Page 1


Design Studio J

o

u

S I A V A S H

r

n

a

M A L E K

l

AIR

5 4 5 4 1 4


Content A.0. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 A.1. Architecture as a Discource ...................................................................................................................................... 4 A.2. Computational Architecture .................................................................................................................................... 6 A.3. Parametric Modeling ................................................................................................................................................ 8 A.4. Algorithmic Exploration ......................................................................................................................................... 11 A.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 A.6. Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................. 13 B.1. Design Focus ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 B.2. Case Study 1.0 .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 B.3. Case Study 2.0 .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 B.4. Technique: Development ........................................................................................................................................ 24 B.5. Technique: Prototypes ............................................................................................................................................ 25 B.6. Technique: Proposal ................................................................................................................................................ 27 B.7. Algorithmic Sketches .............................................................................................................................................. 28 B.8. Learning Objectives and Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 29 C.1. Gateway Project: Design Concept .......................................................................................................................... 33 C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements ..................................................................................................................... 37 C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model ................................................................................................................................ 41 C.4. Algorithmic Sketches .............................................................................................................................................. 43 C.5. Learning Objectives and Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 47 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 48


Part A. E0I I:

Case For Innovation


“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower”

Steve Jobs


A.0. Introduction

The wearable lantern was the final project of Virtual Environments subject which I completed in 2012. The objective of this subject was to familiarize 1st year students to computer software and digital designing processes which will be required in the field of Architecture. The brief of this project was to design a paper sculpture which could fit on someone’s body and use LED to create light and shadow . The project was based around a CAD software called Rhinoceros which allowed the students to explore and draw their design in a computer environment. Other software such as Adobe Illustrator and InDesign were used to present and 3

communicate our ideas and experiences with the tutors and other classmates. During the semester, students were asked to investigate a variety of design concepts used in real projects and to explore their relevance to our project. By doing so different methods were used to create a desirable outcome. This process also included experimenting with different materials and their restrictions when making the actual model. Students were also required to understand the restrictions of using a computer software and to transform these restrictions into opportunities. During the course , different classmates chose different paths to design and make their wearable lantern which also

helped to have a better understanding of how a design could have had a different outcome if a different choice was made . At the end of the semester we were familiarized by computation and how the computer itself could generate solutions by considering facts a computer user could provide. Unfortunately Rhino was only used to visualize ideas rather than generating them. I believe computation design could be very interesting as it is a new way of approaching a design process. I am looking forward to start a design studio with the idea in mind that the final outcome of the subject is not going to be a building but simply the result of my imagination and creativity.


A.1. Architecture as a Discourse

It is clear that architecture in the modern day has become more structural compared to the buildings in the past. This shift would require the architects to have a better understanding of the structure and not just shape and form. Therefore I disagree with seeing architecture only as an art. I believe Architecture is a fusion of Engineering and art. Unlike art, architecture requires reasoning. Architecture also unlike engineering is always in search for different and more creative solutions. It was also discussed during the 1st week’s readings that unlike other forms of art, architecture is always dependent on a client and cannot be created for the sake of its creator or only for its beauty. 2

I believe an honest approach to architecture is the key to many of today’s buildings and structures. For example after September 11 incident in United States, new buildings are under construction and Santiago Calatrava’s new station is one of the projects which is planned to be in service by the end of 2015. Due to the site’s history, it is crucial that the design of the project is worthy by its time. Also because of its use by the public, the design should be easy to understand and enjoy not only by other architects but also normal users. Selecting this project as the winner shows how an honest and structural type of architecture is suitable for monumental and public style of architecture.

It is also notable that Calatrava uses natural forms in his design by looking at the human body and nature. I believe this feature of his design is also suitable for today’s architecture as the importance of nature in design is increasing by time. Other architects such as Adolf Loos also had the same type of thinking as he states “Be truthful, nature only sides with truth”.

4


A same sort of architectural style has been used by Sir Normal Foster in designing the HSBS building in Hong Kong. It is visible that a truthful structure is very suitable for a project which its intention is to make a statement. Like many others, Calatrava also believes that architecture functions as a time capsule which embodies the spirit of its time and location in itself. This might be the reason behind William’s writings claiming that the attention of architecture may have shifted from the facade to the structure by time. As Frank Gehry also puts it in his own words, “Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness”.

