Mark. “Towards the Perforated School.” Volume 1 (2005)




nathan william smith


fall 2010

mark wigley

history of theory

History of Theory Mark Wigley 17 December 2010

The Crime of Parametricism: The Cult of the Parametric Architecture and design attribute themselves to particular movements within the profession and act as commentary concerning the current state of society. This explains the reason for world-wide occurrences of architectural styles at certain periods of time. Simply put, Modernism was classified by simplicity and rawness of material; Deconstructivism by sharp corners and moves simulating cuts or peeling; yet, if we were to classify the current state of architectural design, what would it be called and what would its characteristics be? Do we have the power and knowledge to classify such a movement as it is happening? In order for a profession to progress, do we need to constantly define the state which it is in? With the advent of digital architecture and the increasing use of computational tools, we could assume that such a classification would have some relation to these relatively recent changes. This makes sense because the movement is not only happening within the profession, but throughout the world, in many professions in which the digital practice is replacing, or supplementing the physical and the analog. The cross breeding of the technical sciences (i.e.: math, biology, physics) with the natural sciences (i.e.: art, music, design) has produced a new array of progression in all fields. Through this, electronic music was born, graphic design fused with scripting to replicate natural patterns, and architecture has become mostly digital, yet classified with new terms: smooth, shiny, and dynamic. What started out as a tool for representation and a means for efficiency, computation has replaced all previous notions of tooling and is quickly bleeding into the realm of becoming more than just a tool, but a style all to itself. In his manifesto, Parametricism as Style – Parametricism Manifesto, Patrik Schumacher aims to classify this newest architectural movement as Parametricism, a confusing realm of design which can only be described by itself. Presented at the Dark Side Club at the Architecture Biennale in Venice, Italy, Schumacher first projects such an ideal upon a field of contemporaries. By doing so, he achieves the patent of Parametricism, based on false pretenses, in the name of Zaha Hadid Architects, the “we” referenced to throughout the writing and the office that Schumacher is partner at. Hadid’s office then becomes the vanguard of all that is parametric, thus making everything that is created by the office legitimized through the text. In a backwards progression from the typical root of the manifesto, Hadid and Schumacher shoot first and ask questions later. The evidence then becomes validated after the crime, planting parametricism as the cause and cleaning up other styles in the process. The evidence shows that Patrik Schumacher is in fact guilty under the terms of stealing the current moment of architectural experimentation and calling it Parametricism in the creation of the greatest architectural crime of all time. Referencing a quote from Picasso, T.S. Elliot once said (and LeCorbusier referenced), “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” 1 Through the gathering of parametric examples, current experimentations using digital tooling, and ideologies under the umbrella of the positive heuristics of parametricism, Schumacher is in fact pilfering the architectural examples of the avant-garde for himself.

Main Evidence: The Manifesto

The manifesto will be used in this case as the main article of evidence with supplementary evidence found within the text. Support 1: The Structure of the Argument (if there is one) An astounding amount of the terms “avant-garde,” “hegemony,” “heuristics,” ”contemporary,” and “paradigm” exist within the text as keywords for the reason of pointing the article towards a certain direction and lead to the overall structure of the argument. By establishing the “rule-of-thumb W’s” used in journalism: where 


nathan william smith


(within the profession), what (paradigm (parametricism)), who (avant-garde]), when (contemporary), why (the manifesto), and how (heuristics by hegemony), fused with these terms, we can understand how the argument is formulated and where its faults arise. The overall structure of this manifesto works as not only a guidebook, but also as a proof for the legitimization of the style as well as the practice of the style, yet not based on a specific physical context (built form), but of a series of experiments that seemingly work towards a single goal: discovering the current social truth. The manifesto, not the structure, but the text itself, works in a much different way: through assumptions, associations, and references it derives a polluted theory based on experimentation. Parametricism is thus not proved through sound reasoning, but an inundation of rules and shallow descriptors which are used in place of valid recognition and global acceptance. The manifesto is split into two modes: the first sets up the context of parametricism; the second provides methods to carry out the new style. That being said, by analyzing the beginning of the text and proving its faulty nature, the assumption can be made that the second section of the text is therefore invalid and is not fully included in this investigation. (Although, as a means to show all evidence, a summary of that section is included.)

Support 2: WHERE + WHAT - “Parametricism as Style” The title to the manifesto sets up an initial descriptor of what this term, parametricism, might be: a style. This word alone is where Schumacher makes his first mistake. Typically, architecture is delineated in time through stylistic movements which are classified by not only a particular form, but also a deeper ideology on how the movement operates within the discipline and how it reacts to the current social ideals. Although Schumacher clearly identifies the method, he makes no note of the deeper issues embedded within the style and only presents the façade of this architectural flavor. Typically, there is a slight disjunction between discursive fields (-isms) and architectural practices (-ists). The discursive field deals with the greater ideology through the creation of architectural movements (i.e.: deconstructivism or modernism) while the architectural practice informs the method in which to create under such ideologies with questioning being done as an action instead of a thought. By saying parametricism is a style, Schumacher is confusing the discourse and the practice. In fact, if the title would have just been “The Parametricist Style,” and the writing focused more on the practice with reference to other sources of discursive explanation, the argument would prove to be sound. Patrik seems to be describing not only the style of a new type of architecture, but also the style of Zaha Hadid Architects as a means to a new accepted form of form. By doing so, he is adding unnecessary complication to the two separate classifications of style. All architects have their own style, their own local agenda for the completion of design and although some fit within a larger field of similarity amongst other designers, it seems quick to assume that the style of one particular office is then the style of a time. The evidence needs to prove that such a universal style exists. This could manifest itself as a common agreement by multiple designers that parametricism is in fact the newest global style, one which they are all currently practicing, have addressed its meaning, and understand how it fits within the social context. Yet, at the same time, an architectural style aims to be more than just a common ground of practice. The theory that exists for the reasoning of that global style, more so than how it is happening, and what it hopes to gain, solve, and address along with experimentation of that style, is necessary for not only the progression of the entire field, but also the progression of that particular movement. What is style anyway? Schumacher uses this term as a way to bridge the gap between architects and the rest of society, being that the average person typically uses it as a definition for what architecture is. To an architect, what architecture or a specific building is can be a complex set of characteristics to identify, yet for the masses who are not familiar with the deep theoretical aspect of the profession, architecture is a descriptor attained through sight. The perception of architecture then deals with the aspect of the visual and thus a style is described as shapes, a look, or a finish. Much like an artistic style, a musical style, or even a fashion style, an architectural style is then fabricated as a democratic agreement versus an interior polemic. Under this ideal, society decides what architecture is instead of architects deciding what architecture is. Although this might be as a 


nathan william smith


difference between production and reception, it is all modes of action and reaction that classify a certain style. The success of such a style is its clear communication (or miscommunication) between creator, creation, and observer in a complete symbiosis of style. If style claims to be the representation of a time, then should it not be a style understood by many? Shouldn’t the production and fruition be just as important as the reception and the creation? If we are to assume that parametricism is acting as this new style, then this writing declares itself as the guidebook for all things parametric, prepared for followers of said dogmas. It becomes not only the manifesto of Schumacher, but also an applied manifesto for all parametricisits alike.

Support 3: WHAT (paradigm(parametricism))

The argument for Parametricism as being the new style of architecture begins as a description of what parametric design is and, vaguely, how it might be implemented. Yet, before describing this new term, Schumacher initializes himself, as well as the office of Zaha Hadid, as practitioners of this new paradigm. A great amount of assumptions are being made at the onslaught of this manifesto. By calling attention to “we” as being the pursuers of the parametric design paradigm, it is assumed that the listener knows who the “we” is as well as what the possible association to this term that the carrier has. This provides proof for the testing ground of this new style, as if to say, “we’ve tried it and it works great.” According to Schumacher, parametricism can be described through the adjectives “systematic, adaptive variation, [and] continuous differentiation,” which are different than just variety and the mass-produced objects of the Fordist-era. Yet, the definition of the word parametric simply describes objects that have parameters or are based on a series of relationships, which have the opportunity to create continuous differentiation, but not necessarily. Architecture has always concerned itself with relationships, with systems, with over-arching ideals that meld spaces to spaces and across multiple scales, therefore parametric architecture then becomes a ubiquitous term much like sustainable architecture or structural architecture. All architectural systems already deal with a certain degree of parametrics, contrary to the argument of the plaintiff. The argument is then formulated through a series of problem-solution paragraphs which aim to set-up the new paradigm and refute its skepticism by comparison. The problem though is that the parametricist theory is never fully explained nor is it organized in a manner that makes a strong argument for itself.

