week8

DESIGN STUDIOARCHITECTUREAIR

Qi Wei 531474

CONTENTS

part A - Case For InnovationA.1. ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURS A.2. COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTUREA.3. PARAMETRIC MODELLINGA.4. ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONSA.5. CONCLUSIONA.6. LEARNING OUTCOMES

part B - Design Approch

part C - Project Proposal

B.1. DESIGN FOCUSB.2. CASE STUDY 1.0B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENTB.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPESB.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSALB.7. ALGORITHMIC SKETCHESB.8. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

C.1. GATEWAY PROJECT: DESIGN CONCEPTC.2. GATEWAY PROJECT: TECTONIC ELEMENTSC.3. GATEWAY PROJECT: FINAL MODELC.4. ALGORITHMIC SKETCHESC.5. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

03-1213-1819-2425-26

2728

31-3233-3839-4445-4849-5051-5253-5455-58

00000

eoi i: case for innovation

PART Aeoi i: case for innovation

3

ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO - AIR

Part A - Case For Innovation Part B - Design Approach

Hello,My name is Qi Wei, also called Bella. I am a Chinese girl came to Australia 5 years ago, finished high school in Brisbane and then came to this wonderful city, Melbourne! I study as an international student in University of Melbourne Bachelor of Architecture degree and this is my third year in university.

Before I came to university, I only able to do some basic AutoCAD drawings and Archi-CAD designing in high school. Then I start to learn Rhino in my first year at university in the course of Virtual Environments, however, I still know little about digital design or digital designing tools. When I finish the course, I realize there are limitations that using Rhino to do 3D models without any plug-ins. Grasshopper is the plug-in I first meet in this course, the air studio. I find it is amazing.

Therefore, the main reason I want to join this course is to enhance my digital drawing or modeling skills, especially with Rhino. Parametric architecture looks cool and is be-come more and more popular nowadays, which make me highly interested in learning Grasshopper.

4

WEEK 1 - Architecture As A Discourse

Part C -Project Proposal Part D - The Gateway Project

A.1.1. INTRODUCTION

Part A - Case For Innovation

5


Part B - Design Approach

Part D - The Gateway Project

6


A.1.2. PREVIOUS WORKThis is the BODYSPACE Project, which I finished in my first year at university in Virtual Environments. The aim of this project is to build a complex form that is made from paper, can be lit from within like a lantern and is worn on the body. One requirement for this project is to develop three-dimensional forms from the analyses of existing natural process.

Module one in this project I remember was to engen-der stage. I used drawings and physical scale mod-els to develop a series of three-dimensional forms based on the analyses of existing natural processes. Module two was digitizing and elaborating. I tried to use orthographic method and contouring method to describe my model and then digitize the model into three-dimensional computational representations. Rhino was the main software used. Module three was fabricating. This stage was altered several times, but each time the model became better.

During this course, I understand that digital designs would somehow limit our ability to engage with crea-tive work. Even now I bury this in mind.

My experience with digital architecture is just like what I said before. Technically, to be honest, I feel more confident with AutoCAD then Rhino. AutoCAD is normally used for digital design and drafting. We can draw both two-dimensional and three-dimen-sional drawings in the software. Unfortunately, I haven’t try three-dimensional drawings in Auto-CAD. Rhino is also a digital designing software has the advantage of making complex three-dimension-al NURBS models. Though it is my weakness, I am highly interested in this software. I look forward to exploring Rhino in this course.

Theoretically, it is obvious that digital technology is a great impact on architecture design. And I think it is just a beginning of that. It is undeniable that those enormous and complex building designs could grab people’s eyes, which I think will be the trend of fu-ture architecture design.

Part C -Project Proposal



7- Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102-116.




8

A.1.3. ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSEArchitecture can be simply understood as a shelter or a building in ancient time. In other words, architecture is “a material one” (Rich-ard, 2005, pp103). But it is absolutely not what architecture means nowadays. With the fast development of technology, architecture possesses its new meanings; “architecture is as much a philosoph-ical, social or professional realm as it is a material one” (Richard, 2005,pp103).

Architecture nowadays is a discourse. In my opinion, architecture is like a discourse more than art due to it has all kinds of parameters that constrain it. An art is done by an artist freely, meets his own appetite. But an architecture needs to meet the clients appetites, or even the whole public’s appetite. It also has other constrains such as theoretical issues, technological restrains, environmental limitations, social relations, cultural values, costs and so on. On the other hand, architecture also has an influence on those parameters, which is like a circular influence. Moreover, architecture as a discourse needs to be a sign nowadays. It should lead a discussion among people. A suc-cessful architecture could be a hot topic of the society regardless of time. Several precedents could be found in the following pages.

In this case, we are going to do the Gateway project in the next few weeks. The design aims to be a sign or bring up a topic among people contributing a discourse, while limits by physical structure. I suggest Grasshopper is a suitable digital tool to establish a common bond between an ideal model and real physical structure within the parameters.




