Final Journal: Doug Brock

ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO: AIRDOUG BROCK 540549

W

Thanks to my group members, Ben Galea and Roxanne Dowling, and to my tutors, David Lister and Michael Wu.

INTRODUCTION

1. THE CASE FOR INNOVATION 1.1 Architecture as a Discourse 1.2 Computation in Architecture 1.3 Parametric Design 1.4 The Case for Innovation 1.5 Algorithmic Explorations 1.6 Learning Outcomes 1.7 References

2. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST 2.1 Design Focus 2.2 Case Study 1.0 2.3 Case Study 2.0 2.4 Technique: Development 2.5 Technique: Prototype 2.6 Technique: Proposal 2.7 Algorithmic Sketches 2.8 Learning Outcomes 2.9 References

3. PROJECT PROPOSAL 3.1 Design Concept 3.2 Tectonic Elements 3.3 Final Model 3.4 Project Conclusion 3.5 Algorithmic Sketches 3.6 Learning Objectives and Outcomes 3.7 References

CONTENTS

1.0

THE CASE FORINNOVATION

My name is Doug Brock, I’m 21, and currently in my 3rd year of my Bachelor of Environments, majoring in Architecture.

As a kid, I always loved drawing or writing, or anything creative, but my favourite thing in the entire world was playing with Lego, and maybe thats why I now study architecture.

Probably the thing which was most influential on me choosing to go into architecture, was travelling to Europe when I was 15, and seeing the old traditionally styled buildings of Rome, England and France, and then having that all turned completely on its head by Gaudi’s La Sagrada Familia.

I love being outdoors and have a real interest in nature, and I think that this has been very influential on my design work so far, and probably will continue to be.

My experience with architectural design so far is mainly through more traditional processes, such as designing a cultural centre in Studio: Earth, or a cafe based on an existing architects style in Studio:Water. The most experience I have with digital architecture is through Virtual Environments, which was essentially a computerisa-tion of clay model, followed up with more-so computational panel-ling.

I really enjoy the conceptual side of design, so the theoretical aspect of this subject appeals to me, and although I still have a lot to learn about parametric design, I’m looking forward to seeing how I can best express my ideas using Grasshopper.

INTRODUCTION

W

The discourse of architecture is as architectural as any physical form or design.

W

The term ‘architecture’ can be understood to be more than just the profession of building design, but also as a discourse (a discussion or conversation). This discourse occurs through the reception of the physical forms of architecture, as well as the ideas informing the design.

Architecture can be seen as “the most public of the arts.”1 It is a way of communicating concepts about society and culture, as well as tradition or innovation, or can be an expression of art, aesthetics and new ways of thinking.2 In this way, archi-tecture is as much a social, cultural or philosophical disci-pline as it is a material one.3 Through built and unbuilt forms, ideas are being visually and conceptually expressed back and forth; a conversation being held through medium of architec-ture. This discourse is as architectural as any physical form or design.

If architecture is a discourse of social ideologies, then the concepts of our current society are best expressed through the most innovative and contemporary architecture.

The Wyndham City brief calls for an innovative design to “propose new, inspiring and brave ideas, to generate a new discourse.”4 As the discourse of architecture is informed by social and cultural ideas, the architecture of this project should be informed by the culture of the Wyndham City so-ciety.

1.1 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

1 Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. By Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102-196. (p. 102)2 Patrik Schumacher, ‘Introduction : Architecture as Autopoietic System’, in The Autopoiesis of Architecture, (Chichester: J. Wiley, 2011), pp. 1 - 28. (p. 18)3 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 1034 Wyndham City, Western Gateway Design Project, (2011), pp. 1-13 (p. 5)

If architecture is an expression of social ideoligies, then surely the most innovative and contemporary ways of thinking are best expressed through

the most innovative and contemporary architecture.

The use of innovative architecture allows for social or cultural concepts to be con-veyed and to generate a new discourse. Designing architecture without any inno-vation does not relate that building to its own modern social context. The depic-tion of social ideas can be seen through existing architecture.

The roof of the Smithsonian Institute, designed by Foster and Partners in 2007, and which won the award for ‘New and Old’ at the World Architecture Festival Awards,5 uses innovative parametric de-sign to contrast the traditionally styled Patent Building, completed in 1867. This creates a discourse about innovation and its place in architecture, by contrasting new and old architectural styles.

The roof uses an increasingly new way of designing; computational parametric design. The roof was designed using computer coding, which allowed the ar-chitects to generate the geometry, con-trol structural and acoustic performance, to state fabrication data for manufactur-ing, and to constantly modify the model during the process.6 This is a strikingly innovative way of design, when com-pared to the roofs surrounding buildings, which were designed as a revival of clas-sical architecture.

The discourse this generates is a chal-lenge of traditional understandings of ar-chitecture, and the social change that has brought about this physical change. This new way of computational design is “a new distinctive architecture of formless-

ness that questions existing notions of built space, its aesthetics, and utility.”7 If this is what this new architecture does by itself, than the juxtaposition of this new architecture amongst the Smithsonian Institute magnifies this challenge. This particular project has been described as literally a “dialogue between the old and the new,”8 depicting the “evolution of democracy”9 in America. This design is seen as “symbolising the cultural signifi-cance of the Smithsonian Institution”.10 There is more to this design than just physical aspects; it is a literal representa-tion of the changes that have occurred in American society.

Tihis project is commonly referred to in theoretical discussions of new paraemet-ric architecture.

5 World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: Exacting a Transformation,’ (2008) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10559> [accessed 13 March 2013]6 Foster and Partners, ‘Smithsonian Institution’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution> [accessed March 12 2013]7 Branko Kolarevic, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-10 (p. 4)8 Zach Mortice, ‘Museum Courtyard Glides Through the Ages’, AIArchitect, vol. 14 (2007) <http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/1221/1221d_portrait.cfm> [accessed March 13 2013]9 Ibid.10 World Architecture News

1.1 architecture as a discourse

The Ordos Art and City Museum is one such building that creates a similar dis-course between the old and the new, while conveying the innovation of mod-ern society. Designed by MAD Archi-tects and built in the new city of Ordos in Mongolia, the building is part of the city’s push forward to modernity, and is designed as a form of contrast with its straighter surrounds.11 It is designed as a shell, to “protect the cultural history of the region and refute the rational new city outside.”12

This design is inspired by more than just aesthetics; it is derived from larger social concepts, and the desire to convey these to the public. As with the Smithsonian Institute, it is about conveying modern culture through innovation. Within the Ordos, there is an existing social “con-

flict between people’s long standing tra-ditions and their dreams for the future.”13 This museum is intended to reflect both the city’s innovation and tradition, and to be “familiar yet distinct.”14

There is also an architectural discourse with this museum, as it was inspired by Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Domes. 15This is an interesting use of an old con-cept of modernity. Fuller’s domes were a representation of what modernity might be, but the morphing of the more geo-metrically rigid dome into a less form-less structure conveys how innovation has surpassed old concepts of modern cities.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of both the Smithsonian Roof and the Ordos Museum is that they are both museums.

The museum is a “cultural consensus.” 16 It is a place where ideas of culture are conveyed, whether past or present, and where people come to experience these cultures, and it is significant that the cul-tural practice of architecture is so central to the museum.

Both the Smithsonian Institute and the Ordos Museum are conveying social mo-dernity through the contrast of innova-tive architecture with cultural tradition. Clearly, as shown through the deliberate use of modern architecture in these two cultural buildings, there is a cultural dis-course associated with architecture, and the innovation of society is now being reflected in physical form.

11 ArchDaily, ‘Ordos Art and City Museum,’ (2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/211597/ordos-art-city-museum-mad-architects/> [accessed 21 March 2013] 12 World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: An Oasis in Ordos,’ (2011) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=18003> [accessed 21 March 2013] 13 Dezeen, ‘Ordos Museum by MAD,’ (2011) <http://www.dezeen.com/2011/12/13/ordos-museum-by-mad/> [accessed 21 March 2013] 14 Ibid.15 World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: An Oasis in Ordos,’16 Jeremy MacClancy, ‘The Museum as a Site of Contest,’ in Focaal, 29 (1997), pp. 91-100 (p.91)

1.1 architecture as a discourse

W

“Having abandoned the discourse of style, the architecture of modern times is characterised by its capacity to take advantage of the

specific achievements of that same modernity: the innovations offered to it by new

technology and science.” 17

IGNASI DE SOLA MORALES

W

1.2 COMPUTATION IN ARCHITECTURE

Branko Kolarevic refers to the ‘Information Revolution’ as the zeitgeist of our times;18 the spirit of our age is reflected in almost everything innovative about modern life. He claims that “these new forms raise profound and necessary ques-tions of an aesthetic, psychological and social nature,”19 and that the use of computation in architecture represents “an ideological, conceptual and formal break.”20

Computation is an innovative aspect in architecture, and is the method which best captures our technological culture. Computation is the use of computers for generative design, not simply using a computer to manifest a preconceived design. The use of computation in architecture reflects so-ciety’s technological innovation, and these “digital genera-tive processes are opening up new territories for conceptual, formal and tectonic exploration,”21 which is exactly what is required within the brief.

