1

D E S I G N J O U R N A L

B E N R Y D I N G - 5 8 7 4 0 3

about me

‘A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities’

- J.R.R. Tolkien

Each morning I wake and see that quote hung by my bedroom door on painted can-vas. It is motivation that despite the sleep-less nights, and the compensational litres of coffee, design is where I want to be.

Design has always been a passion of mine. I realised my love for it in year 9, when a teacher first introduced me to photoshop and illustrator, and all the possibilities the software contains. To this date, I am a primar-ily self-taught, freelance, graphic designer. I have completed design work for many com-panies, large and small, bands and DJs.

The moment I knew I wanted to study archi-tecture came in year 10, when I was lucky enough to complete my work experience at Six Degrees Architects, working closely with Director, Mark Healy.

This opportunity allowed me to get a great insight into the daily workings of an architec-ture firm and a fantastic introduction to all that an architect does.

Since being introduced to Rhino in first year, Virtual Environments, I have used it for de-sign studios and where 3D modelling has been practical. In terms of Grasshopper, however, I am a complete novice. I believe it will be an interesting learning experience, particularly as it adds a rational, ordered element to the chaos which design can be.

To me, architecture is art. Seeing the pro-gression from a solitary idea to a final, con-structed form is the most rewarding moment of any true art form; be that even painting, sculpture, literature or theatre. Architecture, as art, is about originality. By definition, it is producing something that has never been done before.

I think that is incredible.

2

3

A.01

A.02

A.03

A.04

A.05

A.06

B.01

B.02

PART A

Design Futuring

Design Computation

Composition/ Generation

Conclusion

Learning Outcomes

Appendix

PART B

Research Field

Case Study 1.0

6

10

14

18

19

20

26

28

CONTENTS

PART A

6

The GS Caltex Pavilion is a project commis-ioned by Korean oil company GS Caltex for the 2012 Korea Expo in Yeosu, South Korea. German architecture and exhibition design studio, Atelier Brückner, designed the Pavilion as an illustration of “the companys mission and its vision for the future”.1

The Pavilion is an interactive installation which encourages the user to approach, walk around, and even participate in the “dynamic ensemble”.2 The display is constructed of 18 metre high light poles which illuminate in a multitude of varying colours to “mimic vari-ous weather/natural conditions, such as rain, waves, fire, lightning and wind”.3 It has become most popularly known as resembling an “over-sized rice field”, with its “blades” swaying like grass in the wind.4

The display responds to the touch of the user. Upon being touched, a surge of light sparks from the source-pole out through the other poles before resuming the original light show. The entire Pavilion is designed as to draw the user in, and, whilst occupying a 1960 m2 area, an 18 metre high light showcan be said to do this.

The design intends, through the use of natural imagery, to highlight the oil companies “sus-tainable energy concepts”.5 At the centre of the Pavilion is a seven metre high, star-shaped, mirrored room with a panoramic view. The black and white projections the user experi-ences within the pavilion present a poetic il-lustration of the “company’s willingness to take responsibility” with regard to the sustainable innovations that GS Caltex is taking.6

GS CALTEX PAVILIONatelier brückner

7

Atalier Brückner’s philosophy is, pri-marily, that “form follows content”.7 They aim, through their exhibitions, to lead people into a story. In this par-ticular design, the studio creates initial intrigue through the large, playful dis-plays, drawing the user to the centre of the Pavilion, where the content is made clear, and the story is told.

Once inside the design, standing be-tween the large poles of flashing lights, the user is made to feel insignificant as a part of the whole. This is a purposeful aspect of the Pavilion. The effect is that whilst a single person is miniscule when

compared to the greater part of the site, a single person can create a pow-erful surge which extends, braching from pole to pole, until they have sole-ly affected the entire Pavilion. Showing that the action of one, can affect the experience of the whole.

