FInal Journal Submission by Samantha Mofflin

ABPL30048 Studio Air Journal Samantha Mofflin 356956

Contents Part I Expression of Interest I.1. Case for Innovation I.1.1 Architecture as Discourse 4 I.1.2 Computing in Architecture 8 I.1.3 Parametric Modelling 12 I.2 Research Project I.2.1 Matrix Development 22 I.3 Beginning of Group Work I.3.1 Architecture as Discourse (group) 26 I.3.2 Computing in Architecture (group) 28 I.3.3 Parametric Modelling (group) 30 I.3.4 Matrix Development (group) 34 I.3.5 Case Study, CUT Project 36 I.3.6 Material Effects 37 I.3.7 Assembly Methods 38 I.4 Expression of Interest Conclusion 41 Part II Project Proposal II.1.1 Design Issues 42 II.1.2 Further Analysis 44 II.1.3 Concept Development 46 II.1.4 Conceptual Model 48 II.1.5 Project Interpretation 50 II.1.6 Project Delivery/Conclusions 52 II.1.7 Construction Considerations 55 II.1.8 Project Presentation 56 Part III Learning Objectives and Outcomes: Final 58

Why Architecture? Personal Project: Samantha Mofflin

Throughout history architecture, in particular ornament in architecture, has been used to create visual sensations, convey messages, and create power. This is a personal project for a pop up art/architecture competition. The concept behind the design is the idea of creating a visual sensation, or an experience through the design. Optical illusion has been created through the use of distorted reflections, based around the ideas of experience and journey. This design is created to be moved through, a dynamic rather than static structure, and this dynamism is further reinforced in the changing reflections created.

Why Architecture? German Pavilion: Van Der Rohe

In this manner it is possible to see how architecture can be used to create experiences, and visual sensations, in turn creating excitement in the urban fabric. The Gateway Project is calling for a design that will be eye-catching, and interesting in a relatively dull environment. It is possible to see from this personal project, how architecture can be used to create this experience. As a tunnel to be moved through on your way to another area, this project is also developed within the same constraints as the Gateway Project, in which cars will be moving through at a fast speed, as opposed to stopping to view the design.

Architecture is something that is always obvious to the public eye, and hence is the perfect fabric for expressing idaels and concepts. Due to this position in the public eye, architecture has the advantage of being uncompromised by patronage, and hence has the ability to convey messages that are not merely the views of a small handful of individuals. An architect is always entirely dependent on other profefssionals, and hence the work created must be produced by a team, as opposed to the individual. This further reinforces the concept that architecture is a canvas for portraying concepts that are widely accepted, as opposed to one personal view.The German Pavilion (Van der Rohe), was developed in order to represent the new Germany, as culturally progressive, prospering, and passive. Employment of architecture in the Gateway Project will allow for a design that is culturally significant. The use of architecture enables Wyndham to express their ideals of being a dynamic and exciting society through the structure, and therefore spread their message to the wider public.

Architecture, because of its unique position in the public realm, is a uniquely uncompromised art, if it is an art at all Richard Williams

Why Architecture? Eiffel Tower: Gustav Eiffel

Although arguably more a feat of engineering that architecture, the Eiffel Tower is an example of how a structure can immediately conjure up an image of a location, and indeed can hardly be though of as seperate from its location. At the time it created not only a symbol of Paris however, but also a symbol of modernity. It captures the imagination of viewers, and is open to multiple interpretations. The Eiffel Tower is an example of how Wyndham City Council can use an architectural structure in the Gateway Project in order to create an iconic symbol that is internationally recognised, as well as creating a symbol of modernity and a dynamic and exciting culture.