The Wyndham Gateway Project calls for an innovative de-sign to represent its modern culture, and computation is the most innovative aspect of contemporary architecture, and should therefore be used to design the gateway.

17 Branko Kolarevic, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, p. 318 Ibid.19. Ibid, p. 420 Ibid.21 Ibid, p. 7

Computation embraces the digital zeitgiest, and expresses societies innovative thinking through architecture.

The generative processes of computation allow for experimentation, invention, and the creation of new forms, as a re-sult of new fabrication technologies that have developed due to digital advances.

The Driftwood Pavilion, designed by Danecia Sibingo, Lyn Hayek, Yoojin Kim, and Taeyoung Lee of AA, utilises computational technology to create an architectural form that was not able to be created without the use of computers. While this design may have been able to be sculpted and then computerised, the

use of computation methods allows it to be generated, altered and programmed continually in a way which leads to a much more complex form.22 Using digi-tal software, this pavilion was designed in a way which was not possible with traditional architectural methods.

The AA Driftwood Pavilion is an ex-ample of what computation allows us to design. More complex forms can be created, but it is interesting that this de-velopment in architecture also allows us to create the sort of forms that are previ-

ously only found naturally, such as this Driftwood Pavilion.

This project used Grasshopper software to control and manipulate the form of the pavilion, to produce a form which has not been achievable through tradi-tional architectural practices. The proj-ect is described as one that “provides a thoughtful, provoking reminder of the UK’s inextricable link to the sea,”23 and in the minds of the architects, there is a social discourse conveyed through this architecture.

1.2 computation in architecture

22 Dezeen, ‘Driftwood by AA Unit 2,’ (2009) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/> [accessed 22 March 2013]23 World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: AA Summer Pavilion Unveiled,’ (2009) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=11949> [accessed 22 March 2013]

I think there is perhaps another interest-ing social ideology at play here, and one that is quite paradoxical. Perhaps the desire to create something which seems so natural and connects to our past is re-flective of far removed we now feel from these thing because of technological de-

velopments. However, computers are now so prominent in our live, that they are what we use to convey this.

If architecture is a discourse of social concepts, then the use of this advanced computation conveys how engrained

computers and informational technolo-gies have become in modern society.

Achim Menges used computational meth-ods to design and build his ICD/ITKE Re-search Pavillion, built in Stuttgart, 2011.

This pavilion was informed by the skeletal structure of a sea urchin, particularly using specific notches to connect each pavilion in mimicry of the sea urchins shell, in order to experiment with the abilities of these joints to create space.24 The concept is to recreate the load bearing capacity of the sea urchins shell using specific finger jointing and ge-ometries, which means that a lightweight structure can still be built while completely self-supporting.

As the research group state, “Form find-ing and structural design are closely in-terlinked.”25 However, this can only be re-alised through computational methods. The key idea of this experiment is “the transfer of biological principles (to architecture) by means of… computer based design and simulation methods.” 26 This cannot be done through simple computerisation, due to the simulations which are run and the changes that they will create, so a computational method is used. Robert Woodbury notes

that it is integral in computational design that “parts of a design, relate and change to-gether in a coordinated way.”27 These simu-lations affect various constraints in specific ways, recreating these biological effects.

The use of computation in architecture does not occur simply because it is trendy, fashionable or different, it occurs because it offers the ability to experiment, optimise and explore new types of architecture. Computation is the most innovative of the contemporary architecture, as it has moved past just the simple use of computers (com-puterization). However, what truly makes the digital world and computational design so useful in architecture is its most funda-mental and basic, yet potentially complex, component: information.

It is perhaps a fair argument to state that neither of this pavilions are ‘architecture’ due to their lack of usable space. Howev-er, I think that there are still value to their architectural processes and itents that will still be relevant to the Western Gateway project.

24 Dezeen, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart,’ (2011) <http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stutt-gart/> [accessed 26 March 2013]25 Achim Menges, Achim Menges,’ (2011) <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5123> [accessed 26 March 2013]26 Ibid.27 Robert Woodbury, Elements of Parametric Design, (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 7-48 (p. 11).

1.2 computation in architecture

W

“Computational design is inherently related to information, which is integral to parametric design.”

W

1.3 PARAMETRIC DESIGN

Parametric design is notoriously difficult to define, but it can be viewed as design based on specified constraints, with in-dividual aspects of the design relating to one another, and therefore changes affecting each aspect. Constraint based design has arguably existed for centuries, and “computers are simply a new medium for this ancient enterprise.”28 It is through the use of computation that these constraints and re-lationships can now be mathematically informed, and begin to perform as informational defined systems.

The designer must be willing to define these constraints and relationships prior to any further design works, in order to design the underlying logic behind the design, and to deter-mine how manipulations will affect the information.29 Be-cause of its informational nature, parametric design is often very algorithmic, and therefore, due to the processing powers of computers, it is best done through computation.

The Gateway Project design brief requires an innovative in-stallation, and parametric design is at the forefront of innova-tive computational architecture. Parametric design will allow aspects of structure, fabrication, form, aesthetics, lighting, materiality, cost, and conceptual framework to be integrated into the one installation, effectively fulfilling each require-ment of the brief through a single innovative method of de-sign.

28 Robert Woodbury, Elements of Parametric Design, (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 7-48 (p. 7)29 Ibid, p. 22

Through the use of new informational technologies, parametric design allowsus to design in ways which have not been previously possible.

The Dragonskin Pavilion, built by LEAD in 2012, uses parametric design and al-gorithmic constraints in its design and fabrication process, with computer tech-nologies used to fabricate the digitally designed panels; a process which the architects refer to a “file-to factory.”30 The pavilion is formed by only 163 inter-locking bent plywood panels. In particu-lar, the construction process is aided by parametric design, with each individual structural slot being precisely defined in angle by an algorithmic process, some-thing which would not have been pos-sible through more traditional methods. 31 The pavilion uses the natural structural

properties of its plywood panels to create a free standing structure.

The diagrams below show how the pan-eling of the structure has been derived from a simple grid, which has been para-metrically altered to optimise its struc-tural performance, as well as its formal aesthetics. It also uses a complex label-ing system in which every piece and joint is individually labeled, assisting the construction.32 This precedent shows the value of parametric design in fabrication and construction, not just as an aesthetic way of designing. This is a great exam-ple of mass-customisation, where each

panel is individually specified through an over-arching pre-defined parametric system.

Once again, this is not traditional archi-tecture in that is not actually a buidling. However, as a research experiment, this is not it’s intention. It still does produce space and form, and its design could inform aspects of larger architectural buildings, or even our own Project.

30 Evolo, ‘Dragonskin Pavilion is a Digitally Fabricated Plywood Scultpture’, (2012) <http://www.evolo.us/architecture/dragon-skin-pavilion-is-a-digitally-fabricated-ply-wood-sculpture/>31 Ibid.32 Ibid. 1.3 parametric design

The Voussoir Cloud is an installation designed by Iwamoto Scott Architects in 2008. The purpose of this project is to “intentionally confuse,”33 by produc-ing an entirely compressive structure with ultra-light materials, instead of the more traditional mass materials. The use of parametric design is paramount in this project, with relationships between structural properties, form, geometry and voids all related and constrained, done through computational scripting.34

The curved shape of each panel, or “pet-als” as the architects refer to them, are related to their adjacent voids, with the

triangular curve petals formed by this relationship act as a structural masonry wedge.35 The structural system is mod-eled based on the concept of tensile hanging chains, which then produce the vaulted form. This chain system is refined and adjusted using parametric modeling within Rhino.36 The density of panels also relates to structure, with more petals placed at points of higher load bearing capacity, and sparser panel-ing on the canopy.

The reason I have chosen these two prec-edents in relation to the Gateway project is that they use parametric design to de-

fine the most simplistic structural way to form a space out of single materials, and that while there is a real aesthetic to the their forms and plays of light, they are a simple installations. I think that they have a lot to offer the Gateway Project design in terms of structure, form and light.