This GS Caltex Pavilion invokes a sense of curiosity. It is near impossible to walk by the Pavilion, as it draws you in. The bright lights, colours, and shear volume of the display all play on the user. In general, people love interaction and inclusion, and that is exactly what this design promotes. The only thing that

this design requires is a single touch and the ‘interaction’ is immediately apparent by anyone in the vicinity of the Pavilion.

It would be useful to take note of this project in the design of the installation for this subject. Whilst it is important for the installation to generate energy, it also must promote interaction. This Pa-vilion has provoked the thought that the installation will require some form of attraction, making users approach and interact with it through sheer curiosity or desire. For without an attraction, there will be no interaction.

PAVILION8 (title)GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner

PAVILION STREET VIEW9 (left, top)GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner

POLE ‘BLADES’10 (left, bottom)GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner

8

‘LEARNING FROM NATURE’ PAVILION3xn architects

The ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion by Dan-ish architecture firm, 3XN Architects, was con-structed in 2009 for the ‘Green Architecture for the Future’ exhibition at the Louisiana Mu-seum of Modern Art in Copenhagen, Den-mark.

The Pavilion is built using 100% naturally sourced, sustainable materials; often substitut-ing synthetic materials for re-usable materials which had never been used in a project such as this. The focus of this design is on sustain-ability, and so the architects focused their at-tention on these natural materials in order to minimise the impact of the design.

3XN Architects often work with complex-shapes and forms within their buildings, and

this Pavilion is no different. The form is driven from a Moebius strip - a surface with only one continuous side and one boundary. This con-cept developed into this ‘rubber band’ style design which, in its context by the Museum, encourages play and interaction.

The Pavilion has been designed with a dual energy generation system. On the top-most surface of the strip, a series of 1 mm flex-ible solar panels have been attached - only where the user is unable to climb. The sec-ond source of energy generation is with the incorporation of piezoelectric materials in the floor of the structure. These materials gener-ate a current from the weight of the user. The electricity generated in the Pavilion is used to power the LED lighting integrated in its design.

9

The sustainable focus of this building is not, in any way, hidden. Everything from the self-reliance of the structure, to the natural and renewable materi-als are celebrated in the design. The circular nature of the Moebius strip and the choice of green for the aes-thetic are very obvious highlights of the ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’. Tony Fry states that Design Futuring is about sustainable design, and ensuring that there is a future in which design may continue to take place.11 Sustainability is about maintenance of the world we live in, ensuring its longevity.

That is not to say that the Pavilions de-sign is tacky or self-indulgent. In fact, quite the opposite. Within its surrounds

of lush green foilage, and the deep blue of the sky and the ocean, the natural, free form and choice of colour make it seem at one with nature, andnot merely intruding on it.

The innovation of this design is not limit-ed to the material choices and unique way in which it generates electric-ity.This structure contains a hydrophilic nanostructure which, not only keeps its surface clean, but with a process known as photocatalysis, removes 70% of pollutants from smog.

It’s surface also has the ability to retain heat with phase changing materi-als which have the ability to cool the structure as the temperature rises, and

heat it as it cools. The use of these ma-terials has the potential to save 10 to 15 percent on the heating and cooling of buildings.

The technology contained in this de-sign is quite phenomenal. It proves that innovation can be found in the most unlikely of places. Although this design may not appear complex, the technol-ogy it holds is completely surreal.

Piezoelectricity has big potential for research. It generates energy from the interaction which it is designed to receive - allowing a certain degree of cross-over. With the sheer flexibility of piezielectricity, this piece of technol-ogy has a lot of opportunity for design.

PAVILION12 (title)‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects

INNOVATION13 (right, top)‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects

SOLAR PANELS14 (right, bottom)‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects

10

CHINESE UNIVERSITY tom wilcombe

OF HONG KONG ARENAThe Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena by Tom Wiscombe Architecture is a proposal for a 2012 architectural design competition for the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Shen-zhen. This design means to encapsulate “an idea about social space and multi-functional-ity for 21st century university culture”.1

This week posed the discussion on what con-stitutes computation against computerisation. Ultimately, this distinction comes down to de-sign realisation, and whether it falls before or after its modelling in design software.