Support 4: WHO + WHEN - Historical Context (Parametricism is the avantegarde):

Schumacher points out that the current state of architectural design is in flux, not yet classified as any one particular thing, but left in a realm of experimentation using digital tools. Ergo, jumping into a classification of the current methodology based on such wavering terms is extremely difficult and requires a large amount of justification. In order to establish the relevancy of this argument to the current, Schumacher uses the term “avant-garde,” in much the way anyone proposing something new would use other synonyms in the same light: contemporary, modern, etc. . . Although, avant-garde carries a slightly heavier weight than just saying contemporary, as it is not just something current, but includes elements of experimentation, innovation, and things not of normal, but of the progressive. The avantgarde, translated, means the vanguard or the elite and used for the purpose of pointing out the current also brings a hint of elitism, as if this style just isn’t something that is practiced by the average architect, but an elite group of individuals who lead the profession. What the avant-garde hopes to accomplish, according to Schumacher, is to create architecture by “Organising and articulating the increased complexity of post-fordist society.” A post-fordist society is one of mass customization with layers of complexity, but many other assumptions could be made of such a society. Fordism, a social theory based on the accomplishments of Henry Ford, is characterized through its mass production from standardization, efficiency, and an elimination of skilled labor. This model allowed for the multiplicity of more and for this more to be spread to the masses. In a way, this marked the initial mass consumption of society, what Schumacher refers to as the “heterogeneous society of the multi


nathan william smith


tude.” The avant-garde provides the solution to a changing society by offering mass customization and models which deal with the complexity of the contemporary society, but do products based on intricate scripts which act as growth models really deal with the needs of such a society? The fabrication of scripting methodologies, rather than modeling, is exactly the same as the fordist model of mass-production, just with differing attributes within the computational model. The conveyer-belt production line created from the fordist methodology organized a set of previously complicated and scattered tasks into a law-bound set of agendas in the production of automobiles. Parametricism is trying to do the same through the organization of previously-created deconstructivist methodologies and a smoothing of the process. In a similar way that the fordist model automates a production that was previously manual, the parametric model offers a higher range of speed via script. Yet still, there is more allusion within the term avant-garde as it could be referring to the avant-garde movement in architecture which started after the Second World War. By positioning himself alongside the experimentalists of such a movement, Schumacher further tries to legitimize his argument by saying that it is part of this avant-garde and by not classifying it as something else (like neo-avantgarde). Some believe that such a digital movement should be considered as part of the avant-garde for multiple reasons: “First, the notion of the artist-as-outsider, pitted against the mainstream and the conventions and traditions of its arts and technologies; second, the challenge and envy of a new technology; third, and most characteristic, an addiction to the new, to originality, to futurity.” 2 Yes, these descriptors characterize the style that Schumacher is presenting; yet why refer to a historical architectural movement? The avant-garde movement was marked with “its intellectual radicalism and, on the other hand, its coincidence with the advent of a new generation.” 3 By stating that Parametricism is a style of the avant-garde, he is automatically placing it as the epoch of a new generation or the style of a completely new time. If the avant-garde movement is to be marked by continual innovation, originality and newness, then how can that particular movement be classified and how then can it actually last? Parametricism is the [neo]-avant-garde. Not through specific evidence, but through perception of the populous, parametricism is born. Based on the statement that the “pervasive hegemony” is dealing with items of the parametric, the assumption is made that now must be the time of parametricism. The only way to notice a drastic change is through comparison. To know one thing is to also know what it is not, referenced as the opposite of what it is. This current style is therefore not modernism, although just as great, yet unwariness exists between this current style and the previous episodes of architectural experimentation (Schumacher uses the term episodes to show the temporality or dissimilarity when referring to postmodernism and deconstructivism compared to the progressive argument). Why are deconstructivism and postmodernism not styles? As a way to quickly analyze the difference between the three styles: Postmodernism could be described as a reaction to modernism through the resolution of what modernism could not achieve. Deconstructivism acts in a similar way, but through the un-doing of both of these previous styles. The problem that Schumacher is faced with is the differentiation between parametricism and deconstructivism being that they both have somewhat similar ideals: A desire to solve the static problems of modernism and postmodernism, pushing the spatial boundaries from the modernist box, and the development of new formal typologies that correspond to a complex society. Because of the structural organization existing in the scripted models that define the style of parametricism, the only difference is seen is a smoother, more refined geometry than the deconstructivist counterpart. Parametrics can then be thought to be a further refinement of such practices in which sharp corners become smoothed, random shards become ordered based on size or effect, and moments of chaos become centers of gravity for effects to form gradients.

Support 5: WHY - Innovation (the avant-garde is science): “Styles are design research programmes”: the avant-garde is science. The vague description of architectural innovation that Schumacher provides could be a statement for any type of innovation: it recognizes past movements, is an accumulation of periods of transition between styles, and holds strong even in 


nathan william smith


the face of skepticism. By pointing out that the parametricist manifesto is an object of “dogmatic obstinacy” his awareness with skepticism concerning the subject is revealed, yet fails to disprove such questions. This insistence is brought on with tenacity by harbingers of the avant-garde which leaves me questioning why such a fierce obstinacy needs to exist. Why can’t the movement (style) stand for itself? Why must it be constantly defined and by those with a particular vigor to push such ideals? By referencing Imre Lakatos’ The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, he not only furthers the argument that this new style is in the mode of experimentalism, but also in a time of disparity, much like times before other great moments of scientific achievement. Through the comparison of the principles created by Newton, Einstein, and Karl Marx, Schumacher places himself and his theory in the realm of intelligent thinkers before even explaining the full context of the theory. This legitimizes the apparent problems associated with the proposed style as markers along the path of success, instead of presenting and critiquing the specific problems themselves. The difficult thing about proving parametricism as an architectural paradigm is through the physical example, a non-existent model which lags because of the construction industry and the inefficiency of creating fluid forms of mass customization. Architecture has often defined itself as the profession which focuses on physical forms (built spaces) as the final outcome, even though architectural design has the opportunity to prove itself through other forms. Schumacher briefly suggests a building-less architecture: “Avant-garde architecture produced manifestos: paradigmatic expositions of a new style’s unique potential, not buildings that are balanced to function in all respects,” yet fails to provide evidence of such happenings past this statement. This is a very bold statement to make within a larger argument and because of its faulty nature, also makes the over-arching argument faulty as well. If he is proposing an architectural model without built forms, much like the futuristic ideology of Rem Koolhaas and his operations through AMO 4, then this must be stipulated and refuted as part of the modern paradigm, not just sidenote reasoning for why parametric architecture has not yet been built. Instead of built form, the “final reckoning” of the parametric creation must have, according to Schumacher, mainstream adoption. If Parametricism is in fact the new avant-garde style which is constantly looking forward and progressing towards ingenuity, why must it have mainstream adoption? That notion could hamper the progression of a style and being that style is subjective, mainstream adoption will be difficult to attain.

Support 6: HOW - Heuristics, the History of Parametrics, Use of the Tool, Agendas and Fields. The manifesto takes a sharp turn to explain the heuristics, brief history, tool usage, agendas, and typologies that exist as part of parametricism with the assumption that the evidence currently provided by the manifesto is enough to explain the process of creation. All of these techniques jitter around popular experimental studies within architecture including surface population, swarm theory, natural growth models, intricate relationship systems, kinetics, and finally, fields. One large fault that Schumacher makes is confusing the tool with the methodology. “The current stage of advancement within parametricism relates as much to the continuous advancement of the attendant computational design technologies.” In the case of parametrics, the tool is vital within the method and without such a tool, the style would cease to exist. That then means that the style is only as powerful as the tool that governs it. It is one thing to describe the methodology of such a style with certain inherence that computational design is required for the practice of the style, but to specifically name types of tools within the context of the argument forces the style and the tool to merge. The tool has always been an important aspect of architectural creation (as well as knowing the limits of such a tool) and yet the tool has always essentially been nothing more than a tool. Yet, when the style and the tool become synonymous with one another, the subjective design is lost. Although scripting and software based on the inclusion of parameters provide new kinds of architectural design which might not have been able to be designed without such instruments, every tool has its limit. This is where we will discover the limit of the style as well. 


nathan william smith


Towards the end of the manifesto, Schumacher brings up the subject of fields which are objects of fluidity, areas of “biases, drifts, gradients, and perhaps order,” all based on a lawfully in-scripted platform and taking the place of the modernist “space.” Landscapes existing as fields then have no need for signage as the swarm of building structures and their differentiated surfaces allow the user to flow from one to the next with full connection with the types of spaces that exist (a map-less “field-navigation”). This is a complete over-exaggeration of the urban scenario in which the user is circulating along gradient-marked paths and through fluid forms with no conception of beginning, end, inside, and outside. It seems this would create an utterly confusing situation for the user, especially in the urban scenario. As much as this fantasy would like to assume that users are urban drifters, for the most part, users have their own agendas and use signals to navigate their daily movement patterns. Without further explanation of how an unfamiliar person might navigate this landscape, there seems to be no difference from a structure that is pixilated in a certain way to resemble a hotel versus the current typical structure, ascribed by the letters H-O-T-E-L on the façade.

