Architecture Design Studio: AirABPL30048

Emma Sommerville541515

CONTENTS:

Introduction1.0 CASE FOR INNOVATION1.1 WEEK 1

Architecture as a DiscourseCasa BatlloEureka Tower

1.2 Week 2Digital Architecture

1.3 Week 3Parametric DesignSwissbau PavilionFuturopolis

1.4 Algorithmic Explorations1.5 Conclusion/1.6 Learning Outcomes2.0 Expression of Interest2.1 The Brief2.2 What is Tessellation?2.3 Precedents2.2 Case Study 1.02.3 Case Study 2.02.4 Technique- Development2.5 Technique- Prototypes2.5 Technique- Precedents2.6 Techniques- Proposal2.7 Learning Objectives and Outcome3.0 Gateway Project3.1 Design Concept3.2 Joint Exploration3.2 Material Exploration3.2 Construction Detail3.3 Model Fabrication3.3 Final Model3.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes/References

SPREAD:1

35

7-911

13-15

1719212325272931

33-373941

43-474951535557

59-61636567

69-7173-75

77

INTRODUCTION:

PREVIOUS LEARNING:

I have done both design studio prior to Air, they were Design Studio: Earth and Design Studio: Water. In both of these studios I did hand drawings because I feel comfortable and confident with hand drawings. I did use Rhino in my first year subject Virtual Environments although I only used the lofting tool and have not used Rhino since then. I have used InDesign to do presenta-tion and in Visual Communications to present also. I have never used Grasshopper and looking forward to learning it.

Hi Everyone,

My name is Emma Sommerville, I'm 20 years old and currently a third-year Architecture student at The University of Melbourne. I grew up in a small country town in the Southern Grampians where my parents still live. I attended high school at Monivae College, Hamilton and completed year 12 in 2010, I then went straight to university. Whilst in year 12 I did work experience at the Mel-bourne architecture firm Fender Katsalidis Architects. When I’m not at uni or doing study I enjoy hiking, play netball, catching up with friends, waterskiing and shopping!

1

1.0 CASE FORINNOVATION:

3

1.1 WEEK ONE:ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

“Architecture needs to he thought of less as a set of special material products and rather more as range of social and professional practices that sometimes, but

by no means always, lead to buildings.”Richard Williams, “Architecture and Visual Culture” in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Con-texts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 108.

The discourse surrounding architecture creates an incomplete and dynamic definition of architecture. Schumacher, Patrik (2011) has created a listed of the many discourses surrounding architecture; global societal developments to identify urgent societal tasks for architecture’s attention, advancement of architecture’s expert functional performance, innova-tively utilize the most advanced con-struction technologies, the expansion of architecture’s formal (organizational and articulatory) repertoire, aesthetic values, ever-evolving digital design tools for the advancement of architecture’s productive capacity, explication and advancement of architecture’s design process rational-ity, wider forms of professional practice, (popular) reception and utilization within society, social and political impact and responsibility and recuperating archi-tecture’s history. This list prompts theories and discussions to how to define archi-tecture. These discussions have led to the discourse and heterogeneous definitions surrounding architecture.

5

Personally I believe that no one will ever be able to truly define architecture as a term that can describe architecture throughout the ages and into the future. At given points throughout time architec-ture can be defined by what was impor-tant at that time and what the function of architecture was during this time. How-ever due to changes in style, functional needs, technology and other influences I don’t think that there can ever be just one definition for architecture. Architecture is an ongoing discourse and not only will the definition be forever changing but the discourse surrounding it will also change over time. Schumacher’s (2011) list may be extensive and well researched now but I think that over time this will change, how-ever not as rapidly as a single definition. Richard Williams (2005) endeavours to define architecture, however I believe fails to create an individual, strong and clear definition. Instead he ventures into the discourses, many of which Schumacher has labeled in his list which was created after Williams’ writings.

CASA BATLLO, BARCELONA, SPAINANTONI GAUDI

http://www.casabatllo.es/en[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

http://www.barcelona-apartments.pro/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Casa_batllo.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]

“The final result is there for all to see: an overwhelm-ing, evocative and suggestive masterpiece which has been known and admired for over a century. Myth or legend, Monet's water lilies, a carnival ex-pressed in the masks, the confetti effect, the roof like a Harlequin's hat, Saint George striking down the dragon, the sword, the skulls…”

http://www.casabatllo.es/en/history/facade/ [Viewed 12th March, 2013]

7

BUILDING AS A DISCOURSE:From the list of architectural discourses produced by Patrik Schumacher, 2011 I believe that this is essentially dis-course reflecting architecture's aes-thetic values. This building has amaz-ing aesthetic qualities, with the entire facade tiled with pieces of glass and ceramic discs to create a breathtak-ing mosaic. The building creates a sense of wonder and exploration and it pulls the viewer into what seems like an unreal world. This building creates symbolism and marks an important time in Barcelona’s cultural and artistic history. During this time period there was a travelling route known as the Passeig de Gràcia, this an avenue for the wealthy and many luxurious shops were along this avenue, and this rise in wealth in Barcelona at the time meant that money could be spent on extrav-agant architecture.

http://www.casabatllo.es/en/history/modernism-barcelo-na/introduction/

[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

The image below shows the la Manzana de la Discordia in Barcelona.

http://www.rajagopalan.net/spain2003/images/La%20Manzana%20de%20la%20Discordia.jpg

[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

There was already two existing build-ings on the block where the Casa Batllo was to be built, they were the Casa Amatller by Puig i Cadafalch and Casa LLeó Morera by Domènech i Montaner. Together these three buildings would be known as la Man-zana de la Discordia. Together they created historical landmarks through architecture that remind people of the time period when Barcelona was thriv-ing as a city and the cultural trans-formation of Barcelona took place. Casa Batllo is now open to the public and is praised for its intricate details unlike other buildings that were oc-curring around the world at the same time. Although different to the modern movement in the rest of the world at the time, this building was designed beautifully to match its surroundings and to create a piece of artwork that would mark a significant point in his-tory for its city.