Computerisation is the modelling of a realised design, utilising the software available. It limits freedom of modelling as it utilises a set of pa-rameters, with an idea in mind of the conclu-sion. Whether or not the design is finalised, it has a, relatively, set destination.

Computation, on the other hand, is design which is completely reliant on the software at hand. The design is not realised, nor is a conclusion remotely considered. This type of modelling involves complete freedom of de-sign. It generally involves setting algorithms to ‘see what happens’. In this way, it is more of an investigation into the limits and features of the modelling software, dependant, solely, on the designer’s field of view.

In this way, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena can be classified as a comput-erisation design. Although it is clearly mod-elled in three-dimensional modelling software, the defined form and simplistic architectural makeup gives the impression that the design was preconceived in the architect’s mind, with an existing conclusion that the software helped him to achieve.

11

This is, by no means, an inferior method of design to computation. This method uses the software as an aid, rather than a tool. Computerisation assists in the design process, whereas computa-tion is reliant on the software. Likewise, this is not to suggest that computation is inferior. Computation relies on the computer to envision a design concept that the human brain is not naturally equipped to control. It is highly mathe-matical and is, therefore, a much more complex conclusion when compared in contrast to computerisation.

Kalay, in Architectures New Media, stated that “[computers] lack any cre-ative inabilities or intuition” and there-fore are “totally incapable of making up new instructions”.2 This shows that regardless of technological advances, there will always be a need for the designer; that a computer will never be able to produce an original, cre-ative thought.

Referring this back to the Arena, the conclusive proof of computerisation, rather than computation, is that this

outcome is perceivable in the human brain; it is believable that a person could produce this concept. That is to say, that Tom Wiscombe could have, potentially (and with the desire to do so), designed this project by hand, without the aid of a computer at all. However, the rise of technology, in particular three-dimensional modelling software, has made this method unnec-essary and, frankly, outdated. This is a design truly expresses the prospects of computerisation as a modernist ap-proach to the architectural profession.

ARENA3 (title)Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture

MODELLING DEVELOPMENT4 (left, top)Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture

ARENA AT NIGHT5 (left, bottom)Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture

12

NATIONAL ART MUSEUM OF CHINArobert stuart-smith

The National Art Museum of China is a 2012 proposal by Robert Stuart-Smith and Roland Snooks (kokkugia) in collaboration with Studio Pei Zhu. Utilising a cloud metaphor, the project required a “formless form” to contrast the Bei-jing Olympic site’s “monumental nature”.6

An algorithmic methodology was used to cre-ate a seamless connection between the in-terior and exterior. The cloud metaphor was carried through a variety of aspects through-out the building. The use of glazing gives the building a sense of lightness; reflecting colours and allowing a spatial connection between the built form and it’s landscape.

The algorithm used generated a flowing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to an

other. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal.

In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chinese Univer-sity of Hong Kong Arena, the National Art Museum of China project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illustrates the need for the computational approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes dependent on where the user stands in rela-tion to the building. It requires a three-dimen-sional approach.

13

The algorithm used generated a flow-ing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to another. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal.

In Algorithmic Architecture, Kostas Ter-zidas wrote that in comparison to com-puterisation, “computation or comput-ing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited”.7 He expresses this view as computation relies more heav-

ily on the computer than “the design-er’s mind”.8 His view is that it is comput-erisation that is “the dominant mode of utilising computers in architecture”.9 This view is a limited one. Although in terms of architecture as an inhabitable build-ing, computerisation is more widely used for generating form, this outlook doesn’t account for the possibilities of this type of programming.

In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chi-nese University of Hong Kong Arena, this project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illus-trates the need for the computational

approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes depen-dent on where the user stands in rela-tion to the building. It requires a three-dimensional approach.

