A I JOURNAL
Tho m as Cornelius
1.
c o nt e nt s A . 1.0
A cas e f o r i n novat io n 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13
b . 2.0
About me digital design experience Architectural discourse precedent project 1. precedent project 2. Computational Architecture Parametric Model Parametric projects in practice 1 Parametric Pojects in Practice 2 Conclusion Learning Outcomes Algorithmic Exploration li st of Reference
d e sig n a p p roac h 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
design focus case study 1.0 - Vo ltDOm | skylar tibbits case study 2.0 - ICD|ITKE research pavilion technique development technique prototypes technique proposal algorithmic sketches learning objectives and outcomes
2.
ABOUTME My name is Tom Cornelius and I am a third year architecture student within the Melbourne University Bachelor of Environments Undergraduate course I was born and raised in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, completing my education in Melbourne also. I come from a very designer based family, my dad operates a graphic design firm, whilst my mum was a fashion designer and brother initially an industrial designer. Growing up in this environment meant that I was constantly exposed to design, not just the final product but very much the process involved. I have always had an interest in the built environment especially residential design and the way in which people reflect their personalities in their home.
Outside of studies my passions include sports, travel, cars and food. I like to combine these at any chance possible. Through sport I have had the chance to spend extended stays across Europe, getting amongst the different cultures and gaining a wider perception of the world in general. My ambitions are not yet decided, but I am sure I will explore more professions than just architecture itself. For now I am enjoying learning and have found the Architecture Major to be challenging but rewarding, It is a very interesting industry for many reasons and I love its dynamic nature that comes with the ever developing technologies of the world. I would love to one day be known for leaving a mark on the architectural world, whether it be in Australia or abroad.
1.1
3.
D i g i ta l d e s i g n experience v i rt u a l e nv i r o n m e nt s Throughout my first two years in the Bachelor of Environments course I have been introduced to and used a number of programs. From the Adobe Suite to AutoCad, Revit and Rhino3D. My experience with each of these varies considerably however. Having used the Adobe creative suite throughout my schooling I would admit that I am most confident with it as a program. I have however used Autocad and Autocad Architecture to generate plans for design proposals and created a wearable piece through 3D modeling in Rhino that was then printed and constructed by hand. I am keen to learn more about all of these programs and am currently completing workshops in all of them through the Visual Communication subject offered at Melbourne University.
1.2
This subject was based around the design of a lantern that had to reflect a natural process. It involved an initial design process and a weekly refinement through the assistance of Rhino3D to panel and fabricate a wearable piece. I found this initially quite challenging as the brief for the design had very few limitations and I realised I had never really worked under those circumstances before. I chose to design based on the movement path of our bodies as you moved, including directional and speed change. The skills learnt in regard to the design process, digitization and fabrication of an idea
d e s i g n st u d i o : e a rt h I completed this subject last semester and thoroughly enjoyed my first attempt at designing a building. The brief was to design a museum that acted as a gateway from pre colonisation in Australia to early settlement and beyond. This project allowed me to teach myself AutCad Architecture and utilize the drafting tools to communicate my ideas accurately and effectively. The subject also required model making which definitely improved over time.
4.
a rc h i t e ct u r a l discou rse Architecture is a “conceptual, cultural and intellectual enterprise.” 1 As Peter Eisenman, a well known architect and theorist states. This perception of architecture has slowly developed since the times of Palladio. Whilst it was more commonly perceived prior that architecture was merely the physical forms that line our streets and create the grids of our cities. In reality it is so much more than that. Architects such as Semper and Adolf Loos were amongst few that discussed ‘enclosed spaces’ as the essence and purpose of architecture. 2 The views of these early architects however would be considered somewhat narrow minded by those such as Eisenman. Architecture is much more than an envelope enclosing space. Architecture does have the power to define space but it is the power architecture has to define a space, a city and a culture that makes it much bigger than the physical form. People interact with architecture subconsciously everyday, it dictates how they move, it evokes an emotional response and a critical assessment. When discussing architectural discourse you have to look at these aspects beyond the physical. You have to look at the thought process involved too.
Much of architecture does not even exist in the physical, because many designs never get built. But within these designs are the use of new architectural methods, different ways of thinking about an enclosed space and people will read about or look at those projects never built and provide a critical assessment of their opinion. Architecture is a very public domain, as stated earlier everyone interacts within it on a daily basis, either on purpose or subconsciously they are analysing the architecture around them, I have chosen two precedent projects that clearly and effectively express what is beyond the physical aspect of design. The Holocaust Museum by Peter Eisenman is what I believe to be a perfect example of a greater meaning embedding within physical form. He does this so well in fact that this example of his work is commonly refferred to as an extremely successfull example of architectural work that conveys a meaning and an idea, not just an aesthetic. The museum’s primary purpose is to act as a memorial for the many lives lost.
The function is to express physically what is embedded into the emotions of the population. In contrast my second precedence project is that of the Seattle Central Library, a design by Rem Hoolhaas in colaboration with OEM and LMN. This building is innovative in its creation of civic space and taking a dying art and reviving it into the modern era. Koolhaas much like Eisenman has set a benchmark in the architectural industry in which future projects of similar nature will refer to in hope of emulating such successfull elements. As stated earlier, many architectual deisgns are still purely assessed on their physical, with the vast majority of people ignoring the idea behind a design. My intention as part of a team in creating a proposal for the ‘Windham Gateway’ is to set an architectural standard much like Eisenman and Koolhaas have done in the following cases of precedents. The ultimate goal is to successfully communicate a meaning of growth and to add to the discourse of architecture in a positive light for setting the benchmark for interactive public installations.
Eisenman, Peter, ‘Interview: Peter Eisenman,’26 April 2013, www.architectural-review.com 1. Ungur, Erdem. ‘Space; The undefinable space of Architecture ‘ 2010 2.
1.3
5.
p r e c e d e nt P r o j e c t
m e m o r i a l to t h e m u r d e r e d j e ws o f e u r o p e p et e r ei s e n m a n
This space created by Peter Eisenman used minimal form, simplistic, yet completely encapsulates the emotion surrounding the history of Euroep and the holocaust. The memorial has been written about in many different literary journals, some focused on the architectural elements, but many on the representation embedded within. What the majority of these pieces agreed on however is the emotion that is evoked from walking through the stelae. Whilst the memorial space is simplistic in its use of one generic repeated form and dominant use of a singular material, the positioning of the concrete stelae hide the topology beneath it sinks you within the linear pathways. Spatially Eisenmans use of varying sized stelae creates a very enclosed environment that restricts your line of sight, evoking a sense of confusion and distress. What is extremely interesting about the form of the monument is that it is situated within the city centre of Berlin, Germany and because of this Eisenman has not inscribed any messages into the stelae, nor has he included photographic imagery of the historic time. The form instead respectfully addresses the history of Europe, the message is not literal and is therefore, not forced upon those who view it.
1.4
Whilst people interact with the space to mourn and remember, many choose to interact with the space in a variety of different ways. Some are seen skipping from stelae to stelae, some sit on them and converse, while others simply walk by it and can do so without being forced to remember the events of the past. Peter Eisenman is well known for his use of computer aided design (CAD) and digital design techniques. Computer aided design has helped Eisenman to achieve the undulating form of the stelea within such a varying topographical site. The same computer aided design methods will assisst my team to make best use of the Windham Gateway’s site topology. As a contribution to the discourse of architecture I believe it is very effective in respectfully embedding a deeper meaning within its form, rather than the use of explicit and literal devices. The design has set an example within the architectural world that will be emulated in many architectural works of the future. I will endeavour to achieve the same implicit representation of meaning within the ‘Windham Gateway’ proposal, conveying a sense of community and growth through dynamic and interactive form.