9

Fig 1.4.1 - http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/world/architecture-beijing-water-cube-desktop-hd-wallpaper-2727/

This project is the National Aquatics Centre of China (Fig A.1.4.1) finished in 2008. It located in the Olympic Sport Park in Beijing, which also known as ‘Water Cube’. The di-mension of ‘Water Cube’ is 177m in length *177m in width *31m in height. Inspiration of this design comes from the natural structure of a water molecule. The reason why I like this project is it has a strong idea of new architecture.

In terms of cultural values, the cube represents strict, well-behaved in Chinese back-ground. It makes a contrast with the Bird’s Nest beside, which has a meaning of harmo-nious. The central designing idea, water is a natural element, which represents happy and exciting in China. Like most other important structures in Beijing, Water Cube lays just aside the axis of the central city. The architecture has its cultural connection to the city. By looking at its appearance, the creative design of the exterior fabricate is eye-catching. It attracts most people to walk inside and have a look around. The architecture is creative. Technically, the building is mainly steel framed with ETFE cladding exterior. The advantage of ETFE cladding is it is transparent, which means the building is natural lighted during the daytime. It is environmental friendly. The building is also user-friend-ly. There are 6000 spectator seats and 11000 removable seats in the Water Cube. (Fu, 2005, pp13)

“Architecture can scarcely exist without patronage. And it is generally the client who determines the function of a project, its specification, its location and above all, its cost; the architect works within these parameters” suggested by Richard (2005).

I love the design of this architecture. The uneven bubble shaped structure are generated from computer to support the skin material. Parametric design in this case helps us to work through our way with these parameters and find an ideal solution for our design. Also makes the structure possible to build in reality. I have been there and walked inside. I saw the bubble cladding is steel framed. It is interesting that the structures of these bubbles follow the same principle as the real bubble does, forming hundreds of small circular hollow sections. They are incredibly strong and rigid. Water Cube is thought to be a successful example of modern architecture. It combines cultural, technical, envi-ronmental and visual features together making a ‘simple’ cube interesting. In my future design, I may regard ‘nature’ as my good teacher to help me with structure or design. That is making the architecture connect to the nature.

WATER CUBE

- Background info. from: http://baike.baidu.com/view/779442.htm?fromId=95252- Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Mat-thew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102-116.




10

Fig A.1.4.1

A.1.4. PRECEDENTS

Fig A.1.4.2

I tried to make the 3D model of the water cube using Grasshop-per. I find the real one is much more complex than this one. I have a lot to learn with digital design.

Beijing National Aquatics Centre, Beijing, China

Architects: PTW architects, Arup international engineer-

ing group, CSCEC (China State Construction Rngineering Cor-

poration) and CCDI (China Con-struction Design International) of

Shanghai.



11


Fig 1.4.7-9 http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/galaxy-soho/

Fig A.1.5.1

Fig A.1.5.3

Fig 1.4.3-6 http://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Arch2o-Galaxy-SOHO-Zaha-Hadid-Architects



12


GALAXY SOHOThis amazing project is designed by a female architect, Zaha Hadid. The project began in 2009 and just finished last year in Beijing. The building has two major functions, which are a big shopping center and an elite office building. The plot area of this building is about 46965m2. Mainly, there four towers, which is 15 floors high, connect each other with continuous lines or flowing volumes.

In terms of cultural values, this building is a re-inventing of the classical Chinese courtyard and located at the central area of Beijing. It aims to create an internal world. Another inspiration of this design comes from nature, the terraced fields in China. It makes a connection between a modern city to nature. Aesthetically, it is also 21st century archi-tecture. The building lines are no longer straight all the time and the corners are not sharp any more. A creative and continuous form appears. Technically, the roof, light-ing systems, air conditioners and surface fabricates are all environmental friendly. 360 degrees view on the building is also users-friendly.

I love this design because I am impressed by the liquid geometries designed by Zaha. Parametric design helps to make such a form possible in real world. What’s more, the term “termite” needs to be mentioned here. The en-vironmental conditions of these towers are just like the termites. When the sun shines at one side of the termite, the ants will go to the other side because it is cooler there. Same principle was applied in these towers. Users could always get one side cool in the daytime. Galaxy Soho is a successful parametric design, which brings up a new way of thinking architecture. It also combines cultural, techni-cal, environmental and aesthetic features together to make a creative building, which I should bury in mind in future.

A.1.5. PRECEDENTS

Fig A.1.5.2

Fig A.1.5.4

Fig A.1.5.5 Fig A.1.5.6 Fig A.1.5.7


13


- Yehuda E. K, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aid Design (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25.- Kolarevic B, ‘Architecture in the Digtal Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-28.


14

WEEK 2 - Computational Architecture

A.2.1. COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTUREDesigning process is kind of like problem solving method, which might include problem analysis, solu-tion synthesis and further research stages. The dif-ference is that designing process is not so rational but sometimes needs to achieve multiple goals or encounter uncertainties. Computers are superb ana-lytical engines though ‘they lack any creative abili-ties or intuition’ suggested by Yehuda (2004,pp2). Digital technology plays an important role in archi-tecture. They help people drafting and modeling architecture. Generative design method is one of unique innovation of computational based design method. Kolarevic (2003,pp13) describes as ‘de-signer articulate an internal generative logic, which then produces, in an automatic fashion, a range of possibilities from which the designer could choose an appropriate form proposition for further devel-opment.’ There is a circular communication from those design back to the designers. What’s more, digital architecture is not totally ideological or con-ceptual. They look like a new way of thinking ar-chitecture, but still can find historical precedents influencing the appearance of digital architecture.

