Page 1

Digital Design - Module 01 Semester 1, 2019 Iok Tong Wong

928308 Jun Han Foong Studio 7


Week One

Reading: Zeara Polo, A. 2010. Between Ideas and Matters.

According to Zeara-Polo, the diagram does not play a representational role in the design process but provides an organisational and can have a performative quality depending on how it is deployed. Explain how Diagram is different from Signs and Symbols? (100 words Maximum)

Based on the reading, a diagram is used for describing relationships and spacializing information. It has a “reductive� yet precise quality that helps to explain navigation through different spaces and dimensions. On the other hand, signs are formal representations that express or refer to their dynamic objects. Symbol is a type of sign that does not necessarily has correlation to its form and content. Signs are often included in diagram to serve as additional tools in explanation of information.

2


Week One

Precedent Analysis

Fig 1. (Left)- Amanda Levete Architects. “MPavilion” In Pavilion Architecture: From the Ephemeral to the Perennial, Nicole Kalms, pg 3. Australia: Architecture Australia, 2016 Fig 2. (Center top)- Front elevation of 3D Model Fig 3. (Center Bottom)- Top view of 3D Model Fig 4. (Right)- Isometric view of 3D Model separated into layers Being given the front elevation and 2 top views of the pavilion, I first imported the images into Rhino and traced the outlines of each section using polyline tool, then convert them into surfaces and solids. The pavilion can be divided into 6 main layers: 13 large ‘petals, 30 small ‘petals’, 2 forms of conjoining structures, supporting structure (carbon rods) and floor (timber deck). The ‘petals’ are in floral-like shapes, while the ‘rods’ vary in heights, resembling the nature of a tree canopy, which is the main inspiration for this pavilion.

3


Week Two

Reading: Hertzberger H. 2005. The in-between and The Habitable Space Between Things, from Lessons for Students in Architecture. Herzberger discusses how design should not be extreme in its functionality. Use your precedent study to explain how the pavilion allows for an appropriation of use. (100 words Maximum)

When a design is not extreme in its functionality, it gives the ‘user’ or ‘audience’ the freedom to ‘imagine’ and interact with the design, hence defining its functions. In this case, the ‘functions’ are subjective and indefinite. Amanda Levete Architects’ 2015 Mpavilion took the form of a tree canopy as its design inspiration. The roof or “petals” provide the function of “shades” and shelter, while their ‘translucent’ quality allows natural sunlight to pass through at the same time. In addition, the embedded LED lights in the petals can keep the garden illuminated when night falls. The carbon rods act as structural support for the roof, yet their material quality allows them to be able to capture the sound of breeze, hence creating a soothing and submerging atmosphere for the visitors, turning the ‘pavilion’ into ‘an art installation’. The pavilion is ‘organic’ and ‘light’ in its overall form and structure, with an open space under the ‘canopy’ with no definite ‘entrance’. This allows people to visit the site from all directions, not only gathering in the area for normal shelter, but also for a diversity of public events.

4


Week Two

Isometric

Amanda Levete Architects’ MPavilion This is the isometric representation of Amanda Levete Architects’ 2015 MPavilion. The 3D modelling process was performed on Rhino with further editing on colors, shading, textures and line weights on Adobe Illustrator CC. The pavilion was first modelled in separate layers, dividing the structure into different sections, such as the ‘petals’, ‘conjoints’, ‘metal rods’ and ‘timber deck’. After assembling all sections together, Make2D was performed and the model was imported into Illustrator. Referenced from the pavilion’s descriptions, ‘lightness’ and its ‘resemblance of nature’ are particularly crucial to the design. To achieve these qualities, I altered the lineweights and opacity of the petals, while filling in a gradient to create reflective and translucent surfaces. The heights of each petal and the added shading were carefully considered to create a sense of depth, while keeping its canopy-like ‘organic’ form. Additional details such as patterns on the ‘petals’ and textures on the timber deck were added for further embellishment. One important quality of the pavilion is its sense of immersiveness with the surrounding environment and its ‘inviting’ nature. The absence of heavy materials and structures give a sense of openess for the pavilion. Visitors can enter from various directions, gathering at the center, with the lush grass patches and the transition in shapes of ‘petals’ acting as thresholds. This pavilion not only acts as shelter, but an open space for everyone.

5


Week Two Diagrams

Circulation

Thresholds

The patterns of circulation may be influenced by various factors, such as changes in climate and differences in visitors’ age. The scattering of people will narrow down to the center, towards the box-like installations when the weather changes for better sheltering. The crowd distribution varies from children to adults, as children are more likely to play and move around quickly, while adults tend to stay in one area for longer period of time.

The pavilion’s thresholds can be defined by the changes in petals’ patterns, the differences in petals’ heights and the lush grass patches surrounding the timber deck. The carbon rods and the small petals extend beyond the deck are forming an in-between space connecting the inner area and the outside garden. Yet overall, there is no clear threshold due to the pavilion’s natural ‘openess’.

6


Appendix

Process

Fig 1. (Left Top) Top view of ‘timber deck’ surfaces on Rhino Fig 2. (Center Top) Top view of ‘large petals’ surfaces with color indications of heights Fig 3. (Right Top) Top view of ‘small petals’ surfaces with color indications of heights Fig 4. (Left Bottom) Top view of polyline tracing of ‘conjoining structures’ on Rhino Fig 5. (Center Bottom) Elevation of ‘carbon rods’ with different heights Fig 6. (Right Bottom) Close-up of modelling a ‘carbon rod’ (All 3D modelling were completed through the reference of images from Amanda Levete Architects’ “MPavilion” In Pavilion Architecture: From the Ephemeral to the Perennial, Nicole Kalms, pg 3. Australia: Architecture Australia, 2016)

7


Appendix Process

Fig 1. (Left Top) Top view on the process of locating ‘carbon rods’ Fig 2. (Center Top) Elevation on the process of adjusting the heights of ‘carbon rods’ Fig 3. (Right) Isometric first 3D model draft (divided into layers) Fig 4. (Left Bottom) Close-up on the process of making the petals’ patterns on Rhino Fig 5. (Center Bottom) Top view of finished patterns

8


Appendix

Process

Fig 1. (Left Top) Top view of ‘circulation pathways’ Fig 2. (Center Top) Top view showing ‘entrances’ and ‘crowd distributions’ Fig 3. (Right) Isometric view of ‘timber deck’ with added textures Fig 4. (Left Bottom) Close-up on the alteration of gradient on petals Fig 5. (Center Bottom) Close-up on ‘grass patch’ on illustrator

9


Appendix Process

Fig 1. (Left Top) Screenshot of altering gradient on illustrator for ‘thresholds’ Fig 2. (Center) Isometric view of the first draft depicting ‘circulation’ Fig 3. (Right) Isometric view of the first draft depicting ‘thresholds’ Fig 4. (Left Bottom) Isometric view of the model’s outline

Profile for student9801

M1_Journal_928308_IokTongWong  

M1_Journal_928308_IokTongWong  

Advertisement