33 Dezeen, ‘Voussoir Cloud by IwamotoScott,’ (2008) <http://www.dezeen.com/2008/08/08/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott/> [accessed 1 April 2013]34 Triangulation, ‘Voussoir Cloud,’ (2011) < http://www.triangulationblog.com/2011/06/voussoir-cloud.html> [accessed 1 April 2013]35 Dezeen, ‘Voussoir Cloud by IwamotoScott,’36 Triangulation, ‘Voussoir Cloud,’

1.3 parametric design1.3 parametric design

W

“The WesternGateway should propose new, inspiring and brave ideas,to generate a new discourse.” 37

WYNDHAM CITY COUNCIL

W

1.4 THE CASE FOR INNOVATION

Why innovation? What does innovative architecture have to offer this specific project?

The brief calls for the project to generate a new discourse. As has been discussed, architecture is formed by social concepts, and therefore, to generate a new discourse, the architecture should be informed my modern concepts. Modern concepts are best expressed through the most innovative contempo-rary architecture.

The most predominant aspect of modern society is the digi-tal zeitgeist, which is why computational methods should be used. These methods are at the forefront of architecture. They allow architects to design in an innovative way in which has not been previously possible. However, it is not enough only that we design with computers because they we can; it is the informational nature of computers that makes them truly use-ful in design.

The relationships between specific design constraints can now be defined and refined through parametric design, lead-ing to the most innovative design solutions that architecture has to offer. It allows the architect to create forms, structures and spaces which perform in a directed way.

By discussing architecture as a social discourse, with digital technology defining modern society, and information leading to innovation, the case has been made that innovative archi-tecture, similar to that outlined by the argument and the prec-edents, is the architecture that should be used for the Western Gateway project.

37 Wyndham City, Western Gateway Design Project, (2011), pp. 1-13 (p. 5)

1.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS

Fig. 1. Voronoi 3D cells creating form.

Fig. 2. Voronoi 3D cells in wireframe.

Fig. 3. Creating framing through offsetting.

Fig. 4. Lofting using arcs; enables fabrication.

Fig. 5. Creating sections using contouring, allows for to be expressed through multiple components.

Fig. 6. Sectioning with contours.

Fig. 7. Fractal geometry using tetrahedrons and scripting of relationships

1.5 algorithmic explorations

W

W

1.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES

The main learning outcome of this assignment for me was changing my perspective on computational or parametric de-sign from something that was simply stylistic, to something that was actually purposeful.

I’d previously seen this architecture as something that was only being done to show that it could (and to be honest, I sometimes will still see this in certain projects). I was pret-ty sceptical about the whole field, particularly in terms of construction and fabrication, although that’s not to say that I completely disliked every project in this field.

By studying the precedents, engaging in the literature, and exploring the programs, I have started to realise that there are reasons and benefits for this way of designing that I hadn’t understood. I didn’t realise how parametric design could make such performance efficient buildings, which were sim-ple to fabricate and construct, and that had actual design con-straints and criteria informing the design. I hadn’t understood the vast amount of design problems that computers were en-abling architects to solve, but I think the concept which prob-ably ‘converted’ me the most was thinking of digital technol-ogy as the spirit of age, and for me that really helped put into an architectural context.

This isn’t to say that I’m a perfect ‘convert’, because I think I am still a little bit sceptical about certain things, such as how much of this architecture has only been used as research or exhibitions, and whether it is still as useful in real architec-tural projects.

ArchDaily, ‘Ordos Art and City Museum,’ (2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/211597/ordos-art-city-museum-mad-architects/> [accessed 21 March 2013]

Dezeen, ‘Driftwood by AA Unit 2,’ (2009) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/> [accessed 22 March 2013]

Dezeen, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart,’ (2011) <http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-re-search-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/> [accessed 26 March 2013]

Dezeen, ‘Ordos Museum by MAD,’ (2011) <http://www.dezeen.com/2011/12/13/ordos-museum-by-mad/> [accessed 21 March 2013]

Dezeen, ‘Voussoir Cloud by IwamotoScott,’ (2008) <http://www.dezeen.com/2008/08/08/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott/> [accessed 1 April 2013]

Evolo, ‘Dragonskin Pavilion is a Digitally Fabricated Plywood Scultpture’, (2012) <http://www.evolo.us/architecture/dragon-skin-pavilion-is-a-digitally-fabricated-plywood-sculpture/>[accessed 1 April 2013]

Foster and Partners, ‘Smithsonian Institution’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution> [accessed March 12 2013]

Kolarevic, B., ‘Introduction’, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-10

MacClancy, J., ‘The Museum as a Site of Contest,’ in Focaal, 29 (1997), pp. 91-100 (p.91)

Menges, A., Achim Menges,’ (2011) <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5123> [accessed 26 March 2013]

Mortice, Z., ‘Museum Courtyard Glides Through the Ages’, AIArchitect, vol. 14 (2007) <http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/1221/1221d_portrait.cfm> [accessed March 13 2013]

Schumacher, P., ‘Introduction : Architecture as Autopoietic System’, in The Autopoiesis of Architecture (Chichester: J. Wiley, 2011), pp. 1 - 28.

1.7 REFERENCES

Triangulation, ‘Voussoir Cloud,’ (2011) < http://www.triangulationblog.com/2011/06/voussoir-cloud.html> [accessed 1 April 2013]

Williams, R., ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. By Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102-196.

Woodbury, R., Elements of Parametric Design, (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 7-48

World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: AA Summer Pavilion Unveiled,’ (2009) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=11949> [accessed 22 March 2013]

World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: An Oasis in Ordos,’ (2011) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=18003> [accessed 21 March 2013]

World Architecture News, ‘Editorial: Exacting a Transformation,’ (2008) <http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10559> [accessed 13 March 2013]

Wyndham City, Western Gateway Design Project, (2011), pp. 1-13

2.0

EXPRESSIONOF INTEREST

W

‘SEPARATION WITHOUT ISOLATION’The nature of this gateway is that it both defines the distinction and

connection of the places it sits between.

W

2.1 DESIGN FOCUS

Having made the case for innovative architecture for the Wyndham Gateway, there now has to be a case made for what type of innovative architecture is most suitable for this specific project.

The Wyndham City Council project brief calls for a gateway design which will “provide an entry statement and arrival experience,” with the site being “located near the edge of the Wyndham urban growth boundary.”38 Conceptually, this gateway is a transitory boundary between Wyndham and the rest of Melbourne, while still being experienced as its own place. The nature of this gateway is that it both defines the distinction and connection of the places it sits between. This gateway will be representative of Wyndham socially being a part of Melbourne, while reinforcing itself as unique. This led my design group to the conceptual framework of ‘separa-tion without isolation’; the idea that the design should repre-sent the separation between Wyndham and other municipali-ties, without isolating it from Melbourne.

This ‘separation without isolation’ idea should be experi-enced spatially, but should also be conveyed through other means. The innovative use of parametric sectioning will not only embrace “inspiring and brave ideas,”39 but will further highlight the design concept that while Wyndham is a sig-nificant part of Melbourne, it is also its own place.

Alongside this, the individual discourses of our group mem-bers were the definition of architectural space and form through the use of sectioning, as well as the discourse of social concepts conveyed through physical architecture. We felt that sectioning was a suitably innovative and appropriate way of designing the Wyndham Gateway.

38 Wyndham City, Western Gateway Design Project, (2011), pp. 1-13 (p. 5)39. Ibid.

Setioning will further highlight the concept of this gateway beingboth a boundary and a connection between Melbourne and Wyndham, as

well as suiting many requirements of the brief.

The design focus for this project is to create a gateway which is both physical and abstractly separate but not isolated from either of its neighbouring areas. Sectioning allows for this ‘separation without isolation’ to be more abstractly conveyed by composing a single uni-form gateway from smaller individual elements. The use of sectioning also al-lows more physical aspects of the design brief to be met, including the framing of views and readability at high speeds.

To understand how sectioning has been innovatively and successfully used in ar-chitecture, there must be an examination of the precedents.

One Main Street, designed by dECOi Architects in 2008-2009, uses paramet-ric design to inform it formal design as well as the way in which that forms is sectioned and fabricated.40 Using a para-metric model which relates specified functions to surface deformations, the script creates a “continuous surface in-flected by function.”41 These functional

inflections include aspects such as venti-lation and glass connections influencing the curves of the floor and roof forms.