6.
S E AT T L E C E N T R A L L I B R A R Y Rem Koolhaas | OMA+LMN Rem Koolhaas is commonly known troversy he has caused amongst tural world, almost as much as he is ing designs that come from him and
for the conthe architecfor the amazhis firm OMA.
Koolhaas is a regular contributor to the discourse of achitecture, always sharing his opinions on other designs, movements and theories. He is seen regularly lecturing on the current state and future pathways of architecture. The projects he works on through OMA are regularly discussed within the architectural world and whilst not always for setting the benchmark, there are many examples such as the CCTV Headquarters in Beijing or the Shenzen Stock Exchange that have added to the discourse for there experimentation with counterleavered form and structural innovation. It was his design of the Seattle Central Library that brought him to my attention as I first found my appreciation for architectural design. Seeing pictures like the above throughout the internet made me appreciate his creation of space and angular form. Looking back on the building now as I undertake my studies I have an immense appreciation for what Rem Koolhaas has achieved within this Library.
1.5
In a time where the need for a Library and physical literature was losing out to the fast developing digital world, Rem was faced with the challeng of creating a space that brought the library into the 21st century and ensured that its purpose now is as strong as it ever was. Rem was able to achieve this by including so much more than the physical literature that typified previous libraries. Rem effectively created “a civic space for the circulation of knowledge in all media, and an innovative organizing system for an ever-growing physical collection.” 1 He completely changed the library as it was known and answered the problem with a progressive form that advanced the library to accommodate the changing times. What the Seattle Central Library adds to the discourse of architecture most is its interpretation of context and the ideas Rem Koolhaas had to “enhance the cityscape by introducing something new, visually interesting and provocative.” Koolhaas wanted to “make a gesture to distinguish itself from the “generic” office buildings that currently filled the Seattle cityscape and create a new ‘sense of space’ for the people of Seattle to enjoy. 2 It is the way in which people travel just to experience the building as well as its constant use from Seattelites to this day that marks its success.
East facade of the seattle central library showing the angular form and tesselated structure The interior of the spiral section The tesselated steel structure that provides both structural form and aesthetic appeal from inside and out Diagrom expresing the division of spaces within the library
Koolhaas’s logical arrangement of space according to function creates the succesfull civic space where people are encouraged to interact. As they interact they engage with the visually interesting form of the building that capitalises on the Seattle sunlight and views from within. The modernisation of the library by Koolhaas has been replicated in many examples since the Seattle Central Library opened. libraries such as the Biblioteca Espana, Colombia that share the same incorporation of context in design. They standout from there adjacent surroundings and create a sense of space far different to that of the rest of there cities. Like in Seattle the Bibioteca Espana stands for innovation and moderninity that the public can recognise and appreciate.
1. 2. 3. 4.
The site for the gateway within Windham sits adjacent to a freeway, greenlands and generic civic structures. The design for my teams gateway proposal will look to incorporate an innovative and modern form that will ensure it stounds out from its surroundings and creates a sense of space that not only appeals as an attraction to effectively bring people to the site initially, but ensures that they remember Windham as a community.
What Rem Koolhaas, OEM and LMN have achieved in redefining the library and setting the precedent for how to transform spaces into the modern world is something I will strive to achieve with my team in the ‘Windham Gateway’ proposal. I would like to replicate the way that context has been considered within the Seattle Central Library design.
Koolhaas, Rem. ‘Seattle Central Library, USA’ 2004 oma.eu/projects/2004/seattle-central-library 1. Mattern, Shannon “Just How Public Is the Seattle Public Library?’ Journal of Architectural Education, 2. Blackwell Publishing, 2003
8.
9.
It is no longer necessary to successively refine a singular design, as one can work with many variants in parallel. These variants can be bred and cultivated into entire families of objects. Michael Hansmeyer
“
“
C o m p utat i o n a l To lend the words of Kostas Terzidis “computation or computing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited.” This same perspective is shared by John H. Frazer who contests that computation is “just a tool and remote from the real business of architecture.”It is perspectives like these that express that computation has its limitations, either due to the designer operating the computational design or the computer aided design (CAD) software having limitations itself. Personally I believe that these statements are highly subjective and would depend immensely on the level of ones knowledge of said programs and willingness and openness to let computational outcomes effect their architectural design ideas. I prefer to use an architect by the name of Michael Hansmeyer’s opinion. Hansmeyer states that in computational design; “parameters control the operations of a timebased, predefined process that is itself transforming or generating geometry. These processes strike a delicate balance between the expected and the unexpected.” As opposed to simply useing the computer as a tool to create a preconceived idea. What Hansmeyer points out is that computation can influence the design due to the geometries it can produce, that as a designer we could not previously conceive in our head. He supports this by stating “design processes are deterministic – so as not to rely on randomness, but not necessarily be entirely predictable. Instead, they have the power to surprise.” This element of surprise is something that designers need to feel free to incorporate into their process, not view it as an accident. The narrow perspectives of Terzidis and Frazer may be due to their inability to let the randomness of the previously inconceivable geometries effect their designs. I also like to adopt Hansmeyers view when he states that “It is no longer necessary to successively refine a singular design, as one can work with many variants in parallel. These variants can be bred and cultivated into entire families of objects by combining and mutating their constituent process parameters.”
1.6
When you have the opportunity within your grasp to generate such variants instantaeneously through computation that otherwise would not have been considered, and then choose the elements of each that you like and compile them into one form. How could you not desire this level of control in your design process? Where traditionally it requires exceptional skill, time and effort to generate physical models with the level of variation and control that computation allows, it must be argued that if anything the traditional process is limited. Such limitations for example include the skill of the designer and the fact that their ideas are preconceived. Terzidis states himself that computerization, the “dominant mode of utilising computers today” relies on “processes that are already conceptualized in the designer’s mind are entered, manipulated, or stored on a computer system.”They do not allow the design to be influenced by the computer or computation and are therefore restricted more than those who do embrace computation and its power to create beyond the knowledge of the designer. With the added control benefits of computation “facilitating a range of new spatial, formal, performative and methodological possibilities in architecture,” the question is whether construction has advanced enough to keep up. Issues surround the geometries that are capable of being designed through the use of computation. These geometries can be designed through computation without consideration for the materials and structural process involved to actually make them. It is argued that computation influences “a sculpturally driven design process where the translation of form into buildable components is developed after establishing the form.”To these statements I argue that by useing a traditional delivery process from pre-design to closeout then it may be the case that the materiality and structural consideration comes after the design development. By changing the delivery to an integrated form of delivery, such as that outlined by the American Iinstitute of Architects California Council, materiality and structural consideration is not conceived as an afterthought.
10.
Archi tectu re In the ‘Integrated Project Delivery: A guide’ delivered by the American Institute of Architects in 2007, they explain the integrated process as; “an approach that Integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phasesof design, fabrication, and construction.” The integrated approach achieves this by calling on the expertice of engineers, material developers and the necessary professionals to the initial conceptualization phase. This ensures that designs are both practical and feasable. To give an example of the power an integrated approach becomes when combined with computational design methods. The Modular Bionic Pavillion installment at The University of Stuttgart (shown to the right) expresses how computational design enabled them to achieve a form based on natural geometries. By experimenting with the natural geometries of the sand dollar, a sub species of the sea urchin through computational techniques, the team in Stuttgart were able to derive a structure that could span wide openings and create a space out of as minimal material as possbile. The computational process identified that to mimic the geometries of the sand dollar, the structure would need to be comprised of individual and unique modules that would interlock to create a whole form.