At the beginning of the 19th century when this building was built was the time of the beginning of modern architecture and there was futurists that believed in every-thing that opposed this building. Antonio Sant’elia in the Messaggio (1914) wrote “And I oppose: Fashionable architecture of every kind; classical, solemn, hieratic, sceno-graphic, decorative, monumental, graceful, and pleasing architecture. The Casa Bat-tlo incorporated all of the elements that Sant’ella as a futurist opposed. Although this building was built very early in the 19th Century, the modern movement was well underway and other works around this time were beginning to show influences from modernism. Examples of other early 19th century building influenced by modern-ism are; Boke House by Bernard Maybeck (1902), Burroughs Company by Albert Kahn (1904) and A.E.G High Tension by Peter Behrens (1909-1910).

Left: Boke House by Ber-nard Maybeck (1902)Below: Burroughs Compa-ny by Albert Kahn (1904)

Left: A.E.G High Tension by Peter Behrens (1909-19010)

9

http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/finearts/architecture/history/graphics/behrens-aeg.jpg

[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/images/2006//0222a.jpg

[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/e6da7956-eb84-40f2-b7ff-ff027874ed55.jpg

[Viewed 12th March, 2013]

EUREKA TOWER, MELBOURNEFENDER KATSALIDIS

In the image above it is clear to see the differ-ent elements of the building; the gold glass, red stripe, horizontal lines and blue and white repre-sentation.

The image to the right shows the building in its surroundings, this image clearly show the city context in which the tower sits.

http://www.fkaustralia.com/project/s/name/eureka-tower/[Viewed 13th March, 2013]

11http://www.fkaustralia.com/project/s/name/eureka-tower/

[Viewed 13th March, 2013]

BUILDING AS A DISCOURSE:In Shumacher’s list of architectural dis-course I believe this tower can be placed into many categories. I believe two major types of discourse are dis-course concerned with the advance-ment of architecture’s expert functional performance, discourse reflecting ar-chitecture’s social and political impact and responsibility. Also I believe the symbolism created from this building is important to reflect the countries his-tory. The social and political impacts of this building are important because this building was at an important time when discussion around urban sprawl in Melbourne was occurring. This build-ing supports the belief that we need to build up instead of out. This building creates an example of how Melbourne can become a sustainable, high-density city. The functionality of this building is complimented with a range of environ-mentally friendly materials and equip-ment used as previously listed, such as double glazed windows to reduce heat and cooling by 40% and cross ventila-tion systems.

http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/eureka/ [Viewed 13th March, 2013]

The meaning behind this building begins its the name Eureka Tower, named after the Eureka Stockade rebellion in the Victorian Gold Rush. The gold coloured glass at the top of the building simply represents gold, the red stripe is for the blood shed. The horizontal lines on the building represent markings on a ruler whilst the white and blue is to boast the colours of the blue and white flag of the stockade. Although the public may not even know what this building symbolises or how it will change the future of Melbourne as a city, the outcomes from this building will soon be noticeable. This building is the beginning of what I believe will be many more skyscrapers for the Mel-bourne city skyline. Due to the social and political impacts of the building and the precedent is has created it is a turning point in the upwards building of this city. The actually meaning behind the building will come in time, much like the meaning and discourse created by the Casa Batllo now that it is a histori-cal landmark.

1.2 WEEK TWO:DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE

“They will never tire, never make silly arithmetical mistakes, andwill gladly search through and correlate facts buried in the endless heaps of information they can store.”Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture's New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 2.

The quote on the left hand side of the page is from Kalay (2004), proposes a reason as to why digital technology is so important to shaping the future of archi-tectural design. Computers have there pro’s and con’s as I will later discuss but for now I shall attempt to demonstrate my under-standing of the role of digital architecture. Digital architecture is creating new design spaces for architects to create elaborate, detailed buildings in a shorter time frame, at reduced costs and with more accu-rate detail. Since digital architecture has become dominant the actual designs of a building have changed from horizontal lines, and symmetrical shapes to organic, curved and free-flowing shapes and lines. The link between humans and computers can create a barrier for digital design, the process of getting the design information into the computer can be difficult. The un-derstanding of a program may not be the issue but the limitations of the programming and parameters set may hinder the design.

The images above and to the left show the digital technology used to create a functional design for the Channel Tunnel Railway Terminal at Waterloo, London, 1993 from the sketch drawing on the previous page.

Kenneth Powell, Structure, Space and Skin: The Work of Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners, ed. Rowan Moore (London; Phaidon Press Limited, 1993), pp.34.

Kenneth Powell, Structure, Space and Skin: The Work of Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners, ed. Rowan Moore (London; Phaidon Press Limited, 1993), pp.32-33.

13

Kenneth Powell, Structure, Space and Skin: The Work of Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners, ed. Rowan Moore (London; Phaidon Press Limited, 1993), pp.34.

This is a sketch taken from the design process of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim museum. This sketch shows the process prior to us-ing computer technology.

http://tharidarattanajaturon-arch1390-2010.blogspot.com.au[Viewed 19th March, 2013]

In contrast to my previous comments I do believe that these kind of pro-grams can often limit creativity and should not be the only media used during the design process. Again re-ferring to Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum, the design process and sculptural elements to this building were completed before the build-ing itself was beginning to take any structural components.

Computer programs and technology are an important part of architec-ture because they assist when do-ing complex designs and to present work neatly. Different programs such as Rhino, AutoCad. Revit etc.. are use in a wide range of practices and are embraced in the architec-tural world. An example of the use of technology and how this has changed architecture is the Gug-genheim Museum by Frank Gehry. This design is a great example of how computers are used during the design process to create structures from complex sketch drawings and ideas.

15

These programs and the technology that come with them have revolution-ized architecture and have paved the way for more complex ideas and design. They are a stepping stone in the design process and can often lead to different results that what the user initially had in mind. This cre-ates a new design process, instead of a simple one directional process it has now become a dynamic process bouncing back and forth between stages and lessening what used to be time-consuming stages.