The surface is then sectioned, with the surface being “assembled into apparent unity from many highly accurate cus-tomised parts.”42 The sectioning process is not just aesthetic; it allows for the more simple production and construction of a curved form, it allows for that form to readable in a different way, and the use of computational scripting allows for all this to be done in very accurate way. As with the curved form, the sections are related to function, with areas requiring greater air flow flaring outwards to cre-ate larger spaces between each section.43

The Webb Bridge in Melbourne, de-signed by Denton Corker Marshall with artist Robert Marshall, also uses the sec-tioning of a curved tunnel-shaped bridge to convey its form.44 The steel grid uses circular rings to create the main form, with steel framing also running in the other direction to emphasise its cured

shape.45 The architects also claim that this bridge was designed to frame views, with a “sculptural, dynamic and transi-tory form.”46

However, the most significant aspects of One Main Street and the Webb Bridge in relation to the Wyndham Gateway are what I see as their sculptural image, it’s “aspirational intent and feeling,” and that it is “original and engaging in form,” as outlined in the design brief.47 This type of sectioning is innovative both in visual performance and physical characteris-tics, and is able to satisfy many of the brief requirements, such as its sculptural qualities, its “experiential”48 qualities, and its conveyance of an abstract idea linked to Wyndham’s place in Mel-bourne.

That the use of sectioning is able to sat-isfy these requirements makes it highly suitable as an innovative design focus for the Wyndham Gateway Project.

40 dECOi Architects, ‘One Main Street’, (2012) <http://www.decoi-architects.org/2011/10/onemain> [accessed 24 April 2013]41 Ibid.42 Ibid.43 Ibid.44 Australian Institue of Architects, ‘Webb Bridge,’ (2010) < http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=20053006 > [accessed 24 April 2013]45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Wyndham City, Western Gateway Design Project, (2011), pp. 1-13 (p. 4, 5)48 Ibid.

2.1 design focus

W

In order to create our own sectioned gateway design, there must be a basic understanding of how these sectioning techniques can be

parametrically achieved.

W

2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

The purpose of Case Study 1.0 is to explore and analyse an already existing parametric sectional precedent. By experi-menting with the Grasshopper script for the project, and ana-lysing the results of these experiments, a better understand-ing of the project will be developed. This more informed understanding will prove vital when it comes to producing our own projects using similar techniques.

By changing a variety of parameters and components in the scripts, and seeing what physical changes they produce, we should be able to understand how that project is created.

Therefore, by understanding how this particular project is created, we should be able to understand the main aspects of producing a sectional parametric design in a more general way, and then put this into place with our own project.

The project we have chosen to study for Case Study 1.0 is the BanQ Restaurant, designed by Office dA architects.

2.2 case study 1.0

CASE STUDY 1BanQ Restaurant: Office dA

Boston 2006-2008

The BanQ Restaurant was designed by Office dA, using a sectioning technique that can be parametrically altered in vari-ous ways.49

The Grasshopper script below shows the various components and their con-nections used in the case study, with the matrix exploration on the next page depicting what physically changes when the parametric inputs are changed.

The essential proccess for the case study is creating a point grid on a referenced surface. Using the image, points are se-lected depending on whether they fall

within the black or white regions, and these points are moved vertically in ei-ther an amplified way or an additive way. This means that some points are at a higher Z-dimension than others. From this altered grid, a NURBS surface is created.

Using the original referenced surface, a series of perpindicular lines are cre-ated, which are then projected onto the NURBS surface. These projected lines are used to section the urface, with pla-nar surfaces being formed.

The components which have the most ef-

fect on the final design outcome, and are therefore the ones which will be experi-mented with in the matrix exploration, are the grid dimensions, the extrusion of the grid from the surface, the amplifica-tion of selected grid points, the number of sections (PFRAMES) used, and the black and white reference image.

49 ArchDaily, ‘BanQ: Office dA,’ (2009) < http://www.archdaily.com/42581/banq-office-da/ > [accessed 10 April 2013]

TECHNIQUE 1GRID DIMENSIONS

TECHNIQUE 2EXTRUSION

OUTCOME 1

OUTCOME 2

OUTCOME 3

OUTCOME 4

OUTCOME 5

OUTCOME 6

NOTES

Altering the dimensions of the surface grid changes the sharpness of the surface. With less grid points, the lofted surface is smoother due to the reduction of informa-tion.

The extrusion changes the distance be-tween the surface and the base plane which it is projected from.

TECHNIQUE 4SECTIONS

TECHNIQUE 3AMPLIFICATION

TECHNIQUE 5REFERENCE IMAGE

Amplification is the amplitude of the curves in the surface. Using a higher amplotude results in greater contrast be-tween the peaks and troughs.

The amount of sections used determines the readability of the overall form. With two few sections, the form is not so clear, but with too many sections, the sectional effect is lost. A balance is required.

The reference image determines what grid points will be amplified. By chang-ing the black and white reference image, varying forms can be prduced.

W

Reverse enginnering will allow us to build our own understandingof how to achieve parametric sectional architecture.

W

2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0

After having experimented with the sorts of components and combinations of components used in sectional architecture, the next challenge is to understand how to use these tech-niques in our own way to create our own design.

The purpose of Case Study 2.0 is to completely reverse en-gineer an existing project without the scripting that was pro-vided in Case Study 1.0, and to therefore be able to build our own algorithms for our own design project. Through ex-perimentation, we will be able to understand how to achieve certain design aims or implement constraints that will actu-ally be useful in the next stages of our design process and by reverse engineering a precedent from scratch, we will learn what components are and aren’t useful, and therefore be able to build an algorithm which is suitable to our design.

The precedent we have chosen for Case Study 2.0 is the Out-door Sculpture by the Washington University School of Ar-chitecture.

CASE STUDY 2.0Outdoor Sculpture: Washington University School of Architecture

Washington, 2012

The Outdoor Sculpture was a University group project, which was parametrically derived using the patterning that defines the concave areas.50 This pattern is based on the skin patterns similar to that of giraffes and snakes (known as reticula-tion,) which is a genetically self-gener-ating pattern, which informed the form-making process.51

While the genetic aspect of this project was a little outside our grasp, we could still use it to recreate the processes of form making and sectioning.

The method we used, at its most basic, was essentially the morphing of an initial spherical form, followed by the subtrac-tion of the concave shapes. Inevitably,

as we went on, this became increasingly more complex, but still followed the same basic direction.

We began by referencing in a single sphere, so all alterations occured to this brep. We then began our morphing pro-ces, which began with the non-uniform scaling of the sphere into an ellipsoid.

From this point on was probably the most challenging. We aimed to recreate the twisted form, but weren’t entirly sure how to do it. We tried all sorts of grid components, intending to alter the grid (and therefore the surface) as we had in Case Study 1.0. While we felt we were on the right track, this ultimatley did not work for this example.

We eventually found a ‘Twisted Box’ component, which allowed us to twist the form inside a box, which was being defined by 8 moveable points.

From here, we applied a surface grid to reference our cut-outs from. We tried several boolean components, but found this too regular, and so settled on a ‘Pop-ulate Geometry’ grid. By controlling the amount o f points, we could control the amount of concave areas.

We then referenced in non-uniformally scaled ellipsoids, and then using the ‘Trim Solid’ component, we subtracted them from the overall form. It was then sectioned using the methods learnt in Case Study 1.0.

50 Evolo ‘Parametric Explorations for an Outdoor Sculpture,’ (2012), < http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-explorations-for-an-outdoor-sculpture> [accessed 17 April 2013]51 Ibid.

2.3 case study 2.0

EXPERIMENTATION:

This was our initial approach, where we hoped to be able to didivide the

ellipsoid surface into a grid, and then move individual points. We

then hoped to create a new surface from these points, but this approach

did not work.

We continued with this idea of using grids or points to manipulate the surface, by using a component which allowed control over the

control points of a NURBS surface, but mov-ing on with this component was something we

We eventually discovered the ‘Twisted Box’ component, but using it successfully took quite a lot of experimentation. Too

much twisting in transformation resulted in surface problems like the one above, so we ultimately

had to use a progression of slighter transformations.

The disorder in our grasshopper script is reflective of our process of continuous experimentation.

FINAL PROCESS:

1. Uniform sphere. 2. Non-uniformally scaled into an ellipsoid.

3. Morphed by twisting the surrounding box.

4. Morphed again by repeating twisting method.

5. Populating surface with grid points.

6. Referencing ellipsoids to point grid.

7. Subtracting smaller ellipsoids out of the larger

form.