Why Digital Architecture? Mobius House, Van Berkel Computational design has allowed for unique innovations in architecture. The Mobius House is based on the concept of a mobius strip, a twisted form that has no beginning or end. Previous to the introduction of parametric design projects, a form of this complexity would not have been possible. Computational programs allow for more complex forms and the dynamic transformation of three dimensional shapes. By controlling parameters instead of shape, complex forms are possible to find. This project was based on topology, a type of design that is concerned about deforming shapes, while maintaining original properties. This is a common method of approaching digital design. The use of scripting in architecture allows for forms and ideas that were not possible before the introduction of parametric programming, Its employment in the Gateway Project will allow for a design of higher complexity that would otherwise be possible. This increased complexity will allow for the design to be more dynamic, and also more significant and recognisable. 8

Why Digital Architecture? Walt Disney Concert Hall: Gehry

Digital technologies are changing architectural practices in ways that few were able to anticipate just a decade ago Kolarevic

A unique innovation offered by digital technology is the ability to create dynamic and morphing surfaces. The Aegis Hyposurface is an example of this, with it's surface changing when triggered by electrical stimuli set off by movement, sound, and light. As stated by Goulthorpe,

An innovation offered by digital technology that is extremely useful in the construction stages of a project is that one model can contain all the information required for a project. This means that architects no longer need to spend time creating two dimensional CAD drawings, rather they can focus on creating form, and construction workers can collate all information from their model. Not only is this easier for the architect, it is extremely efficient. Issues that do arise from this however include the need to train all builders to be able to read computational designed models. Until this is completed, the full potential of computation design during the construction proccess cannot be reached. Walt Disney Concert Hall, along with other designs by Gehry, employ computational design in order to contain all drawing information within one concise model. While our designs will not physically be built, this concept is interesting to explore and will hopefully be employed more often in the future. If our designs were to be constructed however, this ability to have a cheaper and easier construction would be extremely beneficial for Wyndham. It will also be useful for us as students during our construction of our scale models, because it will enable us to use the laser cutter, and create models of a far higher quality. It also allows for the exploration of different modeling materials in a far more feasible manner that if we were attempting to do them by hand.

Why Digital Architecture? Aegis Hyposurface: Goulthorpe

"[aegis hyposurface] marks the transition form autoplastic to alloplastic place," and "utterly radicalizes architecture by announcing the possibility of dynamic form" Wyndham City Council is looking for a project that can capture attention on a major highway. This means that the design will be moved past at an extremely fast speed, leaving little time for viewing the structure. The manner in which the structure is being viewed is dynamic, and adding an extra layer of dynamism to the structure itself will increase interest in the project.

Why Generative Architecture? Gustav Metzger Architects are ultimately choreographers of systems, and the benefits of teaching programming in an architectural context are manifold. If architecture wants to survive as a discipline, it needs to engage the culture o f innovation and computing. Collins and Hasegawa

Generative design can be defined as design in which the artist (or architect) defines the parameters of the design, but once this is complete, no longer interferes with the design. In this manner the form of the designed object is found in an unexpected manner, without the creator being aware of what it’s going to be. Emphasis has moved from what has historically been labelled as important, the completed form, to the processes that are used to create this form. The processes are of key importance, and the form created is no longer entirely the designers key concern, it is of secondary importance. As Sol LeWitt stated “All of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair.” There are infinite possibilites as to what this final designed object will look like. Generative design is a broad architectural discourse because it encompasses a lot of other architectural discourses, including interactive design and kinetic design. Of specific personal interest is the concept of agentbased design, tracking the paths of organisms and using these to create functions with which to define the design. Generative design shows an increased collaboration between art and science, with a lot of interest in biological functions and organisms. This shows a break from traditional design which concentrates largely on the interaction of design and religion. While generative design is commonly linked to computation, it did exist prior to the use of computers. Computer progams have merely enable higher complexity to the written parameters and hence the objects created. An example of generative design prior to the use of computers is Gustav Metzger’s artwork. He was the founder of ‘auto-destructive’ work in which he creates an object which then proceeds to destory itself in ways that he has not specifically defined. Examples include placing acid on nylon fabric and watching it eat away at the fabric, creating undefined patterns, and allowing fruit to rot, again creating undefined forms and colours. Computational generative design allows for slightly more control over the outcome, and also more complexity. 12

Why Generative Architecture? Sandlines: Paul Brown

Generative design has taken a relatively long time to be picked up by the architectural world. Computational programs have been used for a long time in aeronautical science, ship building and other industrial practises before they were adopted by designers. Complex generative design, enabled by these programs, was adopted expansively throughout the fine art and popular culture world. Artists began to believe that computers could produce far more interesting art that humans. This could be due to the fact that they are devoid of our subjectivity and personal taste. Rather they can be programmed to use specific functions to create form, without the designer’s egotistical and restricted choice. Examples of computational generative design in fine art include Paul Brown’s work. He uses a program named Director using pre-computed animation tables. Brown intends to ask the viewer what the concept of personal work means in contexts such as his and Cohen’s AARON (explored later in this journal). Brown states “the ever growing realm popularly referred to as cyberspace is an ecosystem and that creatures must evolve to exploit that space.” Generative design is a manner in which to do this. 13