The precision achieved through computational design and mechanized poduction techniques meant that each panel relied on finger joints to connect meaning there is no need for adeheives. As the mechanized production cuts the material according to the dimensions provided by the computational model, the modules are able to connect with exact precision. When the modules are assembled to create the entire structure the loads are transferred within the modules to push the joins together creating an incredibly rigid form. By incorporating an integrated delivery process into the design the university was able to ensure that this technique would work when scaled to a suitable size. Experimentation with materials combined with refinement in the computational design process showed that they were able to create the entire structure from 6.5mm thick plywood. The advantages of having the entire structure created with a sole material are a considerable saving on cost. The precision cerated by the computational design methods and mechanized production also minimize waste. By employing this same approach to the Windham Gateway project not only will costs be minimized but so too will the amount of waste making it environmentally friendly and economically viable. The control provided by computational deisng methods will help my team to generate a design that is influenced by geometries that were previously inconceivable and reflect a modern and innovative concept.
From Left to Right A shot of the image of the Bionic Pavillion showing the perferations within the inner skin . _ A close up of the finger joints that solely connect each panel and module together. _ A view of the Pavillion from above showing the openings and how users may interact with the space. _
11.
“
“
Pa r a m et r i c m o d e l l i n g
a type of geometric model whose geometry is a function of a finite set of parameters. Daniel DAvis
Parametric design in essence has existed since the origins of architecture. From the very first time a constraint was placed on a proposal. Something such as a defined site, a budget or even a height are all parameters that effected the design outcome. Parametric modelling in the current sence however varies from the traditional parameters that previously effected the design outcome. With the introduction of computation parametric modelling has given designers the ability to change a parameter within the design process and have an immediate, live outcome reflected in the models form. To paraphrase a lecture given by Daniel Davis, a “researcher speacialising in computational architecture” and prominent blogger on the area of computation and parametrics, the difference between the parametric design of the past and the parametric modelling of the now is that previously you could not change the parameter of the site dmensions, shape or the budget involved and receive an instantaneous outcome of how that effected the form of the design. By altering a finite set of paramaters within a model however you do receive this instantaneous outcome, allowing you to immediately assess the effect of such changes and address them accordingly. Whilst this is considered a major advantage in giving the designer more control over the design process, Davis also identified four key issues with the use of parametric modelling. 1. Front Loading - Weisberg outlines this issue for designers as the need to “carefully plan the design, defining ahead of time which major elements would be dependent upon other elements”This level of planning throughout the design process can have implications, restricting the designers spontaneous additions to their plans.
2. Limiting Major Changes - To paraphrase the teachings of Daniel Davis again, the ability to make major changes in parametric modelling can be extrmeley difficult. Taking Davis’ definition of parametrics as “a type of geometric model whose geometry is a function of a finite set of parameters”, each parameter is composed of a “set of equations that express a set of quantities as explicit functions of a number of independent variables.” If you wish to change the form of elements within the parametric model you often have to define completely different parameters which consist of their own equations, quantities and functions. As Jane Burry states to “remodel completely is also commonplace.” This means that changes are time consuming and therefore can be costly. 3. Re-use and Sharing - Parametric models are extremely difficult to share with someone else, they almost entirely need to be completed by the one person. This is due to the complexity of parametric models. It is a common conception that parametric modelling is hard and there often more than one way to achieve a similar outcome. For this reason having know prior knowledge of the assembly of the model it is very hard to look at a finished assembly and understand what the output may be. 4. Seeing Changes - Due to the complexity of parametric assemblies it is extremely hard to see change within a model. If one set of data out of hundreds if not thousands is slightly changed it is almost completely unrecognisable. Seeing faults in a parametric model is extremely hard for the same reason. Locating the source of faults takes intensive scouring over data scripts.
12.
In Daniel Davis’ teachings of parametric modellings positives and limitations he spoke of Mark Burry, a well written architect and acedemic on the area who also identified that parametric modelling and computation could eliminate the use of pencil sketching seeing the design process becoming completely automated. As programs for parametric modelling are being rapidly developed and more competitors releasing products to the market It is also hard to forecast how long the paremetric modelling of today will be used in architectural design before it is developed further or entirely replaced. Due to the level of difficulty involved in operating the programs Davis states that there is a definite need for education to embrace the use of parametric modelling as early as possible to ensure that they have the skills necessary to enable them to operate the programs to their full potential.
Once the programs are mastered however students will be able to enter practices with an ability to generate forms that otherwise would not be considered. This could essentially change the face of archtiecture and become its own style. I believe that this is a definite possibility for the future direction of architecture. With more designers becoming compitent in using parametric modelling systems, designs can only be enhanced by the addition of the increased control and achievable form. Parametric modelling helps dramatically when it comes to fabrication too. If the designed form is made up of components, the parametric model can be divided or exploded into these components which can then be prooduced at extreme precision through digital fabrication techniques. This minimises waste and helps reduce the costs involved.
Above is a screen capture provided by one of the architects for the Hangzhou Stadium in China showing the complexity in the assembly of a parametric model.
1.7
13.
R e s o n a nt C h a m b e r r v t r | A rc h i t e ct s
The Resonant Chamber reasearch project undertaken by architecture firm r v t r is a perfect example of how parametric design has been used in practice. The purpose for the concept was to design a “soundsphere able to adjust its properties in response to changing sonic conditions, altering the sound of a space during performance and creating an instrument at the scale of architecture, flexible enough that it might be capable of being played.� In order to achieve this the firm looked toward rigid origami patterns that could be dynamic in nature to enable a transformation of the acoustic environment. In the far right image on the opposite page you can see how the origami modules can open and close, changing there reverberation or absorption of sounds as they desire. By utilizing parametric modelling tools the team at r v t r were able to simulate panelling layouts that would enable them to achieve optimal sound variations. From the parametric model the team at rvtv were then able to use digital fabrication methods to produce scale models that enabled them to conduct materiality tests and explore the ways in which the modules were going to open and close. By using a parametric model to generate the plans for the design, each module was able to be digitally fabricated with extreme precision. The ability to digitally fabricate at such precision playsa big role in what makes this structure a success. Each perforation is perfectly alligned and each paenl fits together with extreme precision.
1.8
Whilst the project is considered a research project and will not be installed for use within any particular theatre, the team did create three scaled sections of the chamber that successfully demonstrate how the structure would work if it were to be installed as it is seen in the rendered depiction on the following page. I believe that the structure is extremely effective in achieving the idea behind the design. Rigid origami is a technique that I will definitely look to incorporate into my design. The ability rigid origami has to be dynamic in its form changing its aesthetic appearance and effectievly being interactive with the user is an extremely appealing quality. This design encapsulates what parametric design has become to the architectural world. The geometries involved in creating the final form of the design are almost unattainable through traditional methods. To achieve the same outcome traditionally would involve significant amounts of time calculating the mathematics behind the geometries and immense precision in fabricating the modules to ensure that each individual section fitted perfectly together. Without the assistance of parametric modelling and computational tools this concept may have only existed in the mind of its creator.