Conclusion: The weakness of the argument within the manifesto provides conclusive evidence that Schumacher is in fact guilty for the false creation of a new architectural style, under the guise of innovation, but in reality acting as an amalgamation of recent digital architectural experimentalism. “[O]ne of the primary characteristics of avant-garde art is, technically and formally, experimentalism.” 3 What results, instead of the highly sophisticated socially-fit model that the style proposes, is layers of visual effects from gradients, attractors, and natural growth algorithms. As a manifesto for a new style of architecture, there are some key aspects that are left for further resolution: the purpose and the final goal. From the evaluation of the text it seems as though the purpose of such a style is simply for the style in itself or at least under the guise of experimentation. “There seems now to be a split within digital experimentation between those who want change for change’s sake within architecture itself, its forms and practices, and those who want change within architecture for the sake of a larger project.” 2 What would the final goal be? If we are to suppose that the last part of the text is in fact the conclusion of the argument, then parametricism ultimately creates fields which, previously, architecture deemed as space. Here, the term “fields” implies a gelatinous form of space in which the free movement of people discerns habitation. It is sad to think with such progression in multiple technological fields within architecture that, in the end, all we end up with through parametricism is blob-space. There is an intrinsic power within the parametric that Schumacher is missing and its rather basic: variety. Although he touches on the idea of mass-customization, the power of the parametric model resides within its ability in the creation of a multiplicity of possibilities with moments of micro and macro customization according to particular constraints. Also, being that the parametric model must be created with metrics, or forms of measurement, this forces the designer to be more exact about particular wishes, constraints, and more importantly, goals. On the subjective level such metricizing is extremely difficult and could potentially be an area of extreme interest for the experimental part of parametrics. This includes evaluating beauty, emotions, materials within the model in a way that preferences performance, efficiency, as well as exploration. The methodologies, studies, and experiments that Schumacher presents do currently exist and are being explored in architecture, but are still too fresh to be classified. If the pursuers of a new architectural ideology still persist in their ways, the definition of the new architectural movement called parametricism needs to be organized and articulated through the increasing complexity of society as well as the discourse, much like the way the movement articulates.

Notes 1 Eliot, T.S., The Sacred Wood, London, 1920. 2 Hagan, Susannah. Digitalia: architecture and the digital, the environmental, and the avant-garde. Routledge, London. 2008 (37). 


nathan william smith


3 Poggioli, Renato. The Theory of the Avant Garde. The Beknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1968 (131). 4 In the first issue of Volume, Rem Koolhaas, Ole Bouman, and Mark Wigley provide cues for the idea of a building-less architecture: “If architecture, step-by-step, has been ex-communicated from the building process, seen in contempt by its very engineers, forced to emphasize its greatness on more and more irrelevant grounds, the time may be near when architecture either dies or resurrects as something else.” (Ole Bouman, Architecture as Harmless Practice or. . .” Volume 1 (2005): 4, 14.) 5 All other quotations reference: Schumacher, Patrik, Parametricism as Style – Parametricist Manifesto, lecture at the Dark Side Club, 11th Architecture Biennale, Venice 2008.




nathan william smith


04

columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

APPENDIX GSAPP 2010-2011 PROOF 6 : SPEAKERS’ CORNER : SUPERMODEL CITY 2010




let let let let let let let let

x z i o y b n c

(integer) (integer) (integer) (integer) (integer) (integer) (integer) (integer)

let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let

MPOR (list) MPOR2 (list) MBOUND (list) MSTRUCTURE (list) MFLOORR (list) MCORE (list) MCORE2 (list) LIST1 (list) LIST2 (list) YesList (list) NoList(list) OLIST (list) LineList_1 (list) LineList_2 (list) LineList_3 (list) LineList_4 (list) LineList_5 (list) LineList_6 (list) LineList_7 (list) LineList_8 (list) LineList_9 (list) LineList_10 (list) LineList_11 (list) LineList_12 (list) LineList_13 (list) LineList_1B (list) LineList_2B (list) LineList_3B (list) LineList_4B (list) LineList_5B (list) LineList_6B (list) LineList_7B (list) LineList_8B (list) LineList_9B (list) LineList_10B (list) LineList_11B (list) LineList_12B (list) LineList_13B (list)

let let let let let let let let

POR (point) POR2 (point) p1 (point) p2 (point) p3 (point) p4 (point) COREPOINT (point) COREPOINT2 (point)

let point_ratio (real) let point_count (integer) let let let let let let let let let let

L1 (line) L2 (line) L3 (line) L4 (line) LA (line) LC1 (line) LC2 (line) B1 (line) B2 (line) corn (line)

let CURVE1 (Curve) let CURVE2 (Curve) let CURVE3 (Curve) let CURVE4 (Curve) let Angle_Check (angle) let Proximity (length) let MinDist (length) let S1 (surface) let DIR (direction) b=1 c=321 n=321 i=1 /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Node Construction////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ z=1 for z while z<=M_POR_LIST\Size{ MPOR = M_POR_LIST.GetItem(z) MPOR2 = M_POR_LIST2.GetItem(z) MBOUND = M_BOUNDARY_LIST.GetItem(z) MSTRUCTURE = M_STRUCTURE_PT.GetItem(z) MFLOORR = M_FLOORR_LIST.GetItem(z) x=1 for x while x <=POR_LIST1\Size{ POR = MPOR .GetItem(x) POR2 =MPOR2.GetItem(x) L1 =MBOUND.GetItem(x) point_count = MSTRUCTURE.GetItem(x) point_ratio = MFLOORR.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=point_count{ if y ==1{ p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_INSTANCES\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` , i) p1 = pointoncurveRatio(L1,POR,point_ratio,true) if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” } n=n+1 i=i+1 }else{ p2 = p1 L2 = line(POR,p2) L3 = line(POR2, p2) if length(L2)>.01mm{ p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_INSTANCES\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` p1 = pointoncurveRatio(L2,POR,point_ratio,true) if y == point_count{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` ->Append(p1) } if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” } i=i+1 n=n+1 } if length(L3)>.01mm{ p3 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_INSTANCES\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` p3 = pointoncurveRatio(L3,POR2,point_ratio,true) if y == 2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE2` ->Append(p3) } if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11` ->Append(p3)

nathan william smith

,i)

,i)


fall 2010

david benjamin

FIG 1: 4-floor structural model [CATIA]

proof 6




} n=n+1 i=i+1 } } } } } `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge

Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST`

->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge

p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE”

Pattern.1\LIST_1`) Pattern.1\LIST_2`) Pattern.1\LIST_3`) Pattern.1\LIST_4`) Pattern.1\LIST_5`) Pattern.1\LIST_6`) Pattern.1\LIST_7`) Pattern.1\LIST_8`) Pattern.1\LIST_9`) Pattern.1\LIST_10`) Pattern.1\LIST_11`) Pattern.1\LIST_12`) Pattern.1\LIST_13`) Pattern.1\LIST_14`)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Node Construction/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size() + 321 i=1 z=1 for z while z<=M_POR_LIST\Size{ MPOR =M_POR_LIST_B .GetItem(z) MPOR2 = M_POR_LIST_B.1 .GetItem(z) MBOUND = M_BOUNDARY_LIST_B .GetItem(z) MSTRUCTURE = M_STRUCTURE_PT.GetItem(z) MFLOORR = M_FLOORR_LIST.GetItem(z) x=1 for x while x <=POR_LIST1\Size{ POR = MPOR .GetItem(x) POR2 =MPOR2.GetItem(x) L1 =MBOUND.GetItem(x) point_count = MSTRUCTURE.GetItem(x) point_ratio = MFLOORR.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=point_count{ if y ==1{ p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_CORE\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` , i) p1 = pointoncurveRatio(L1,POR,point_ratio,true) if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” } n=n+1 i=i+1 }else{ p2 = p1 L2 = line(POR,p2) L3 = line(POR2, p2) if length(L2)>.01mm{ p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_CORE\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` ,i) p1 = pointoncurveRatio(L2,POR,point_ratio,true) if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14B` ->Append(p1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” } i=i+1 n=n+1 } if length(L3)>.01mm{ p3 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`POINT_CORE\Analytical Set\Points` ,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` ,i) p3 = pointoncurveRatio(L3,POR2,point_ratio,true) if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_1B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FIXED” }if z==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_2B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_3B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_4B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_5B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_6B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_7B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_8B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_9B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_10B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_11B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_12B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_13B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” }if z==14{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LIST_14B` ->Append(p3) p3.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” } n=n+1 i=i+1 } } } } } `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge `Relations\Knowledge

Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB`

->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge ->Append(`Relations\Knowledge

Pattern.1\LIST_1B`) Pattern.1\LIST_2B`) Pattern.1\LIST_3B`) Pattern.1\LIST_4B`) Pattern.1\LIST_5B`) Pattern.1\LIST_6B`) Pattern.1\LIST_7B`) Pattern.1\LIST_8B`) Pattern.1\LIST_9B`) Pattern.1\LIST_10B`) Pattern.1\LIST_11B`) Pattern.1\LIST_12B`) Pattern.1\LIST_13B`) Pattern.1\LIST_14B`)