ADVANTAGES OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES:

DISADVANTAGES TO COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES:Many complex designs and detailed structures have been made without the help of these programs. I also believe that these programs can be limiting depending on ones knowl-edge of the program. Personally I prefer using hand-drawing because I fell more comfortable, although generally this is much more time con-suming.

1.3 WEEK THREE:PARAMETRIC MODELLING

“..scripting affords a significantly deeper engagement between the computer and user by automating routine aspects and repetitive ac-tivities, thus facilitating a far great-er range of potential outcomes for the same investment in time.”Mark Burry Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), pp. 8.

Parametric modelling and scripting techniques have both advantages and disadvantages in the architectural design process. The term “Parametric” is taken from a mathematical context and now used in the architectural world with an unclear definition, much like that of the definition of architecture itself. Scripting allows an architect to take away these parameters placed on a design due to a certain programs limitations and knowledge. An architect must first understand the rules surround-ing scripting to then have the ability to create their own scripts to suit the de-sign they wish to complete. As Mark Burry (2011) states “..scripting affords a sig-nificantly deeper engagement between the computer 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.” This deeper engagement is created from the user understanding what exactly is happening during the

17

scripting process and how they can manipulate this process to their ad-vantage. By copying an existing script a user can alter and use this script to create a new one so long as they can understand what was occurring prior to their input.Copying a previous script to manipulate can become quite difficult, especially if it was a different user that created it. The Parametric Technology Corpora-tion describes the limitations of reusing a model: “Even after a model is created, other designers can’t easily modify the design because they don’t possess the knowledge about how it was created and the original design intent” Another disadvantage to parametric modelling is front- loading. This is when a designers creates a model before knowing some constraints and elements, therefore a lot of time and effort can be put into a design with then more effort required to accommodate for these constraints after the initial design process.

SWISSBAU PAVILIONETH

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Swissbau Pavilion, designed by ETH, was created to showcase the potential of digital production chains. The form is created from a sphere of 2m and the height of the object is 3m. Four wooden boards are put together to create a series of quadrilateral wooden frames.

http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/D2p/SwissBau/swissbau.jpg[Viewed 26th March, 2013]

PARAMETRIC DESIGN:The adaptive geometry was created by an interactive program which uses simple rules to simulate the growth of a quadrilateral mesh on a sphere. “The edges try to align with the positions of the predefined openings and the floor level, while at the same time every mesh attempts to optimise its size and angles.” Whilst the simulation is occurring using these rules, the user can influence the geometry being created at any time. This creates a geometry of nodes and edges which then must be ex-ported and used as the base for the digital chain. ETH exported these nodes and edges into VectorWorks where 320 wooden frames, with a total of 1,280 parts were generated into a 3D model. The parts are then broken down into stencils for the assembly process.

19

The image to the left shows the details inside the Pavilion where the separate quadri-laterals join.

http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/Main/Swiss-bauPavilion/inside_detail.jpg[Viewed 26th March, 2013]

FUTUROPOLISDANIEL LIBESKIND

PROJECT INFORMATION:Futuropolis is a sculpture put together by architect Daniel Libeskind, designed to assist first-year business students at the University of St. Gallen in visualising the “City of The Future”. The sculpture consists of a total of 98 towers, all ranging in height with the tallest standing at 3.8m.

http://www.vectorworks.net/edispatch/Vol46/futuropolis_lg.jpg[Viewed 26th March, 2013]

21

This image to the left is the stencils laid out ready to be used to cut the

pieces. http://archgraphics.pbworks.com/f/

Inspiration+Report.pdf[Viewed 26th March, 2013]

PARAMETRIC DESIGN:The towers are created by using a triangular grid pattern and applying this pattern at a 25 degree angle. This created approximately 2000 polygons and needed 600 wooden boards to construct. The algorithms for this project were created by a program called VectorWorks and by us-ing this program it assisted in significantly re-ducing the construction period and therefore the cost of the project. VectorWorks created a complex geometry consisting of 2,164 parts which included the bases upon which the towers stood upon. VectorWorks could even accommodate for last minute material thick-ness changes and alter the entire construc-tion according in just minutes. After the design was completed the team set out a series of stencils to assemble the pieces

1.4 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATION:

During the first 3 weeks of this subject I have learnt many new techniques in Rhino and Grasshopper. To the left are images taken from my two favourite algorithmic explorations. The first set of images (image 1A, 1B etc.) are taken from a Gridshell exercise. I began with three simple curves as shown in Image 1A and then used the control points to manipulate these curves in Image 1B. Then using Grasshopper I divided these curves and created arcs than ran between the curves as seen in Image 1C and also the lines adjacent to the curves in Image 1D. From this stage I then lofted the curves to create a surface as shown in image 1D.

In the second set of images (Image 2A, 2B & 2C) I cre-ated a rotated tower. First I created a ellipse in Rhino, and then I used the move and series commands to cre-ate a number of levels in the Z direction which can be seen as the horizontal lines in image 2C. To rotate the tower I first used rotate and then I used a range with difference Pi to 1, The effects of the rotate can be seen in all three Images. Once rotated in then moved the tow-er in X-axis using a linear graph. Different graphs types would alter the way the tower would move in the X-axis.

23

Image 1A Image 1B

Image 1D

Image 1C

Image 2B Image 2CImage 2A

1.5 CONCLUSION:

After learning new programs and a more dynamic approach to design I want to incorporate my usual sketches and hand-drawings into the design process. During the design process I will first draw sketches and schematic designs with pencil and paper and once I have an understanding and a direction for my design I will then move onto the computer-aided design to feed my ideas and designs into the computer and them alter them as needed. I believe this is the best design approach to ensure that the designer has a clear under-standing of what elements must be included in the design and how to best approach any constraints in the design. By then using the computer once the ideas have been clearly described the user has somewhere to start from to then go back and forth within the design process and develop a design that is not only functional and buildable but is also aesthetically pleasing.

