aira r c h i t e c t u r e d e s i g n s t u d i o tutorial 8 brad eliasanna gerraty 539898

C o n t e n t s :PART A3. Autobio. 4. A1: Design Futuring: Swanston Square.5. A1: BIG’s West 57th.6. A2: Computational Design.7. A2: Silk Pavilion, MIT.8. A2: ICD/ITKE Pavilion, 2013/2014.9. A3: Composition/Generation.10. A3: Deep Surface, ICD Stuttgart.11. A3: Conclusion/Footnotes.PART B12. B1: Design Approach: Material Performance.14. B2. Design Approach.15. B2. Design Approach.16. B2. Case Study 1.0 Voussoir Cloud. 18. B3. Case Study 2.0 Green Void. 19. B4. Case Study 2.0 Green Void.20. B5. Prototypes.24. B6. Technique Proposal.25. B7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes.26. B8. Algorithmic Sketches.27. Footnotes.PART C28. C1. Detailed Design: Siting & Concept.29. C1. Implementation & Prototyping.30. C1. Construction & Workflow Development.31. C2. Tectonic Element Prototyping & Design.32. C3. Design 1: Model & Material Lessons.34. C4. Criticisms & Further Development.35. C4. Further Development: Parametric Nets.36. C4. Further Development: Optimised Fabrication.39. C4. Objectives & Outcomes.41. Bibliography.

Autobio.

I am working in visual merchandising and studying Architecture through the Environments bachelor.

During my studies, I have developed a strong passion for socially and environmentally responsible architecture, and good landscaping

integrated into extensive developments. I’d like to see that become a legal requirement as soon as possible, because of the heavy role the

built environment plays in heating up the air, disturbing wind patterns, disrupting bodies of water and generally making things unpleasant.

I always loved buildings my whole life, but even more after we renovated our tumble-town Edwardian weatherboard house in the

early 2000s. That was when I knew I would do something related to construction and building. Our house was renovated and extended by a

freelance architect who trained at Melbourne University in the 1990s. In my spare time I like to take photos, make clothes and draw.

3

A new addition to the CBD’s fringe is an interesting example of Grasshopper in a high-rise project. It’s interesting to see it being employed in an attempt at historical and cultural commentary; the kind that Australian architecture is often expected to address but rare executes tactfully. This tower at Swanston Square, completed by ARM Architecture and Grocon, was finally unveiled from its protective wrapping early in March. William Barak’s face is depicted in the curved balcony balustrades. His resemblance will require a few more months to refine, due to its massive size and the optical defects affecting how people perceive the face at street level. This building is a bizarre intersection of computational design tools, innovative use of generic materials, and building as a comemoration. It hasn’t fully unlocked the potential of computation in design process or outcome, but compared to what has been occurring in Melbourne lately it is refreshing.This project has been the subject of heated debate and condemnation. Firstly, multiple examples of site negligence which killed 3 local students in April 2013 (Architecture & Design, 2014). Secondly, ARM and Grocon’s tight -fisted grip over the heritage listed Carlton United Brewery and Malting Factory (Grocon, 2013). It’s also proof that Grasshopper is recognised by even the most facile and profit-oriented builders and developers. It can be considered a light-hearted and fearless way of reconciling commercial architecture with Australia’s troublesome historical narratives. Regardless of what ARM tries to convey through this design decision, this controversial development bears some aspects of design futuring at least in my opinion.

William Barak’s Face. Gerraty, A. 2015.

Swanston Square.

4

BIG’s West 57th.

Danish architect Bjarke Ingels seems to live and breathe design “futuring”. Ingels advocates the need to retain childish instincts in the design profession: constantly seeking out a

new solution, and constantly questioning the orthodoxies that exist in architectural practise and outcomes. West 57th was designed in response to the skyscraper epidemic in

Manhattan, which has marred the atmosphere of the precinct and created wind turbulence and blocks out light (Design Boom). West 57th in Manhattan defies the skyscraper

archetype and its chokehold on Manhattan to become something different. Ingels dubbed it the “courtscraper” (Design Boom). It aims to rejuvenate communal urban space, and

minimise its overshadowing of surrounding infrastructure despite its size. The overall form imitates a natural landscape feature, and breaks the monotony of skinny high-rises. It’s a decent example of design futuring because it responds to the high-rise obsession, and its

consequences for the urban landscape. You can consider it as the beginning of finding new solutions to the need for higher density residential projects that are less conducive to urban decay and wind pattern disruption. Treating urban problems with a pre-existing archetype

or model can only work so many times. Especially when a lot has changed since skyscrapers were invented. Instead of re-hashing, innovating and finding an unorthodox solution can

really pay off.