Why Generative Architecture? AARON: Harold Cohen

Harold Cohen developed a computational program he named AARON as a means to create his artworks. This is an example of generative design in fine arts. Cohen originally came up with the simple rule that as long as colours are of the same brightness, changing the colours made little difference to the outcome of the work, hence brightness is the major contributor in creating aesthetically pleasing colour schemes. AARON then adapted this to create colour schemes for Cohen. The complexity has since increased, but the concept has remained the same-Cohen plugs in rules for AARON, which then produces colour schemes for him. Cohen has stated that the colour schemes AARON has produced are something that he never would have attempted without the assistance of the computer. AARON produces for Cohen thousands of samples through which he eliminates ones that he deems drab or unappealing. This is similar to our Week Four group Grasshopper exercise in which we can manipulate a function to create hundreds of outputs, it is then up to the designers personal judgement as to which are worth retaining. AARON is capable to create works at a significant level of expertise without the experiential knowledge humans have, or the visual system they depend upon. Hence this is an example of how computational design is beneficial to design. It can create highly complex and developed products, without extensive expertise knowledge.

Cohen has struggled to define the concept of creativity, and personal ‘ownership’ of works. He has created a program that produces exceptional works of art, without further interference from him. Is his computer therefore creative? He defined the parameters under which these works were produced, however he did not define the final work. Are these works therefore truely ‘his’ designs? This is a recurring theme throughout generative design and subject to a lot of argument. 15

Why Generative Architecture? Ernest Edmonds

Generative art enables the artist to concentrate on the underlying rules themselves Edmonds

Ernest Edmonds is another example of an artist that employs generative design concepts into his work. He explains how rules are at the heart of his art. His artwork is generated from a set of specified constraints as opposed to step-by-step rules. Hence it is generative because he does not have an image he is working towards, rather the image appears as he works on his constraints. Similar to Cohen he concentrates on computers to generate colours for his work. His original use of computers in art was for his work labelled ‘Nineteen’.He wrote a program with a set of conditions for a visual layout, and the computer then supplied him with the layout. While ‘Nineteen’ did not refer to a computer program at all, it would not have been possible to complete without the layout that the program produced, as specified by Edmond’s inputs. Edmond states “Generative art enables the artist to concentrate on the underlying rules themselves: the surfaces that define the artwork, as against the surface.” While often generative art is considered to have no human manipulation once the rules have been defined, he believes that the intervention of the designer is acceptable. In this manner some aspect of intuitive judgment is employed in the design. Hnece it becomes more of an interactive design. Edmond is an example of the overlap between generative design and interactive design. In his recent work he has added a function which enables the system to pick up noises from the audience and then depending on these, change in a previously defined manner. In this manner he is pushing the boundaries of generative art, and creating overlaps between different architectural discourses, and creating animated, generative works. 16

Why Generative Architecture? Kokkugia Generative design practises have also been employed in architecture. Kokkugia is an example of architectural firm that concentrates on generative building forms. Founded by Podborsek, Snooks and StuartSmith, the structures enable architectural decoration to become the construction. Scripting is used extensively throughout generative design projects. Scripting is the ability for a user to manipulate a program to suit their needs, allowing for a wider possibility of outcomes in the same amount of time. Using scripting in agent based design for example enables a designer to create a program that contains a set of functions summarising organisms movements. This was used in Kokkugia's project, Swarm Matter. Scripting in this example allowed for a hihgly complex form to be created in a short amount of time, to a level of complexity that would not have been possible without computer programming.