25

1.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Since the beginning of the semester my ability to use computation in architecture has increased significantly. Before this subject I knew only the very basic commands of Rhino, mainly only how to loft, and I had never seen, let alone used Grasshopper. I have found some parts of the programs time-con-suming because I didn’t fully understand why I was doing certain things. However, my understanding has grown and became more in-depth which has helped me create designs that are a lot quicker than hand drawings. This knowledge would have been very useful in my previous design subjects to reduce the amount of time spent on hand drawings and I then could have spent more time exploring possibilities and altering my design to create more functional and intriguing buildings.

2.0 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST:

27

2.1 The Brief:

The Brief

Wyndham City is pleased to invite submissions for the Western Gate-way Design project to create a Gateway into Wyndham for city bound traffic on the Princes Freeway. This project is an opportunity to capitalise on the success of “Seeds of Change” Gateway, located at the eastern interchange, and create an equally compelling installa-tion. The proposed site for the Western Gateway offers a high expo-sure location to those entering the urban precinct of the municipality, as well as to those travelling along the freeway.

Wyndham City is seeking responses from design professionals for the design and documentation of an exciting, eye catching installa-tion at Wyndham’s Western Gateway. We would like to take this op-portunity to thank you for your interest in this initiative organised by Wyndham City, and encourage and challenge you to develop a proposal that inspires and enrich the municipality.

Key Components of the Brief:Wyndham CityGatewayCompelling installationHigh exposure locationExciting, eye catching installationInspires and enrich the municipality

Collectively as a group we agreed that tessellation is a very compelling design area which can be effectively used to fulfill the Western Gateway Design project. To ef-fectively implement tesselation into the design we need to study precedents which incorporate tessellation to get some creative ideas for our own project.

The different aspects of the precedents that we decided would be benefi-cial to the Gateway Project are:

Variation- Variation in the design this will assist in achieving a compelling in-stallation because this variation draws the observer in and makes them want to know more about the object.

Use of Light- The use of light can catch the observers eye and make the ob-ject more exciting by creating different perspectives by lighting up parts of the objects and darken other parts from the observers view.

Multiple Viewing Perspectives- Because the driver will be coming from different directions and always be moving around the object it must achieve its desired results from every angle.

Curved structure with rigid tesselation components- By using a curved sur-face we are still able to create a fluid and dynamic object. The tesselation how-ever and its joins will create the rigidity of the structure.

29

2.1 What is Tessellation?:

“Tesselation involves the repeated use of a single shape without overlapping.”

Who uses tesselation? Precedents featured next in this article have shown us ways in which we can use tesselation in the Gateway Project to create a compelling installation with is both exciting and eye catching. The precedents we have chosen are the EXOtique by PROJECTiONE, the VoltaDom by Skylar Tib-bits and the Shellstar Pavilion by MATSYS. All of which have used tesselation to create dynamic and eye catching pieces.

How is tesselation compelling?Tesselation is compelling because it pulls the observers in by follow-ing the direction of the tesselation. The observer follows the repeti-tion of the shape and is then confronted with the realisation that this shape is what in fact makes up the entirety of the structure. The observer then continues to view the object as a whole and can then appreciate the surface on which the tesselation is projected onto.

Tesselation is buildings is commonly used on the facade and is not used as a structural component of the building. However in installa-tions and artworks such as our brief requests, tesselation can often be used as the structure of the object. The results in tessellation be-ing the main components of the object, simply the surface on which it is projected needs to be manipulated.

Our design development and exploration is done by altering the shape which is tesselated but majority of it is by manipulating he surface or object on which the tesselation is projected onto.

31

2.1 Precedents:

PROJECTiONE- EXOtique Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA

EXOtique was designed and created by PROJECTiONE with the help of students from the Institute of Digital Fabrication.¹ The design was created using Rhino 3D along side with the plug in, Grasshopper. There were constraints on all time, budget and site (ceiling of the architecture building at the school) so by using Rhino and Grasshopper their time was utilised.² The designers wanted to created a “simple hexagonally based, component system that would act as a lit ‘drop ceiling’ for the space, as the ceiling height would allow for quite a bit of varia-tion in the surface.”³ Due to the restrictions outlines in the brief, PROJECTiONE decided that tessellation would be used as a solution. The repetitiveness of the tessellation is lost due to the curving surface of the ceiling and the way in which artificial light has been used throughout the project to create move-ment and keep the eye constantly taking in new images.

33

EXOtique’s Achievements in Tesselated De-signThe variety of the project is created by curving the surface rather than using variety of the pattern projected onto to the surface.

The lighting of the projected has been distributed correctly and is imperative in linking with the curved surface to create the variety. The lighting used in this design will be very helpful when we come to lighting our project.

2.1 Precedents:

35

Shellstar Pavilion’s Achievements in Tesselat-ed Design The Shellstar Pavilion creates a double side structure which can be passed through and aroundThe design is soft and fluid do to the long, connected curved surfaces and by the soft lighting used.

MATSYS-Shellstar PavilionWan Chai, Hong Kong

The intention of the Shellstar Pavilion is to create an area for festival attendees to come together.¹They wanted to create a structure that was iconic and to achieve this, the design must be compelling for the audience to remember such a structure. By using Grasshopper and Kangaroo MATSYS was able to de-velop and iterate a design, fabrication and assembly in merely 6 weeks. There were 3 stages to the design process that were decided by the digital modeling techniques they used. These stages were; form finding, surface optimization and fabrication planning.² There is approximately 1500 individual cells that make up the structure and all of which are slightly non planar.³This project also uses light to emphasis the variety within it, much like the EXOtique project. However, this structure does have larger openings than the EXOtique which allows light to pass through the project differently. Also in the Shellstar the light is running along the surface so that it floods out either side of the structure, unlike the EXOtique which projects through the structure because of its 2D form and positioning on the ceiling.

2.1 Precedents:

37

VoltaDom’s Achievements in Tesselated De-signVariety is created by using both the structural elements of the project and also the changing size and shape of the tessel-lationThe project uses all elements possible to create an eye catch-ing and exciting installation.