Under construction: the West 57th in Manhattan, New York, by BIG Architects. Image: Field Condition, ‘Big’s W57th’, 2014.

5

6

A2. Computational Design.

Considering the quality and physical presences of buildings that have been recently finished in Melbourne, it’s clear that the construction industry is being pressured to keep pace with technological shifts and changes to design process in architectural practise. Automated, repetitive construction processes evident in most buildings incorporate unusual geometry and details. Sometimes higher quality design outcomes are evident which impart expressive features despite the mundane, modular construction process. Due to the wide range of issues and statutory regulations architecture is subservient to, current buildings demand higher degrees of inter-coordination between their parts than CAD allows. This may be one of the reasons parametric approaches are becoming evident in new buildings, as changes can automatically coordinate with different pieces of information (Woodbury, xx). In terms of formal outcomes, some projects with higher budgets show signs of being conceived with Grasshopper or Rhinoceros. Basically, anything that permits the realisation and manufacturing of non-standard, fairly expressive geometry. Computing can redefine the way a complex problem of a good building can be solved. Instead of gradually “crafting” the end result from a vague to a finalised, detailed stage, the outcome becomes an organic end result of a designed plan or algorithm that can automatically valuate different issues. When designers become fluent and create a solid strategy for the building, a best fit solution can be reached. Instead of chasing certain forms or shapes arbitrarily, a designer has the ability to take the site analysis and select parameters that usher the design through a process until an optimised outcome is achieved. Computation can also be a way to “sketch”; it can be a type of inspiration for designers and you can stumble upon solutions to problems you may not have even sought out.

Empire Tower on A’Beckett and Elizabeth corner, developed by Mammoth Empire, a Malaysia-based firm. Its waved profile creates visual interest, and sheds wind

stress. It is a recent building Melbourne that exhibits signs of form computation and form-finding and detailing. The generic materials used indicate that the materials

and construction industries are only just starting to catch up to designers’ increasingly sophisticated toolkit.

Empire Tower. Gerraty, A. 2014.

A2. Silk Pavilion, MIT Lab.

MIT’s Mediated Matter Group created the Silk Pavilion, as part of its studies into silk and its applications for construction and building. This pavilion combines cutting edge computational design method with natural processes and organisms. It’s part of ongoing research into making synthetic environments behave more like natural environments; exhibiting higher levels of versatility material efficiency and non-standardisation. It’s a fascinating collaboration between some designers at MIT, and a swarm of 6500 silkworms.The geometry isn’t particularly edgy; just a geodesic dome woven from continuous silk thread by a CNC over steel framing, which creates the primary structure (MIT Lab). Silk worms are then placed at the bottom edge so they can start weaving over the first threads, creating a web-like fabric. This use of silkworms is a sort of biological algorithm, since it is significantly controlling the silkworms’ instinctive silk producing capacity with light and a pre-fabricated structure. This project is an example in the versatility of computational design processes, and what else they can lend themselves to. Computational design has the potential to liberate designers from certain aspects of the fabrication and design process. Employing an algorithm or program of sorts can be considered a form of task delegation. The pleasure of not knowing exactly what the outcome of the process is also attractive. this integrated process between computed form and the algorithmic processes of the silkworms’ collective weaving fuse quite seamlessly.

7

‘Schematics of the human-constructed portion of the pavilion’. Duro-Royo, J.

Bottom images courtesy of MIT University and Keating, S.

8

A2. ICD/ITKE Pavilion, 2013-14.