With the fast development of computer programs, people are trying to make these programs easy to control and being more efficient. One new term

NURBS is introduced, which means Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines. The reason it becomes more and more popular is ‘the ability of UNRBS to con-struct a broad rage of geometric forms’, ‘it is de-fined within a local parametric space’ (Kolarev-ic, 2003,pp15). In parametric design, it is the parameters of a particular design that are de-clared, not its shape. By assigning different values to the parameters, different objects can be created.

Last but not least, manufacture technology is also an important influencing factor of computational architecture. As Kolarevic (2003,pp7) states ‘The information age is challenging not only how we de-sign buildings, but also, manufacture and construct them.’ Once upon a time ideas were constrained by technologies of representation. Now new forms are created such as parametric design, topological space, isomorphic surfaces and genetic algorithms.

Linking back to the Gateway Project, it aims to propose new, inspiring and brave ideas to generate a new dis-course. It is believed that computational based para-metric design is the way to achieve this final goal. Such a designing method is innovative and still under ex-ploring, therefore it is going to generate the discourse.

Part D - The Gateway ProjectPart C -Project Proposal


It is undeniable this architecture makes the city of Bilbao famous in the world. It is Guggenheim Mu-seum designed by Frank Gehry finished in 1997. The whole museum covers an area of 24,000 square meters, including 11,000 square meters are showrooms. It is not only the symbol the city, but also the icon of the digital information revolution. The design is really daring and innovative com-pare with other conventional design of museums.

Materials used in this museum are mainly glass, steel, limestone and titanium sheeting exterior. The

use of materials reflects the cultural background of the city, which is a city famous for shipbuilding. Simi-lar process and material of shipbuilding are used in this design. The design aims attract more people to the city to fulfill the resurge of this old harbor city. Aesthetically, the design is a free sculpture of curva-ceous metal-clad form. Creative and continuous lines delineate the building profile. Environmentally, the curve form of the design echoes the flow of water in the river beside. A connection is made between the design and nature. Titanium sheeting exterior could reflect the sunlight during the day so that the building

A.2.2.GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM


Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, SpainArchitect: Frank Gehry


Fig A.2.2.1 - http://www.blogcdn.com/travel.aol.co.uk/media/2011/07/8.-archtctrllndmrksgggnhm.jpg

WEEK 2 - Computing In Architecture

A.2.2. PRECEDENT

could have different views always. Technically, a 2mm galvanized steel cladding was bolted to the tertiary layer and the interior side was covered with thermal insulation. According to Cesar Caicoya (1998), ‘One of the key factors in construction was the massive use of CAD/CAM technology, something fairly unu-sual in architecture. Without this technology, Bilbao Guggenheim would still be under construction today.’

What I think makes Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum successful is the adoption of computational design in this masterpiece. Like Kolarevic (2003)suggest in

his reading the museum ‘will not stand there without the computation innovation in architectural design, not to mention generating a new era for Architecture.’Computing design process makes the design unique and famous in the world. And it also makes it easier for people to achieve such a complex geometry. To link this idea back to our Gateway Project, I guess the design outcome should be totally different to the past. We are able to create something that different, exciting and eye-catching with the innovative compu-tational based design method, which is going to gen-erating discourse and inspires us during the project.


Fig A.2.2.1




17

Fig A.2.3.1

Fig A.2.3.2

Fig A.2.3.3

Fig A.2.3.4


Fig A.2.3.1-6 - http://www.pscohen.com/images/projects/torus_house.jpg

WEEK 2 - Computing In Architecture


A.2.3. PRECEDENT

18

This is the Torus House in New York designed by Preston Scott Cohen and finished by his company in 2001. The house was designed as a home for an artist as well as his studio with the support of com-putational design. Preston puts a focus on spatial investigations on topology, which is ‘a branch of mathematics concerned with the properties of objects that are preserved through deformations.’ (Kolarevic, 2003,pp6)

As can be seen from the images, a curving line crosses several flat surfaces including walls, floors and ceilings. The whole design becomes an un-dulating form. Few straight lines or sharp cor-ners could be found in the design, therefore the conventional surfaces lines are hard to be de-fined. Curved surfaces are used instead of nor-mal orthogonal intersections between separate planes. Due to the client established a require-ment, which is able to allow him entertain of-ten and paint on his rooftop, people could find a topological form of spiral staircase in the center

of the house. The staircase leading up to the roof and the other end connects to the parking area under the main body of the house. The designing idea here is that the interior of the house is like a threshold between roof and ground landscapes, which satisfies the requirement of the client.

This ‘smooth’ house design was done by using CAD/CAM technologies, so that complex topo-logical froms such as torus entered the architec-tural discourse. In this case, I see the problems put forward by the client and how do they be solved by the architect using parametric design method. Using a parametric design may help us having a better control over the problems en-countered and then solve in a more efficient way.

Linking back to the Gateway Project, I guess we can using parametric design to ‘hide’ something that we don’t want to show the public (like the structural frames etc.) so that develop a form bet-ter in aesthetic.