Kokkugia's proposal for the Taipei Performing Arts Centre is an example of generative design also with an interest in agent based design. The flow of the Keelung River is defined and becomes the process by which the monolithic base of the auditoriums is eroded. While the flow of the river can be defined, there are infinte outcomes as to how the auditorium is shaped. This project is also an example of optimisation in architectural design because there are also restrictions placed in regards to acoustic requirements as well as form and detail. The roof is defined through agent-based design. The starting geometry of the roof is radically changed through motivation of the agents. 19

Why Generative Architecture? Biothing

Biothing projects concentrate on the concept of generative design and realising this through digital technologies. Patterns are found in natural ecosystems, which are then defined via parametric programming to create a new 'intelligent' architecture. New types of structure and organisation are found that are more logical than previous designs. Hence this is another example of the cross over between generative design and optimisation. he Pop Music Centre is an example of generative design used to create an architectural structure with both generated structure and sustainability. Brownian motion was defined in a program, eroding the main shells of the structure. Natural ecologies were studied to create nested systems in the ground. In terms of sustainability a set of underwater lights has been installed to encourage the growth of algae to regain the natural marine system as well as enable it to be used for the users of the structure. Generative design is relevant to Wyndham City Council because it will create a design that is convergent with modern culture. Through reviewing the projects in my journal it is possible to see that a generative approach allows for a new perception of architecture that is complex, organic and exciting. As a new discourse of architecture it will be at the forefront of contemporary design and hence a highly influential structure. It will be easy to read, and also easy to construct. The generative architecture projects featured in this journal are visually appealing, intricate, and exciting, and therefore would be relevant for an eye catching structure on a major road. 20

For this tutorial exercise my group concentrated largely on attractor points and attractor curves and ways in which to manipulate these. As I am concentrating on generative design for this studio this appeared to be the most relevant as it essentially designs rules to define the way objects relate to other objects. While the use of Grasshopper in this course will restrict the extent to which we can create a generative design based project, this is an example of a similar manipulation we can do within the restraints of this program. The outcomes of these experiments are apparent below.

CUT PROJECT Original Matrices When creating our original matrices, we werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t entirely sure of the direction we were taking within this studio, and hence the manner in which we developed them was fairly basic. Upon consultation with our tutors, as well as discussion within the group, we decided to concentrate on the outcomes of generative design, as opposed to the process. This was personally a key moment within our design development, when we had a definite argument to work towards (the ornamentational output qualities of generative design). From here onwards, our work was a lot more focused and therefore more exciting and personally fulfilling. The key outcomes that we identified with generative design projects were linearity, positive/negative space, movement/dynamism, bottom up approach, and organicism. It is possible to see how we addressed these in our matrix in the EOI. I also found this exercise a useful one, because we were already provided with the definitions, which we then had to manipulate. Not having a very strong grasp of Grasshopper, it was a lot easier to work with existing definitions, than attempt to create my own from scratch, with limited abilities with the program. 22

GENERATIVE ORNAMENT(EOI) Architecture needs mechanisms that allow it to become connected to culture Moussavi, Farshid and Kubo

REBECCA WARREN, DANIEL HAZMY, SAMANTHA MOFFLIN

Why Ornament? Modern and Contemporary Ornament

Why Ornament? Historical Ornament

At this stage in my research, we were placed into groups to create an EOI. I was put in a group with one member who was also interested in generative design, and another who was interested in form finding and visual appeal. Through discussion with my group members and the tutors, this was when we really started to focus our research to one particular aspect of generative design, ornamentation. This was an interesting stage because we were able to share our research, and come up with a much stronger argument through focusing and finding our common interests.

During the modernist movement in the twentieth century, interest was paid more closely to using the structure as ornament, as opposed to applying extra decoration to the structure.

Throughout history ornament has been used in architecture to reflect the cultural values of the time. It is a way for architecture to communicate with the wider public in an easily accessible manner. While the concept of ornament has altered throughout history, it has always embodied the values and ideals that define culture, and constructs symbolic meaning. Ornament creates buildings that are representational, and socially and culturally reflective. Previous to the twentieth century decorative ornament was applied to structures in a fairly literal manner to spread stories, create power, and increase awareness of religion.

Recent views on ornament have been that it must serve a purpose, or is not widely accepted by the public. This has meant that generative, or bottom-up, approaches to ornament have been met with some apprehension due to the unexpected and often purely decorative outcomes. 26

Why Ornament? Future Ornament

“If architecture is to remain convergent with culture it needs to build mechanisms by which culture can constantly produce new images and concepts rather than recycle existing ones.”