/*Message (“#”,LIST1 .Size())*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Structure Search//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\BAR2`.Size() + 321 i=1 z=1 for z while z <`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` ->Size(){ LIST1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST`->GetItem(z) LIST2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST`->GetItem(z+1) x=1 for x while x <=LIST1 ->Size(){ p1 = LIST1->GetItem(x) DIR = direction(`xy plane` ) L1 = line(p1,DIR ,0,10,true) MinDist = 100000m y=1 for y while y<=LIST2 ->Size(){

nathan william smith


p2 = LIST2->GetItem(y) L2 = line(p1,p2) Angle_Check = angle(L1,L2) Proximity = distance(p1,p2) if Angle_Check<>0deg { if Proximity < MinDist{ } } } i=i+1 n=n+1 if z ==1{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList1` .Append(L3) } if z ==2{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList2` .Append(L3) } if z ==3{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList3` .Append(L3) } if z ==4{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList4` .Append(L3) } if z ==5{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList5` .Append(L3) } if z ==6{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList6` .Append(L3) } if z ==7{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList7` .Append(L3) } if z ==8{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList8` .Append(L3) } if z ==9{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList9` .Append(L3) } if z ==10{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList10` .Append(L3) } if z ==11{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList11` .Append(L3) } if z ==12{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList12` .Append(L3) } if z ==13{ `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LineList13` .Append(L3) } } }*/

Set MinDist = Proximity p3 = p2 L3 = line(p1,p3)

/*Message (“#”,LineList_1 .Size())*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Structure Search 2 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + 1 n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\BAR2`.Size() + 321 z=1 for z while z <`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST` ->Size(){ LIST1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST`->GetItem(z+1) LIST2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LIST`->GetItem(z) x=1 for x while x <=LIST1 ->Size(){ p1 = LIST1->GetItem(x) DIR = direction(`xy plane` ) L1 = line(p1,DIR ,0,10,true) MinDist = 100000m y=1 for y while y<=LIST2 ->Size(){ p2 = LIST2->GetItem(y) L2 = line(p1,p2) Angle_Check = angle(L1,L2) Proximity = distance(p1,p2) if x <>y{ if Angle_Check<>0deg { if Proximity < MinDist{ } } } } i=i+1 n=n+1 if z ==1{ LineList_1.Append(L3) } if z ==2{ LineList_2.Append(L3) } if z ==3{ LineList_3.Append(L3) } if z ==4{ LineList_4.Append(L3) } if z ==5{ LineList_5.Append(L3) } if z ==6{ LineList_6.Append(L3) } if z ==7{ LineList_7.Append(L3) } if z ==8{ LineList_8.Append(L3) } if z ==9{ LineList_9.Append(L3) } if z ==10{ LineList_10.Append(L3) } if z ==11{ LineList_11.Append(L3) } if z ==12{ LineList_12.Append(L3) } if z ==13{ LineList_13.Append(L3) } } }*/

Set MinDist = Proximity p3 = p2 L3 = line(p1,p3)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Structure Search//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() +`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\BAR2`.Size() + 321 i=1 z=1 for z while z <`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` ->Size(){ LIST1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB`->GetItem(z) LIST2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB`->GetItem(z+1) x=1 for x while x <=LIST1 ->Size(){ p1 = LIST1->GetItem(x) DIR = direction(`xy plane` ) L1 = line(p1,DIR ,0,10,true) MinDist = 100000m y=1 for y while y<=LIST2 ->Size(){ p2 = LIST2->GetItem(y) L2 = line(p1,p2) Angle_Check = angle(L1,L2) Proximity = distance(p1,p2) if Angle_Check<>0deg { if Proximity < MinDist{ } } } i=i+1 n=n+1 if z ==1{ LineList_1B.Append(L3) } if z ==2{ LineList_2B.Append(L3) } if z ==3{ LineList_3B.Append(L3) } if z ==4{ LineList_4B.Append(L3) } if z ==5{ LineList_5B.Append(L3) } if z ==6{ LineList_6B.Append(L3) } if z ==7{ LineList_7B.Append(L3) } if z ==8{ LineList_8B.Append(L3) } if z ==9{ LineList_9B.Append(L3) } if z ==10{ LineList_10B.Append(L3) } if z ==11{ LineList_11B.Append(L3) } if z ==12{ LineList_12B.Append(L3) } if z ==13{ LineList_13B.Append(L3) } } }*/

Set MinDist = Proximity p3 = p2 L3 = line(p1,p3)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Structure Search 2//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() +`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\BAR2`.Size() + 321 z=1 for z while z <`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB` ->Size(){ LIST1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB`->GetItem(z+1) LIST2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\MASTER_LISTB`->GetItem(z) x=1 for x while x <=LIST1 ->Size(){ p1 = LIST1->GetItem(x) DIR = direction(`xy plane` ) L1 = line(p1,DIR ,0,10,true) MinDist = 100000m y=1




for y while y<=LIST2 ->Size(){ p2 = LIST2->GetItem(y) L2 = line(p1,p2) Angle_Check = angle(L1,L2) Proximity = distance(p1,p2) if x <>y{ if Angle_Check<>0deg { if Proximity < MinDist{ } } } } i=i+1 n=n+1 if z ==1{ LineList_1B.Append(L3) } if z ==2{ LineList_2B.Append(L3) } if z ==3{ LineList_3B.Append(L3) } if z ==4{ LineList_4B.Append(L3) } if z ==5{ LineList_5B.Append(L3) } if z ==6{ LineList_6B.Append(L3) } if z ==7{ LineList_7B.Append(L3) } if z ==8{ LineList_8B.Append(L3) } if z ==9{ LineList_9B.Append(L3) } if z ==10{ LineList_10B.Append(L3) } if z ==11{ LineList_11B.Append(L3) } if z ==12{ LineList_12B.Append(L3) } if z ==13{ LineList_13B.Append(L3) } } }*/

Set MinDist = Proximity p3 = p2 L3 = line(p1,p3)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Corner Creation//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=1 n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() +321 x=1 for x while x<=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` ->Size(){ if x==1 or x==5 or x==9{ p1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` .GetItem(x) p2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE2` .GetItem(x+3) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”,`Corner\Analytical Set\Lines` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` , i) L1 = line(p1, p2) L1.Name =”line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE01” i=i+1 n=n+1 }else{ p1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` .GetItem(x) p2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE2` .GetItem(x-1) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”,`Corner\Analytical Set\Lines` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` , i) L1 = line(p1, p2) L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE01” i=i+1 n=n+1 } }*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Corner Bracing//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 1 n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x<=8{ if x ==1 or x ==5{ p1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` .GetItem(x) p2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE2` .GetItem(x+7) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `Corner\Analytical Set\Lines` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` , i) L1 = line(p1, p2) L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE01” i=i+1 n=n+1 }else{ p1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE` .GetItem(x) p2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\FLOOR_LINE2` .GetItem(x+3) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”,`Corner\Analytical Set\Lines` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` , i) L1 = line(p1, p2) L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE01” i=i+1 n=n+1 } }*/

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Inner Node Construction//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size()+`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_1.Size(){ L1 = LineList_1.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==1 or y==2{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`INT_POINTS\Analytical Set\Points` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` , i) p1 = intersect(L1, S1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Inner Node Construction//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size()+`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_2.Size(){ L1 = LineList_2.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size(){ if y ==3 or y==4{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `INT_POINTS\Analytical Set\Points` p1 = intersect(L1, S1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

, `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` , i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Inner Nodes//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size()+`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_1B.Size(){ L1 = LineList_1B.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==1 or y==2{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”,`INT_POINTS_CORE\Analytical Set\Points` p1 = intersect(L1, S1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

, `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS`

, i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Inner Nodes 2//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .Size() +`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_2B.Size(){ L1 = LineList_2B.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size(){ if y ==3 or y==4{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) p1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `INT_POINTS_CORE\Analytical Set\Points` p1 = intersect(L1, S1) p1.Name = “Pt” + ToString(n) + “_FREE” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

, `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS`

, i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Structure Split Bottom//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_1.Size(){ CURVE1 = LineList_1.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==1{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y)

nathan william smith


} if y ==2{ } } }*/

CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,true) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines`

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE3 = split(CURVE1,S1,false)

S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE4 = split(CURVE3,S1,true) L2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L2 = CURVE4 L2.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Structure Split Top//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_2.Size(){ CURVE1 = LineList_2.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==3{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,true) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE3 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) } if y ==4{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE4 = split(CURVE3,S1,true) L2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_LINE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L2 = CURVE4 L2.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE00” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1`