A.2.3. TORUS HOUSE

Fig A.2.3.5 Fig A.2.3.6

Torus House, New York, U.S.A.Architect: Preston Scott Cohen




19- Burry, Mark (2011). Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 8 - 71.- Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48

WEEK 3 - Parametric Modelling


20

A.3.1. Parametric ModellingParametric modeling system differs from a tradi-tional system that ‘parts of a design, relate and change together in a coordinated way’ (Woodbury, 2010). It is easy to add or erase ‘parts’ (nodes) in a parametric modeling system. This system could also increase the design efficiency due to when the designer changes ‘parts’ the rest of the elements in relation to the ‘parts’ will changes accordingly. This will help the designer to save a lot time in real world application. Moreover, parametric mod-eling could provide us a lot of complex shapes or forms, which we can choose from or making an-other parametric system to help us choose from. Burry (2012) states that the system provides ‘a sig-nificantly deeper engagement between the com-puter and user by automating routine aspects and repetitive activities, thus facilitating a far greater range of potential outcomes for the same invest-ment in time.’ Parametric modeling could extend design experimentation efficiently. As we are de-signing architecture, not only choose a beautiful shape, it is important for us to consider the func-tion of the model. The model needs to satisfy the designing purpose. We can make good use of the system to adjust the shape into a favorable shape according to its function, cost, achievability and aesthetic. Generally, parametric modeling system is efficient and easy to control.

On the other hand, the disadvantage of paramet-ric modeling is that the designers need to learn how to using the parametric system. They need to be able to program the system making models as

they like, not be programed by the system. Some of the systems are complex and hard to learn, which need exploration time. Also, Burry (2011) says designers might ‘place their entire trust in the software engineers’, parametric modeling has a potential to limit the designers’ creative ideas. More specifically, changing inputs is easy to do in a parametric modeling system, while what if a new factor arise and does not belong to these in-puts. The result is it will cost the designer spend a lot time to add a new factor to the model in a parametric modeling system.

Actually, parametric modeling system is used more and more widely in real world. Because this system is quite like the designing process as men-tioned in the topic on previous pages. It is efficient and controllable though it needs technical skills. For future, I think parametric modeling method will still be popular and become more well-known to the public. It will be used mainly as a tool to-wards modern architecture. While the limitation of this method requires technical skills for the us-ers. Therefore, a potential future for this method will be developed as much easier for the public to use. Also, this system could be used for organizing spaces as well, not only the surface skins etc.

In terms of the Gateway project, parametric mod-eling will help us do the project in a more efficient way and make it easy to adjust the outcomes. It is believed that the project could generate a new discourse with parametric modeling system.




21

A.3.2. TAICHUNG METROPOLITAN OPERA HOUSE

Fig A.3.2.1 Fig A.3.2.2

Fig A.3.2.5Fig A.3.2.4

Fig A.3.2.7Taichung Metropolitan Opera House, Taichuang, Taiwan.

Architect: Toyo Ito

Fig A.3.2.1 - http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/media_image/story/media/1217_metro_rend_01.jpgFig A.3.2.3 - http://thefoxisblack.com/blogimages//ito_taichung2.jpgFig A.3.2.2, 4-7 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5UZiIU0fs/ULeKHvdmHwI/AAAAAAAAL_M/NQ8sPZoGXx0/s1600/Architecture_Taichung_Metropolitan_Opera_House_by-Zaha_Hadid-Architects_Taichung_Taiwan_world_of_architecture_10.jpgFig A.3.2.8 - http://www.tmoh.com.tw/image/ori/tmoh04.jpgGeneral background - http://www.tmoh.com.tw/page/04-design/design_main.htm


A.3.2. PRECEDENT


22

A.3.2. TAICHUNG METROPOLITAN OPERA HOUSE

Fig A.3.2.8

This is Taichung Metropolitan Opera House located in Taiwan. This project is under construction since 2009 and will be finished at the end of this year. The designer of this opera house is a Japanese ar-chitect called Toyo Ito. His design ‘Sound Cave’, which is the opera house now like, won the entry in the competition. The whole build-ing is 37.7m high with a floor are of 51125.12sqm. Taiwan Govern-ment has invited tenders for 5 times, however there is no company dare to do the project due to the toughness of doing this structure. The Discovery Channel records the whole construction process be-cause it is rare to see in architecture history.

The aim of this project is to become the symbol of Taichung city. Taiwan government thinks Taichung city is lack of its own identity compare with other cities in Taiwan. The winner design is do eye-catching. The main structure of the opera house is formed by several connecting curved walls, embedded floors and a core service wall. Space is created freely with the rhythm of these continuous curved walls. Parametric modeling system could adjust this embedded space between the curved walls, so that to achieve the function of an opera house. (Details of each individual space in the opera house could be seen in FigA.3.2.8.) Structurally, the whole opera house is a horizontally and vertically continuous network. To construct a building with three-dimensional curved walls, they are divided into 58 curved wall units and structured by steel bar reinforcements and steel trusses. Environmentally, the continuous curved surface in an open structure actively engages its surroundings in all direc-tions. Materials used in the building are mainly concrete and steels, with aluminum sheeting and glasses. Aluminum sheeting and glass-es could provide the public a sense of dynamic, which flows the rhythm of the surrounding environment in terms of light and heat. The majority of materials used are recyclable eco-materials.