Throught the assistance of pneumatic motors the geometric form opens and closes to provide different acoustic effects.
The image below shows the achievable precision that allows each module within the structure to open and close simultaneously.
A rendered depiction of how the resonant chamber sits within its context. Individual modules are controllable to allow for different acoustic effects, with central modules closed and outer modules open depicted within this image.
15.
Ta i c h u n g M e t r o p o l i t a n Opera House t o y o i t o & a s s o c i at e s The Taichung metropolitan Opera House is currently under construction and is expected to be finished later this year. Toyo Ito the 2013 Pritzker Prize winner is the architect behind the design concept and is well known for his futuristic and innovative forms. The Taichung Metropolitan Opera House is no exception to this. The Opera House contains three main theatres seating 2000, 800 and 200 people respectively as well as a rooftop garden, art plaza, offices and a restaurant. The design relies on vast continuous surfaces that curve in every direction to create an extremely fluid like aesthetic. The design intent is to give Taichung a landmark building to place it on the global map. To achieve this it relies on its complex and innovative form that incorporates the use of new materials, construction techniques and eco strategies. The design effectively takes a cube and punctures holes through it, these holes create the openings in the facade that are used for entrances into cave like tunnels that allow for transition between spaces. The punctured form is intended to reflect a societies diversity, Ito states “that a simple square or cube can’t contain that diversity.” The construction process proved challenging as the ambitious curvature and geometries were not achievable with common techniques. To make the curved form possible the building makes use of technologies created for tunnel building. A ‘shotcrete’ system is implemented in which concrete is sprayed in two layers, one thicker internal layer followed by a thinner spray for a polished finish. The concrete then needs to be cured properly to ensure that there is no shrinkage and that maximum strength is achieved.
1.9
Parametric modelling has played a vital role in making the form achievable in generating the geometries of each uniquely curved wall. What parametric modelling allowed Toyo Ito to do is generate plans from the parametric model that would never be achievable with traditional drawing techniques. The complexities of the curves required parametric modelling to map their dimensions and assess load paths that would in turn influence the decisions for the materials required. Smaller scale models could be fabricated to test how the form was going to be constructed. The fact that this building is being constructed is very exciting, I believe that it is opening doors into the future of architecture and what can be achieved in terms of form. It would not have been possible without the help of parametrics, or to be more critical it has been made a reality in far less time with the assistance of parametric modelling as opposed to traditional methods. I will attempt to be innovative and incorporate new materiality discoveries into my design for the ‘Windham Gateway.”With the assistance of parametric modelling tools I hope that I too can achieve a form that pushes the limits of current architectural beliefs.
16.
Clockwise from the top. _ A scale model of the Opera house shows the structure in context along with the facade. _ A scale model of the large curved surfaces shows the many entrances and openings to allow daylight into the structure. _ A screenshot of the parametric model that includes some of the curved interior structure.
17.
Conclusion
By looking at cases of precedents, projects in the area of computation and parametric modelling, and learning about the discourse of architecture I have formulated an argument based on my findings and have generated some ideas in which I would like my teams design to explore for the ‘Windham Gateway Design Project’ By critically assessing two cases of precedents that have contributed to the architectural discourse in different ways, I have identified how to implicitly integrated a broader message within the form of my teams design. I think this will be an important aspect as I endeavor with my team to embed a sense of growth and community to the design. I have also identified the importance of considering the wider context that the structure will belong to. I will attempt to create a sense of place that stands out to the community, encouraging their involvement and interaction with the design, allowing the user to gain something from visiting the site. Through looking at parametric techniques such as rigid origami I have begun conceptualising a plan that will not only be innovative but reflect the things stated above. I hope that by expressing these things within the design I can add Windham and the installation to a new area of architectural discourse as an example of a unique and inspiring way to create a gateway between places.
1.10
18.
l e a r n i n g O ut c o m e s
At the beginning of the semester admittadly I had never looked at the discourse surrounding architecture, or if i had I did not have explicit knowledge that I was or an intention to be. I found it quite hard to understand what discourse was, it seemed very ambiguous when spoken about in any literary references to it and when asked to critically assess how examples influenced the discourse of architecture I had no idea where to begin. The more I read and by watching videos of architects speaking about their position on architectural discourse I came to understand that discourse was essentially the elements of architecture that were spoken about or referenced for how well or poorly they achieved certain outcomes. If an architect had set a precident in the industry their works were considered as adding to the discourse of architecture because the effectiveness of its success as discussed by the architects themselves, the public and anyone who wanted too really. Discourse is not just the positives or the successes of architecture either. Something that is done poorly or that has not worked may be discussed for its negatives and be considered an example of what not to do. I understand now that I am only ever so sliightly breaching into the topic but it is something that I will continue to learn more about as I progress in the field.
By engaging in parametric modelling techniques whilst completing this project I beleive my understanding of computation has increased too. I have an extreme level of respect for those who can do parametric modelling well and can only imagine how many hours they spent mastering it. I found it extremely interesting listening to Danel Davis place the concept of parametric modelling and computation in context within a timeline of architectural and global history. His comments regarding the future of parametrics interested me as well. I do not know whether parametric modelling will survive until I am in practice but I understand the importance of moving with the times and engaging in the developing technologies. Through the research I have conducted I recognise that many architects who fail to move with the technologies can find themselves missinterpreting there effectiveness and potentially limiting their capabilites because they choose not progress themselves. I am really interested to see how the knowledge I have gained so far will combine with what is to come over the course of this subject and how that will influence my own design when it comes to the ‘Windham Gateway’ project.
In relation to architectural computing I would consider my knowledge to still be very limited, however considerably more than what I knew before commencing this subject. The differences between computation and computerization is one that I am very interested in and would like to continue learning about.
1.11
19.
A lg o r i t h m i c E x p l o r at i o n
In the first three weeks of the semester we have completed weekly tasks that are aimed at introducing us to various skills to do with operating Rhino3d and more importantly the plugin called Grasshopper. As I have had no prior experience with the Grasshopper plugin and only little experience with Rhino3D I will not hesitate to admit that it has been HARD, but as it seems when asked if parametric modelling is easy, the majority if not all architects seem to agree with me. I have faced numerous issues with the weekly tasks to date but the trickiest one is that my version of Grasshopper is the most recent release and the majority of tutorials available to be are conducted with previous versions. This means that often I will try to find a command and it is not there, or certain inputs are no longer needed as well as other things. I will endeavour to keep learning and hopefully improve dramatically through the next phases of the course.
1.12
20.
Week 1 I found it easy to create a vase form within architecture, creating curves and lofting between them was not too hard. I then was able to manipulate the control points to change the form of my vase too. When inputting this into rhino and mapping points to a surface however I struggled. Trying hard to generate a patterend vase. I was able to generate a Voronoi and map it to the vase, then change the seeding through number sliders and create more or less connections with less or more points. I really struggled with trying to map a delaunay edge to the lofted surface or other mesh options such as the oc tree. I could complete the online tutorisals exactly as asked I just could not convert that to work with the vase.
21.
Week 2 In week 2 the task was to start with a list of points, create several curves, turn the curves to a surface, convert them back to curves and then back to points. I really struggled again with this, even after watching the tutorials and trying to nut it out with the examples given. I took my curve and converted it to points by dividing it. I then interpelated the curve and connected it to a loft in order to generate a surface. From the surface I converted it back to points. I could not work out how to get it back to curves before changing it to points. I ran in to issues again with certain commands due to my newer version of Grasshopper and tried to nut it out myself but couldn’t do it effectively.