Skylar Tibbits- VoltaDomMIT, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts, USA

The VoltaDom is based on the double vaulted design used in the inside of a cathedral.¹ When moving through the VoltaDom it is easy to see the constantly changing surface, along with the change in shape and size of the tessellation and the joints created by the tessellation. This project embraces its structural elements by using the joins of the tessellation to create sharp edges and changing rotation of the panels. The fluidity and smoothness is nowhere near that of the Shellstar Pavilion how-ever the exciting nature of this project and its use of tessella-tion is very useful to us for our Gateway Project. This project goes hand in hand with the previous two and by merging the elements which make up these projects which allow us to begin our design argument.

In Case Study 1.0 we chose to recreate the VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits. We began with the definitions given simply on a 2D surface. We then did further explorations by moving this definition onto 3D surfaces and also by changing the shape projected onto the sur-face from cones to spheres and cylinders.

2.2 Case Study 1.0:39

In Case Study 2.0 we recreated the Shellstar Pavilion by MATSYS. We were able to project the hexagonal tubes between two surfaces however our actual recreation of the Shellstar surface was not successful. This did however force us to explore many different surfaces which is shown throughout this matrix.

2.3 Case Study 2.0:41

2.4 Technique- Development:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

The Technique development stage of the process was com-pleted by choosing our favou-rite designs that both looked good and expressed the quali-ties we wanted to express from Case Study 2.0. By using our already explored Grasshop-per definitions we were able to narrow down our starting points and achieve a structure and pattern that was suited to our ideas taken from the brief. Our favourite techniques from these developments were then chosen for prototyping and site ap-propriation. The developments we liked the most and agreed possessed the best qualities to convey our argument were de-velopment “A”, “C” and ”E”. Devel-opment “A” is quite simple using

a 2D grid with the honeycomb surface and using an attrac-tor point to create different size hexagons. This allows for material and light exploration, also the differing size hexagons allows many options to be ex-plored. Development “C” is us-ing more complex surfaces and 3D hexagons to create curving hexagons which are dynamic and eye-catching. Development “E” is much bulkier and heavier than the previous two chosen and therefore the material cho-sen and use of light would have to be used correctly to create a dynamic structure. Develop-ment “G” was a significant turning point in our design and will be analysed more extensively as we move towards our final design.

43

2.4 Technique- Development:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

45

In Case Study 2.0 we began ex-ploring with the idea of project-ing of the honeycomb pattern onto two surfaces. This technique involves creating long hexago-nal tubes between two surfaces which we have created. By using this technique we are able to ma-nipulate the surfaces and there-fore the direction of the tubes. The development of this technique was through the manipulation and cre-ating sweeping surfaces that al-lowed the fluid movement of the 3D shapes. As a vehicle moves towards this it appears flat, unmoving and two-dimensional.

The development in Figure 3 and 4 appear to be very simple but also very effective. It began in Case Study 2.0 when we decided to use paneling tools by creating a two-dimensional paneling grid and then projecting this onto a lofted surface. These panels when then trimmed out of the surface and tessellation was created using subtraction. Fur-ther development of this technique was by using attractor points which ultimately changed the size and the shape of the hexagons to give the surface more variety. We believed this approach would be very effective to use in the Gateway Project because when the vehicles moved past the structure its would always be different depending what was occur-ring on the other side of the structure and how light would pass through it. To further develop the surface we decided to change the rotation of the panel and also to curve the surface which would alter and restrict the views of the observer.

Once the observer is close enough to actually see the structure they will begin to notice that it is in fact much more than they originally ex-pected. On approaching they will notice that it is in fact a dynamic piece which is made up of many hexagonal tubes. When directly across from these tubes they will be able to view the cars coming on the opposite side of the free-way and also depending on the positioning of the sun, the light-ing which is entering the tubes will be altered. At night time the cars on the opposite side of the free-way will alter the way in which the structure us viewed.

2.4 Technique-Development:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

47

from an aerial view but not at the height of the driver.

After we discovered that we liked the design on the surface we knew that we had the tessellation that we wanted, we just needed to apply it to a surface that was more visible to the driver and that could identify the change in density when moving from Wynd-ham to the City and also from the City to Wyndham.

These four images to the left were crucial points in the development towards our final design. Figure one and two were created first by making a surface from the contours that make up Site A in the brief and then applying the tessellation pattern to this surface. The tessellation can be altered by moving around the sliders in the grasshopper definition to change how many hexagons are placed onto the surface, the sizes of hexagons and the sizes of the cut out of the hexagons,

This was a significant develop-ment because we found the definition which we believed best suited our design, however we found that this design was great

Figure three and four show how we tried different objects to project the tessellation onto so that they were more visible for the driver. We discovered that we really liked these objects and that they would create a gateway, they were visible to the driver and the tessellation pattern was able to represent the changes in density.

Both of theses objects however were not dynamic enough and did not create the fluidity and smooth direction that we first agreed on in our brief dissection.

2.5 Technique-Prototypes:

Figure 5Figure 4

Figure 3

Figure 1

Figure 2

49

Figure one, two and three is the surface which was created using 1mm mount board. As explained in the develop-ment this surface was made from the site contours, so when placed back on the site it sat quite low and was not rep-resenting our design the way we want-ed, Figure three shows what the driver would see and the change in density is lost due to the flattening of the surface.

We then moved to the more sphere shape (shown in figure four and five). We chose to make this over the tau-rus because although it was not at the stage we wanted it to be, it demon-strated dynamism and fluidity better than the taurus object. In figure five the change in density idea is represented much more to the driver than the sur-face prototype.

Figure 6 Figure 7

Our prototype is the beginning of a honeycomb pattern projected on a surface. This is projected simply on a flat surface to begin the exploration of the honeycomb pattern. Then they were created between simple rectangular surfaces with further exploration being completed by creating sweeping sur-faces much like the Cell Cloud.

In our own prototype we explored the cut out technique on card (Figure six and seven). This was a fairly simple tech-nique but it did not necessarily main-tain the exact surface form which was made using Grasshopper. The surface is much more straight and has lost it’s curve. The design appears very static and is not dynamic or fluid. Further ex-ploration using thicker card might be needed either that or a more plastic material can be used to maintain the curved form. The experiments with differ-ent light sources created very dynamic shadowing on the ground surface and really enhanced the form of the proto-type.