25


A.2. Computational Architecture Computer plays an important role in our daily life and Architecture is not excluded from that. Using the computer has allowed us to process more information in a much shorter period of time. Computers have become reliable tools as they don’t make mistakes and never grow tired. Being able to use a computer software has become so important that not knowing how to use one, will cause problems in the future, if not now. Nowadays computers are being used to help architects in different stages of design and construction. For example software such as AutoCad have allowed us to do the drafting which was done manually by hand, in a faster and more accurate way. Architects such as frank Gehry use the computer to visualize their complicated design. On the other hand, computers can assist us with parametric design. Although learning these skills takes time and effort, but this way architects can include different parameters in their design and it allows them to change the design parameters in a more effective way compared to doing them manually.

The Sphere at Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt is a good example of parametric design. This sculpture was designed by Mario Bellini and resembles a ball wrapped in ribbons made out of steel. To start the design, 60 rings were created . Later by using a parametric computer software he was able to design a series of rings which : - Do not collide with two bridges. - Are self supported. - Even distribution between the circles. The computer software evaluated all the design outcome no matter if they match the given parameters or not. One of the problems faced was that the outcomes with good self support did not distribute the circles evenly throughout the sphere,. This design approach was discussed in the readings and was regarded as Depth method. This technique allows the final outcome to be chosen from a wider range of proposals and not consider a certain number of designs as the best solution.1

In my opinion, in this example of parametric design there hasn’t been much manual control of the design. Is it possible that someone else using the same design parameters would have the same outcome? Although the design responds to the brief and is effective, but if there was another project with the same brief, would that mean that the final design outcome would be the same as the Deutsche Bank Sphere? Does the designer need to add some personal parameters to change the outcome of a parametric design and to make it look different from previous projects? Despite the points mentioned above, I believe using a parametric computer software has allowed the designer to come up with a solution which really works. This design technique has allowed them to design something almost impossible to create manually in a short period of time. They have explored a large number of possibilities and chose the most suitable to design, responding to its surrounding.

A classic example of parametric design could be Gaudi’s experiment with the strings and weights. If Gaudi had access to a computer at his time, there was no need to make the physical model. He also could have experimented other possible shapes and forms in faster and easier.

1 Moritz Hauschild and Rudiger Karzel, Digital Processes: Planning Design Production (Basel: Firmengruppe APPL, 2011), P. 75.

6


The roof of British Museum Great Courtyard was designed by Foster and Partners and Buro Happold. A Parametric computer software was used to design this Mesh style roof. The distance between every two nods are the same. The roof uses a three way grid system which creates a curved surface. The roof was developed through a method of dynamic relaxation. this shape could only be achieved using a computer software which could process a great number of distinct triangles. The design team generated an external force and allowed the surface to respond to it and reach equilibrium.2 Since the force was not at the center of the court, the final outcome is not symmetrical. This design can only be achieved by computers which can process individual particles of the design and apply the changes to them. This pattern is also visible from the shadow it creates . 7

2 Peter Szalapaj, Contemporary Architecture and Digital Design Process (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005), P. 65


A.3. Parametric Modeling

The BMW pavilion is designed by the German architect, Franken/ Architekten and was built in Frankfurt - Germany in 2001. The project’s main purpose was to showcase the new BMW 7 series. Bernhard has used a parametric style to approach the pavilion’s design. The use of computer software can be seen easily by looking at the final design.

Unlike other architects such as Gehry, Bernhard did not have a specific form to start with and the general shape is driven by external forces. To start the designing process, Bernhard has used a series of forces, similar to the ones a car would experience while moving. Other parameters such as Doppler Effect and adjacent buildings on the site had also affected the final outcome of the pavilion. In the later stages, the form was modified using Maya software. Franken describes this 3 type of form as a Dynaform shape.

To build the pavilion, multiple crosssections were generated from the master geometry. Each of these crosssections was unique to another and had to be shaped into the desired form manually. The frame was made out of steel and later on was regarded as Dynaframes. The frame had to support the external skin of the pavilion. PVC was used to fabricate the external skin of the building and by using a single ruled surface with single curvature form, they were able to create a smooth surface.

3 Robert Corser, Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing (Princeton: Architectural Press, 2010), P.113

8


I believe the use of parametric design has given Bernhard Franken a big advantage in his early stages of his design. Without a parametric style of design, including different parameters such as external forces and Doppler effect would have been either impossible or very hard. By doing so, He was also able to extract 15 cross-sections which were vital to the structure of the building.