We are proposing however, that this is the way that ornament will develop in the future. Through exposure to these generative designs, this concept of ornament will become more widely accepted. As a result, the notion of ornamentation will change, with less emphasis on functionality, and more on decorative appeal. Ornament will become more about personal interpretation and experience. In developed cities of repetitive tall, functional towers, ornament will be used to create focal points and excitement in the urban fabric. While previous interest has been paid to representing function, largely an interior focus, architects have now been liberated from this and have the opportunity to create exterior ornament that engages with the urban setting, in this case Wyndham, and create a representation that is convergent with cultural values. Architects are increasingly interested in the exterior of the building, giving it an expression that is independent from the interior. They are becoming interested in the ornament as opposed to the function. Using technology as a cultural force, ornament can be used to create sensations, interesting effects, and optical illusions. These in turn create excitement and interest in repetitive cosmopolitan environments.

Moussavi, Farshid, Kudo

When discussing ornament without function we are defining ornament as something that is either added or part of a structure, which beautifies the appearance of it. The term ‘without function’ we mean purely as the concept that its visual effect is its only function, whether this be through pattern, texture, or even optical illusion. These effects are all purely visual, they do not provide a structural or environmental function, rather they exist only to provide visual sensations. Considering Wyndham as the urban fabric, the Gateway Project has the potential to use ornamentation to create a visual focal point of excitement and personal interpretation. Visual sensations can be created in an extremely modern manner, developing an influential and recognizable structure.

Why Generative? Harold Cohen and Kokkugia

Generative design is a bottom up approach to architecture, in which the parameters of the design are defined, as opposed the outcome. Consequently, infinite and unexpected possibilities can be created. The possibilities/outcomes that can be created by this are apparent in both architecture and art. Harold Cohen allows for generative design to create his artworks, after he has defined the parameters he no longer interferes. Generative design is a new concept, and its application in the Gateway Project will create a design that is convergent with modern culture. Kokkugia use generative design processes in their works to create architecture in which the decoration becomes the construct of the designs. This is extremely relevant to our approach to the Wyndham City Gateway Project, with our emphasis on ornament, and how to use this in a contemporary manner. 30

Why Generative? Biothing

Biothing create generative designs based on patterns found in nature. Reviewing projects by companies such as Biothing and Kokkugia, it can be seen that a generative approach allows for a new perception of ornamentation that is complex, organic, and exciting. As a relatively new discourse of architecture, a generative approach will not only produce an interesting and intricate structure, it will also be at the forefront of contemporary design, and hence a highly influential structure.

Generative Outcomes Unfortunately within the constraints of the program employed, as well as student knowledge, creating a truly generative design will not be possible. Studying generative ornamentation however, several linking qualities are common to all outcomes, regardless of specific approach. Hence, we have decided to concentrate on the qualities of the outcomes of generative design, and replicate these in as close a process as can be effectively implemented in Grasshopper. Analysing works by Harold Cohen, Biothing, Kokkugia, Gustav Meyer, and Jackson Pollock, six major similarities appear in their outcomes. These qualities are linearity, organic notions, intersection lines, positive/negative space, dynamism/movement, and a bottom-up or generative approach. Concentrating on these outcomes, we developed a matrix that explored these outcomes, using techniques such as attractor points, attractor curves, and image samplers. There is a direct aesthetic relationship between the matrix outcomes, and the projects that were studied.

All the matrices we created employ a bottom up approach, because this is the nature of generative design, and we created all our matrices using attractor points etc hence were never fully aware of what the outcome would be.

LINEARITY DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH

POSITIVE/NEGATIVE SPACE DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH ORGANIC NOTIONS

LINEARITY ORGANIC NOTIONS DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH

DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH

ORGANIC NOTIONS INTERSECTING LINES DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH

ORGANIC NOTIONS POSITIVE/NEGATIVE SPACE DYNAMISM/MOVEMENT BOTTOM UP APPROACH

CUT Project

Matrice Development

Matrice Development 34

Concept Development

CUT Project Hills Place: Amanda Levett We then developed a design based on Hill House by Amanda Levett architects. While the outcome was interesting, and the project intent was similar to ours, in that the architects were looking for a way to create interest in an underappreicated area, we found that the matrices were more relevant to the concept of generative ornamentation in design. Therefore we continued working on the matrices throughout the rest of the project. 36