Toyo says ‘Architecture has to follow the diversity of society, and has to reflect that a simple square or cube can’t contain that diver-sity’. This matches the idea of architecture as a discourse. Paramet-ric modeling is the best way to control these complex forms and simultaneously satisfies the function of being architecture.For the Gateway Project, it needs to take us in a new direction and form-ing a discussion accordingly among the public. Parametric modeling method allow us have more freedom on design to exploring differ-ent forms, spaces, patterns, layouts and etc. Just like the precedent, we can explore forms and functions and develop the most satisfac-tory result for the project.

Fig A.3.2.3

Fig A.3.2.6

Taichung Metropolitan Opera House, Taichuang, Taiwan.Architect: Toyo Ito




Fig A.3.3.2

Fig A.3.3.1

Fig A.3.3.4


A.3.3. PRECEDENTA.3.3. SERPENTINE GALLERY PAVILLION


Fig A.3.3.3

24

This is the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by a Portuguese architect Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura. The function of the pavilion is to serve as a café in the daytime and be a leaning and entertainment place at night. The central idea of this pavilion is to ‘guarantee that the new building, while presenting a totally different architecture, establishes a ‘dialogue’ with the Neo-classical house’.

The outcome is a pavilion that mirrors the domestic scale of the Serpentine and articulates the land-scape between the two buildings. Basically, the pavilion is in a simple rectangular grid form. The new thing is parametric modeling method is used to distort the gird a bit to create a dynamic curvaceous form. Computational technology could make simple forms unusual and open up a new field for us to look at. Parametric modeling could manage the curvaceous grid in terms of not only aesthetic, but also

the space under and structural stability. Environmentally, a translucent polycarbonate is used to cover the structure, which allows natural light to come through in the daytime. At night, the pavilion was lighted by these small solar-powered electrical lamps in the middle of each panel. Material used are mainly timer beams, which matches the surrounding environment and secure the rigidly of the struc-ture at the same time.

Thinking about the Gateway Project, we could explore simple repeated patterns and arranged them in an unusual form using parametric method. It will be faster for us to use parametric modeling to explore numerous possible outcomes. It will also be easier for us to adjust the outcome according to the client’s requirements, cultural background, social and structural issues using parametric modeling method. Then we are able to establish the most money, material efficiency solution of the project.

Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005Architect: Alvaro Siza & Eduardo Souto de Moura

Fig A.3.3.1 - http://www.serpentinegallery.org/2.VI.jpgFig A.3.2.2 - http://www.serpentinegallery.org/3.VI.jpgFig A.3.3.3 - http://www.architecturetrips.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-Serpentine-Gallery-Alvaro-Siza-e-Souto-de-Moura-C.jpgFig A.3.2.4 - http://www.serpentinegallery.org/4.VI.jpg



25


WEEK 3 - Algorithmic Explorations

A.4.1 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS

26


These are some exploration I did with using parametric modeling system (the Grasshopper in Rhino). I first draw some curves and then loft them forming a NURBS surface. Then I used sur-face divide tool to identify a number of points on the surface. Different sets of points were also created, which were different in distance. At last, I make rectangles around the existing points. The distance between each individual points could be adjusted. The size of each indi-vidual rectangle could also be adjusted.

The inspiration of this model comes from Al-varo’s Pavilion. These rectangles were arranged along a NURBS surface in different sizes. In real world, it allows different amount of sunlight to come through.

Similar process could be done to the Gateway Project. Different sizes of patterns can create dif-ferent shadows, which would provide the public a different kind of experience. Using parametric modeling system is the most convenience way of doing the project so far I think.




27

A.5.1 CONCLUSIONArchitecture nowadays is more like a discourse due to it has all kinds of pa-rameters that constrain it. Successful architecture should also be a symbol and able to lead a discussion among the public. The Gateway Project aims to being a successful architectural icon and being a hot topic among the public. It is suggested using parametric modeling system design approach is better for the outcome. The advantage of using this method is that it is a more controllable and efficient way for us to explore numbers of possible outcomes. I strongly believe that not only our designing group could save a lot time and encounter some ‘fresh’ (new and unknown) outcomes during the process, but also the clients could save money for doing the project efficiently and the aim will be fully reached.

Fig A.6.1.1 - http://nomadicform.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/9.96192258_large.jpg

WEEK 3 - Conclusion

Part D- The Gateway Project

28

A.6.1 LEARNING OUTCOMESMore and more architecture nowadays are using parametric modeling system to build an outstanding and eye-catching architectural icon. Most people are excited about these curve lines and blob forms. I believe it will still be the trend for the next few years. In my opinion, architectural computing is one of the designing methods that aid us doing the process more efficiently and easy to control. It is not the whole architecture. We can not hundred percent ‘trust’ them and still need to have creative ideas. After four weeks experi-ence, In terms of the previous design, if I possess the ability to use parametric modeling design before, I could able to adjust the hole sizes on the lantern so that different amount of light could go through. Holes in the middle would not have strong and dazzling light and holes at the sides would not only have dim light. The result will be the users could get soft and diffuse light.