8. Dividing form into individual sections.

2.3 case study 2.0

By the end of the process, I felt that we had resulted in a relatively similar out-come to the actual Outdoor Scultpure, but of course with many difference.

The major differences in my mind was the variation in form and the variation in the forms that were subtracted. We did not discover how to control each indi-vidual element that was subtracted, how-ever we did have some ideas which we were not able to successfully do. Perhaps a list or sequencing could have been used to have more control of their shape, size and location.

We did not create as variable overall form, perhaps due to the fact that we

were using a very geometrically simple form to twist it. We were also unable to recreate the white sections inbetween the larger wooden ones.

While our reverse engineered outcome was quite different, I think it still con-veys a similar effect and visually looks reasonably similar to the original. Our outcome is perhaps much more simple, due to the the lack of complexity in our process compared to the self-generating processes of the precednt.

For our own project, I think that starting of with more complex geometries will allow for a more sculptural object, and a more interesting outcome. The aspect of

this case study that I found particularly useful and promising was the subtraction of one form from the other.

This subtraction ties in well with the idea of ‘separation without isolation.’ By subtracting one form from another, we should be able to create a space which is still defined by the form it was taken from, but is also its own spatial area.

The images below show the similarities and differences of the original project and our reverse engineered project.

W

“Instead of searching the solution space for the solution to a problem... look for a solution to the problem.”52

YEHUDA E. KALAY

W

2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

After using Case Studies 1.0 and 2.0 to develop an under-standing of how these sort of designs are created, we began to develop our own technique which could be used to meet our aims.

With the intention of moving towards our design focus (the ideas of sectioning and ‘separation without isolation’), the main aspects we drew from the studies was different section-ing techniques and different form making techniques.

The sectioning can be changed by altering the direction they face, changing the distance between each section (or the amount of sections), and eventually the different orientations of individual sections. By developing techniques for making these changes, we will be able to have more control over our design proposal.

The technique which we developed for creating our form generally consists of defining a form and then subtracting from it. The way in which we developed this was by chang-ing the types of forms we subtracted from, and the forms which we subtracted.

The following matrices show the explorations of these tech-niques.

53 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25 (p. 20)

The matrices to the left and above show the development of section-ing techniques. Changes have been made to orientations, density and by offsetting varoius shapes.

Understanding how to change these aspects, and by visually seeing the effect these changes have, will lead our design to be more specific in how we want it to be.

The matrices to the right explore form making techniques. As they

show, when a more dynamic shape is subtracted and the remaining form is sectioned, then the use of section-ing is much more effective.

By developing these two techniques, they can now be intergrated for our own design proposal, and these ma-trices can now be used to inform our design decisions regarding these techniques.

2.4 technique: development

W

SEPARATION WITH ISOLATION

SEPARATION WITHOUT ISOLATION

With the intention of creating a sinlge, readable form from the composition of individual sections, as well as creating a separate but not isolated space, the analysis shows that some variations in technique achieve

these goals better than others.

The achievinment of our specified de-sign focus “can be accomplished by re-ducing the size of the solution space by adding constraints.”54

For our technique development, we fo-cused o our constraints of sectioning and form achieving the goal of ‘separation without isolation.’ The analysis images to the left show that this is achieved by some techique variations quite well, and others not so much.

The increase of the number of sections and the decrease of the distance between

each section is one technique that pro-duces a form that is readable as both uni-form and sectioned. While this is not a single, specific solution, it is a solution which can be applied to a wider range of our future design work, and still result in a successful outcome.

The analysis images also show that a dis-tinct but not enclosed space can be creat-ed more successfully than in other ways. By only partially subtracting forms, the original form remains, but continues to define the new space. With too much subtraction, both the form and the space

lose their relationship and therefore do not successfully achieve ‘separation without isloation’.

Once again, though these are not specific design solutions for a specific design problem, they are techniques which will allow us to achieve our desired results in a variety of design contexts. These ma-trices and the analysis are “intended to provide the designer with a starting pointfrom which to develop the new design,” and must be used to inform our design proposal.55

2.4 technique: development

54 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25 (p. 20)55 Ibid. (p. 25)

W

W

2.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

At this stage, we began experimenting with physical proto-types in order to better inform our design.

Although these prototypes where simply sketch models with no computational derivative, they were intended to inform us on a few physical characteristics, which they certainly did.

The prototypes showed several siginificant things which needed to be thought through:

1. The spacing between each individual section. 2. The impact on the subtlety of the form when sectioned. 3. The need for a more rigid construction system. 4. The thickness of material. 5. The lighting effects which sectioning creates.

By making our prototypes, we were able analyse any poten-tial issues, which we can use to inform our design proposal.

Using prototypes, we were able to evaluate the impacts of various individual design aspects on the overall design outcome.

SPACING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS: The gap between each element affects how readable that form is. If there is much contrast in the form being sectioned, then too large a gap will not convey this.

IMPACT ON SUBTELTY OF FORM WHEN SECTIONED: We found that when some of our prototypes were put together, they did not look like a sec-tioned smooth object. We concluded that it is better to have subtle changes from each section, as too much change loses the effet of sectioning.

NEED FOR A MORE RIGID STRUC-TURAL SYSTEM: Our prototypes clearly showed that only connecting the sections at the base with a non-rigid sys-tem allowed for too much room for error. If the planes aren’t rigidly held in place, then it is very obbious when placed to-gether.

THICKNESS OF MATERIAL: The thickness of material is of course pro-portionally related to the gaps between sections, the scale of the design and the material properties. So while the proto-types were not useful for giving specifc

meausurments of thicknesses, they did show what proportions were readable and visually suitable.

LIGHTING EFFECTS: Actually putting the prototypes we made highlighted the effects that sectioning could create. With this in mind, we began to think of how we could incorporate this into our de-signs. We started thinking about things like orientation, views, and light and shade effects, which could all be deter-mined by the orientation of the sectioned elements.

2.5 technique: prototypes

W

“Design, accordingly, is a purposeful actitvity, aimed at achieving some well defined goals.”55

YEHUDA E. KALAY

W

2.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

Our design proposal for the Wyndham Gateway focuses on the concept of creating a separate gateway space from both Wyndham and its surroundings, yet one which is not isolated from either. Through the use of parametric sectioning, this ‘separation without isolation’ will be conveyed in an abstract and sculptural way.

To create this distinct but connected sense, and building on our exploration of the case studies and our own technique development, we propose to generate a form based on the site characteristics which will then be architecturally subtracted from, in order to create a gateway space which is separate but not isolated.

The use of sectioning will reafirm this conceptually, while also creating a sculptural form which expresses the emotive qualities oultined in the brief.

This technique has been developed to the point of one pos-sible outcome, which will be used as an example of how the brief has been met.

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

The technique that we propose to use is one which fulfill the brief both conceptually and physically.

The technique that we propose to use, at its most basic, is simply following a pro-cess of form-finding, space-making and sectioning.

This technique is one that will be able to create a sculptural form that is derived from the site, which allows us to subtract from this form to create a separate but not isolated (and useable) space, and can then be sectioned to reinforce the con-cept of ‘separation without isolation’.

This specific prototype is one example of the use of this technique, and shows how the technique can be used to meet the project brief.

This proposal is a gateway which cre-ates a distinct space of its own, yet one which is still very much connected to each of its boundaries. It is designed to the constraints of both Site A and Site B using the 13m offset required for safety reasons.

The use of sectioning reinforces the con-cept of being separate but not isolated,

but also serves to create a scultpural form using a highly innovative method of architecture.

These sections allow the form to be read at high speeds, they are able to frame and direct views, they create light effects both night and day, and they allow for this complex geometery to be physically fabricated.

The form is derived from the subtrac-tion of one tunnel from another, which is what creates this distinct but open spatial quality.

We feel this proposal is very sculptural and will be iconic due to its monumental nature, and will become a clear marker for Wyndham City, and an image of their artistic and innovative aspirations.This design is definitely “exciting, eye-catching,” and will “inspire and enrich the municipality.”56

This design still has problems, primar-ily relating to scale, structure, and that is perhaps overly simple. At the moment, it

is unfeasibly tall and has no construction method, which is perhaps why it seems quite simple. However, while these problems need to be resolved, we do feel that there is a sort of sculptural restrain and subtlety, making this simplicity key to the overall expression of the gateway. These problems will be resolved through continued refinement.

This design is an example of the tech-nique that will be used, and it shows that this proposal is the most suitable and successful proposal for the Wyndham Gateway.


2.6 technique proposal

2.6 technique: proposal

2.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

Fig. 1. This algorithm involved changing the offset of the lines which are used to define the form.