9

On the other hand, I believe due to construction limitations of his time, he was not able to use the full potential of a parametric design. Each part of the steel cross-sections had to be manually manufactured and bolted to its place. One of the advantages of using parametric design is it’s ability to simplify the construction stage of the building rather than making it more complicated.

Although parametric design can be very helpful at designing the general shape of the design, the use of other software such as Maya in this case, is necessary as the final shape of the design should also be desirable by the designer himself. This final touches done by the designer are also very important since he has more control over the outcome rather than directing the software towards an outcome. It is these final touches that show the trade mark of a designer and differentiates his design from other designers using similar parametric style of design.


The Kunsthaus Graz was designed by Peter Cook and Collin Fournier and is located in Graz - Austria. Unlike the previous example, the design phase of this project is not fully done by the computer and some of the modelling are done by hand. On the other hand computer software were used to visualize the design. Unlike Gehry’s style, the 3-D digital modeling process was completed separately from the physical model. Unlike Franken’s design, the structure of the blob had an effect on the final outcome.3

3 Robert Corser, Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing (Princeton: Architectural Press, 2010), P.113

10


A.4. Algorithmic Exploration

11


A.5. Conclusion As it was discussed earlier in section 1, a suitable design should reflect the spirit of its time and location. Also due to the use of the design, it should be both elegant and simple which I believe can be achieved by a structural form. Also due to the uniqueness of Australian Aboriginal culture and art, the design should reflect its rich history and its potential for future designs. To show this potential and respond to today’s modern architecture, the design process will be heavily relied on parametric computer software.

The objective of using a parametric computer software to design a structural form would be its potential in lowering the cost of constructing the project. As the importance of sustainability grows by time, it is important to achieve a lower amount of waste of material which can be accomplished by the possibilities a computer software creates. This design approach can also be seen as a new way of experimenting with materials, structure and form which would turn the project and its location into a successful architectural example.

Due to this design approach, this project will be able to communicate with different users and visitors from around the world and turn Western Gateway into one of Melbourne’s and Australia’s symbols.

12


A.6. Learning Outcomes Using Grasshopper as a Rhinoceros plug-in has introduced me to a way to approach a design project. I found parametric design very different from my previous knowledge of other computer based methods. Although learning a new computer skill is not easy at the beginning, but Grasshopper has showed me a faster and more interesting way of designing more complex shapes and forms. These features of parametric design could have been a big advantage for my previous projects such as the Wearable

13

Lantern discussed in the beginning of the journal. By using grasshopper I would have saved a great amount of time as there was no need to start the design if there was a crucial change. I also could have changed my design by including parameters such as its structural strength which was one of the weaknesses my project had. I believe by using Grasshopper for this project, I will be able to explore and investigate more design possibilities and opportunities to create a more desirable outcome for the final project.


Part B. E0I II:

Design Approach


B.1. Design Focus - Structure

The Wyndham gateway project has the potential to create an opportunity for the designers to discuss architecture and discourse in their design. The type of design on the site is not going to have any certain function and is seen as a type of monument which acknowledges the history and the current spirit of the site as a fast growing city. The design should also be innovative in its own way and try to achieve a goal when it is being built. One of the main goals of the design should be aiming for making the site renown for its contribution towards architecture and become a symbol of modernity in Australia.

17

As it was mentioned in the previous part of the journal, a structural approach to the design is the key to the Wyndham project. A suitable type of structure is able to make a statement about the technicality and modernity of the project which is usually easy for the viewers and users to connect with. Also using parametric design provides the designing team with an opportunity to work with different design tools which is considered as almost a new approach to the design. One of the other advantages of using parametric design would also be its contribution to minimizing the amount of waste while building the design which is very important in a monumental design. Also the structural type of the design is simple enough for the drivers to experience it while the cars are traveling with a high speed.

A very good example of a structural architect is Santiago Calatrava which approaches his designs in a structural and engineering way. The pictures above show his L’umbracle project in Valencia which is the entrance to the city of Arts & Science in Spain. What also makes his type of design comparable to the Wyndham project is his respect for the indigenous plants and considering them in his design. As it also can be seen he has used a sculpture like type of design which was inspired by the type structure that can be found in nature. I believe all of the characteristics in his design makes his structural approach to the design a good example of how the Wyndham Gateway project can be designed.