22.
Week 3 The weekly task this week involved patterning the vase by getting them onto a loft. Whilst watching the patterning lists tutorial I attempted to get them straight onto my lofted vase but found it very difficult. I was able to loft to surface, divide the surface and then flatten before connecting to the voronoi. As I did this I then followed the instructions to extrude and cull the surface before connecting it to the voronoi. At this point my voronoi seemed to completely stop working. When I then tried to program the true, true, false, true or variations, the model fell apart completely. I am not sure if I am making simple mistakes or whether much of my issues is due to the updated version of Grasshopper. It is extremely confusing stuff and I am determined to get on top of it however I do feel I am ‘banging my head against the wall’ in some respects.
e o i
- 2
d e s i g n approach
24.
design Focus
2.1
t e s s e l l at e d a s s e m b l i e s To generate a design focus for the ‘Western Gateway Design Project’ in Wyndham, we first as a team looked to the brief to determine what aspects we felt were most important. Some key terms that we chose to focus on included ‘inspiring and enriching the municipality,’ ‘enhancing the physical environment through the introduction of a visual arts component,’ ‘explore placemaking aspects and qualities’ and ‘have longevity and encourage interest in the western interchange.’ With these key terms in mind we then began to research into different streams and approaches we could potentially explore. Our discovery and research into the 2011 ICD-ITKE Pavilion in Stuttgart immediately gave us an interest in tessellated assemblies and fueled us to research further into architectural precedents regarding its use. We found projects such as the Resonant Chamber by rvtr architects which used rigid origami patterns to create a dynamic sound installation. We then looked at works by Iwamoto Scott and the MoMA/Ps1 which only further reinforced the potential for tessellated assemblies in creating an intriguing aesthetic that we felt would encourage interest. We then wanted to find ways in which we could inspire, enrich, explore place-making and ensure longevity. Research led us to the works of Decoi and the development of their ‘Hyposurface.’ The Hyposurface is a surface tessellated in a triangular pattern. Behind the pattern is pneumatic arms that push the surface outward to generate patterns, waves and words that are intended to evoke a reaction from the viewer. The viewer therefore has an experience as a result of the dynamic movement of the surface. .
This excited us and we wanted to develop the idea of interaction and dynamic structure that would be vital in creating a sense of place with longevity that is both inspiring and enriching to the user. Through some initial brainstorming we thought of ways to converge aspects from each of the precedents looked at in order to create an innovative structure. We felt that in order to do this we needed to make the interaction with the user something in which the user has control over. In the example of the hyposurface, pre programmed functions are displayed and the user simply observes the change in form. We wanted to explore ways to combine this idea with that of the resonant chamber where the structure changes form in response to the users reaction. The reason why we are focusing on this convergence of ideas as a crucial element of our design revolves around our endeavours to create place-making qualities within our installation. We believe that each of the precedents listed achieves a varied degree of place-making as result of the main ideas within them that provide an experience to the user. We therefore believe that in order to create a sense of place we need to create an experience. One that will ensure those who interact with the installation will remember Wyndham, placing it on the map as people share the experience, and desire to interact with the installation. In summary, we intend to utilise tessellated forms to explore rigid origami patterns with the intention of creating a dynamic and interactive project for the Geelong highway gateway from Wyndham to Melbourne. representing Wyndham and acting as the Western Gateway.
The precedents that helped inspire our interest in tessellation and inform our focus in order to achieve a concept worthy of representing Wyndham as the Western Gateway, From left to right: ICD/ITKE Research Pavillion, Resonant Chamber by rvtr architects and the Hyposurface by Decoi.
Case Study 1.0 VOLTaDOM
26.
c a s e st u d y o ut c o m e In my teams exploration of tessellated assemblies we were given access to a ready made parametric model of VoltDom by Skylar Tibbits. The VoltDom is an intriguing installation comprised of tessellated curve geometries. As illustrated in the images in the opposite page, the VoltDom is a series of unique doubly curved parabolic shapes. Within these shapes is a smaller scaled iteration that forms a perforation allowing the user to see through the installation much like windows. The VoltDom relies heavily on parametric modelling to enable the team at Skylar Tibbits to integrate ornamentation into the structure. With the curved geometries connected like a puzzle, the loads are able to be distributed accordingly, allowing the structure to hold form. Although using different geometries, this is a very similar concept to that of the ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion of 2011 that I have included as a precedent earlier in the proposal. The concept requires parametric modelling to complete the complex mathematics involved to ensure the loads will be supported evenly. The precise dimensioning generated by the parametric model allows for the fabrication to then have added precision, ensuring that no pieces of the structure are fabricated incorrectly and therefore effecting the load bearing qualities of the installation. The complexities involved with achieving the form within the VoltDom installation ensured that it would be a very interesting case study. In looking at the parametric modelling for the project we identified that the driving force behind form generation was an algorithmic definition that measures the interaction between two layers of overlapping cones. Where the inner cone meets the external cone a horizontal section is cut, creating an oculus. By iterating these overlapping cones across a plane, the seeding causes them to interact. The interaction sees that the cones protrude into each other, the end result and what gives the VoltDom form is the sections of the cone that are left visible.
Our teams initial exploration with the VoltDom situated around the investigation of separate and conjoining shapes. Matrix A on the following page explores the separation of the conical shapes while Matrix B explores how the cones can be conjoined. This gave us some perspective into the clustering effect of the interactions. We established that the seeding needed to be above the factor of 45 in order to create a pattern with enough density to see the cones begin to touch and interact. In Matrix C we began to explore the connection between cone size and seeding patterns. This identified logically that the bigger the cone size, the lower the seeding needed to be in order for the cones to begin to interact. In Matrix D we explore the variation of the oculus, manipulating its size. In Matrix E we began to explore manipulation of the input geometries. Where previously the effect was given by overlapping two cones on top of each other, be manipulated it to restrict the cone within a cylindrical form. We found this interesting as it changed the sloping nature of the penetrations to create clear-cut vertical penetrations. This also increased the form segmentation but in doing so, we believe created more interesting shapes. In matrix F we experimented with overlapping of the base geometry to generate areas of increased density. The result saw that the cones were now mapped within a much smaller space, resulting in a higher concentration of cones in the centre and a dispersion of cones as they spread to the external boundary. Expressed within the matrix are the lessons we learnt in the ways in which the interaction of shapes varies within the VoltDom project. The most critical aspect of our exploration within this case study is how the project exemplified a built form of non-uniform tessellations. We believe this can help us progress to some exploration of tessellating with origami patterning. The knowledge this case study has given us in identifying that you do not need a conventionally built pattern in order to construct our ideas. We believe this will allow us to explore a new range of innovative design solutions.
2.2
30.
C a s e st u d y 2 . 0 i c d | i t k e r e s e a r c h pav i l i o n
As the ICD/ITKE played a pivotal role in initially giving us interest in to tessellated assemblies we felt that it would be a perfect project to try and recreate in order to understand how a geometry could be tessellated across a surface. As a team we separated our focus and tried to determine individually how the Research Pavilion had been designed parametrically. Our two different approaches to the design situated around generating the geometry and then trying to project that to a curved surface and the generation of the geometries through the use of mathematical algorithms, then attempting to create perforations at the centre points of the geometry before projecting the outcome to a surface. Both of the approaches returned aspects of positive and negative results, each with their evident benefits and limitations. We identified that the real challenge within trying to recreate this pavilion was in the process that enabled each of the hexagons and heptagons to connect seamlessly so as to enclose the space completely. We believed that if we could recreate the concepts within this project, we would gain the understanding to explore more complex geometries and patterns that we could then make dynamic and incorporate an aspect of user interaction.