2.5 Technique-Precedents:

Brosalin K., Sokolov D. & Beliy A “Kartonsk”The fabrication of this design was by using a clip scaled to the rest of the model to join together each of the individual cells. Each cell is a different size and therefore the cells cannot be simply mass produced, instead they must be produced individu-ally. To create a more fluid and undulating project custom joints would have to be made at each connection. In this design they used card to create the entire project. However if we were to use a similar fabrication approach we would have to use a different material such has wood due to durability.http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/06-1

Helbert Suarez & Remi Melander- “Cell Cloud”The “Cell Cloud” installation (Figure 4) was created by Helbert Suarez and Remi Melander in and exhibited in the Tent London, 2012. This project allows us insight into the way in which light, colour and materials can create a fluid and dynamic piece of art. The installation uses both white and blue polypropylene which allows the light to easily pass through. The lights and hexagons below the piece allow the form of the piece to be still appreciated even with the extensive directional changes and sizing changes of the many hexagons. This project allows us to view the types of materials that would be suitable by choosing these types of designs. The polypropylene is the best solution for this type of design because wood or metal would make the installation lose its fluidity and it would also become very bulky and harsh. http://www.evolo.us/architecture/cell-cloud-installation-helbert-suarez-remi-melander/

Figure 1- Kartonsk

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM151K_Wake_by_Richard_Serra_Seattle_Washington

Richard Serra’s “Wake”Much like development technique “A”, Richard Serra’s “Wake” designed for Seat-tle’s Olympic Sculpture Park, is put together by large metal panels which appear to be coming out from the ground.¹ This ‘large panel set into the ground’ idea is using the same fabrication and assembly techniques as what we would use if we decided to fabricate technique “A”. The “Wake” project uses thick metal sheets which have been placed onto steel platforms with concrete poured over the top for reinforcement. The material chosen has rusted naturally over time and this material would help us to create a design which is always changing due to its natural degradation. The metal will be able to be curved into place and bent to achieve our intended design. The exploration of these already existing projects allows us to gain insight in what has already been successful and how

certain materials react.

51Figure 4- Cell Cloud

Figure 2- Wake Figure 3- Wake

2.6 Technique-Proposal:

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5

These images were placed on site earlier in our development process so that we could see how we were progressing in terms of the site. These designs were to bulky and harsh and therefore did not represent the dy-namic and fluid movements we were hoping to achieve. They did not achieve a gateway effect and looked like random objects placed on the site.

53Figure 6

Figure four and five reiterate the lack of density represented in the sur-face model. Both are rendered images of the surface that have been placed back on the site where it is obvious that the driver will not be able to see the changes in density, which in turn takes away the fluid and dynamic elements of the design.

The rendered image of the sphere (figure six) shows how the density change in this design is much more visible. Because the object is higher it is easier for the driver to see the design elements and also the object as a whole. This image also shows that the sphere is not dynamic enough and potentially even to ‘simple’ as a form.

2.7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes:

55

Throughout Case Study 1.0 and Case Study 2.0 as a group we were able to create a definition of how we wish to respond to the brief and also how we are going to convey the ideas that we have chosen important within the brief. By choosing tessellation as our design influence we have been able to nar-row down our explorations and create a clear definition of what we want to achieve. The VoltaDom and the Shellstar Pavilion allowed us as a group to be able to explore our three-dimensional programing skills and also learn many new skills. Prior to Case Study 1.0 and Case Study 2.0 all of our group members had very basic skills in Rhino 3D and Grasshopper. Due to trial and error and many explo-rations we were able to gain a better understanding of Grasshopper and also use many other plug-ins such as WeaverBird and LunchBox. The two images on the right show a fail attempt at using Kangaroo Physics, however the pattern on the surface is created by using WeaverBird.

Research using both precedents and also looking at projects that have used the same techniques as ours has helped our group to gain a better under-standing on the use of materials and also how to best distribute light in, around and on the structure.

3.0 GATEWAY PROJECT:

57

3.1 Design Concept :

HIGH DENSITY

LOW DENSITY

SITE A

Wyndham City is a low density area, not only in terms of popula-tion but also in terms of its structural and industrial elements. In contrast the City has a very high density population and also many structural and industrial elements. The freeway is the main mode of transition between the City and Wyndham so this is a great place to reiterate this change of density.

To relate our design to Wyndham and to make a gateway to and from Wyndham we decided to use the change in density between Wyndham and the City as the main idea to support our argument and to connect it to Wyndham. We decided that we could best represent this change in density through our original design concept of tessellation.

59

CONTOURS

HEXAGON

+

HEXAGON

VERTICALITY

DIFFUSION

+

+ HEXAGON

VERTICALITY

DYNAMIC FORM+

+

Concept One: Concept Two Concept Three:

Concept one, two and three above are three of the most pivotal design con-cepts and approaches which led us to our final design.

The hexagon pattern is used in all three concepts because this is what we found the most effective from our earlier generative ideas. The other elements of each concept then changed as our design developed further to enhance and best represent our design concept.

Concept one displayed the density change from an aerial view however from the drivers perspective this could not be interpreted. To allow the driver to view the density change we knew we had to create a more vertical object which brings us to concept two. Also in this concept we enhanced the diffusion to further the representation of density. We wanted a more dynamic form, which ended us at concept three. This form made the viewer not just look around the shape horizon-tally but the viewer also follows the form vertically to the very tip of the teardrop.

FEEDBACK FROM THE CRITICS:- Connection to Wyndham and the site

- Unsure on the definition of tessellation

- Unsure of our design concept

ANALYSIS OF CRITIC REMARKS:In relation to the connection between the City of Wyndham and the site I be-lieve that this was demonstrated in our design concept, which in turn the crit-ics seemed so be somewhat confused about. I believe our connection with the site and Wyndham is purely through the change in density which occurs along this freeway. To help the critics understand better, our presentation may have needed to give a clearer understanding of how we chose to use tessellation to represent this density change and also how our model had actually repre-sented this from the diffusion of the hexagons.