The outcome for this subject is meant to prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”. This project demon-strates that beauty can be found in the unlikely. It’s natural, fluid form gives a sense of dynamism; as if the structure may alter if the user looks away. This truly demonstrates that computation is a methodology for achieving beauty through mathematics and algorithms.

MUSEUM10 (title)National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith

Design

‘CLOUD’ FORMATION11 (right, top)National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith

Design

GENERATED FORM12 (right, bottom)National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith

Design

14

CHRYSALIS IIImatsys

Chrysalis III is a project by Matsys exploring cellular morphologies, particularly the “self-organisation of barnacle-like cells across an underlying substrate surface”.1 This design is an exploration of these cells finding their most balanced packed state through natural shift-ing across the surface until relaxing into an overall form.

This project is a design for a 1.9 metre tall light source, with light expanding from the 1000 cells dispersing around a room to create a soft, natural glow.

This is a design which focuses on materialisa-tion. As this is designed to be an aesthetic focal point for a room, the materiality and struc

ture needed to fit this purpose. Matsys opted for composite paper-backed wood veneers; poplar veneer for the interior of the structure, and cherry veneer for the exterior. This use of a wood finish adds to the sense of a natural form which the design is attempting to create, as well as generating a natural orange glow from the light source on veneer.

Although each individual cell is made up of straight - to some degree, jagged - edges, taken from a voronoi base geometry, the way in which these cells are connected give this sense of an overarching, natural form. Utilising Rhino, Grasshopper, and various Grasshop-per plugins, simulations were run to determine this ‘balanced state’.

15

In this way, Matsys has utilised three-dimensional modeling software, in an attempt to accurately recreate natural processes. It is, to some degree, us-ing one of the most advanced design technologies, in an attempt to resem-ble that which man has had no influ-ence over.

Kostas Terzidas sees computational architecture as the use of modelling sofware as a tool, unaided by the “designer’s mind”.2 Although, techni-cally, this project fits beneath Terzidas description, without the designer, this project would not come into the physi-cal space. Computation can, therefore, be described as design realisation after the inclusion of the computer, as

a tool, for reaching a final design out-come.

Although Matsys was, to some de-gree, aware of the individual cell struc-ture and the overall form, it is the way in which the cells are distributed over the design that defines this project as computational. It is, in this way, an ex-ploration of artificial self-organisation.

Materiality is not a result of computa-tion; a computer can not generate a material which gives ‘balance’ to a design. Materiality is a decision based purely on the architect. Whether this is a decision based on structural stabil-ity and functionality, or purely an aes-thetic decision, the final product rests

solely on the mind of the designer. A computer may generate form, func-tion, movement, structure, but it cannot generate finish - not without the de-signer’s input.

This aspect of materiality comes un-der Terzidas’ ideal of the use of “the designer’s mind”.3 Computation is a very technologically reliant method of design, but the input of a designer is what allows the method to progress. The designer writes and adjusts the algorithm, decides the fabrication process, and the materiality in which it will be constructed of, and without a single of one of these inputs, the final design would not come into the reality spectrum.

INTERIOR4 (title)Chrysalis III, Matsys

PLAN/ ELEVATIONS/ AXONOMETRIC5 (left, top)Chrysalis III, Matsys

EXTERIOR6 (left, bottom)Chrysalis III, Matsys

16

SUBDIVIDED COLUMNSmichael hansmeyer

Subdivided Columns, by Michael Hansmey-er, is a fantastic example of the capabilities of modern technology. Utilising the column as a starting point, due to its place as an “architec-tural archetype”, Michael Hansmeyer devel-oped it into an example of infinite complexity, through computational algorithms.7

Michael Hansmeyer has experimented with computation throughout his entire career. However, as in majority of his projects, the computer is where the design would stay. Hansmeyer used this project to bring com-putation out of the computer, to the physical realm. Using 1mm thick sheet and a laser cut-ter, Hamsmeyer and his team constructed the columns at 1:1, a total of 2.7 meters tall.