Fig. 2. These sketches also involve changing the offset distance, but begin to move into negatives, and so a folding effect is created in the opposite direction.

Fig. 3 and 4. Using the ‘trim intersect’ and ‘flip’ components in a variety of ways, it is possible to create both solid forms as well as more space-cre-ating forms.

Fig. 5-8. The angle of each individual section can be changed from all following the same vector, to each having their own. These images show the comparison of one sectioning technique where all sections are cre-ated parallel to each other, and another where they are cerated perpindicular to the curved line which they are derived from.

Fig. 9-10. These algorithms experimented with the use of catenary curve functions, which could be used to create an ideal structural form. They clearly create a different form then the ones us-ing only circular arches. Fig. 10 uses only cat-enary arches, while Fig. 9 use catenary arches on the inside and circular arches on the outside.

W

W


Through the feedback from the presentation and our own critical reflections, we realise that there are aspects of our proposal which still need much refining.

Technically, there are a few things that will need to be changed. The current proposal is incredibly high, and this needs to be scaled down without affecting the overall de-sign. We currently have no system for stability or rigidity, although we have come up with some ideas which may or may not work. We also need to focus on the materials of our design. The majority of our sectional precedents were made from timber, but this may not be practical for our design, and we will need to come up with alternative solutions.

Aesthetically, I think there is a lot of promise, but some sug-gestions from our mid-semester presentation were to increase the diversity within our idea. I’d really like to try and retain the simplicity of our model, but I also am looking forward to making it more diverse and interesting, perhaps through changes in the form or sectioning techniques. So far, we feel that we are headed in the right direction, but we’re really excited to see how far we can push ourselves and see what design we can come up with.

As far as personal learning outcomes go, I feel that both my theoretical and practical skills in parametric design have come a long way. As I mentioned in the earlier Learning Outcomes (1.6), thinking of parametric design as designing to the spirit of the age was something that really clicked with me, however, my skepticism about the real use of this ar-chitecture, with so many precedents being research pavilions still remains somewhat (I do understand that this course is limited by the 12 week timeframe).

My technical skills and understanding of how to design para-metrically have definitely improved, and I think that this is evident when comparing my Case for Innovation ‘Algorith-mic Sketches’ with those from my Expression of Interest.

ArchDaily, ‘BanQ: Office dA,’ (2009) < http://www.archdaily.com/42581/banq-office-da> [accessed 24 April 2013]

Australian Institue of Architects, ‘Webb Bridge,’ (2010) < http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=20053006 > [accessed 24 April 2013]

dECOi Architects, ‘One Main Street,’ (2012) <http://www.decoi-architects.org/2011/10/onemain> [accessed 24 April 2013]

Evolo, ‘Parametric Explorations for an Outdoor Sculpture,’ (2012), < http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-explorations-for-an-outdoor-sculpture> [accessed 17 April 2013]

Kalay, Y.E., ‘Architecure’s New Media: Principle, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25


1.7 REFERENCES

3.0

PROJECTPROPOSAL

W

Our concepts and ideas were strong, but we needed to achieve them more successfully.

W

The proposal which we outlined through our Expression of In-terest received both positive comments as well as constructive criticism, which really helped us to refine our final design.

Our design intent was to design a gateway which conveyed our concept of ‘Separation without Isolation’. This concept is based on the idea that this gateway is one which both defines the boundary between Wyndham City and the rest of Mel-bourne, but also connects them. This was the primary driving conceptual framework for the majority of our design decisions.

In the mid-semester crit., while the jury felt that our concept was strong (‘Separation from Isolation’), they also suggested that it could be better achieved, and pushed further to develop into a more diverse design. There were also technical issues of the brief requirements, such as constructability, materiality, issues of height, lighting effects, diversity in form, framing of views, and the readability of the sections at the high speeds of the freeway.

There was also some room for improvement in making our design more parametric. While we able to control and specify some aspects, by having a more thorough parametric technique we would be able to resolve these issues more effectively.

From here, in order to achieve this design intent, we needed to review the design brief and to develop our design technique in a way which allowed these changes to be made.

Our concept of creating a distinct yet connected space was an idea that we still felt was valuable; we just needed to achieve it more successfully.

3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT

By reviewing the brief, reflecting on the crit. feedback, and analysing our concept and technique, we felt that we needed a different technique

which was still capable of achieving our design concept, yet was better suited for meeting the brief requirements.

After the mid-semester critique, we felt that our ‘Separation without Isolation’ concept was still appropriate, but the ac-tual design needed to be pushed further, and the technique needed to be devel-oped.

While we also felt that our technique pro-posal did meet the majority of the brief requirements, some aspects were not met, or others could have been achieved more effectively.

The brief outlined aspects that should be taken into consideration. Our design proposal met some of these outlines, but not all, and by reviewing the brief to see what our design concept was missing, we were able to gain a clearer direction for where we needed to develop our de-sign towards.

We had a conceptual framework as the basis for our design decisions, and the design technique allowed the gateway to be very site specific, at an iconic scale. However, there were issues of height, lack of diversity and parametric control, and we needed to put more thought into constructability, materials and lighting effects.

With this in mind, as well as our inten-tion to better achieve our ‘Separation

without Isolation’ concept, we began to refine our technique.

After analysing the brief, the mid-semes-ter feedback and our own design, we be-gan to look at what changes needed to be made. We were able to categorise these changes into two groups: they could be referred to as ‘technique changes’ and ‘physical changes’.

Technique changes included aspects such as the diversity of the form, the height of the gateway, the distance be-tween each sections, and the abstract pull between Site A and Site B. Physical changes were more related to issues of construction, structural systems, mate-rial choices, and the lighting effects.

Both were important, but logically the technique needed to be refined first.


Reviewing our design concept and technique:

-An appropriate conceptual framework

-Suitability to site-Iconic and identifying

-Day and night experiences-Sculptural in form

-Experiential approach-Constructability57

3.1 design concept

Now that we knew had to be changed, we had to develop a technique that al-lowed for these changes to occur, while retaining the successful aspects of our proposal. Our previous technique had heavily involved the use of subtraction from a form. While this worked well as a scultpural tool to fulfill our concept, in terms of our technique it was quite re-strictive.

The technique aspects we intended to keep were: -The use of site boundary setbacks to de-fine the form.-Abstractly conveying ‘Separation with-out Isolation’.

The technique changes we were looking to make included:

-Reinforcing our concept through the re-lationship between Site A and Site B.-More diverse form, which emphasises the distinct but separate space.-More control over height and cantilever distances.

-Gateway being experienced on both sides of the site.-Straight edges for ease of construction.

Our intention was to design two forms which created a separate but not isolated space between Site A and B, with the Site A form folding over so that the pass-ing cars will experience this pull.

From here, we began our technique de-velopment and experimentation. This was without a doubt the most difficult and frustrating period of the our design process. We tried all sorts of things (solid trimming, attractor points and fields, lists and sequencing, referenc-ing spheres, non-parametrically defined geometries, caternay curves, bezier splines), and none of them were giving us the result we were after. However, it really did highlight to us which compo-nents of our definition were useful, as well as some new components which we saw had the potential to be useful.

Our ‘breakthrough’ moment came when we were finally combine two Grasshop-

per components which allowed us to control everything we wanted to, while retaining the useful aspects of our initial proposal.

This definition allowed us to create the folding effect we wanted, to convey the relationship between the two sites, and we were able to control the proportions and the frequency of that folding effect.

We could directly specify the maximum height, as well as the maximum over-hang of the cantilevers, and we could now control whether the section edges were straight-lines or not.

The site boundaries still defined the edg-es of the form, and the distance between sections could still be controlled, but we could now incorporate all the changes that we had required after reviewing the brief and our feedback.

This technique was highly successful in meeting our design intentions.

While more in-depth information on

Re-developing the design technique:

W

SITE BOUNDARIES

2 curves only,offset 13metres for

safety setback

BEZIERCURVE

Define bezier curvebetween the twosite boundaries

SINE CURVEDefine sine curve

along bezier curve to createoverhangs and folding

effect

Z VECTORDetermines

maximum height of form

X & YVECTOR

Controls overhangssize and location

AMPLITUDEMaximum distance

of cantileveroverhangs

FREQUENCYNumber of

overhnags andfolds

DESIGN DEFINITION

W

LOFTLoft between the site boundaries and the sine/bezier curve

SECTIONINGSection the lofted

form into multiple individual elements with curved edges

SECTIONSDistance between

each section

DISCONTINUITYSelect points

of each section

LINESStraight lines between

each point of discontinuityto create straight edged

planes

3.1 design concept

TABS AND SLOTS

Each section is given a tab, and a slot is created for each section, to allow for a simplefabrication method, similar

to that of a footing system

DESIGN DEFINITION STAGES

1. Defining the 13m setback from the site boundaries.

4. Altering the frequency to create the desired amount of overhanging areas.

5. Using vectors on the bezier curve to control the propor-tions of overhangs, the locations of the overhangs as well

as the maximum height of the ridge.