, i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Structure Split Bottom/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_1B.Size(){ CURVE1 = LineList_1B.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==1{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,true) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE3 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) } if y ==2{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE4 = split(CURVE3,S1,true) L2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L2 = CURVE4 L2.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Core Structure Split Top/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + 1 n=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo` .Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <= LineList_2B.Size(){ CURVE1 = LineList_2B.GetItem(x) y=1 for y while y<=INTERSECT_SF.Size() { if y ==3{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,true) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE3 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) } if y ==4{ S1 = INTERSECT_SF .GetItem(y) CURVE2 = split(CURVE1,S1,false) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L1 = CURVE2 L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 CURVE4 = split(CURVE3,S1,true) L2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `STRUCTURE_CORE\Analytical Set\Lines` Set L2 = CURVE4 L2.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE02” i=i+1 n=n+1 } } }*/

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

,`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE`

, i)

/*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Floor Structure//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*i=1 n= `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_LINE` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\LINE1` .Size() + `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floooooo`.Size() + 321 x=1 for x while x <=`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .Size(){ p1 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\CORE_POINTS` .GetItem(x) p2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\POINTS1` .GetItem(x) L1 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“line”, `FLOOR_STRUCTURE\Analytical Set\Lines` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\Floor_STRUCT` , i) L1 = line(p1, p2) L1.Name = “line” + ToString(n) + “_TUBE01” i=i+1 n=n+1 }*/




let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let

x (integer) y (integer) i (integer) n (integer) c (integer) Type (integer) gencount (integer) prevcount (integer) totecount (integer) typevar (integer) VARX (length) VARY (length) VARZ (length) WLength (length) HLength (length) TypeList (list) TypeList2 (list) TypeList3 (list)

let let let let let let let let let let let let let let let

p1 (point) p2 (point) EndPoint (point) StartPoint(point) WPoint (point) HPoint (point) HPoint2 (point) L1 (line) C1 (Curve) S1 (Surface) S2 (Surface) DIR (direction) DIR2 (direction) DIR3 (direction) PL (plane)

StartPoint = INPUT\START gencount = 0 /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , 1) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “magenta” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , 1)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-VARX, VARY+p1.coord(2), VARZ+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ n=0 i=2 x = 1 for x while x <= GEN1 { if x <=3{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX =8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “green” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_1 *VARX), (MULT_2 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_3 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “magenta” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_4 *VARX), (MULT_5 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_6 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “blue” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_7 *VARX), (MULT_8 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_9 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } if x>3 and x<=7{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “green” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_10 *VARX), (MULT_11 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_12 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “magenta” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_13 *VARX), (MULT_14 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_15 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint

nathan william smith


FIG 2: programmatic model [CATIA]




DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “blue” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_16 *VARX), (MULT_17 *VARY)-p1.coord(2), (MULT_18 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } else{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “green” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_19 *VARX), (MULT_20 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_21 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “magenta” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_22 *VARX), (MULT_23 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_24 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.1` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “blue” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.1` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.2` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_25 *VARX), (MULT_26 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_27 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } } /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////TREE 2////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ StartPoint =INPUT\START_2 gencount = 0 /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = -8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “red”

, `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , 1)

/*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , 1)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-VARX, VARY+p1.coord(2), VARZ+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ n=0 i=2 x = 1 for x while x <= GEN2 { if x <=2{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList2.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “yellow” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_1 *VARX), (MULT_2 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_3 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “red” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_4 *VARX), (MULT_5 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_6 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane`) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1

nathan william smith


DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “purple” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_7 *VARX), (MULT_8 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_9 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } if x>2 and x<=3{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList2.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = 8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “yellow” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_10 *VARX), (MULT_11 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_12 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “red” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_13 *VARX), (MULT_14 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_15 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “purple” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_16 *VARX), p1.coord(2)+(MULT_17 *VARY), (MULT_18 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } else{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList2.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “yellow” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_19 *VARX), (MULT_20 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_21 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “red” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_22 *VARX), (MULT_23 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_24 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.3` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “purple” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.2` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.4` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_25 *VARX), (MULT_26 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_27 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList2->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } } /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////TREE 3////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ /*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ StartPoint =INPUT\START_3 gencount = 0 /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = -8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true)




PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “cyan”

, `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , 1)

/*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , 1)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-VARX, VARY+p1.coord(2), 0*VARZ+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList3->Append(Type) gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ n=0 i=2 x = 1 for x while x <= GEN3 { if x <=4{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList3.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_1 *VARX), (MULT_2 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_3 *VARZ*.1)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = 8m VARZ = 8m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_4*VARX), (MULT_5 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_6 *VARZ*.1)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane`) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_7 *VARX), (MULT_8 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_9 *VARZ*.1)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } else{ totecount =`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` .Size() prevcount = gencount gencount = 0 y = prevcount for y while y >n { typevar = TypeList3.GetItem(totecount-y+1) StartPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` .GetItem(totecount-y+1) if typevar==0{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 3/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 4m VARY = 4m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_10 *VARX), (MULT_11 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_12 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } else{ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = 8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, true) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)-(MULT_13 *VARX), (MULT_14 *VARY)+p1.coord(2), (MULT_15 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 1 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ /*//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////PROGRAM 2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*/ VARX = 8m VARY = -8m VARZ = 4m p1 = StartPoint DIR = direction(`zx plane` ) L1 = line(p1, DIR, 0, VARY, true) C1 = L1 DIR2 = direction(`xy plane`) S1 = extrude(C1, DIR2, 0, VARZ, true) PL = planetangent(S1, p1) DIR3 = direction(PL) S2 = CreateOrModifyDatum(“Surface”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.5` , i) S2 = extrude(S1, DIR3, 0, VARX, false) S2.Color = “cyan” /*EndPoint = CreateOrModifyDatum(“point”, `Geometrical Set.3` , `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.1\List.6` , i)*/ EndPoint = point(p1.coord(1)+(MULT_16 *VARX), (MULT_17 *VARY)-p1.coord(2), (MULT_18 *VARZ)+p1.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` ->Append(EndPoint) EndPoint.Color = “orange” Type = 0 TypeList3->Append(Type) i=i+1 gencount = gencount + 1 /*`Relations\VB Scripts.1\update` .Run()*/ } y=y-1 } } } WPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6`.GetItem(`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.6` .Size()) WLength = WPoint.coord(2) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\WLENGTH_LIST` ->Append(WLength) HPoint = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` .GetItem(`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.2` .Size()) HPoint2 = `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` .GetItem(`Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\List.4` .Size()) HLength = max(HPoint.coord(3), HPoint2.coord(3)) `Relations\Knowledge Pattern.2\HLENGTH_LIST` ->Append(HLength)

nathan william smith


fall 2010

simaud submission

david benjamin

Evolutionary Design in Programmatic Relations and Manipulation Roxanne Sadeghpour, Master’s Candidate in Advanced Architectural Design, Columbia University Nathan Smith, Master’s Candidate in Advanced Architectural Design, Columbia University Pantea Tehrani, Master’s Candidate in Advanced Architectural Design, Columbia University

Abstract In the design of a typical high-rise building or tower, strict footprints, vertical zoning limitations and simplistic formal desires have the potential to inhibit optimal programmatic variances by limiting them within a predefined volume. What results are simplistic forms comprised of stacked programmatic elements, centralized circulation cores and whole building floors for mechanical storage, which have no physical, interwoven relationship with each other. What we propose questions the typical, singular, and overall boring form of the modern question. Using a customized version of a Lindenmayer System, a mathematical model which approximates fern growth, within a parametric model, we are testing program configuration optimization in a manner that preferences building performance and functionality without any predetermined forms or boundaries in an effort to optimize adjacencies, circulation and new programmatic hybrids. Our workflow challenges conventional volumes in a two-part process by working from the program, outward: First, using adjacency and circulation objectives, the building function develops by the above-stated methods. Secondly, by evaluating the created designs based on ideal programmatic configurations, functions are re-ordered on a local level. Essentially, we are creating a customise-able template which grows building programs and which can be re-evaluated to make small shifts through subjective choice.