The University of Stuttgart’s 2013 to 2014 ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion is a “wrapped” carbon fibre canopy which explores robotics, modular design, computational design and biomimicry all at once. It has been constructed from very efficient, lightweight modular components that are constructed by custom-built robots. Each piece is a polygonal twin set of frames pulled together by twisted, fibreglass and carbon fibre cords. this intricate engineering is inspired by both the exoskeleton of a lobster, and the skeleton of a sea urchin. the composite fibre system means that the amount of metal used is minimised, and the overall weight of the object is minimised, at just 593 kilograms. The overall geometric form encloses around 50 square metres, and filters through light from multiple directions. The overall geometry of the pavilion doesn’t seem to be deeply influenced by the computation of the form. It looks as though the modular units have been profiled to comprise a pre-conceived geometry for the pavilion, out of a desire to house occupants. Although the combination of materials is exceptionally well integrated and executed, it’s a very ambitious and elaborate project. A lot of intervention and prototyping that goes beyond algorithmic processes has been done.

A3. Composition/Generation.

The Ban Pavilion at Beijing Design Week by Orproject is built with gently rolled plastic sheets. They are all folded to create loops that lean against each other, and are secured in place with bolts. From above, the pavilion looks like a giant flower. From the side, it looks like a natural rough crystal, layered and faceted, with varying layers of transparency. Anisotropic material was the inspiration and starting point for the Ban Pavilion’s design. Anisotropy is difference in a material’s composition in two axes, which causes differences in its physical and optical behaviour. Orproject sought to exploit this phenomenon in this design, with a simple unit of material used repetitively to comprise a non-standard, modular form. The elegance of this pavilion is exceptional. It has an almost crystalline optical character that draws focus back to the sky and the surrounding environment. The configuration of sheet material mimics what occurs in some flowers, like China tea roses, or peonies. The curves and the unusual shape has automatically arrived from the similar, attached units. Biomimetic, generative design is not just attractive and enjoyable in itself. It can convey conceptual messages about humans altering the environment, and also has an educational quality for occupants.

9 Images courtesy of Jasper James of Orproject.

10

A3. Deep Surface, ICD Stuttgart

Achim Menges is an exemplary architect working in computational design fields. He and a few other designers at Stuttgart University did a project called Deep Surface, which explores purely tensile structures involving mesh. The idea is that these hyper-toroidal surfaces are transformed into curved, bulged objects suspended between tensile cables. The tension takes a point on the mesh and pulls it to modulate the shape. Many forms these processes result in are like donuts, with continuous exterior and interior surfaces. Apparently their simulations in the digital realm specified the material behaviour of the real life outcome. This means that the computation wasn’t just used to generate design, but also to manage the real world fabrication issues and physical behaviour. Menges’s team created multiple iterations of this tensile system, which directs cables along certain vectors to achieve the hyper-toroidal, cellular shapes from the thin fabric. This project is an example of very skillful negociation of physical constraints and in planar objects. It doesn’t just make objects using generative algorithms and transformations, it also addresses the implications of those systems being built in the real world (Achim Menges.net).

Digital simulation of Hyper-Toroidal Structures, and model. www.achim Menges.net.

11

A3. ConclusionAfter looking at several projects that deal with biomimetics and computational design, I’ve decided that I’m interested in an algorithmic approach that focuses on a material’s properties and its required constructive configurations for achieving maximum strength. To achieve structural stability, and to house up to 5 people in the structure I design, this will be very necessary or structural failure would harm occupants. The other reason for this is it will stop the design process becoming an arbitrary, idealised venture that leads to outcomes which can’t be fabricated, or can’t support the weight of people. I am likely to consider what materials I want prior to finalising my algorithms in Grasshopper, so that the material qualities and algorithmic process are integrated into my ideas and processes. This is what has occurred in pretty much all the projects I’ve examined. The integration between the computation and the real life materials is amazing. The architects have selected materials and anticipated their behaviours and the way they need to be used. It becomes one of the driving influences of the algorithmic practises they undertake, and their design computation. The Ban Pavilion for me has been very influential, because of the strength of the object which has been created, as well as the essentially repetitive construction. Whatever I do, it will be based off modular process; in that it contains many essentially identical parts that are connected to make a whole. I will continue playing around with Grasshopper with no particular outcomes or shapes in mind, to broaden my scope and get more ideas about what scripts and geometries are appropriate.

Footnotes.Achim Menges.net: ‘Hyper-Toroidal Deep Surface Prototype’. <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5190> retrieved 18/3/15, 4:10pm.