Noting the outcomes of both approaches to the reverse engineering of the Research Pavilion we didn’t fully achieve what we set out to. We were able to mimic the geometry used within the project however we were not able to project them to the surface in a seamless pattern. When projected, there were obvious gaps as the geometry projected in columns, each of the columns ran parallel to each other, preventing them from interlocking as they do in the actual pavilion. In our other approach the interlocking aspect was achieved however we could not project the correct geometry to the surface. Between both approaches we achieved elements similar to that of the Research Pavilion, however we could not work out how to combine both approaches in order to complete the task fully. Our experimentation and exploration into creating the pavilion was of great benefit, regardless of the difficulties. The task enabled us to realize that whilst seemingly basic, tessellating geometries on to a curved surface is much harder than it appears. We will endeavour to understand how to properly create the Research Pavilion, as we know that it could be vital in dictating the form of our final design.
2.3
31.
Approach 1 As outlined in the previous page, each of the approaches we attempted had positive and negative outcomes with some obvious limitations. We understand that these limitations may be a result of user intelligence. What has restricted us within the task may be resolvable by someone else. Within this approach we attempted to divide a space in to a number of regions. The division of space then gave us a pattern, evident in the second image to the left. With the defined area separated into individual but adjoining regions we then attempted to replicate the perforations within the Research Pavilion by creating circular openings. From there we looked at how we could place the perforations within the defined regions and located the mid points of each region. We then defined the location of each of the perforations by placing one perforation per mid point. Once we had achieved this, we projected the result to a curved surface to see how it would react. The outcome was not ideal however there were a few things to take away from it. We understood that in some regions the approach had worked much better than others. What we had failed to do however was achieve the same geometry used within the Research Pavilion. We could deduce from this task that this is potentially not the right approach when working with tessellated assemblies.
32.
Approach 2 In this approach we set out to create the geometry and the surface separately and then combine them once completed. To begin we made a simple hexagonal pyramid geometry and then manipulated it to generate a flat smaller scaled hexagonal top. In this approach instead of trying to divide a surface in to defined regions, we defined a simple box region that would enclose the hexagonal geometry. We then created a surface that was doubly curved in order to simulate a similar form to that of the Research Pavilion. Once we had our geometry defined within its own region, we then projected the box including the hexagonal geometry. The boxes size changed in order to fit a controlled number of rows and columns as we desired. With this technique we were able to apply the geometry to the surface bearing some resemblance to the Research Pavilion. Again we identified that there are positives and negatives within this approach. Whilst the technique allows the geometry to be projected to the surface, it does not project them in a way that interlocks the hexagonal geometry needed to enclose a space. We believe that this approach has more potential to it, and with some more development we may be able to achieve the interlocking form that gives such appeal to the ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion
33.
i n i t i a l F
o
r
m
f i n di ng
34.
t e c h n i q u e d e v e l o p m e nt From my teams explorations with how the ICD/ ITKE Research Pavilion we wanted to look at other potential ways of first designing a module that would then be repeated to create a surface that was doubly curved and intriguing to the eye, and secondly ensure that it could be explored through the construction phase to make it both interactive an innovative whilst being rigid and durable. Our research and exploration with the ITK | ICDE pavilion showed us that their concept was comprised of one modular form that was repeated in unique iterations to follow defined curves in a way that created one dome like surface. My team found this extremely interesting and attempted to simplify the process to achieve a similar outcome. As we do not have a desired form in mind yet we began with a basic surface seen in figure.1 below.
We then generated our own geometry to be repeated as the pattern across the surface, Our initial geometric design was a basic hexagon with an interior hollow section that reflected a scaled down hexagon (seen in figure.2). We then employed the use of Grasshopper3D ,a graphical algorithm editor to control the dispersion of the module across the surface, We set the surface and geometries as a parameter and then fed them into methods we had found through online tutorials to achieve a desired outcome. We took the surface geometry and divided it into points before adding control elements that enabled us to define how points were on both the U and V planes. This effectively created rows and columns within the surface depending on how many we wanted.
Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3
2.4
35.
t e c h n i q u e d e v e l o p m e nt
Once we were able to get the geometry to be patterned across the surface as individual modules, we began to look at it from more of a structural perspective and realized that the form we had created would not stand up as the hexagon was not aligned properly and would therefore have many weak points. We chose to then design a second geometry seen in figure.3 that would connect and effectively transfer loads within its form. The outcome can be seen in figure.4. We think that we had successfully achieved much of what we had set out to do however we felt we would be restricted by the patterning method as it only generated patterns based on the one geometry and did not manipulate the geometry according to the curvature of the surface. We chose to then create a new, more complex surface and see what would happen.
The outcome can be seen in figure.5 where we minimized the amount of modules used in both axis and immediately we realized that we could then create the surface or structure out of unique iterations of the one geometry. We then began to play around with the number of modules within the surface to confirm that our method would still work and as shown in figure.6 it did. We would like to develop this exploration further and explore trying to incorporate a combination of geometries into the one overall pattern. Our intentions are to combine what we have learnt within this exploration with research conducted in origami patterns to then generate a visually appealing geometry. We see this combination of explorations as a crucial element in our development of an interactive and innovative installation that will be iconic of Wyndham, not only visually appealing but enhance the physical environment around it .
36.
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
37.
technique d e v e l o p m e nt Once we were able to get the geometry to be patterned across the surface as individual modules, we began to look at it from more of a structural perspective and realised that the form we had created would not stand up as the hexagon was not alligned properly and would therefore have many weak points. We chose to then design a second geometry seen in figure.3 that would connect and effectively transfer loads within its form. The outcome can be seen in figure.4. We realised that we had successfully achieved much of what we had set out to do however we felt we would be restricted by the patterning method as it only generated patterns based on the one geometry and did not manipulate the geometry according to the curvature of the surface. We chose to then create a new, more complex surface and see what would happen.
Our findings in our initial technique development gave us some confidence in our ability to generate a custom geometry across a defined surface. We then began to explore different ways in which we could do similar, and progressions from what we had already done. After some research on the internet we found a tutorial from The University of Illinois that explained a way to create alternating pattern generated by the repetition of two separate geometries. We though this could be an interesting way of creating visual appeal within the aesthetics of the design. We began by creating a curved surface that we would then project our geometries on to. Immediately we wanted to progress our previous explorations and create a 3D geometry that extruded out in the vertical direction. Our efforts to achieve this caused us to find a large error in what we were doing. Where we were trying to create our own 3D geometry comprised of a number of smaller geometries, we realized that we could not get the whole geometry to iterate over the surface. This can be seen in the second image to the left. Rather than projecting the entire hexagonal geometry, one simple triangle from within the hexagon was being projected. We then spent time trying to resolve this issue, and to no avail we changed our approach and instead looked to create an interesting geometry comprised of only one solid shape. In the third image to the left you can see the solid shape that we had manipulated. This was a success however we felt we were extremely limited in our potential for customizing the design. We really needed to find a way to group geometries together and then project them on to a surface. Further efforts seen in the bottom image to the left show that again we were unsuccessful in our attempts.