This short series of line drawings shows the outcome at each significant stage of the design definition, to show how each component affects the overall final design.

3.1 design concept

2. Creating a bezier curve between the two end points of the site boundaries.

3. Defining the bezier curve as a sine curve.

6. Lofting the sine/bezier curve to the site boundaries to create a curved form.

7. Sectioning the curved form into multiple straight edged planar surfaces.

With the main design finalised, their were still issues of lighting, materialsand constructability that had to be resolved.

With the parametric aspect of the design complete, we still had ‘physical’ issues that needed to be resolved.

The freeway is still used during the night, and therefore needs lighting. Our inten-tion here was to light up each individual element, so that it is still read as a single form made up of individual sections.

The alternative would have been to light up the gateway externally, but this would have reduced the effect of sectioning.

We settled on a method of up-lighting, using a lighting system placed at the base of each section to light up the face of the

sections. This would allow for the sec-tions to be visible at night, but the lights themselves would not be visible.

By developing a simple prototype with slots at the base of each section, we were able to experiment with this lighting technique, and visualise what it might actually look like (see right).

The material we choice to use was Cor-ten steel, primarily for the fact that over time it reacts with the atmosphere and changes colour. The reasoning behind this decision was obviously partly in order to satisfy the ‘AIR’ component of this studio, but also to create a continu-

ally changing design, which would allow for people to engage with this design in different ways over time.

The constructability of our design con-cept had become more feasible after us-ing straight edged sections rather than curved sections, and the development of a simple slotting technique showed that a simple system of footings and panels could work.

These tectonic elements will be explored further in the next section of this journal, and the following diagram shows how the construction process will take place.

CHANGE OVER TIME

3.1 design concept

MASSCUSTOMISATION

Each individual triangularcorner plate needs to be

customised

TRANSPORTATIONEvery component

needs to be transportablePRE-

FRABRICATIONThe corner plates, beams of 10m

length, connections and cladding are all prefabricated

EXCAVATIONSite is excavated

before componentsarrive

FOOTINGSYSTEM

The large scale of these sectionsrequires deep footing systems

for each individual section

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

STRUCTURALCONNECTIONSStell beam and truss system is

connected to the footings,forming the main structure

of the gateway.

CLADDINGThe Cor-Ten cladding

sheets are attached to the steel structure using a

batten system

LANDSCAPINGFinishing touchess

of the site

3.1 design concept

W

By creating a simple and repetitive tectonic system,which allows for the variations of the design,

this project is achievable.

W

Having finalised the Western Gateway design, and all the de-sign decisions that come with this, the focus then needs to be turned to how this project can become feasible and complet-able.

Due to the location of the site on a freeway, the gateway needs to be constructed in such a way that does not disturb the traffic too much, and allows for the minimal storage area.

This leads towards prefabrication and mass customisation, where each individual component can be specified and fabri-cated off-site, and transported to the site when required.

The nature of our gateway design is that every section is tri-angular, with straight edges and planar faces. However, the corner angles of each section is entirely unique; this is where mass customisation will be at its most useful.

By having a simple and repeated tectonic system, where the only variation in method occurs off-site, this project is struc-turally acheivable.

3.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS

The tectonic elements of this design need to allow for both the uniqueness of every individual section, as well as the need for repitition.

By using a structurally effecient system, through a simple and repetitive method, this project can be built.

The basic structural system of our design is a steel truss system, supported by pad footings.Each section needs to be built individually, and although every section is different, they still have an underlying similarity. Each section consists of three edges, two Cor-Ten clad faces, and an internal structure. Where they differ is the angle between each edge, and the length of these edges.

Therefore, each corner joint needs to al-low for both this repetition and variation.

The way in which we achieved this was by using angled corner plates, which can be customised and prefabricated. This means that although each one is different, they can all be connected to the beams in the same way. The corner plates specify the angle at which the steel beams are connected. This system means

that although every connection is differ-ent, they can be connected on site using the same method.

Obviously, due to the scale of our de-sign, the steel beams needs to be trans-ported as smaller beams, and then con-nected, as no truck could transport a 50m steel beam.

A simple ineternal truss system is used to support the cantilever beams, and us-ing battens, the cladding is attached to this steel frame.We modelled this structural system us-ing two different prototypes at different scales.

The smaller scale model showed that the system was very rigid and stable, and quite successful, but we were still inter-ested to see how it would perform at a larger scale.

While the larger model still worked well, it was as rigid as the other model, and we

realised that it would need more internal trusses and bracings. Despite these is-sues, the system still worked well.

This system may seem overly simple or dull, but what is important about it is that it is feasible. It allows for the uniqueness of each section to be buildable. How-ever, without a doubt the main problem with our system in terms of feasiblity was the cost.

The brief outline given by Wyndham City allows for a budget of $282,000;58 our design would completely blow bud-get. This has more to do with the size of our gateway (a design decision, not a re-sult of our structural system) and the ma-terials required. However, for this studio, the budget did not have to kept in line with. If it had, we would have reduced the size of design in order to make it less expensivemore feasible.


3.2 tectonic elements

Smaller Model

Larger model

3.2 tectonic elements

These detailed drawings and photo-graphs highlight the corner plate connec-tion system, and how important it is for defining the angles of the steel beams.

The model images show the Cor-Ten panel cladding, as well as the inter-nal structure. Of course, the footings

wouldn’t be above ground level, and the bottom of the section wouldn’t be raised, but this is done only to convey that the steel frame rests on pad footings.

The vector line drawings show how the corner plates attach to the beams, how each individual 10m steel beam is

attached to the next, and how the steel frame connects to the footing.

Resolving issues of fabrication, struc-ture, construction and the tectonics al-lows this project to become feasible and more then just a proposal.

Steel beam connections.

Footing connection

Corner plate connections

W

The final model must convey the design decisionsof the finalised project.

W

The purpose of this final model is to best convey what this finalised project would actually look like.

Having now resolved the technical issues of the project, and made all the final design decision, the final model needs to be able to portray these aspects of the design.

The final model needs to be able to convey the form, materi-als, light interactions, visual effects, placement on site, propor-tions, structure, and all the countless significant decisions of the design that have been made along the way.

The fabrication process needs to be done in such a way that all these characteristics of the design can be clearly seen.

3.3 FINAL MODEL

THE FABRICATION PROCESS

1. Due to the size of our design, the model needed to be made at a scale of 1:500. This meant that due to material size, the base had to be made from two separate sheets. Each section was laid out with a 3mm tab, able to slot into the cuts made

into the 3mm thick MDF sheeting.

2. After some experimentation, we came up with a method of how to best recreate the Cor-Ten steel texture and appearance.

This stage involved using a coarse sandpaper to roughen up the surfaces of the sections in an inconsistent way.

5. After the paint has dried, the sections are cut out from the MDF. Only the base of the tab for each section has to be hand

cut, as all other lines have been laser cut. This prevents any piece from being lost, but also means that all visible edges are

as clean as possible.

6. MDF is known for it’s tendency to warp (due to its fibrous composition and moisture absorption), so each slot was not as perfect as we had hoped. This meant that most of the slots had to be sanded down so the sections could fit in place. However, this did mean that most did not need to be glued down at all.

3.3 final model

3. A reddish-brown spray paint is applied to the sanded down surface, to give it the look of Cor-Ten cladding. If sprayed to evenly, it becomes too smooth and shiny, so it needs to ap-

plied more thinly and randomly.

4. A brush was used to create a splotched effect, once again imitating the inconsistency of the oxidisation process.

7. Each section is placed in its corresponding slot, and the form of the overall design begins to take shape. The dust of the sanded down slots helps to make the sections look even

more like Cor-Ten than we had planned.

8. The change in individual sections began to effect the change of the model.

THE FABRICATION PROCESS

10. The two havles are placed together and glued onto the sup-porting base, completing the final model.

9. Because the two halves have to be at-tached, they need a supporting base. This

way, they will not bend apart.