Fig A.6.1.1


eoi ii:design approach

PART Beoi ii:design approach



31

Fig B.1.1

Fig B.1.2Spanish Pavilion 2005, Japan

Architect: Foreign Office Architects

Fig B.1.1 - The LMS systemFig B.1.2 - http://www.cusa-dds.net/ARCH842SP2010/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Foreign-Office-Architects.pdfFig B.1.3&4 - http://digiitalarchfab.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Spanish-Pavilion.pdf

WEEK 5 - Design Focus


32

B.1.DESIGN FOCUSWyndham City has been addressing the issue of its image by undertaking significant works to upgrade the condition and aesthetics of its streetscapes, open spaces and parks in recent years. Our group notices that Wyndham has a rich and wide range of unique and distinctive feature across natural and cul-tural areas. In this case, the Wyndham City Gateway Project wishes to establish another innovative and prominent indicator to provide a focus to the Western Interchange entry to the City (Fig.B.1.1). It is a quite wide and flat site. Our group is interested in the area of ‘patterning’ using the parametric design method. Consequently, we establish our argument that the Wyndham City Gateway Project is believed to serve a function of a solar power station by using patterns in terms of a sustainable pur-pose, which provides indication of arrival into metropolitan Melbourne and using surface movement to create sense of high speed.The precedent our group chooses to look at is Spanish Pavil-ion done by Foreign Office Architects at the 2005 Aichi Inter-national Expo in Japan. We all believe that the use of irregular hexagons and the mix of colours give the public a strong visual impact among the others. Here it matches the aim of the Gate-way Project, which is being an iconic piece of architecture. The organization of each exhibition house is arranged as cathedral metaphor. (i.e. the houses are not lineally arranged, which al-lows the public to go and look around without pre-arranged routes.) Such a structural arrangement links Spanish historical contents to the modern contents. The hexagons on the façade are made of glazed ceramic, which is a customary technique in both Spain and Japan. The idea here wants to symbolize the bringing of Spanish earth to Japan. Further, the red and yellow always associated with Spain. They are the colours on the na-tional flag and revealing the idea of wine roses and the blood of the bullfights, sun and sand. In terms of the Gateway Project, a successful outcome needs to provide the first indication of ar-rival into metropolitan Melbourne and simultaneously reflect Wyndham’s unique natural and cultural values.

Fig B.1.3

Fig B.1.4




Aesthetic (A)

Transmittance of light (T)

Material wastage (M)

Indicatio of metropolitan Melbourne and high speed (I)

Structural stability (S)

33

WEEK 5 - Case Study 1.0

B.2.1 CASE STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION


This is the selection criteria I made according to all kinds of de-sign issues and real world considerations. In Case Study 1.0, par-ticular attention is paid to the surface skins of the structure. - First of all, aesthetic of the skin is important. Whether it is eye-catching or not always links to the first impression of the public to the structure. - Transmittance of light is environmental consideration of the structure. It directly relates to how much light could go through the skin to the inner structure. Also, it could affect the night time view of the structure. - Material wastage is important due to the project has an over-all budget. Excessive use of material should not be encouraged. - Indication of metropolitan Melbourne and high speed di-rectly links to the theme of this project. - Structural stability is the very basic requirement of an archi-tecture. It affects the durability of the structure and site safety of the project.

POOR EXCELLENTAesthetic (A)

POOR EXCELLENTTransmittance of light (T)

POOR EXCELLENTMaterial wastage (M)

POOR EXCELLENTIndicatio of metropolitan Melbourne and high speed (I)

POOR EXCELLENTStructural stability (S)

34




35

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS


B.2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0


POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

EXCELLENT

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS




37

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS


B.2.3 CASE STUDY 1.0


EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

EXCELLENT

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS

POOR EXCELLENTA

POOR EXCELLENTT

POOR EXCELLENTM

POOR EXCELLENTI

POOR EXCELLENTS




39

The Acoustic Barrier, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2006Architect: ONL Architects

Fig B.3.1.1-3.1.8 - http://www.architecture-buildings.com/post/acoustic-barrier-in-utrecht-the-netherlands-by-onl-architect/

Fig B.3.1.1

Fig B.3.1.2 Fig B.3.1.3

Fig B.3.1.5 Fig B.3.1.6

Fig B.3.1.8



40

This is the Acoustic Barrier in Utrecht, The Netherlands did by ONL Architect. Regardless of its aesthetic innovation, particular attention was paid to its assemble method. Each individual ele-ment is connected smoothly. There is no doubt that the design uses computational manufactory method during construction. The designing data is read by software controlling production machinery. It provides a direct link between the 3d model of the architect and the production machines of the manufacturers. ONL developed a system of a point cloud of nodes and connec-tion beams. At the surface of the structure, the volume between the beams is covered with insulated triangular glassplates. The triangles are produced as flat surfaces. All the complexity is in-tegrated in the nodes and beams connections. It is important to mark the joints and individual parts during the construction process, otherwise the builder may get confused. Overall, the knowledge of the production and the manner of communica-tion between the architect and the manufacturer needs to be processed in the preliminary stage of the design.