Evaluating our matrix outcomes, we decided to push this concept further, because we believed that it most fully encapsulated all of the outcome qualities. We divided a surface and then used attractor points to manipulate the surface to create a folded form. While the original matrix was more complex, we could not create a physical model where the lines overlapped and hence had to minimise curvature to a certain extent. We extruded the lines to create a three dimensional shape that was curved in two directions, creating an extremely decorative design. The outcome that was produced was unexpected due to the changing optical illusion that is created as the design is moved. In this manner our design is generative, because we were not fully aware of the outcome at the time that we were creating it. The appearance of the design changing as it moves is highly relevant to the site in hand, because viewers will be moving past at a high speed, and their view as they drive past will be dynamic and exciting. (Please note Grasshopper definitions on Wiki) While we were pleased with the outcome, there were some limitations to our model. While the top view was extremely interesting, the other views lacked the same visual power. We aim to solve this by potentially creating a curved surface, or allowing the lines to extrude either side of the surface. While the surface was extruded to differing heights, the overall result was relatively boring, only lightly undulating. Setting back some of the extrusions, or changing the placement of attractor points could potentially create a more interesting surface. 37

Concept Development Developed Model

Concept Development Initial Model

We then developed the design further so that it would extrude to either side of the base surface, which is a more viable design solution. We created a model that was longer, and so the sense of movement could be realised more fully. Unfortunately a Perspex base was not possible to use and hence the full light potential of our design was not realised. In further model making opportunities it would be good to get a cleaner cut model, also to explore the opportunities provided by not using an undulating surface base. When we were building the model, the fins moved with wind pressure. This was an accidental movement, and hence was generative because it was an unexpected outcome that was created by our process as opposed to something that we were aiming for. This movement is something that we can explore further, creating a kinetic model, and movement in two aspects of the model.

We sent our design to the FabLab and decided to construct it out of an etched base with Polypropelene sheets. For me this was my favourite part of the subject so far. Having never used the laser cutter before, and with a strong interest in model making, I really enjoyed this process and found the unexpected outcomes evolving as we built it extremely exciting.

While pleased with the outcome and our modelling experiments so far, a much greater level of complexity needs to be developed for our model to be successful. While we have a strong argument for our design, we have not fully embraced the complexity that can be acheived through the use of Grasshopper. We will address this issue in further weeks. 39

EOI Conclusions

Wyndham City Council is looking for a design that is exciting, aesthetically pleasing, recognisable, and innovative. A generative ornamentation approach to the structure will achieve these goals. Ornament has been extremely influential throughout history, and reflective of social and cultural values. Generative design is creating new concepts of ornamentation, and is at the forefront of contemporary design. Our outcome is generative, dynamic, linear, organic and innovative. Creating an optical illusion with its multifaceted curvature, the concept is perfect for a site that is moved through at a quick speed. The design uses a contemporary approach and the result is a complex structure that reflects Wyndhamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s values of a dynamic and exciting society, and is therefore relevant for this project.

Concept Development Future Possibilities Personally I feel that our outcome bears resemblance to the Tori Tori Restaurant. I feel that investigating this structure further will provide interesting possibilities for the future of our design and is a direction that we should take for creating a more intricate design.

Concept Development Redefining Generative Ornamentation

The relations between the drawing, text and building are multi-directional. Drawing may lead to building. But writing may lead to drawing, building may lead to writing, or drawing may lead to drawing, for example Jonathon Hill

Concept Development Design Issues At this stage in the design process my group struggled a fair bit. Feedback from our tutors suggested that we needed to add complexity to our design. We were also told that the creation of optical illusion was not in line with the sense of ornament that we were attempting to create. It was at this point that we needed to consider a way in which to create a structure out of what was currently essentially a pattern. We didn't want to simply apply our design onto a wall because we felt that lacked the complexity and excitement that the generative projects we studied contained. Brainstorms at this point into creating a structure were fairly useless and I was at this time relatively irritated at our inability to come up with a design that incorporated our concepts. Instead of continuing to struggle approaching the design in this manner, instead we went back to our original generative precendents to analyse both them and our matrices further. Following advice from our tutors after the EOI we did further research into the concept of both ornament and generative design, and hence redefined our argument about ornament in the future to some degree. This research lead to more complex drawings, which in turn lead to our final design outcome.