Automated Testing

modeFrontier

Programmatic Adjacency Testing

Pre-Testing inputs

machine

Program Branch X [udf ]

+ -

Objectives

Program Branch D-E [udf ]

+ -

Shuffle

Program Branch C-D [udf ]

+ -

Attraction Factor

Program Branch A-B[udf ]

+ -

+ -

Beyond Testing outputs

Programmatic Convergence

CATIA Mathematical Variables

L-System Infrastructure

Programmatic Morphing

Creation of Growth Structure Programmatic Divergence

Constraints

FIG 1: design map The model is developed on the basis of programmatic branches, each with 2 initial programmatic elements. Based on a shuffling of Branch and Mathematical Variables (the L-System Type Formula), new programmatic adjacencies can be evaluated in referrence to desired objectives. Constaints are also added to mold to




1 Introduction The basis for our research for PROOF 6, a design studio at Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation focusing on exploration rather than exploitation, is two part: the first being a critique of the exaggerated efficiency of a mixed use high-rise tower having stacked functions with per floor program distribution and the second being driven by the ability to use parametric modeling techniques to achieve optimal programmatic results. The first idea takes into consideration the contemporary high-rise building, its parts and its primary form driver. A contemporary high rise building is often shaped by three major elements: site footprint, local zoning and the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (in most cases the developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) floor area requirement. These three elements: base, sides and top, inherently create a static volume allowing the programmatic needs to be met with predictable patterns under very strict limitations, (for example, adjacency to window or core). The result then leaves much to be desired in the sense of programmatic capability through adjacencies in a multi-use building. A tower was once a singular monolithic gesture of height and power, an identity that can no longer solely define a tower as contemporary towers sprout up taller than the last and at a significantly faster pace than in the last century. The next obvious trend has been multiple towers, either stemming from a single plinth or spread around the site. Where the limitation in the single tower was the clustering and layering of program the limitation in multiple towers becomes the appropriate division of programs. The ideal solution is a building that begins as a tower, or two towers and grows into its ideal form, either branching off or remaining singular. In a scenario where the dependencies and adjacencies work in the towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s favor, doubling up on structure or sharing mechanical floors, the tower would trend towards merging but it would maintain its ability to branch back out to maximize the amount of curtain wall adjacency per square foot.

olutionary Design in Programmatic Relations and Manipulation

lindenmayer systems

model natural growth process of plant developments (algae)

The second takes into consideration used to generate self-similar fractals the more recent ability to optimize forms with scripting to create dynamic architecture. Combining both these abilities

and experiment we can optimize through dynamic means, such as parametric modeling, in order to set up a framework within which the logic of a buildings development can not only grow onto itself but be affected by everything that grew before and after in hopes of generating results that are both high performing and could not be generated or computed by hand.

mula contains the intelligence for particular growth modules 2 CATIA

currently using the simplist formula (A=A+B, B=A) to begin our growth. Using CATIA, a multi-platform parametric modeling tool, we will test the ability to optimize program configuration in a manner that preferences building performance and functionality without any predetermined forms or boundaries in an effort to optimize adjacencies, circulation and new programmatic hybrids. Programmatic Simulations through Parametrics begins to challenge conventional volumes by using adjacencies and circulation to direct the growth of the building. The created designs are then evaluated in order to modify the configuration of the program volumes; programs are re-ordered on a local level in order to optimize certain conditions (for example, views, sun exposure and natural ventilation systems). As a result, by obliterating the notion of predefined volume and building footprint and letting the building evolve into its own

Figure 3: Basic Lindenmayer System FIG 2: lindenmayer system [l-system] nathan william smith


optimal form, this growth algorithm hopes to yield high-performing, unexpected designs for a multi-use high rise structure.

3 LINDENMAYER SYSTEMS Lindenmayer Systems are parallel rewriting systems can be used to model the morphology of various organisms although they are more commonly used for modeling the growth process of plant development. A parallel rewriting system often refers to a recursive or repeating geometry that is self similar, meaning it is identical to itself in geometry but dissimilar in it’s relationships to the rest of the chain. When modeling a Lindenmayer System, an L-system, you start with a string of symbols to define the starting point or axiom, in our case we started with a simple volume which has a starting point built into its geometry. This geometry is also assigned a variable, in our case ‘A’. Starting with a two-rule system (which also happens to mimic the basic growth pattern for algae), the algorithm grows in such a manner that every A → AB and every B → A. This is the base model for our growth algorithm, using the very basics of L-system logic. Next, rules are introduced to the algorithm to address actual architectural concerns and parameters overriding the base system. For example, the base algorithm functions such that every B → A, but a rule could force the algorithm to B → C on every third creation so you have B → A, B → A, B → C, B → A and so on and so forth. Thus, you have a simple growth algorithm that can be manipulated to address growth in specific ways and beyond the diagram. In plant development, the conditions of a base algorithm and how it is manipulated along its growth process are based on it geometric development. As plants evolve these systems grow based on the plants needs, sites conditions and structural logic. Although examples of this concept exist within plant life and scripting is currently being applied in architecture, our approach at combining these two methods for the purposes of tower-design is revolutionary in the field of architecture.

4 INITIAL SIMULATION The first approach operated as a case study test. This test was manually simulated (as seen in Figures 1 – 2 below) in order to inform the procedures and setup for the automated tool; currently consisting of two variables, an ‘A’ variable and a ‘B’ variable, with multiple start points. So for example, rather than having only a start point of ‘A’, one now has two start points in the same system of both variables ‘A’ and ‘B’ and their distance from each other, which can vary, has a direct effect on its growth. What remained constant in this simulation was the growth pattern which allowed us to understand what kinds of alternative conditions are created by our base growth algorithm. The distance between the bases alone created interesting conditions of convergence and clumping. These results occurred both globally (between the two trees) and locally (within each variables own tree) allowing us to utilize these opportunities to introduce rules, or exceptions to the base rules, at these alternative moments. Thus this manual simulation allowed us to observe our growth algorithms behavior and adjust our script to address true possible conditions within our model.

5 PARAMETRIC MODEL SIMULATION The first unexpected condition was when the system produced mirrored programs happening through separate stems causing local divergence. When this condition occurs, the stems would normally converge and keep growing according to the base system, but we have created a rule to have the stems diverge and continue growth in another direction. This condition in relation to program interconnectivity could be applied when one has two identical programs in separate stems converging, such as circulation, in order to avoid redundancy. The second unexpected condition occurred with a high degree of clustering or clumping of a singular variable. This condition occurs as a local convergence. When clumping occurs, a proximity rule is implemented stating that when x amount of A’s and y amount of B’s are within a distance of m of each other, then replace all A’s and B’s with ‘z’ amount of C’s. This rule in the future may begin to address a kind of clumping of a certain programmatic type. For example, when a building has a large amount of offices within a certain proximity to live/work then the programs change to a new program to address the overlap in functions, i.e. C’s could be a new typology where the live/work can team up with the office program for related infrastructure (conference rooms, technology access, etc). The last unexpected condition is similar to local convergence in that when you have two global programs drawn together, depending on the program, there is an opportunity to share a program between the two types. This strategy is mentioned in the above example but also offers another possible strategy which includes the development of smaller sub-programs in order to buffer the rest of the convergences that will be occurring in later generations. Hence, through the implementation of rules into the L-System model the algorithm can clearly address topics not usually thought of in this manner, such as architecture. You can see the above mentioned methods being implemented in Figures 3-5 where we have displayed 3 of our parametric simulations. In the diagrams below you can compare the parameters that were applied to each experiment such as the location of the start points, the number of generations and the threshold limit. The start points become significant through their proximity to one another controlling the exact moments of divergence and convergence. The generations control the amount of loops the algorithm makes before it is complete, controlling the over 


height or growth of the building and the threshold controls the typologies being implemented at given generations. This example can be viewed in Figure 5 where the growth pattern is scripted so that after a certain generation the purple boxes, variable ‘C’, are no longer populating the model. Using a growth algorithm as a method of designing proposes that adopting an L-System model for architectural purposes can be quite successful and specifically we suggest program as the factor that drives the creation of each variable as well as each subsequent rule that affects the variables. This tool is a study into the various ways we can manipulate the variable through built in rules that override the base algorithm in a diagrammatic form, with the intentions of assigning program to these variables in the next iteration to further drive the way in which the rules manipulate the base. Hence, this growth algorithm is the frame work for the logic of the system that we intend to apply to an architecture.

Evolutionary Design in Programmatic Relations and Manipulation 6 CONCLUSION The term form follows function has been present within architectural discourse during the last century, although its execution has always taken a manual approach. Now we can address the same fundamental concept using computation, with the intensions of rendering the most accurate results. The grouping, growing, and re-grouping of a buildings program creates a process where the end form is birthed as a skin in order to cover the ‘bodies organs’ - the program and utility. As a result, this process of designing investigates the architectural possibilities through growth theory.

case study 1

The current popularity in the study of growth patterns paired with parametric capabilities has been creating architecture that has the look and feel of a growth pattern, yet they are just that: a pattern. The model that we propose starts with an algorithm is based off the Lindenmayer System, which is used as an initial approximation of possible infrastructural growth, and then manipulated with a series of objectives that are exceptions to the algorithm. In our case, these objectives will be weighted towards conditions of programmatic adjacency, convergence, and divergence. The product of such a structure creates anomalies in new programmatic typologies, through spatial clumping and grouping. As a result, altering the main condition, the exceptions to the rule, allow for the discovery of new programmatic configurations driven by adjacencies, efficiency and growth.

agrammatic study of what the system could generate, based on the simple L-System model

mulated our understanding of areas of possible convergence and divergence (multiple stem system)

can be studied on a global or local level for with the opportunity for programmatic grouping High-rise towers have been around over a century and are often treated with the same fundamental approach when it comes to design and constructability. The possibilities our growth algorithm open up are revolutionary within the field of architecture. Dealing with the practical constraints of architecture, structure and gravity and then adding cost, you become very limited to what the mind can conceive. Traditionally one begins a project with a budget or a concept or a set of programmatic criteria and the rest of the process is about compromises that favor certain objectives over others. The process described is a one directional process where you are constantly moving forward, as something must remain constant otherwise is becomes virtually impossible for the human mind to compute within a reasonable time frame. The method our growth algorithm explores is a circular system where, as the software runs through the script it loops