Despite not being able to achieve 100% of the computational detail, the team were able, through reliance on the technological, to attain an incredible level of accuracy. These columns

demonstrate the possibilities of computation. It proves that computation does not have to be limited to the virtual; that, with the advance-ments of technology, complex geometry, and the detail involved, is possible.

This project is an explicit exploration into fab-rication. For a professional, such as Michael Hansmeyer, the computation design for Sub-divided Columns was a very achievable feat. The fabrication of this design, however, whilst desiring to achieve the same level of complex-ity, was much more difficult.

Using a laser cutter is the most modern, con-venient and applicable technology that is also plausible. Although 3D printing is on the rise, issues with scale and expense make it un-suitable for this circumstance; particularly this early in its production. Despite this, 3D print-ing is an example of future technology impact-ing the possibilities of future design.

17

Fabrication and manufacturing are the only limitations on the computational approach. Computational architects are merely waiting on the fabrication technology to catch up to the model-ing software. When this occurs, more and more computational projects will arise in the physical space, outside of the computer.

In comparison to the Matsys project, Subdivided Columns is much further outside the possibilities of current man-ufacturing technologies and, therefore, fabrication of the columns was a much larger accomplishment. Effictively, with

this project, the experimentation came in terms of the fabrication, not the computational approach.

Contemporary architecture involves the presence of modern materials, techniques and technologies in the de-sign process. The incredible detail and ornamentation evident in these Sub-divided Columns provoke the thought that computation is the design means of the future, and as fabrification tech-nologies catch up, architectural design will as well.

The level of complexity that Michael

Hansmeyer was able to achieve in Subdivided Columns is way outside the mindset of any designer. This is a great statement on computation as a practice. Whilst the human mind is no-where near capable of this design, a computer is. However, the human mind is the exact input which allows a com-puter to output these complex geom-etries and creative designs. In this way, one is not, and cannot be without the other. The future of architecture and design as a whole resides in comput-ers and modern technology and to disregard this, is to fall behind the con-temporary movement.

HALL OF COLUMNS (title)Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Compu-tational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael

Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.

html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

EXHIBITED COLUMN (right, top)Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Compu-tational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael

Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.

html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

CONSTRUCTION DETAIL (right, bottom)Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Compu-tational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael

Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.

html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

18

C O N C L U S I O N

Computation is a design method which pro-vokes vastly different opinions on its place within architecture. Whilst many computational designers are excited by how far technology has progressed, there are many who believe that the rise of computation will lead to the end of creative thought. Bryan Lawson sug-gests that computation is an encouragement of “fake creativity”.1 This view is based solely off of the reliance of the computational de-signer on the computer, as a tool. There is a common view amongst many that computa-tion requires nothing more than knowledge of design software. To take this view is to sug-gest that one could paint a masterpiece after learning the basics of how to hold a brush. Computation requires a precise integration of programming knowledge with a vast design skill set in order to create a successful compu-tational design.

It is important to draw elements from prec-edents in the approach of a design. Part A of this journal presents a variety of innovative computational projects in which to draw inspi-ration.

Further exploration into energy generating

materiality is crucial to the progression of this design. Whilst standard energy generating concepts - solar, wind, hydrolic - are simple and quite effective, it is important to also experiment with other innovations, such as piezoelectric materials, which generate en-ergy through the interaction that the project is designed to encourage.

A computational design approach is the most beneficial progression As a designer, it allows a complexity of form that cannot be achieved through traditional design methods. This allows experimentation of intricate design outcomes, materiality, and innovation. It is important to note, however, that with the progression to-wards a fabricated scheme, fabrication tech-nologies must be constantly referred to in or-der to judge the possibility of certain outcomes.

Ultimately, this project is designed to benefit Copenhagen and the people within. It must be an attractive concept which fits, aestheti-cally with its landscape, whilst promoting in-teraction and renewable energy. Through computational and technological innovation, it will prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”.2

19

Having had no prior experience in Grass-hopper, I consider myself to have progressed vastly in such a short period of time. From merely copying definitions from tutorial videos, without much understanding of what each component does, to having created an un-guided concept, with lengthy definitions and a comprehension of why it works, I feel that I am truly getting an initial grasp of the compu-tational method.