B.2. Case Study 1.0

18


19


The main objective while experimenting with different case study files was to achieve an understanding of the best way a structural form could be achieved. After the experimentation it was understandable that using a smooth surface would allow us to achieve a series of straight lines which replicate the surface. I also found working with Mesh faster compared to surfaces or poly-surfaces. On the other hand some of the commands in Grasshopper only worked for either Surfaces or for a Mesh. After experimenting Kangaroo I also found out that the final outcome will not be exactly the shape or form that was desirable but something close to it. Although changing parameters such as plasticity or external forces allowed me to change the shape of the design, but it was a slow process and sometimes unpredictable.

I also tried working with other Grasshopper plug-ins such as Lunch Box. The problem with Lunch Box was that the output of the commands were lines rather than cells which made it hard for me to work the shape of the whole design. In the end to create a structural form I experimented with lines and how they can be altered. I found Point Charges as an useful command to turn a series of regular lines into irregular. I also found Extruding edges was a useful way to transform 2D lines into a 3D surface. I also believe that the final shape from extruding lines have the potential to allow me investigate joints and connection points which I could not find in using other methods such as Pipes or simple lines.

Generally I found the final design outcome to be strongly dependant to the lines which the grasshopper script uses to start with. These lines could be drawn on Rhino which makes the whole process faster. On the other hand, one can argue that using Rhino would mean the design process is not 100% parametric design. I also found that the starting lines could also be generated from the lines found on the site which is the road in this case. In the end, I believe these experimentations allowed me to have a better understanding of the design boundaries when using Grasshopper and how I can achieve the final outcome with is suitable for the Wyndham Gateway project.

20


B.3. Case Study 2.0 Souther Cross Station

21

To start the second part of the Case Study, I used the Souther Cross Station as the project. I believe Southern Cross is a good example of how a contemporary design can capture the spirit of its location and time and still respond to its past. Although Southern Cross designers did not approach their design in the same way I am planning to do, but the techniques they have used can be very useful for my design.

To start the reverse engineering, a 2D grid was created. In the next step a series of points were generated from where the lines crossed each other. By offsetting the grid, 2 series of points were created. By connecting the points to each other and skipping every 2nd point, a Sin curve was generated. By lofting these curves a surface was created which was similar to the Southern Cross design.

Southern Cross station was designed using parametric design and works as a surface which is supported by a structure. The surface is shaped and affected by the idea of having an airflow in the design to remove the smoke out of the area.

One of the things I wanted to change in my design which was different from this project was the supports which in Southern Cross Station the structure is supported by columns. I believe our group’s final design should be structurally independent from any columns.

Although this experimentation was not successful in all aspects, but it was a good starting point which has a strong influence on the second attempt to reverse engineer another project and how the final design is shaped.


22


B.3. Case Study 2.1 - Ekko

The Ekko project was designed by Thilo Frank and is a permanents installation. The design is made of a series of wooden frames which revolve along a curved axis. This project was closer to what the group was looking for and the rest of our design was based on this style of design.

23


24


B.5. Technique Prototypes

In the first stage of fabricating the design, the group chose to use MDF as material. MDF was strong enough to hold itself and yet not too heavy. Although the sketch model was not very neat, the group could agree that the model was successful. The individual parts when put together created a smooth surface which also highlighted the curves they were generated from.

25

On the second attempt Ivory card was used. We were hoping the small thickness of ivory card would allow us to have a smoother movement through out the model. The main problem with using ivory card was that it failed to support its own weight and the model could not stand on its own and extra reinforcement was needed.

Due to double curved lines in our design we chose to use hinges to allow the straight members rotate. This technique allowed the model to move which was both a positive and negative outcome. As each part of the model could move, if they were fixed to each other, by moving one part, the rest of the model could also move in harmony with other parts. On the other hand additional parts will be needed to control this movement.


As it was discussed in the previous parts, the general shape of the design was strongly connected to the basic curves that the design is generated from. The group experimented with using different liquids and papers. There were not many interesting curves shaping. One other problem was that all the patterns were on a sheet of paper and 2D. To start our design 3D curves were needed which made the experiment not very successful.

26


B.6. Technique Proposal

The main feature of the design that the group found challenging which was causing most of the problems in the fabricating process was the use of double curved lines. The double curved lines did not have any impact on the general shape or the ripple effect created by the design. As a result it is decided that for the later stages of the design process and the project, straight lines will be used. One of the main concerns of the design is to create something interesting from straight lines and I believe that will be the main goal of our design.