FIG 3: custom l-system

Figure 3: Initial Diagram showing convergence and divergence nathan william smith


back around and starts again tweaking the objectives all along the way, in order to discover the highest performing result. The next phase of our experiment is to introduce ModeFrontier, evolutionary optimization software that employs genetic algorithms, to our growth algorithm. The intention is to fine tune our results and truly utilize available technology to address uncharted territories in regards to multi-use tower design. As a result, moving away from this one directional method of designing, towards an optimized self-looping algorithm, will further investigate the best methods of procuring the highest performing results in architecture. A multi-use tower using the functions of programmatic branching also fosters new modes of inter-connectivity, creating internal networks as well as networks between other structures. This is not unlike what the metropolis tries to do: a dense net of overlapping speeds, scales, and times as represented through moments of space. An entire city expanse can then be imagined scaled to fit within a building. The model that we are proposing simulates this density at a smaller scale with the hopes that starting with a highly-interconnected building will produce new conditions for spaces which have never be previously explored. This action has the opportunity of happening not only inside the scale of the single building, but also on the scale of multiple buildings, eventually addressing the scale of the city, strengthening the network of communication, energy flow, and transportation. Thus, the single tower becomes the network of towers that grow according to the living and breathing needs of the city.

FIG 4: programmatic growth module

ď&#x20AC;ąď&#x20AC;¸ď&#x20AC;ą


Iteration 01 | Iteration 01 | StartPoint 1: (0,0,0) Iteration 01(9,8,0) | StartPoint 2: StartPoint 1: (0,0,0) Generation1: 7 StartPoint 2: (9,8,0) Threshold 1: 1: (0,0,0) 5 StartPoint Generation1: 78 Generation2:2:(9,8,0) StartPoint Threshold 1: 357 Threshold2: Generation1: Generation Threshold 1:2:58 Threshold2:2: 38 Generation Threshold2: 3

Figure 3. Iteration 01 showing the 3D simmulation, plan & elevations.

Iteration 01 Plan

Iteration 01 Front Elevation

Iteration 01 Plan

Iteration 01 Front Elevation

Iteration 01 Plan

Iteration 01 Front Elevation

Iteration 01 Right Elevation

Iteration 01 Left Elevation

Iteration 01 Right Elevation

Iteration 01 Left Elevation

Iteration 01 Right Elevation

Iteration 01 Left Elevation

Iteration 02 | Iteration 02 | StartPoint 1: (0,0,0) Iteration 02(3,| -6, 0) StartPoint 2: StartPoint Generation1:1:(0,0,0) 6 StartPoint 2: (3, Threshold 1: 1: (0,0,0) 3 -6, 0) StartPoint Generation 68 -6, 0) Generation2:1: 2:(3, StartPoint Threshold Threshold 1: 2:1:376 Generation Generation Threshold 1:2:38 Threshold 2:2:78 Generation Threshold 2: 7

Iteration 02 Plan

Iteration 02 Front Elevation

Iteration 02 Plan

Iteration 02 Front Elevation

Iteration 02 Plan

Iteration 02 Front Elevation

Iteration 02 Right Elevation

Iteration 02 Left Elevation

Iteration 02 Right Elevation

Iteration 02 Left Elevation

Iteration 02 Right Elevation

Iteration 02 Left Elevation

Figure 4. Iteration 02 showing the 3D simmulation, plan & elevations.

Iteration 03 |

Iteration 03 | StartPoint 1: (0,0,0) Iteration 03(-2, | -4, 4) StartPoint 2; StartPoint Generation1:1:(0,0,0) 5 StartPoint Threshold 2; 1: (-2, 4 -4, 4) StartPoint 1: (0,0,0) Generation 1: 5 Generation 2: 7 -4, 4) StartPoint 2; (-2, Threshold Threshold 1: 2:1:465 Generation Generation 2: 7 Threshold 1: 4 Threshold Generation2:2:67 Threshold 2: 6

Figure 5. Iteration 03 showing the 3D simmulation, plan & elevations.

FIG 5: 3 possibilities nathan william smith

Iteration 03 Plan

Iteration 03 Front Elevation

Iteration 03 Plan

Iteration 03 Front Elevation

Iteration 03 Plan

Iteration 03 Front Elevation

Iteration 03 Right Elevation

Iteration 03 Left Elevation

Iteration 03 Right Elevation

Iteration 03 Left Elevation

Iteration 03 Right Elevation

Iteration 03 Left Elevation


LOCAL DIVERGENCE

LOCAL DIVERGENCE

A A

A

LOCAL DIVERGENCE

A

A

B

B

LOCAL DIVERGENCE A

A A A

B

A

B A

B

B

B

B

A

A

A B

A B

A

A

A B

B B DIVERGENA CE CAL

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

B

A A

B B

A

A

LOCAL DIVERGENCE

A

B DIVERGENC CAL E LO

A

B

LO

A

B LOCAL A B CONVERGENCE Figure A2A. Local divergence: mirroredA programs through separate stems. B B happening A

B

DIVERGENC CAL E LO

LOCAL DIVERGENCE

A

B A

LOCAL CONVERGENCE

B

A

A

B

B

A

A

A

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

E

CONVERGE NC CAL LO

A

A

B

A

A

AB

BA

A

AB

BA

distance ’m’

LOCAL CONVERGENCE L CONVERG CA LO

BA

AB

B

AA

AB

A

A

BA

AB

A A

B B

A A

A B

B

A

B B

A A

A

EN C E

AA

A

B

C

distance ’m’

A

A

C A

B

E

CONVERGE NC CAL LO

A

GLOBAL A CONVERGENCE A B

A

B

A

A

B

A

distance ’m’ A

A

A

GLOBAL CONVERGENCE B Figure 2B. Local Convergence: Implementation of a proximity rule stating that when C‘x’ amount of A’s and A B ‘y’ amount of B’s are within distance ‘m’, then replace all A’s & B’s with D’s. CONVERG AL

CE EN

A

GLOB

A

A

B GLOBAL CONVERGENCE CONVERG AL

A

CE EN

A

GLOB

A

C

A

A

A

or

E E E

A A

E

E

E

E

C

A

or

GLOB

CONVERG AL

A

CE EN

A

B

A A A

A

E E E

E

E

E

E

A A

A B A

A

C

A

A A

or

E E E

E

E

E E

A A A

Figure 2C. Global Convergence: Similar to local convergence, when you have two global programs drawn together, depending on the program there is the opportunity to share the program, as mentioned in the above example or you could develop a series of smaller sub programs in order to buffer the rest of the convergence that will be happening in later generations

FIG 6: internal rules




S^3 shea sabino

nathan william smith

alok shetty

nathan smith


spring 2011

joshua prince-ramus

speakers' corner

BO BO TEDxBOxToolkit Congratulations! You are now a TEDxBOx licensee, entrusted with helping spread TEDTalks across the globe. In the spirit of TED and Ideas Worth Spreading, we trust you will nurture the TEDxBOx and the TEDx brand as well as passionately help it grow. This TEDxBOx Toolkit contains the tools and instructions for hosting a successful TEDx event. Use as much or as little of this Toolkit and the TEDxBOx as you need, depending on what works for your event. TEDx events utilize TEDxBOx which is a fully deployable, low-cost, flexible, and all-inclusive event space, embedded with the ability to provide all of the high-quality characteristics of a TED event. The TEDxBOx takes care of all of your TEDx event essentials, so all you need to provide is content! What happens at each TEDx event depends greatly on you. TEDxBOx events can be held in flat areas, in sloped areas, in semi-enclosed spaces, in completely enclosed spaces, and can be re-programmed when used along with a venue that already has all of the essential components. Events may last a couple of hours, a full day, or extend to multiple days; they may include a dozen attendees or several hundred. Some TEDx events will focus solely on recorded TEDTalks. Others will include short talks from live speakers. Each TEDx event will have its own structure and personality. As a TEDx event organizer, it is important that you describe both the TEDx program and your TEDx event clearly in all communication with speakers and attendees. This will set the tone and expectations for your event and eliminate any confusion. TEDxBOx is a large-scale experiment. Our objective is to unleash TED to the world and continue the TED mission of Ideas Worth Spreading. Your ongoing suggestions and feedback will help to improve and grow this mission. All comments or suggestions are welcome: please email tedxbox@TED.com.