Algorithmic computational design was initially new and scary to me. However, in the mere three to four weeks of learning, I can certainly see the benefits. Computation seems to open many doors - excuse the cliche - in terms of dynamic, intricate design. In retrospect, my past design experience could have benefitted greatly from current knowledge, casting away the limitations of geometric form and evolving into a new scope of architecture.

L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S

20

appendix

21

Grasshopper has sparked a deeper level of thinking into form generation. The learning of this program was an introduc-tion to an algorithmic method of design. This logical way of thinking has the ability to produce more complex, dynamic designs, in contrast to a lot of static architecture as a result of traditional design techniques.

Moving into Part B will begin a deeper ex-ploration into geometry and complex form-making. The models displayed here highlight just a minute selection of ways that form can be achieved. These forms experiment with the introduction of patterning and ma-teriality on a singular base surface. It shows that, although, the primary research field for Part B will be on the overall geometry, a finish must be considered throughout; be it to add an element of complexity to the de-sign, or to allow more practical fabrication.

I believe that personal expermentation and problem-solving, particularly in the third week, has allowed for a much more con-crete understanding of Grasshopper than if I had merely mimicked tutorials. It has dem-onstrated the possibilities of this modelling software, as well as the potential for com-putational design in architecture.

22

design futuring (4 - 7)

1. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gs-caltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014]

2. Ibid.

3. Design Boom, Atalier Brückner: GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo <http://www.designboom.com/readers/atelier-bruckner-gs-caltex-pavilion-for-the-2012-expo-korea/> [accessed 11 March 2014]

4. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gs-caltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014]

5. Ibid.

6. eVolo, GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo / Atelier Brückner < http://www.evolo.us/architecture/gs-caltex-pavilion-for-the-2012-korea-expo-atelier-bruckner/> [accessed 11 March 2014]

7. Atalier Brückner, Philosophy (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/atelier/philosophie.html> [accessed 11 March 2014]

8. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gs-caltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014]

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008) pp. 1-16

12. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014]

13. Noliac, Learning From Nature (Denmark: Noliac, 2014) <http://www.noliac.com/Learning_ from _ Nature-8152.aspx> [accessed 10 March 2014]

14. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014]

design computation (8 - 11)

1. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tom-wiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014]

2. Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25

3. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tom-wiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014]

4. Ibid.

REFERENCESP A R T A

23

5. Ibid.

6. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith.com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014]

7. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006)

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith.com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014]

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

composition/ generation (12 - 15)

1. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014]

2. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006)

3. Ibid.

4. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014]

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, Subdivided Columns (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Archi-tecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

conclusion (16)

1. Bryan Lawson, ‘“Fake” and “Real” Creativity Using Computer-Aided Design: Some Lessons From Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press, 1999), pp. 174-179

2. Land Art Generator Initiative (Pittsburgh, PA: Land Art Generator Initiative, 2014) <http://landartgenerator.org/>

PART B

26

RESEARCH FIELDSgeometry

The chosen research field for this week, and potentially the continuation of Part B, is ge-ometry. This field was chosen due to its broad scope, particularly in relation to the possibili-ties of future design.

Whilst geometry is a integral part of many of the other research fields - patterning, tessel-lation, structure, etc. - the design focus varies between the underlying form and the way in which it will be fabricated. In this way, although with tessellation, the final outcome must have a tessellated exterior, with geometry, the fab-ricated form could be tessellated, patterned, or be made up of a purely structural aesthetic.

Algorithmic design, as was explored in Part A, is quite limitless in its design possibilities, par-ticularly in contrast to traditional methods. It is due to this, that geometry was chosen, in the hopes of maintaining the limitless design potential.