B.3.1 CASE STUDY 2.0PRECEDENT

The Acoustic Barrier, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2006Architect: ONL Architects


Fig B.3.1.4

Fig B.3.1.7



41

Fig B.3.2.1

Fig B.3.2.2

Fig B.3.2.3

Fig B.3.2.4

Fig B.3.2.5

Fig B.3.2.6



42

B.3.2 CASE STUDY 2.0DIGITAL MODEL

After looking at verities of possibilities from the matrix, we real-ize successful patterns on the skin can help control light and re-flect design theme. Also, the Acoustic Barrier precedent teach-es us that it is important to reinforce the link between the 3D model (we are going to make) to the production machines of the manufacturers (the Fablab or the Model maker). Moreover, by numbering each individual part of the model clearly could help us to make the model faster.

By bearing all of these design tips and project objectives in mind, we start to make our first model. Basically, our digital model making process could be divided into three main stages. Firstly, we create several surfaces in Rhino by using loft based on the site map, so that the surfaces fit the site. The second stage is to add patterns on each individual surface by using Grasshopper. The pattern we used is diamond. By finding out each vertices of the diamond, then moving one vertex toward the centre of the diamond and connecting to the rests, we could get an ar-row shape pattern. Another algorithm is then added to adjust the distance between the moved vertex and the rests. The last stage is to import the surface back to Rhino and attach it on the model.



43


Fig B.3.3.3 Fig B.3.3.4

Fig B.3.3.5 Fig B.3.3.6

Fig B.3.3.1 Fig B.3.3.2


B.3.3 CASE STUDY 2.0PHYSICAL MODEL

Physical model fabrication could help us analyze the structure and process better but it did not go smoothly. Generally, our group was not satisfied by the physical model. The whole model was made inverted (all the pat-terns were inversely cut by the laser cut so that tabs we use to glue each parts together can be seen from the surface façade), which showed our lacking of fabricating experiences and carelessness during the process. Due to the scale we used was 1:100, some sharp corners and thin edges displayed nicely in the computer could not be modeled physically. It leads to the breakage of our model. Some facades even fail to stand up due to the lack of rigidity of the design. In terms of the connection method, the precedent’s method (point cloud of nodes and beams) is a bit complex to be built physically in a 1:100 model so that we creating tabs along the patterns and glue them together.

Compare with the Acoustic Barrier precedent, both our model and the precedent use patterns as the skin of the architecture. Both design pro-cesses rely heavily on the connection between the 3D model and the product machine. Numbering methods are used in both designs. There are differences between them as well. The precedent uses triangles as the pattern while we use diamonds. Also, there is a gradual change in these diamonds to reflect the design theme of speed. In terms of the connec-tion method, the precedent uses point cloud of nodes and beams while so far we use creating tabs and glue method to connect each part together.

To improve our physical model, we need to refine our digital model first so that all sharp corners and thin edges could be made in the model suc-cessfully. The sizes of the tabs around each diamonds could be further refined by adjusting the offset distance in Rhino. If necessary, point could of nodes and beams could be modeled physically. Last but not the least, more cautiousness is needed when producing files to the Fablab (the manufacturer). 44

Part D - The Gateway ProjectPart C -Project Proposal



45

VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATIONGROUPS

A1 2 3 4 5

B

C

D

E

B.4.1 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

WEEK 7 - Technique Development


46


VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION

6 7 8 9 10



47

VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATIONGROUPS

A1 2 3 4 5

B

C

D

E

B.4.2 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

WEEK 7 - Technique Development


48


VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION VARIATION

6 7 8 9 10

According to our group’s argument, which is creating a sense of high speed and providing indication of arrival of metropolitan Melbourne, these highlighted ones in red circles are comparatively satisfied by us. They are successful not only in aesthetic, but also in structural stability and controlling of lights. They are patterns generally more preferable for the Gateway Project.

NOTE:



49

Fig B.5.1 Fig B.5.2

Fig B.5.6 Fig B.5.7

Fig B.5.9 Fig B.5.10

Fig B.5.11 Fig B.5.12

Fig B.5.13 Fig B.5.14 Fig B.5.15

WEEK 7 - Technique Prototypes


50


B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

After making the first physical model last week, a few improvements were made this week. According to the advice from the tutorial, we want the surface not only being eye-catching, but also can stand by itself (i.e. not a single surface). Single layer structure is fragile in real world consid-erations. Therefore, we add another layer on both sides in the original model. The roof is still single layer due to we don’t want add extra loads on the top. The patterns on the skin are rearranged using parametric tools to avoid unwanted shadows projected on the ground. The density of these patterns is also reduced in terms of structural stability. We changed the density from 10 panels per column to 6 panels per column. The result of these changes is our model could stand by itself firmly.

Over all, for the physical model, each strip of column is connected by glue. The material we use is 1mm thick boxboard. The structure is stable due to material strength. Other types of materials are considered as well. Timber sheet has grains on surface, which is easy to lead material failure. Plastic sheet is hard to cut and generally thicker than 1mm, which will not satisfy the scale for the model. It is a comparatively expensive material. Boxboard is consequently chose as the material for the model, while the limitation of boxboard is it is not waterproof.