Architecture & Design. ‘Charges against Grocon for Melbourne Construction Site Death dropped for plea Bargain’. http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/charges-against-grocon-for-melbourne-construction accessed 19/3/15, 4:00pm.

‘Ban | Orproject’. <http://orproject.com/ban/> retrieved 19/3/15, 5:56pm.

Design Boom. ‘In Progress: BIG’S W57th tops out Manhattan’ < http://www.designboom.com/architecture/big-w57-tops-out-11-06-2014/> retrieved 13/3/15, 8:14pm.

Dezeen. ‘University of Stuttgart unveils woven pavilion based on beetle shells.’ < http://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/26/icd-itke-pavilion-beetle-shells-university-of-stuttgart/> retrieved 18/3/15, 3:30pm.

Dunne, A. and Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Pp. 1 – 9. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fry, T. (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Pp.1 – 16. Oxford: Berg.

Grocon. Archaeological Dig at Carlton Brewery site. <http://www.grocon.com/media-releases/archaeological-dig-at-carlton-brewery-site/> accessed 18/3/15, 3:30pm.

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

Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. pp. 3-62. London: Spon Press.

Oxman, R. and Oxman, R. (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 1–10. New York: Routledge.

Schumacher, P. (2011). The Autopoiesis of Architecture: A New Framework for Architecture. pp. 1-28. Chichester: Wiley.

Silk Pavilion Environment | CNC Deposited Silk Fibre & Silkworm Construction | MIT Media Lab. <http://matter.media.mit.edu/ee.php/environments/details/silk-pavillion> retrieved 16/3/15, 2:13pm.

12

B1. Design Approach: Material PerformanceMaterial Performance fascinates me for many reasons. Basing the parametric designing off materials is a good strategy for preparing for failures and physical issues. Designing in Grasshopper is mostly an abstract explorative process and tool, until you integrate it with real-world information. Material is the fundamental driver of the way architecture behaves (Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008). Considering material as secondary to concept and process when it is fundamental is fallacious and inefficient, when there are the means to integrate all three (Brady, 2013 ; Menges, 2012; Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008; Woodbury, 2012). It can also produce outcomes that are functionality-driven, appealing and inseparable from the object (Kolarevic & Klinger, 2012; Kubo & Moussavi, 2006). A material performance focus will unlock opportunities to create decoration and geometric interest that all sorts of people are fascinated by (Kubo & Moussavi, 2006). In Iwamoto Scott’s Voussoir Cloud, the physical behaviour of 1mm timber veneer has driven this structure, which also produces pleasing light effects. Wood sheets are anisotropic; strong mainly in one direction (Menges, 2012). To address this property, a super light, totally compressive strategy was developed that pushes this material to its physical limits, creates stability and celebrates fragility (Iwamoto Scott, 2012). This intricate, modular vaulting technique, based on precise folding in ridged units looped together with cable ties, capitalises on the material’s fundamental properties in a very precise manner. Elegant, yet highly informed and organised. This then also becomes the geometric interest, or “functional decoration” of the object. Aesthetic, structural and material issues are addressed in a single act that is extremely optimised: folding.

Voussoir Cloud. Courtesy of Iwamoto Scott Architecture.

Material Performance approaches often allow aesthetic interest to arrive as a side effect of investigating structure and material. In modern architectural theory, this is purer than pursuing aesthetics as something in itself, or separate to the process and concept, which results in arbitrary ornament (Brady, 2013). After several decades of seeing architecture becoming increasingly mechanised, people tend not to be impressed by decoration unless it serves an integral role (Oxman, 2010; Kubo & Moussavi, 2006). Because we participate in a globalised economy and urban society with diverse social groups, finding visual languages that speak across those boundaries is not worthwhile. So, decorating architecture in a potent way becomes problematic (Kubo & Moussavi, 2006). Material Performance approaches can deftly solve these issues by allowing ornament to be synthesised with structure and process.

13

Voussoir CloudIwamoto Scott

Voussoir Cloud by Iwamoto Scott Architects. Image: Iwamoto Scott, 2012.