Three designs were proposed as the starting point for geometry research, being: SG2012 Gridshell by Matsys, Green Void by LAVA, and VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits. These designs present a fantastic example of the various ways of achieving form. Each of these designs contain an evident base geometry, however, each was achieved in a different way.

27

Matsys’ SG2012 Gridshell is, to some degree, as it appears. The base ge-ometry was somewhat pre-conceived, with a ‘line work’ pattern applied over, giving it a kind of structural aesthetic. LAVA’s Green Void was, although not seemingly, designed in the complete reverse of Gridshell. The geometry is very apparent, and it contains no abstraction of patterning or tessella-tion. However, this form was achieved with a set of lines which were piped, meshed, and altered through the Kangaroo plugin for Grasshopper to achieve a minimal surface. Skylar Tib-bits’ VoltaDom contrasts these designs,

yet again. Whilst, once again, an un-derlying geometry can be seen, the form was achieved purely through the joining of the paneled elements. This design, in particular, could be said to come under tessellation as the primary design focus, as the overall geometry was more of a secondary concern.

Fabrication is an aspect which must be perpetually considered throughout the design process. Although LAVA’s de-sign is, arguably, the most focused on the geometry of the design, it is much for complex to fabricate due to its com-plex, curved form. However, a simple

variable triangulation would simplify the fabrication process entirely, as it would allow the construction to be reduced to smaller, paneled elements or nets, which would come together to form the, more complex, whole.

In this way, geometry is the most ef-fective way of achieving true compu-tation. Although the sectioning, strips/folding, patterning, and several other fields contain clear design intents, ge-ometry allows experimentation within the software, not realising the outcome until it is produced through the algo-rithmic method.

GREEN VOID1 (title)Green Void, LAVA

VOLTADOM2 (right, top)VoltaDom, Skylar Tibbits

SG2012 GRIDSHELL3 (right, bottom)SG2012 Gridshell, Matsys

28

For this exercise, an exploration of LAVA’s Green Void will provide the base for ex-perimental research.

The Grasshopper definition for this proj-ect provided three different methods of achieving the form of the design. These methods were through the lofting of the extreme base geometries, drawn in Rhino and lofted in Grasshopper, a complete Rhino loft using a series of closed curves, and finally an abstraction

of line work using the Kangaroo plugin for interaction and minimalism. This final method provided the foundation for ex-perimentation.

Species One demonstrates an initial take on this method, extending the defi-nition to include a hexagonal mesh cen-tre, with lines drawn from its joints to the edges of a box drawn in Rhino.

The iterations in Species One and Two

will be assessed based on three main factors, these being referred to: ‘level of suction’, ‘reduction’ and ‘complexity’. An ideal outcome will be one which has a relatively high level of suction and re-duction, whilst not being overly complex. That being said, it must contain potential for further exploration.

As can be seen, particularly in Species One, a low radius, coupled with a high spring factor created minimal, if any,

1

2

3

4

5

6

29

‘suction’. Therefore, the desired result will most likely have a fairly high ra-dius, and a medium to low spring fac-tor. The most succesful designs from Species One, for this reason, would be iterations five and six. However, due to the requirement for further exploration, Species Two was an, overall, more suc-cessful species than Species One.

Due to the additional parameters of this Species, it allows for a further ex-

ploration than Species One. This de-sign was built, purely, in Grasshopper, without the need for manual design. It is branched off a singular polyline, drawn between a set of points on a base geometry, this allows the altera-tion of the overall form and complexity, rather than merely the variable thick-ness of a set line.

Arguably the most successful geom-etry of this species is iteration three.

This decision is based on the fact that it does not appear overly complex, yet still maintains a level of interest in the design. Simultaneously, it has a good ‘level of suction’ as well as a high re-duction factor. This iteration is interest-ing as it has varying levels of reduction, ranging from the thicker ‘trunk’ lines to the thinner ‘branch and twig’ lines. This gives the outcome a much more natu-ral aesthetic; something which was es-sential to the designers.

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4