In addition, the desirable material for construct the real world project is steel mainly. They are strong material and could be waterproof using specific techniques.

Fig B.5.3 Fig B.5.4 Fig B.5.5

Fig B.5.7 Fig B.5.8

Fig B.5.10

Fig B.5.12



51

Fig B.6.1

Fig B.6.2

SOLAR PANEL

SKIN 2SKIN 1

BOLTCAPPING

STEEL ROD

FILL GROUD LEVEL

SL82 REINFORCEMENTSTRIP FOOTING

1:5 ROOF CONNECTION DETAIL

1:20 GROUND CONNECTION DETAIL

Fig B.6.4 Fig B.6.5

Fig B.6.4-6.6 - http://stratco.com.au/products/solar/types/solatop/solatop.asp

WEEK 7 - Technique Proposal


52


B.6 TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

In terms of applying our group’s design to the site, we are going to use steel rods and bolts to connect the skins. Images on the left are some detail CAD drawings of the junctions. Strip footings will be used along both sides of the tunnel (Fig B.6.2). Steel angles are used to stable the skins. Fig B.6.1 shows that 33mm thick solar panels will be layered on the roof. Double-layered skins will be connected to the roof using bolts with colourbond capping at the corner. Fig B.6.3 is the detail drawing of the typical steel rod connection used between the double-layered skins.

Thinking about the EOI presentation, our group is going to emphasize the following points,• Diamond patterns – sharp angles indicate high speed• Change of pattern density – maximize site views, manipulate lights and air flows• Repetition of patterns – modern sense and being eye-catching• Solar power panels – diversify functions and being sustainable• Parametric approach – generate a discourseWe believe that the manipulation of patterns on the skins integrates with sustainable fea-tures (solar panels) on the roof is the conceptual and technical achievements of our design. Especially for the patterns on the skins, all of the vertex could be adjusted using parametric method, so that the amount of light and airflow on the site could be easily controlled based on humanized and technological considerations.

For the reason why the Wyndham City’s competition jury should choose us is that our proposal is generally more practical than others. It is not only a simple landmark, but sat-isfies both conceptual and sustainable purposes. Further, due to parametric approach is used, design features could be easily adjusted based on clients’ requirements. The limita-tion is the tunnel is now 200m long, which is a bit longer than other gateway designs. It may lead to be tight in budget. Therefore, the length could be shortened according to real world considerations.

Fig B.6.31:5 STEEL ROD DETAIL

Fig B.6.5 Fig B.6.6



53

WEEK 7 - Algorithmic Sketches


54


B.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES



55


56


B.8.1 GENERAL FEEDBACKWEEK 8 - Learning Objectives and Outcomes

• Trying to be concise (talking about the images).• Stop talking about the modeling stuff, the parametric model could help us generate some directionality to these openings, sense of direction and speed. Talking about the overall effect.• Focus on physical model, give us some solid sense.• Learning from the details and take them back to the design process• Huge, don’t need to be so big for the gate way, come up a particular argument for its crossing the road• Why do you want to the drives to feel speed? The intensity of the experience• The tunnel is too close to the road• Contrast between the vast openness space and suddenly entre this condensed volume, sound and light is increased, the consequence is the sense of speed increases.• Sense of arrival, it’s a gateway• Inject meanings behind all the process we have done so far, particular for the diamond, angles could reflect speed back to the driver.• Why two open ends, solid top• For the solar panel systems, use new technology, film over the entire thing, screen light• Show design before the constructional details (during the presentation)• Different patterns on double skins• Move through the space, create a sequence, which can actually experience, don’t need to be uniform. In-tergrade some more complexity.



57

B.8.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

WEEK 8 - Learning Objectives and Outcomes


58


Part B of this task provides us an opportunity to inte-grate our design process to the learning objectives of this studio.

Our group argument for the Gateway Project was estab-lished in B.1 Design Focus. It let us consider the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital technologies. The argument is being modifying all the way through the design process. Then in B.2 and B.4, a number of matrixes were produced with reason-able selection criteria, fulfilling the objective “develop-ing an ability to generate a variety of design possibili-ties for a given situation”. Later in B.3, we use various three-dimensional media (computational geometry, parametric modeling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication) to establish and explore our group’s design. After forming our argument and making a digital model, we made a physical model in B.5. It is an objective of developing “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere. In the later half of part B, constructional details were analysed in B.6 and followed by a formal presentation in the studio. Our ability to “make a case for proposals” was devel-oped through construction of rigorous, critical thinking and persuasive arguments.

Besides, we practice our ability for conceptual, techni-cal and design analyses of contemporary architectural projects through analyzing the precedents in B.2 and B.3. These theoretical research tasks widen our vision to the whole world and give us inspiration to the project design. Computational technology aids us during the design process, which make adjusting our design easier and being more innovative. Matrix in B.2 and B.4 give us an opportunity to develop foundational understanding of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming. By evaluating these computational geometry using the selection criteria, we would have a better understanding of its advantage, disadvantage and areas of application.

B.8.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

week8

Documents