38.
With failures in our attempts to group geometries we generated another potential idea to resolve the issue. The Idea revolved around creating a solid geometry and subtracting from it to create a desired shape. By using a basic hexagonal pyramid, we began to create perforations and openings that could be explored further in order to create an experience for the user within our structure. The image below illustrates our success in projecting this desired geometry on to a surface. We then began to move on from the generation of a geometry and moved towards the creation of an alternating pattern. By rotating the geometry that we had created when then had two iterations that could be projected.
We managed to project these successfully, achieving an alternating pattern. As a team we then discussed whether this would be a viable technique to pursue further. Together we felt that we had almost pushed this concept as far as it could go, and that it was too basic to achieve the ideas we had been imagining. We have learnt from our struggles within this development phase and now endeavour to find a working solution.
39.
p r otot y pi n g | 1 . 0 As the team felt that the parametric form finding had hit a stand still, attempts to find many different solutions was proving difficult. We then wanted to direct our energy to some physical development and actually work out whether our ideas were achievable in construction. We began with a geometry that we had created when attempting to model the concept parametrically and began brainstorming the various ways we could incorporate user interaction within it. Our initial idea was to enable the user to pull a cord that would cause previously closed panels to open. This was a desired outcome as it would change the experience for the user within the installation through the addition of sunlight. It would then also create an experience for the general passerby. As drivers passed the installation, users within the installation pulling the cords would be providing a constant change to the aesthetic of the design on the outside. With users pulling cords one after the other, modules would be both springing to life and retracting depending on their choice.
2.5
We knew that the system would have to operate much like a general blind system. The cords would have to be fixed to the panels, which would be hinged at a point and then as the cords from each panel were centralised, the user within could pull them in order to simultaneously open each panel. This is illustrated in the series of images on the opposite page. Where the images on the left show the module in a closed state, the images on the right show the reaction when the user operates the cord. The change in form of the module seen in the bottom two images is a great success for us. We believe that this prototype has helped us understand that our ideas can be put into reality. We would now like to develop these ideas further and explore other ways in which the individual modules can be dynamic and incorporate user interaction.
40.
41.
origami influence t o m o h i r o ta s h i In our pursuit to develop a dynamic installation that relies on user interaction to create an experience, we were led to the ideas of Tomohiro Tashi. Tomohiro Tashi is a leader in the field of rigid origami and the exploration of how origami and the patterns within origami can be incorporated into architectural design. With our first prototype we realized that the movement and dynamic element is limited and somewhat minimal. We began looking at the work of Tashi and in particular the deployable structure he had created, as seen in the two images to the left. We really liked how dynamic the installation was, and more importantly the effect that it gave. As a closed structure the folds were almost as intriguing as when deployed. Whilst we did not want to recreate the deployable nature evident in this project, we did really like how the visually effective the installation was, and how it created an entirely different experience for the user. Tomohiro Tashi has many examples of origami patterns that he has developed, the bottom image to the left is an example of his works. We found the patterns created by origami extremely appealing and interesting, something we wanted to recreate. We then set out to create our own geometry to incorporate in to our installation based on some of the patterns created in other origami works and incorporate the dynamic aspect much like in the deployable concept explained above. We created a hexagonal geometry and began to explore how it could be subdivided into six separate triangular prisms that could then rotate on structural tubing that mirrored the hexagonal form. Our outcome is illustrated on the opposite page in both a closed and open iteration. We believe that this idea has potential in achieving visually appealing aesthetics and creating an intriguing element of dynamism for user interaction. From here we believe we will need to create a prototype to determine if it is a feasible idea for construction.
p r oto t y p i n g 2.0 As parametric modelling enabled us to generate a form that we believed was both visual appealing and had the ability to be dynamic, allowing for user interaction and operation. Whilst parametric modelling is an extremely useful tool generate designs, it does not take in to consideration the restrictions inherit in construction. A series of built prototypes was what we needed to do next in order to realize if our ideas were achievable and feasible. We began by creating sketch models that enabled us to envisage the form of our digitally modelled idea in the flesh. Images of these models can be seen on the opposite page and to the right. We felt that these were very successful as they proved that our design was quite visually appealing. The sketch models replicated in a static nature, both the open and closed form of the design. Being extremely pleased with the aesthetic results we then looked at how to incorporate some dynamism that could be operated by a user. We quickly constructed a hinge system that placed the triangular prisms of the hexagon on a rotating axis. Initially we wanted to see whether this would enable each of the prisms to rotate as if opening. Our opening mechanism worked without having to make any changes, highlighting to us how basic the construction can be to achieve our desired outcome. The successful outcome can be seen in the second image from the top to the right. This only reassures us that tessellated assemblies and the use of an origami pattern will help us to achieve our design focus. We now look to exploring different ways in which the user can open and close the hexagonal modules. Our previous prototype exploration proved that a simple pull-chord system much like in blinds can be an effective way to create the interaction. Some further exploration will help us to determine whether that is the best option or potentially we may combine a series of options to increase the intrigue within the user.
44.
45.
Technique Proposal As we developed our geometry to achieve the desired outcomes and interactions both internally and externally, we then began to look at how our concept could achieve ‘longevity’ in its design. Within the project brief, the Wyndham council proposes that the design will “enhance the physical environment through the introduction of a visual arts component, it will have longevity in its appeal, encouraging ongoing interest in the Western interchange by encouraging further reflection about the installation beyond a first glance.” We believe that the geometry we have designed to integrate in unique iterations throughout the installations surface are not only aesthetically appealing, but achieve this sense of ongoing interest and further reflection. How? With users interacting with the installation as they stop to fill up with petrol on a daily basis, the interaction by the drivers who passerby has the potential to be unique every time. With hundreds of modules panelled across the surface of the installation, the variation in pattern is immense. If you think in terms of rows and columns, with each row including 10 or more dynamic modules, and each column including 40 or more dynamic modules, there are thousands of different patterns that could be displayed. The chance that someone sees the same pattern in this instance is quite rare.
2.6
We believe that by doing this, the installation will achieve ongoing interest and longevity as people have unique interactions with every encounter. This will also cause the drivers who observe the installation changing as people play inside to firstly, question to themselves whether the structure was changing and secondly to think ‘that looked different yesterday.’ Through light play and different times of day, those who choose to interact with the installation from inside will most likely never encounter the same shade patterning. Those who interact with the installation, manipulating its form will then be looking out to see whether their changes are still there or not. Driving past children will attempt to identify the modules that they opened or closed, or potentially a pattern they made within the form. If the child regularly uses the freeway, then with each encounter they will continue to look and see if their changes are still evident, and in doing so will observe the changes that have been made or that are currently happening. On the opposite page a small matrix outlines different iterations of form that could be achieved with only 12 hexagons. Over 500 variations are available with these 12 hexagons alone.
47.
Technique Proposal As stated previously, one of our main focuses within this project is to create a sense of place, something that users will remember not only the installation by, but the broader location of Wyndham in which it is situated. We feel that our endeavours to create a dynamic form that incorporate user and driver interaction is quite effective in creating this sense of place. In brainstorming ideas as a team we spoke about what makes a place and places in particular that we think are really effective in achieving ‘place-making’ qualities. Our first thought was that all good places are remembered and that if a place is encountered and not remembered then it does not have a good sense of place. We thought about this idea and explored how we could integrate memories to our design. We felt that simply driving past an installation and observing it in its static nature is not enough to evoke a memory and therefore would not achieve a sense of place. We then focused on how we could create an experience that was memorable. A memory that could stay with the user.