The critics state that we had interpreted the definition of tessellation incor-rectly and told us that tessellation was 3D objects repeated and could not be a planar surface. However our precedents, which are commonly known in the architectural language as using ‘tessellation’, are 2D objects repeated over a planar surface.

3.1 Design Concept :

61

WHERE THE DESIGN COULD GO FROM HERE...

- Light and the effects of light on the teardrop could be investigated further. Also the effects headlights would have on the model.

- More exploration into the material used to clad the steel structure, including the costs, reflectiveness, shine, surface texture and material behaviours.

- Better definition of the design concept and the idea of density change.

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS:-In-situ concrete slab-Construct base of teardrop- Bold the base of the teardrop into the slab- Continue to construct the remainder of the steel structure. - Clad the exterior steel structure

3.2 Material Exploration:

Figure 1- Clear Persepex

Figure 2- 0.6mm White Card

Figure 3- 5mm Foam Core Board

After exploring the use of clear persepex to represent our design we discovered that due to the transparency of the material this resulted in a loss of the clarity of tesselation. This would have de-feated the purpose of our design approaches. We did like the re-flectivity of the persepex and felt as those this would be beneficial in our design.

The 0.6mm white card was a great thickness and represented our design the best. Because the card has no transparency it is easy to identify the tesselation pattern and it also curves easily to accommodate for our design. The card however does not have any reflectivity which was an ele-ment we discovered we believed would enhance our design from the other explorations.

The 5mm foam core board was much to thick and due to this we felt as though the design concept was compromised be-cause it was no longer fluid and dynamic, instead it had become bulky and disjointed. The foam core did not curve well and the only effective way to curve the material was to create breaks in the joins, this also resulted in a disjointed and no longer fluid representation.

Figure 4- 1mm Balsa Wood

Figure 5- Clear Perspex and 0.6mm White Card

The 1mm Balsa Wood created clean and seamless curves which strongly represented our design. Miuch like the card its lack of transparency also enhanced the design by creating a clear representation of tesselation. However the wood was also quite difficult to curve and its rough, non-reflective surface did not effectively show the fluid and dynamic concept we were trying to achieve.

The main aim of alternating the clear persepex and the card was to reiterate that by using a transparent material the tessela-tion design did not reach its full potential and that a non trans-parent material was much more suitable to strongly put forth our desired outcome.

Figure 6- Titanium Surface

After our material exploration we decided that it would be best to use a reflective, non transpar-ent material. We decided to use a steel structural system and to then clad this system with titanium (figure 6) or aluminium to keep costs down. By using a cladding system we believe that this is the best way to achieve the surface area that best represents our de-sign concept without compromis-ing the integrity of the structure.

63

3.2 Joint Exploration:

Figure 3- Tie Joint

Figure 4- Tie Joint

Figure 1- Tab Joint

Figure 2 - Tab Joint

Tie Joint:

Tab Joint:The tab joint, shown in Figure one and Figure two, is simply put a tab along the sides of one surface and then joining the surfaces by lay-ing the ‘tabless’ surface on top of the tab and bringing together the two surfaces.

This joint created a stable and self supporting structure, however due to the changing size of the hexagon cut out in the tesselation the tabs may become visible when the surface area is lessened. Were the surface area is lessened the structural integrity of the tabs may be compro-mised if they are made small enough so that they are not visible.

Also the tabs cause the surface to no longer be flat because the ‘tabless’ surface sits higher than the surface with the tab on it. This effect looked messy and the fluidity of the design was lost.

The tie joint, Figure three and Figure four, is done by punching holes near the joins and then using a tie to bring together the two surfaces.

This join was not stable enough to create a self supporting structure and many of the joins were left with gaps which looked messy and compro-mised the design concept.

Aesthetically this joint type is not optimal be-cause as seen in Figure three the facade of the object is compromised from the punctures and the ties.

Figure 5- Teeth Joint

Figure 6- Teeth Joint

Figure 7- Double Tab Joint

Figure 8- Double Tab Joint65

Teeth Joint:

Double Tab Joint:

The teeth joint, Figure five and six, is an inter-locking system which involves teeth attached to both surfaces and when the surfaces came together this teeth cross between one another to join the surfaces together.

This join was not clean with many gaps ap-pearing between the surfaces. This may have been due to cutting and assembly precision, but it did look messy and disjointed. In a larger scale the precision again will have to be exact and due to construction allowances this may not be able to be achieved and this would then compromise the design concept.

The double tab joint, Figure seven and eight, is tabs on both surfaces which are adjacent to the surface and then easily come together to create a com-pletely self supporting structure.

This join was very clean and the sur-faces came together without gaps. The tabs are not visible when the surface area is lessened due to it being adja-cent to the surface.

We decided to use this join type in the construction of our model.

3.2 Construction Detail:

GALVANIZED STEEL FIXING PLATESTEEL BOLTS

STEEL CONNECTORS

TITANIUM CLADDING 5MMGALVANIZED STEEL FRAME

GALVANIZED STEEL FIXING PLATE

ALUMINUM INTERIOR CLADDING 5MM

CLADDING JOIN

OUTSIDEINSIDE

CLADDING SYSTEM INTERIOR ELEVATIONINTERNAL CLASSING SYSTEM ELEVATION INTERNAL CLASSING SYSTEM SECTION

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ESK

ED

UC

ATI

ON

AL

PRO

DU

CT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRO

DU

CED

BY A

N A

UTO

DESK

EDU

CA

TION

AL PR

OD

UC

T

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 1- Construction Detail

Figure one (above) shows how the object will be constructed when it is full scale. We decided to use the double tab joint, the same as what we used in the smaller 1:50 model. For extra support we put bolts through the tabs to ensure there is no movement and so the object remains self supporting. There is also a steel plate placed where four sides of a hexagon come together to create stability in the join and again to ensure that no movement occurs in the joints.