3.3 final model

3.3 final model

W

W

After a semester of researching precedents, expanding our knowledge of computation and parametric design, learning how to design parametrically ourselves, analysing the brief, developing a concept and an argument, and continuous refine-ment and experimentation, I feel that we have produced a good design for the Western Gateway design project.

Our design conceptually conveys this gateways specific role as a connection and boundary through the the portrayal of ‘Sepa-ration without Isolation’. The use of both Site A and Site B allows a relationship to be created between two forms, and the pull between both forms, created by the cantilevers, creates a defined but not enclosed space.

The folding form emphasises this abstract relationship to the people who actually drive through the gateway. The large height of the design makes it an iconic marker for Wyndham, and visible from a distance, and by being so long, passers-by are able to experience this gateway for more than just a few seconds. The 10m spacing of each section allows for the form to read easily at 100km/h.

The shadows created during the day, and the up-lighting of the sections at night, allow for changing experiences and visual ef-fects. The visual appearance of the Cor-Ten cladding changes over time, creating an ongoing interest.

The simple construction system and use of prefabrication and mass customisation allows for this project to actually be fea-sible and within reason (budget aside).

Despite a few issues (to be discussed in the final crit. feed-back), we feel that this design project successfully satisifes the brief of the Wyndham City Council, while being an interesting and engaging design in its own right.

3.4 PROJECT CONCLUSION

3.4 project conclusion




3.5 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

AMPLITUDE

VECTORS

FREQUENCY

These algorothmic sketches involve chnaging the input values of components which are used in the final design defintions. These sketches use the exact same script; it is just a matter of changing the amplitude and frequency of the sine curve, and the X and Y vectors of the bezier curve.

W

W

The feedback we received during our final presentation was really interesting to me, regardless of whether it was criticism or praise. Going into the presentation, there were things we knew could have been developed further, or issues we knew we hadn’t really addressed, or things we didn’t feel we pre-sented well, and I was surprised at how good the panel was at picking up on these things.

For our presentation, we knew that the scale created problems of feasibility and wind resistance, but we didn’t resolve these, and the panel certainly noticed. We weren’t overly confident that we’d conveyed the innovation of our project well, and the jury were very quick to pick us up on this.

However, I personally found it interesting how much we were able to polarise some of the panel members. While some were fairly sceptical, we were able enough to convince one juror to say that if he had been a selector for the Wyndham Gate-way project, he would have bought our idea. Some found it too simple, while he liked the simplicity. I found it quite sat-isfying to have our project creating a fairly energetic debate between practicing architects, and even though this wasn’t the discourse we had been hoping to create, I still couldn’t help but wonder if that would be how the potential users of this gateway would react as well.

The panels feedback also highlighted to me how much further we could have pushed our design, and how many directions we could have taken it. They suggested perhaps a more complex form, with more than just one ridge, or even sections running in multiple directions. On reflection, it would have been really exciting to try these suggestions out, and it’s hard to see how we didn’t come up with these sort of ideas, or at least experi-ment with them, but I suppose that’s the benefit of hindsight.


Through this studio, I feel that I have learnt a lot, both theoretically and practi-cally. By looking at precedents, reading the works of contemporary architects, and learning and developing by own computational design skills, I definitely learnt more than I thought I would.

In terms of the courses specified learning outcomes, I think I have learnt a lot, espe-cially considering at the start of semester I didn’t even understand what half of the learning outcomes even meant.

I feel that we really did interrogate the brief, and explored possible solutions, even if they weren’t always they best solutions, or if some aspects weren’t well resolved. I found it quite hard to go through the brief and satisfy every part of it, whether it be conceptual, physi-cal, abstract, or guidelines, but I suppose that’s what’s separates the best projects from others.

In terms of optioneering, we definitely came up with a lot of different options and outcome, but I think looking back on it, I feel that we could have come up with so much more. These countless options may have been more conceptual out-comes (rather than just Separation with-out Isolation), or how we achieved our concept, or how we resolved the brief.

I found that the use of parametric design was quite useful for developing a method of optioneering. I particularly found that by completing Case Study 1.0 and Case Study 2.0 (particularly through produc-ing the matrices) I really began to under-stand how computational methods could be used to explore design possibilities. I found the case studies very useful in ac-tually moving from the theory of compu-tational design into practice. This was the stage when I began to really appreciate the purposes of parametric design, and because of this, I began to see that this way of designing agave so much control (contrasting to my sceptical thoughts at the very beginning of the semester.

Looking back at what I was capable of doing with programs like Rhino before and this studio, and what I’m capable of doing now, I have no doubt that I have learnt a lot when it comes to computa-tional design. At the start of semester, I couldn’t really even understand what Grasshopper scripting even meant.

Perhaps because of the simplicity of our final models fabrication technique, I feel as though I could have learnt more about a wider range of techniques. I would have liked to experiment with some 3D printing, and I’m still not really sure how

some of the other students put their proj-ects together, so I feel a little behind in this regards.

In terms of relating air and architecture, I definitely learnt something, but I would have liked to explore a little more. Our design consists of Cor-Ten steel clad-ding, and when we first looked into this material, I knew nothing about it apart from what it looked like. I would have been really interested to try something that was more kinetic, or perhaps a more unusual atmospheric effect. I think that this was quite a tricky element to work into the design with any reference to brief, and because of this maybe it was only really thought of a bit later in the design process.

I feel we were able to make a strong case for our proposal throughout the semes-ters and our journals, but I do feel that it could have been better conveyed in our final presentation. However, the most useful bit of information I learnt in this area of this studio was that for whatever you say about your design, you have to prove it. I think this was really valuable for not just making a strong argument, but also for reflecting on why you have made a specific design decision. By un-derstanding why exactly you have made that design decision, you can analyse

59 Branko Kolarevic, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, p. 3

3.6 learning outcomes

whether or not it is an effective solution, and one that can be convincingly argued.

This same method of analysing was par-ticularly useful in understanding con-temporary precedents and writings, and analysing what is specifically important about them. I found the readings partic-ularly useful (much more useful than I was expecting them to be) for setting me up with a good theoretical understand-ing of parametric design, and why that design method was successful, which showed me that it could be successful in my own design work.

The reading that was most influential on my learning throughout the entire semes-ter was, Branko Kolarevic’s introduntion to Architecture in the Digital Age. His idea that computational design was de-signing to the zeitgeist,59 or the spirit of the age, was one that put computation into a much broader architectural con-text, and because of this, I became much more accepting. Without this concept, I may not have embraced the subject as much as I did, and I don’t think I would have developed my project as well, or learnt even half as much as I have.

I think I have developed a good basic lev-el of foundational computational skills and understanding, and feel that with

time I could develop this much further. However, my biggest concern is that by only focusing on one single design ap-proach (in my groups case: sectioning), I don’t understand a lot of the other topics, such as tessellation or patterning. After seeing some of the projects other student have produced, examples such as using programs like Karumba, interacting with light, or swarming and flocking tech-niques, I feel that there is so much more that I could have learnt this semester that I haven’t. While I am able to gain a ba-sic understanding of how they achieved these designs, without actually having done them myself, I just wouldn’t really know how to go about it.

I’m sure that many students would feel the same way, and I suppose it’s just part of the way that a short course has to be run; I couldn’t have learnt everything in one single semester 9but I would have liked to).As much as this subject was stressful and life-draining, I really enjoyed it the whole time, and felt that I got so much out of it. Looking back on where I was at the start of semester, and looking over my journal and earlier work, I know I’ve come a long way.

I think this was also partly due to work-ing in groups, which is the first design

studio subject I’ve done this. Being in a group opened me up to different ideas and different way of thinking, which is much harder to do by yourself, even if we didn’t always agree. By working in a group (particularly a group who is en-thusiastic about the course), I feel I’ve learnt much more than I would have, and I think it also helped come up with a much more successful and well thought out project.

The one sceptical thing which remains in my mind, which I’ve brought up in my previous other learning outcomes, is the application of parametric design in built, functional architecture. The majority of precedents we see are research projects or pavilions, and while I know that para-metric design has been successful in oth-er buildings, to me, the fact that so much is still experimental or research based architecture, suggests that we’re still not completely sure how to apply computa-tional architecture in a broader way.I’m sure that with time this sceptical view will change, as I understand the perfor-mative benefits of parametric design, but for me this question still remains.

Kolarevic, B., ‘Introduction’, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-10


1.7 REFERENCES

W

W

Once again, thanks to my group members Ben and Roxanne, and my tutors David Lister and Michael Wu.

Date post:	10-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doug-brock
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Final Journal: Doug Brock

Documents