We believe that the integration of user interaction within our installation is what is going to achieve the sense of place that we desire. As children, adolescents or adults operate the modules, opening and closing them they get an immediate reaction and fulfillment in influencing the form of the installation. By giving the user the power to manipulate the aesthetics both internally and externally the user can play with the form, creating a design of their own within the modules. We believe that the experience of playing with the form of the installation is what will create memories and ensure that the user forever remembers their experience. Hopefully when the user then encounters the installation again and again, they see that the form is different each time and they remember how at some point in time they were in control of the experience being conveyed to the drivers who passed by. These drivers who pass through the Western Gateway on a regular basis will hopefully have an experience of their own too, as they see the installations pattern changing over time, they will remember how it has looked previously. Our hope is that drivers begin to use the installation as a marker on the way to their destination, checking to see how it has changed between visits.
The illustration on the opposite page express how people will be able to interact with the installation, opening and closing the hexagonal modules allowing for light play as it poors through the openings. Also illustrated in these detail drawings is the reaction externally when the internal user operates the opening system. This is what creates the interaction for the drivers as they pass by.
48.
49.
a lg o r i t h m ic s k etc h i n g
Following the video tutorial closely I was able to understand how to find the average of points on a singular surface and then see how this became an issue when trying to find the average of points divided across numerous surfaces. We then looked at giving each of the points a coordinate that would enable us to manipulate the path in which each of these coordinates were connected. The reason for doing this was to allow us to create a pattern on a surface reflected within the varying connection of points. By dividing the coordinates into rows and columns we could then determine how the connections were made between each, whether to offset the rows, columns or both by varying degree to then see what aesthetic output was created. The output was given in the form of a polyline
2.7
which was then generated into a planar surface. Initially I struggled with this as the command was asking for a planarsrf node and I did not have that with my updated version of Grasshopper so I did some quick research and found out that the command had been replaced by a node called a ‘boundary surface’. This enabled me to achieve the desired outcome of the tutorial. Below are the two different patterns generated by manipulated the amount of offset given to the rows and columns of each coordinate.
50.
By creating all that was asked for in the tutorial I then looked to creating my own patterns. I attempted numerous different inputs for both the rows and columns. My outcomes are displayed in the three images above. As you can see the outcomes were not completely successful. It appeared to me that the offset I was generating was confining the pattern between the first and second column and row. I need to look further in to how to ensure the pattern will cover the surface entirely.
After my attempts did not generate the most desired outcomes I became curious as to whether this technique would work on different surfaces. I quickly generated a surface from a few curves and applied the same constraints to the coordinates as given in the tutorials outcomes. I quickly found out that the same connections between coordinates do not work when you change the surface. Below is the surface that I generated and a basic offset of coordinates that worked.
51.
l e a r n i n g o b j e ct i v e s a n d o ut c o m e s M i d - s e m e st e r p r e s e ntat i o n The mid-semester presentation above all else gave us a really good opportunity to pull the reigns in and really understand what we were trying to achieve, Having to present our ideas to a panel of experienced architects made us really refine and discover exactly what was the focus of our team. I think we executed this quite well when conveying our ideas to the critics and were able to convey a well thought out concept. I believe that at the finish of our presentation the critics had a very clear idea of what our focus was on and how we were going to go about achieving this. Although we received a reasonably positive reaction overall, there were still some comments from the critics or ideas that were offered more as advice than criticism. I think that this is really effective as when you work as a team you tend to get a really clear idea between yourselves but a new perspective may identify things that you had previously not considered.
I believe this was the case with us. Many of the questions revolved around how we were going to ensure people would want to use our installation and some ideas of theirs that we could incorporate or at least begin to consider. The critics insight and experience with proposals themselves meant that they could help guide us. One of the critics assured us to have confidence and choose just one idea for incorporating dynamism into the design in order to keep it as simple as possible and prevent us from not being able to achieve the more complex design. Most importantly the critics gave us direction in what we need to now go and refine or develop. Things such as the opening mechanism for the modules, the scale needed to make the dynamism visible to drivers and how we can create intrigue within the design so that people don’t just interact with the installation once and move on.
o b j e ct i v e 5 “Developing the ability to make a case for proposals.” I believe this is something my group did very well. We looked critically at precedent projects and the brief for the project and derived an argument that we could base our design focus on.
I think that the presentation to the guest critics was a perfect example of our ability to generate a persuasive argument that had been formed based on concepts achieved in cases of precedents.
o b j e ct i v e 3 “Developing skills in various three dimensional media” Prior to undertaking this subject my use of parametric modelling tools such as Rhino3D were very limited. I believe that this subject has completely opened my eyes to its potential and with every exercise I am furthering my understanding of the programs, giving me greater control over design outcomes. As a team we relied on parametric modelling to generate a design idea and form. When we felt we were limited by our knowledge of the programs to further the design parametrically,
2.8
we decided to be productive in attempting to construct the design as a means to determine if any issues arose that would actually influence what we needed to achieve parametrically. I believe that this was a very good decision for us as we had no idea about how to make a dynamic installation, it was only through experimenting with models and prototypes that we gained more precise direction that we can now look to progress parametrically to further refine our ideas.
52.
o b j e ct i v e 2 “Developing an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation.” I believe this is something we have had to deal with as we have not been able to generate one clearly working concept parametrically. The limitations of our knowledge and potentially the complexities of our design intentions
have meant that every time we pursue a different avenue the designs possibilities are altered. I believe that as we are continuing to create a working parametric model through algorithmic design that the possibilities will only change even more.
o b j e ct i v e 1 “Interrogating a brief.” I believe this is something that I struggled with in the first submission of this proposal. I think a failure to fully grasp what was being asked of the brief left me feeling unsure of how to approach the tasks for this proposal. I think that this second section of the proposal has forced me, along with my partner to critically analyze the brief and take from it the elements that we think are most important, that are achievable and that we can focus on when formulating our argument.
This is the first time I have actually encountered a real brief and not a hypothetical. I think it is extremely interesting to see how a real brief differs from the hypothetical briefs I have been made to follow in past subjects. The depth of this brief I think makes it impossible to achieve everything that they are asking, and as a result of this it becomes a matter of achieving selected aspects of the brief and doing them extremely well whilst covering as much as you can.
o b j e ct i v e 7 “Develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming.“ This objective is one that I think I should place some emphasis into in coming weeks. I believe that I am acquiring the foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming, however I think in relation to my peers within the class many seem to have a much better understanding.
I think this was reflected in our case studies within this section. I was able to understand the ideas, concepts and general workings of the tasks however exploring them further, taking them into the ‘crazy’ is something that I felt I really struggled with. I hope to use the upcoming break and future weeks to try and let some ‘crazy’ influence my teams design.
P e r s o n a l r e f l e ct io n So far I have really enjoyed the progression through this subject. It has been the most challenging subject I have encountered so far in my university education, but with the challenge comes a great deal of pride when you can achieve what you set out to do. I am really enjoying expanding my knowledge in both parametric design and the overall ability to make a proposal that is being taught to us along the way. The precedents that this subject has made aware to me have really improved my architectural knowledge and I am finding that it is helping a great deal with other subjects. Most importantly this subject has made and kept me very enthused about getting through to the other end and working professionally in the field.