14

B1. Design Approach.Jenny Sabin’s Nike MyThread Pavilion is heavily inspired in its materiality and design approach by the Flyknit shoe. Like Flyknit runners, this object is knitted digitally to allow ventilation and lightness (Milliard, 2013). The installation form was generated by interpreting biometric data belonging to several runners, harvested over a period. The knitted tube modules each represent data from a single runner (Core77, 2012). This is a strange intersection of biometrics, membranous architecture and parametric design. The thread used for this is fibre-optic, so it can amplify colours and capture rays of neon light (Fig 2., Sabin, 2012). The installation expands and contracts in response to temperature, movement, amount of people occupying it, and the resultant atmospheric changes (Core77, 2012). These cells have thickened edges to create “framing” and aid the assembly process. As with many pavilions, the form is not as functional as it is attention-grabbing and visually interesting. The object creates a potent architectural experience considering its fragility, and celebrates new applications of science. Although made almost entirely of one material, this object is highly responsive to its environment, and stimulating. The same material is used as skin, frame, and decoration. Its material uniformity also serves to bring focus back to its precise and elaborate design. Many material-driven projects, like Voussoir Cloud and MyThread lure people to them because they have pushed their materials beyond what they are historically known to do. Architecture like this performs an almost scientific, or educational role, which is a powerful way to make the architecture culturally relevant and attention grabbing (Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008; Kubo & Moussavi, 2006).

“Working with soft textile-based materials at a large scale is only possible through really cutting-edge fabrication technologies.”

Fig. 2. Mythread Nike Pavilion, 2012. Jenny Sabin/Nike Flyknit Collective. Image: Courtesy Jenny Sabin, 2012.

Architecture absorbs scientific concepts and ideas in order to keep itself relevant to wider culture (Kobu & Moussavi, 2006; Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008, 2012, Oxman, 2010). This phenomenon may have begun around the two World Wars, when concepts of scientific management and performance became critical and revolutionary within industrial contexts

(Guillén, 2008). In response to the rapid mechanisation of society, American architecture began to be driven more by ergonomics and efficiency, instead of its own specialised practises and traditions and languages developed in earlier times (Guillén, 2008; Menges, 2012). But this is not arriving directly from architectural theory shifts, or a desire to appeal to masses

(Kubo & Moussavi, 2006). Architecture’s love affair with the scientific and industrial has transformed it from an esoteric, artistic discipline, to a high-powered cultural force and problem solving tool (Guillén, 2008). Through taking discoveries in biology, chemistry and physics, and integrating the knowledge and tools into architectural practise, many outcomes

are solving important issues faced by individuals, economies and businesses (Menges, 2012). Many disciplines aligned with manufacturing and material have pursued material optimisation, cost minimisation and maximum efficiency assembly as a major forefront of their practises (Menges, 2012; Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008). Architecture has often avoided

these things up until a century ago. Today, architecture can, and must, absorb these practises to improve and change. One of the ways architecture and its makers can make themselves relevant, culturally and in other ways, is through the intensive study of material, and using it in a highly optimised manner (Klinger & Kolarevic, 2008; Menges, 2012). In our post-

industrial cultures, surface decorations tend not to matter unless it has some sort of purpose (Brady, 2013). And symbolism doesn’t cut it anymore, for most of us (Kobu & Moussavi, 2008). Material performance is a focus within architecture that is also strongly linked with engineering, which I think can be appreciated by almost anyone, regardless of their taste.

15

ICD/ITKE Design Pavilion 2010, Stuttgart University. a material performance-driven design, covering a space 12 metres in diameter with 6mm thin strips of folded birch plywood (Menges, 2010, 2012).

ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion, 2010. Courtesy Achim Menges, Stuttgart University.

16

B2. Case Study 1.0 Voussoir Cloud.

a Polar Array transformation creates volumes with radial ribbing. With further investigation this could form a cup-like structure that can be suspended within the tree. It is very constructible and has visual interest. This iteration was one of the least convoluted with the lowest face count within the Polar species.b “Snowflake” species created by drawing circles over a UV grid and extruding along surface normals. The cylindrical arrangements could form an interesting “loom” structure to weave over, which is a fabrication technique employed in parametrically woven architecture. This concept will drive further algorithmic research.c Seroussi Pavilion Script “cross-bred” with Voussoir cloud. Point charges generated on the trimming curve. Extruding them created a series of radially arranged strips, which contains a lot of fabrication potential and would exhibit interesting fluttering effects and behaviour in real life. These “flowers’” could function as flat objects to be nested to create cup-like volumes for the final project.