27

Later on the group started to look at the works of Rubin Margolin which is a Kinetic Sculpture. The group decided to shift the focus of our design from the ripple effect to making the design move using external forces, mainly wind. But this decision provides us with an opportunity to have a moving sculpture which creates some sort of ripple effect which changes as the wind is blowing on the site. Although our design will be looking at Rubin’s work as inspiration but I believe the design will be innovative as different effects can be created and we’re not only focused on the movement alone.

Some of the design and fabrication elements that the group has to overcome in the future will be experimenting more with different joints to allow a better movement and yet make the structure stronger. How the design is going to sit on the site is also one of the problems as we believe more supports will be needed to add stability to the whole design. Also the materials used in the model are going to be crucial to the final outcome. One of the goals will be using simple materials to create a shape with is complicated but easy to understand.


B.7. Algorithmic Sketches

This design prototype was the starting point of reverse engineering the whole model and was successful in creating an effect from straight members.

By reverse engineering this design, I learned how one Grasshopper technique can be applied to different designs and still create various designs.

This outcome was an example of how a complicated shape can be generated from a simple surface with just changing one of the parameters.

By this design I learned that how a structural looking design can be generated from a design that looks more like a pattern.

This design idea allowed us to think about creating a pattern using straight lines and it also had the potential of further exploration for the joints.

By experimenting with this design, the importance of the basic curves and its massive effect of the final outcome was highlighted.

28


B.8. Learning Objective Outcomes

One of the main points discussed during week 8 presentation was the importance of scale in the final design outcome. Currently our group was mainly focusing on the materials and joints needed for making a scale model which may not work or act as the full scaled model will. In the future the group will be experimenting with one to one scale models to explore new possibilities and outcomes.

29

Again the scale of the site and the design and also the speed of the cars and the viewer are very important on how we are going to approach the design. This was the main reason of changing the main focus of our design from the ripple effect to the movement as the drivers will only be experiencing the sculpture for a very short period of time. As a result the viewer will be able to see the changes in movement better than the ripple effect.

and

Our ideas were strongly connected to the presidents that were chosen. These projects had a strong influence on the current shape of the design. What the group should explore more is other examples of real use of joints and connections. As a result the group started investigating different possibilities with joints and movements which can also be found in Rubin Margolin’s works.


Part C. :

Project Proposal


C.1. Gateway Project: Design Concept

As mentioned before, after the crit, the group decided to change the design approach from a static structure into a dynamic structure. It is understandable that a city such as Wyndham which is changing with a fast pace would also require a dynamic symbol which could show this change trough out the time. Although the general shape of the design would be similar to the final outcome, it was decided to explore kinetic type of joints and movement for the final project. By doing so it was also agreed that the final outcome would be more successful in terms of experimenting with new techniques and innovations which is one of the main targets of this project. A moving structure would also create a much better experience for the users which are driving a car and they would be able to see changes while driving past the final design.

33

The location for the final design is very flat which would allow our design to be seen from a longer distance away from it. As a result it was one of our design intentions to have a relatively large design on the site.

Site-A was chosen as the ideal location for our design as most of the trafic was going around it and it also would attract more viewers compared to other parts of the site.

The site consisted of three parts. Site-A was the ideal location to construct our design due to the construction technique required to build the final project. Having a straight line was very crucial in the construction process which will be explianed more in the next part of the journal.

Also by considering the scale of the site and the time it requires a car to past by the design, part A would allow the user to experience the design for more than 20 seconds which is the longest compared to other sites.


Reuben Margolin’s Kinetic sculptures projects were very influentian in the outcome of the final design. He uses low-tech materials to create different types of movements which tend to be natural shapes.

In this project he has extended his Wave sculpure with strings which could be attached to a dancer. As the dancer moves, the strings attached to his body will pull the strings and the shape of the sculture changes.

This process was very similar to the outcome the group was looking to achieve. Our final project would use this concept to harvest winds blowing on the site to move and create a wave shaped pattern.

34


Santiago Calatrava’s exploration with folding and movement was also one of the key concepts in designing the final project. This model explores the roof of a stadium which can be opened and closed.

35

Calatrava’s designs and use of straight lines was an example of how a smooth surface can be created. The group used this idea of structure to replicate the flow and movement of the water.