2




nathan william smith


This TEDxBOxToolkit inludes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

TEDxBOx LOCATION, CONFIGURATION, & GREEN ROOMS TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS TEDx HOST TEDx PROGRAM TEDx SPEAKERS TEDx SPEAKER INVITATION TEDx SPEAKER PERMISSION RELEASE FORM TEDx LOGOS AND BRANDING GUIDELINES TEDx PR & MEDIA GUIDELINES TEDx CONFERENCE LAUNCH VIDEO TEDx ATTENDEE APPLICATION TEDx TECHNOLOGY GUIDELINES TEDx STREAMING YOUR EVENT TEDx WEB TOOLS FOR ORGANIZING YOUR EVENT TEDx POST-EVENT CHECKLIST TEDx TRANSLATION OPTIONS TEDx SPONSORSHIP GUIDELINES TEDx MENTORING

3




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx LOCATION The first step to hosting your TEDx event is to decide where you would like to set up the TEDxBOx - in a flat area(A), on a slope(B), in a semi-enclosed space(C), in an enclosed space(D), or outside of an existing venue(E).

A

B

C

D

E

TEDxBOx CONFIGURATION The next step to hosting your TEDx event is decide what type of confiuration you would like the TEDxBOx to be (This should correspond to the location previously picked): arena(1), thrust(2), traverse(3), and proscenium(4).

1*

500 seats

2

250 seats

3

225 seats

4

125 seats

TEDxBOx GREEN ROOMS The final step to setting up your TEDxBOx is creating the enclosure. Included within the TEDxBOx is a flexible shade fabric which can be used to fully or partially enclose the selected configuration. What is left over are the spaces that exist underneath shade fabric, outside of the container. This is the point where you make TEDxBOx your own by adding local materials which might reflect the theme of your TEDx event, reflect local customs and traditions, or reflect a current excess.

*Option (1) requires two (2) TEDxBOx Modules

4




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx CONFIGURATION (continued) With your attendees in mind, choose your location and configuration. Make sure that the configuration you choose works with the location. Here are some sample ideas for the location, configuration, and structure of your TEDx event with the TEDxBOx: TEDxBOx @OpenField A very large event held in an open field, vacant lot, or parking lot. • 500+ People* • 1-2 day conference TEDxBOx @Hall A large event held in a gymnasium, community hall, or vacant wharehouse. • 250+ People* • Half or full-day conference TEDxBOx @TownSquare A large event held in the middle of an urban square, circle, or outdoors meeting point. • 250+ People* • 1-2 day conference TEDxBOx @Hillside A medium-sized event held at the base of a hillside, steps, or on uneven ground. • 125+ People* • Half or full-day conference TEDxBOx @SIMULCASTAuditorium A small subsidiary event space held outside of a larger venue already hosting a TEDx event which can be re-appropriated as a simulcast lounge, green room, TEDx Lab, or Bloggers’ Alley. • 50+ People* (Standing) • Half or full-day conference

TEDxBOx ADD-ONS Although all the necessary components to have a high-quality TEDx event are included within the TEDxBOx, it is recommended that you also add-on one or more of these features: • Green Rooms: Provided within each configuration is the option to create small rooms underneath the overhang of the unfolded container. These rooms can be used as speaker preparation areas, a space to blog, places to sell goods, simulcast lounges, or as exhibit rooms. Use local materials (especially if they are in excess) on the inside and outside of the venue as a way to make the TEDxBOx a local space. Suggestions include tying textiles to the provided enclosure, using natural elements as cladding (like bamboo, reeds, or trees), other natural elements to build-up temporary spaces (like snow, dirt (mud), or vegetation), screens, or excess local materials (like billboards, trash, etc).

*Each option also includes a simulcast area, increasing audience sizes dynamically.

5




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS

6




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued) WHATS INCLUDED IN THE BOX Seating Panel A x 02 Seating Panel B x 02 Seating Panel C x 01 Foot Plates D x 02 Structural Truss E x 10 Structural Truss F x 02 Truss Extension Sets E x 10: Piece Ei x 10 Piece Eii x 10 Piece Eiii x 6 Piece Eiv x 6 Piece Ev x 10 Truss Extension Sets F x 02: Piece Fi x 02 Piece Fii x 02 Piece Fiii x 01 Piece Fiv x 01 Tensile FTL Solar Fabric System G x 01

A B C D

Fiv F

Fiii Fii Fi Ev

G

Eiv

E Eiii

ALSO IN THE BOX

-(5) x Lithium ION Batteries -(1) x Standalone Projector -(1) x Video Camera -(10) Wireless Speaker Microphones

Eii Ei

7




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued) WHATS PART OF THE BOX Embedded Within the Container: -(4) Speakers -(4) Exterior Projectors

+ + -

+ -

+ -

-FLOOR AREA -CAPACITY: -INITIAL COST: -LIFESPAN: -FTL SOLAR SHADE:

+ STATISTICS

800 sf (folded) 1600 sf (unfolded) 250 Seats (up to 500 w/ 2) $100,000 5-10 Years Cost: $30,000 Energy: 3,000 watts capacity Wind Loads: Up to 70 mph

8




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued) WHAT’S REQUIRED

3-4 People

No Tools Required

+ 9




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

1

OPEN CONTAINER

1

2

3

4

10




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

2

LAY DOWN PLATFORM REMOVE CONTENTS

1

2

3

4

11




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

3

ATTACH TRUSS PIECES

E

E

E E

E

E

E

FOR CONFIGURATION (4), PLEASE PROCEED TO PG. 33 1

2

3

4

12




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

4

ATTACH TRUSS EXTENSIONS

Ev Ei

Ev Ei

Eiv

Eiv

Eiii Eii

Eii

1

2

Eiii

Eiii

3

13




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

5

FOLD DOWN SIDES

1

2

3

14




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

6

FOLD DOWN TOP

1

2

3

15




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

7

UNFOLD INTERIOR

1

2

3

16




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

8

FOLD DOWN STAIRS

1

2

3

17




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

9

UNFOLD SIDES

FOR CONFIGURATION (3), PLEASE PROCEED TO PG. 44 1

2

3

18




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

10

UNFOLD SIDES

1

2

19




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

11

INSERT REAR TRUSS LIFT REAR SECTION

F

1

2

20




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

12

UNFOLD REAR STAIRS

1

2

21




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

13

FOLD DOWN REAR COMPONENTS

1

2

22




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

14

UNFOLD REMAINING STAIRS

1

2

23




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

15

UNFOLD SEATING BENCHES

1

2

24




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

16

ADD EXTRA SEATING BENCHES

B

A

B C C D D

1

2

25




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

17

UNFOLD SEATS

1

2

26




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

18

THE COMPLETE UNFOLDED CONTAINER

1

2

27




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

19

BUILD GREEN ROOM

28




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

20

ATTACH SHADE SAIL

G

29




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

21

EXTEND CORNER POLES

30




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

22

STRETCH SHADE SAIL ATTACH TO CONNECTION POINTS

31




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

23

TA-DAH!

32




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

33




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

4

ATTACH TRUSS EXTENSIONS

Ev Ei

Ev Ei

Eiv

Eiv

Eiii Eii

Eii

Eiii

Eiii

4

34




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

5

FOLD DOWN SIDES

4

35




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

6

FOLD DOWN TOP

4

36




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

7

UNFOLD INTERIOR

4

37




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

8

FOLD DOWN STAIRS

4

38




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

9

UNFOLD SIDES

4

39




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

10

UNFOLD ALL STAIRS

4

40




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

11

UNFOLD SEATING BENCHES

4

41




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

12

UNFOLD SEATS

4

42




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

13

TA-DAH!

4

43




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

44




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

10

UNFOLD SEATING BENCHES

45




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

11

UNFOLD STAIRS

46




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SET-UP INSTRUCTIONS (continued)

12

UNFOLD SEATS

47




nathan william smith


TEDxBOX ENJOY

48




nathan william smith


TEDxBOx SECTIONAL REFERENCE

1’ - 6” 1’ - 6”

6’ - 2”

1’ - 2”

5

11’ - 5”

6

1’ - 6”

7

1’ - 6”

9

8

1’ - 7”

4

4’ - 11”

1’ - 6”

3

1’ - 7”

2

1

3’ - 5” A

3’ - 5”

3’ - 5” B

C

2’ - 11” D

3’ - 2” E

3’ - 10”

3’ - 2” F

G

3’ - 7” H

7’

10’ - 11”

1’ - 1.5”

4.94”

2’ - 8”

I

49




nathan william smith


summer 2010

FIG 1: grasshopper model

keith kaseman

supermodel city 2010




FIG 2: residences nathan william smith


FIG 3: commercial sector




FIG 4: transportation hub nathan william smith


FIG 5: residential tower + highway




FIG 6: downtown nathan william smith


FIG 7: machine village




**

NATHAN WILLIAM columbia university graduate school of architecture planning and preservation

SMITH WORK GSAPP 2010-2011 STUDIOS : SEMINARS/WORKSHOPS : WRITING : APPENDIX

nathan william smith


Nathan William Smith WORK: GSAPP Portfolio  

Work from Advanced Architectural Design program at Columbia GSAPP 2010-2011