We are proposing that ornament will develop in a generative manner in the future. Technology is progressing, and becoming more ingrained in every day life through medicine, and network theory. Scripting is another example of technology that organizes complex information, which is how a generative design is normally reached. Through exposure to technology such as this, the concept of generative ornament will become more widely understood by the public. As a result, the notion of ornamentation will change with more emphasis on decorative appeal. Ornament will become more about personal interpretation and experience. In developed cities of repetitive tall, functional towers, ornament will be used to create focal points and excitement in the urban fabric. Generative design is the only approach to design that is capable of producing understandable graphics for huge data sets and extremely complex information, and therefore its use is becoming more prevalent. This has meant that the language of generative ornament is becoming representative in the same way that the lack of decoration in the modernist movement did. The complexity of a generative approach to ornament allows for it to not only be representational, however also complex and functional. The processes used not only visualize, but also build complex relationships; the decorative exoskeleton becomes programmatic. As such, a variety of relationships begin to develop as a result of the ornament, in a highly complex manner.

Our reasons for concentrating on generative ornament for this project were a combination of it being a visual language that is becoming more readily understood, as well as for its practical purpose. As this visual language becomes understood, generative ornamental design allows for culturally expressive and ornamental qualities. These in turn create excitement and interest in repetitive cosmopolitan environments such as Wyndham. 43

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

POSITIVE AND

HAROLD COHEN

GUSTAV MEYER

ORGANIC

LINEARITY similarities

shows

KOKUGGIA

DYNAMISM AND MOVEMENT

using

BOTTOM UP APPROACH

INTERSECTING LINES

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SPACE JACKSON POLLOCK

DYNAMISM AND MOVEMENT

S TAT I C

LINEARITY

BIOTHING

Concept Development Reanalysing Original Generative Case Studies While this redefinition did help to point us in the right direction for the duration of our design process, we also decided to analyse our matrices further, as these had been the basis for our design so far. Feedback from the EOI suggested that instead of attempting to encapsulate all of the generative qualities we identified, we should instead concentrate on one and explore it in more detail.

S TAT I C

DYNAMISM AND MOVEMENT

We decided that movement and dynamism was the most relevant to Wyndham, because the Gateway project is being developed to show the dynamic change occurring in Wyndham, and the forward movement of their community. We analysed the concept of movement, to discover ways in which to represent this with diagrams. From this we could pinpoint the most effective manner in which to represent these qualities in our design. We discovered that lines with a high degree of curvature and overlapping would most strongly express the concepts of movement and dynamism, and used this to develop our design.

Design Development Matrice Development We decided that the linearity of the matrice from our first design was more important in conveying movement than the manner in which we extruded it. Keeping this in mind we decided to develop a more complex line drawing than we created for the EOI, with overlap conveying a greater sense of movement. While the lines created were organic and beautiful, we felt that they were not reaching their full potential to portray dynamism. By using Grasshopper to flip the form, the degree of curvature, and hence the concept of movement created, was far higher. 46

Design Development Conceptual Model The degree in which the lines that we developed were moved upwards was dependent on the degree of overlap; lines were lifted where they overlapped with other lines. In this manner not only was the plan generative through the use of attractor points; also the elevation was generative as the degree of extrusion was dependent on overlap. 48

FUTURE GROWTH AREAS

CITY CENTRE

MAJOR ROAD AGRICULTURAL LAND

SITE

Design Development Relevance to Wyndham

This was a moment of relief for me. We had struggled so much with the design process since the EOI, this was the first time we had created a form that all of us agreed was complex, attractive, and worth pushing further. We only developed this five days before the final presentation was due and hence there was an extremely large work load of exploring this further as well as creating models and diagrams in less than a week. We analysed the site in order to make our design more site specific. Instead of referencing a rectangular surface as we had done in the previous exercise, we created a surface that was the same shape as the site itself. The location of the attractor points on the surface were directly correlated to the amount of curvature, or movement created in the lines. We wanted the concept of movement to be directly related to the growth of Wyndham and hence placed our attractor points at locations that we believed were integral to Wyndham. 50

Final Design Model 1:500 The form that developed was highly complex, with the degree of curvature increasing as cars approached Wyndham, symbolic of the cultural and social movement towards Wyndham as a place of importance. While we were concentrating on movement and dynamism, we believe that our design also encapsulates some of the other qualities that we recognised were common throughout generative design.