The figure also shows that the structure of the object will be steel, this is that create a strong base and self supporting structure. There will then be a clad-ding attached to this steel structure so that a reflective, clean and smooth surface can be used to coincide with the design concept.

Figure 2- Footing Detail

67

Figure two (above) is a vertical section to demonstrate how the object would be fixed on site. There has been no site or soil investigations so we are assuming it’s a normal site with no fill or water problems. First a slab must be laid, with reinforcement, on the site with enough surface area to attach the base of the teardrop to the slab. The bottom of the teardrop will need to be constructed first and a steel plate will be placed on top of this. This will cre-ate a sandwich effect with the steel plate on top, the structure in the middle, with the slab then on the bottom. Steel bolts will be drilled through the steel plate, then the structure and the bolts will then screw into the slab to fix the structure onto the slab.

3.3 Fabrication:

2019

1312

1817

1415

16

1

3

6

78

2

9

5

1110

4

Figure 1

Figure one (not to scale), is the Rhino3D file that was sent to “TheMakeLab” to be laser cut. It was sent over 2 pages, to be printed onto 0.6mm Ivory Card. We were informed that the tabs may be too small and that the assembly process may be difficult as a result. Due to time constraints we did not have to time alter the file and then resend it through.

We did get the file printed on clear persepex also as a test, however this was not successful and only a portion of the object could be constructed.

69

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure two, three and four demonstrate how the unrolled components are then joined together. The curve was quite easy to recreate, once we started putting the separate components together it began to take shape itself, as you can see in figure four.

Figure five and seven show how small and intricit our design was. The tabs did pose a problem when we went to construct the model, however with tweezers and quite a lot of patience (ALOT) we were able to persevere to create a delicate and dynamic model.

We constructed the model in three components, one component is shown in Fig-ure six, to create the curve. This then made it easier to put the three separate components together.

3.3 Fabrication:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

These images further demonstrate how the model was constructed in three different components and then joined together.

From figure one to figure four you are able to see how the curve of the model was created, mostly from simply putting together the unrolled com-ponents and then we glued the ends together and had to put paper clips in so that it would hold for long enough for the glue to dry and for the model to bend in to place.

Figure two, three and five are the bottom component of the teardrop shape.

71

Figure 4

Figure 5

3.3 Final Model:

Figure 1- Render One Figure 2- Render Two

Figure one and two show the digitally rendered images of the object that we created.

In these digital renders the surface of the teardrop has been altered so it has a higher reflectivity and the lighting has been placed to optimise this reflectiveness.

Figure 3- Model One

Figure 4- Model Two

Figure 5- Model Three

Figure 6- Model Four Figure 7- Model Five

73

The final model ended up exactly how we wanted it and we also managed to fix it to a foam core base (to represent the slab) in a similar way that the actual object would be connected to the slab.

By not making the tabs bigger earlier in the fabrication process it did pose difficulties in the assembly process, however by doing so the final result was much cleaner and when looking through the hexagon cut outs to the opposite side the tabs are hardly even visible.

To connect the teardrop to the base we placed a square piece of foam core inside the teardrop and then stitched this through a hexagon cut out and then into the bottom foam core slab.

3.3 Final Model- On Site:

Figure 1- Teardrop model on site

75

Figure 2- Teardrop render on site

Figure one and two demonstrate where on the site the teardrop would be placed. We chose to put it on the top of the mound so that it is most visible for the drivers. Figure one is the physical mod-el and figure two is the digital render of the teardrop. The digital render better represents the reflective surface we would hope to use for the teardrop.

3.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes:

From the beginning of the semester I have learnt a lot about computation in archi-tecture and how it has revolutionised the architectural world. I have been able to apply computation to my own design ideas and also increase my three-dimension-al programing skills. From the first set of algorithmic sketches in the Case For Innova-tion part of this journal to the development of my final design it is easy to see how much my skills have improved.

I have found in previous learning, architecture must always have a meaning and I strongly agree with this idea. I have found with computational architecture that this still applies, however due to the unpredictable nature of the design process I found myself creating designs just because they “looked good” and it is difficult not to do so. This creates buildings and design with little or no meaning and therefore the discourse around architecture will change completely. The beginning of this journal discusses the meaning of architecture and how this meaning is created, and even after copious amounts of digital technology I still believe that I will take away the meaning of architecture.

Many designs done digitally are also very difficult to construct and once the ac-tual structural integrity of the design is considered, the design concept and intent is then considerably compromised.

77

References:

Richard Williams, “Architecture and Visual Culture” in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005)http://www.casabatllo.es/en [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.casabatllo.es/en/history/facade/ [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.barcelona-apartments.pro/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Casa_batllo.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.casabatllo.es/en/history/modernism-barcelona/introduction/ [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.rajagopalan.net/spain2003/images/La%20Manzana%20de%20la%20Discordia.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/e6da7956-eb84-40f2-b7ff-ff027874ed55.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/finearts/architecture/history/graphics/behrens-aeg.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/images/2006//0222a.jpg [Viewed 12th March, 2013]http://www.fkaustralia.com/project/s/name/eureka-tower/ [Viewed 13th March, 2013]http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/eureka/ [Viewed 13th March, 2013]Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004)Kenneth Powell, Structure, Space and Skin: The Work of Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners, ed. Rowan Moore (London; Phaidon Press Limited, 1993)http://tharidarattanajaturon-arch1390-2010.blogspot.com.au [Viewed 19th March, 2013]Mark Burry Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley, 2011)http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/D2p/SwissBau/swissbau.jpg [Viewed 26th March, 2013]http://wiki.arch.ethz.ch/twiki/pub/Main/SwissbauPavilion/inside_detail.jpg [Viewed 26th March, 2013]http://www.vectorworks.net/edispatch/Vol46/futuropolis_lg.jpg [Viewed 26th March, 2013]http://archgraphics.pbworks.com/f/Inspiration+Report.pdf [Viewed 26th March, 2013]http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/06-1http://www.evolo.us/architecture/cell-cloud-installation-helbert-suarez-remi-melander/http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM151K_Wake_by_Richard_Serra_Seattle_Washington