This project was inspired by Theo Jansen’s work and explores the movement of the design in Grasshopper. This video was also inspirational to the group and encourage us to use Grasshopper as not only a tool to design but also test the mechanical movements and the final shape of the design. Although the problem with this design was that it does not have a support to hold the structure up as it is only a design. One of the main differences in our work was the use of a second structure which holds the rest of the design up and allows it to move.

36


C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements

A wheel system was designed to allow the wings to be fiex on top of an axel. The wheels themselves are connected to the frame which holds the whole structure. By doing so we were alble to create a wave type of movement rather than letting all the wings move the same way at the same time.

37


Every wing is constructed from three sheets of Plywood which makes the wing strong enough to withstand its own weight. The right and left set of wings will fit into each other and aloow the wings move as the axel rotates inside the frames.

38


Umbrella like elements on the start of the wings will be able to catch the wind and move each individual wing. By doing so, the main axel is also moved and the whole structure will start to move.

39

Guide Pins are attached to the frame. The wings will rest on these pins and by doing so, the movement of each wing will be controlled. The placement of each Pin is very important as non of the pins are identical.

The Frames carry the load of the structure. As a result a strong foundation is needed to withstand both the wind and dead load of the structure. Same as the pins, non of the frames are identical.


These umbrellas are designed by Frei Otto. These umbrellas are able to fold as they close. This type of opening and closing is nessesary for the final design as the umbrellas have to open and close. This type of construction allows the umbrellas to have a 10m span and it’s hight changes between 9m and 12m as it closes and opens. Steel is the main material used for the frame of a new Teflon fabric is used for the membranes. The weight of the wings is also one of the other issues with the final design. Recycled plastic beams provide strength to the wings and it is also much lighter compared to steel and other materials. As west watertreatment plants in Wyndham reflect the importance of sustainability in the area, the recycled plastic beams are suitable to reflect the importance of materiality in design .

40


C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model

41


Plan view

North Elevation

East Elevation 42


C.4. Algorithimc Sketches Grasshopper Animations: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9lbdvhzgh7pek0x/QPQH9RqEg6

43


44


45


46


C.5. Learning Objectives & Outcomes

Presentation Feedback

Outcomes

One of the main points mentioned during the final crit was that as designers we should always consider the design being built in real life. It is easy to lose track of the real world when working with computers.

Learning to work Grasshopper has showed me a new way of approaching the design and also visualizing the final outcome. Although learning a new software might require a huge amount of time, but in the end knowing Grasshopper has helped me with saving time when it comes to dealing of Grasshopper and parametric design that was crucial during the construction process was the possibility of generating new data and outcomes from some basic inputs. I believe Grasshopper has the potential to aid the construction process in many projects which is very important as the importance of sustainability increases by time.

Except for that point, I could say that the project was successful to a degree as the design system can actually work without any further problem, if more time is spent to resolve some minor issues.

Further Development The most important aspect of any further development would be more exploration around the joint and materiality in a much larger scale. Although a 1:10 scale model was built, but still the characteristics of the materials might change when the wings have to span for a longer distance. These problems could also be dealt with if a new and better material could replace the current ones.

47

I also enjoyed using Grasshopper not only as a tool to bring my ideas into life but also test it and see the final outcome. This saved a great amount of time in our project as I would have had to experiment the outcomes multiple times in the real world to achieve the desirable outcome.

One of the main points about using a parametric design tool that I still struggle with was allowing the software to help with which direction the design was going towards. I believe I did not explore the true power of parametric design as I should have and in the future that will be one of the main things I will be hoping to improve. One of the downsides of working with Grasshopper was its lack of understanding of the real word. In the virtual world, all the movements and joints seem to be perfectly functioning as in the real life other parameters such as materiality and friction can have a huge effect on the final outcome of the design. This was one of the main problems my group experienced when making the final model. In the end I was able to work with a parametric tool to express my ideas into the real world. This required a good understanding of architecture and discourse which helped to focus on a certain architectural style and design.


Bibliography . Coser, Robert, Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3AATafVRCPkC&dq=Franken+BMW&source=gbs_navlinks_s

. Hauschild, Moritz, Rudiger Karzel, Digital Processes: Planning Design Production (Basel: Firmengruppe, 2011) . Szalapaj, Peter, Contemporary Architecture and Digital Design Process (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3W8YBPm2MQgC&pg=PA87&dq=peter+cook+blob&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tVReUf3kM-mciAf75oHIAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=peter%20cook%20 blob&f=false

48

545414 siavash malek studio air journal final  

Studio Air Final Journal

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you