Ours is a large-scale approach, covering the entire site. The large scale of the structure is ideal for a site that is being moved past at a fast speed, and the nature of the structure allows for it to be an experiential work, as opposed to a work that is merely viewed in a static manner. The structure is highly ornamental; its key functions are to be visually captivating, delightful and convey symbolic meaning in regards to Wyndham. 53

Final Design Construction Detail There are obvious limitations to what we are attempting to achieve in regards to construction costs and construction feasibility. However, this was always a largely speculative project that fits within our criteria for generative design that we developed. We are proposing using aluminium tubing, which is welded together. We studied the BMW building and the way in which their joints are created, so that a continuous structure without supporting columns can be created. With the advancements of computer fabrication technology, it could be possible to discover a relatively easy construction process.

We created both a site model at 1:500 (seen photographed in the previous page), as well as a detail section model at 1:100. Due to the scale of our structure, building at entire detail model at 1:100 was not feasible. I really enjoyed this stage in the process, and was extremely please with the quality of the models.

Final Personal Reflection

Prior to this subject I knew very litle about parametric design, and was completely disinterested by the concept of studying parametric design for a semester. When we were merely learning Grasshopper off the ExLab manuals, I found it very difficult to understand exactly what I was doing. It wasn't until we began developing the matrices and our final design that I began to develop an understanding of Grasshopper. I still feel that personally more tutorial guided learning about the program would have helped me to be able to experiment more with creating a more complex design. One of the largest struggles we had as a group was the inability to freely experiment with forms because we were uncertain as to how to do a lot of things in Grasshopper. In Week Four we were informed that the subject was going to become based around group assignments. I was initially apprehensive about this, having never been in a university group assignment before in which everybody did work and came together as a team. Luckily I was in a group with extremely dedicated group members and I feel we worked really well as a team. Early on we discovered our seperate strengths and interests and hence assigned tasks according to these. Personally far more interested in research and analysis as well as model making, I concentrated on these aspects, while my group members concentrated on other parts of the design process. We had regular group meetings about three times a week and used these times to collaborate and make comments on each others work. We then spent the four days before our final crit working together in the same room on our final panels. I think that one of the strengths of this subject was the group work side of it. I gained far more knowledge from the others in my group than I would have working by myself. I feel through the assigning of tasks, we managed to work to our strengths to create a design and presentation of a far higher calibre than would have been possible had we been working as three individuals. Potentially my favourite part of this course was the ability to use the FabLab to build laser cut models, something that I had never done before. I found the process of creating our digital model into something physical to be very rewarding and an enjoyable experience. The FabLab is definitely a facility that I will use for my design work in the future A large emphasis in this course was on creating line drawings and high quality graphics to portray our design intent. I found that this encouragement in regards to graphic design aspects of architecture was very helpful. I personally feel that I improved my skills in this area a large amount through exposure to other high quality works, and also guidance from my tutors in the programmes and methods that could be used to create these graphics. Overall I was pleased with the quality of the design and the presentation that we created. It was something that I would not have anticipated that I would have been able to produce at the beginning of the unit. While I still don't feel completely confident using Grasshopper I feel that I have learnt other integral skills for my architecture career, including the ability to work in a group, photography, presentation skills, and ability to use Illustrator. I have never approached a design as a research/analysis project before and this was a very interesting experience for me, and one that I feel I will use again, even if not in relation to parametric or generative design. 58

Bibliography Richard Williams, 'Architecture and Visual Culture', in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 16 Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 62 Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo, eds (2006). The Function of Ornament (Barcelona: Actar), pp. 5-14 Snooks and Stuart-Smith, ‘Kokkugia’ (2012) accessed from < http://www.kokkugia.com/> Biothing, ‘Biothing’ (2012) accessed from < http://www.biothing.org/> Hill, Jonathan (2006). ‘Drawing Forth Immaterial Architecture’, Architectural Research Quarterly, 10, 1, pp. 51-55