a b

c

17

B2. Selection Criteria.The selection criteria in some instances has been like a process of elimination. Outcomes that take too long to bake or generate in Grasshopper are automatically discarded to control technical issues. Overly faceted, or intersecting surfaces are grounds to exclude outcomes. Geometries I prefer have internal troughs and cup-like regions which could be developed to bear point loads and transfer them to their frames. They could also filter light interestingtly. Radially arranged, relatively

uniform and consistent geometry has been preferred, since it can be further refined to look more compelling. These objects can be adjusted to integrate into the oak tree, because they have the appropriate structural opportunities and will be read as weirdly attractive to users. It also allows the fabrication aspect to come into focus

and meld into the parametric process, material logic and outcome.

This is an interation I discarded, which employed the Weaverbird Kaleidoscope feature. All iterations involving

this component were extremely complex wireframes that were totally independent polygons in space. It

would be a nightmare to fabricate, let alone to code!

This is a polar object with fabrication potential and many structural opportunities, despite needing more refinement. Its concentric

arrangement, angled internal walls and cupped shape are already appropriate for being suspended as a tensile structure. The vertices

can be extracted to form a frame, and faces could represent fabric or knotted fibres.

B3. Case Study 2.0. Green Void.LAVA’S Green Void was installed at Customs House in Sydney, and is a minimal surface generated using mesh relaxation technology, like what has been assigned for this subject (Chatterjee, 2009). This project illustrates how advances in technology allow us to achieve things we used to only experiment with, or imagine (Chatterjee, 2009; Kolarevic, 2012). The precise curves of this surface were divided into panels to be digitally cut from a special latex, and knitted for perfect seams (Chatterjee, 2009). Chatterjee argues that Green Void carries “many layers of meaning” (Chatterjee, 2009, p.26), but I disagree. This object insolently revels in its ambiguity, like post-modern garbage. It is unclear what LAVA’s design intent is, other than to baffle patrons of this building temporarily, and showcase the fabrication techniques possible today. This project, though technically impressive, is formally obnoxious and awkward in its setting. It also falls flat on itself on the conceptual level. A truly insolent use of modern technology, the green colour was probably meant to be intentionally attention-grabbing and slightly off-putting. Minimal surface theory could have been used as a visual language and inspiration for wider conceptual ideas. All the technical finickiness has been wasted, due to how vapid it ultimately is. This object doesn’t allow as much occupant interaction as it could. Frei Otto, who was conscripted as a pilot during his architectural training, did not study minimal surfaces throughout his hard life so lurid installations could be made. He studied them because they would solve a whole range of problems, and they carried a lot of architectural promise. This is a short-sighted, insolent use of his legacy that lacks conceptual potency.It is incongruous to see something seemingly under a lot of tensile stress behaving as a large, static object. If that was the point, then it’s hardly clever. Carrying some of the object’s physical behaviour and realisation into the real world would have been a great opportunity which was ignored. In fact, everything in this project has been ignored, except fabrication. Or perhaps I’m just not very cultured? It’s certainly a great technical feat, at least. 18

B4. Green Void Outcomes.

a Minimal surface created with 2 hexagons and 2 pentagon. Polygons with vertices will create edges in the surface, which is a type of reinforcement and also can be visually interesting if it bends and curves.b “Snowflake” species created by drawing circles over a UV grid and extruding along surface normals. The cylindrical arrangements could form an interesting “loom” structure to weave over, which is a fabrication technique employed in parametrically woven architecture. This concept will drive further algorithmic research.c Seroussi Pavi19

B5. Prototyping: Suspension.This rubber band knotting is very simple, and could be a roughly 1:20 model of an elastic, knotted suspension system for the hammock in the tree. This has been tested between 5 chair legs at my house which represent the tree branches. There are 5 oak branches, with differing circumferences (approximations):B1: 1.9 metresB2: 0.9 metresB3: 1.6 metresB4: 1.4 metresB5: 1.6 metresThe elasticated system disperses the strain throughout each band, which is double ply for extra strength, and then takes the tension to the columns. Even with inelastic rope or cabling, the system could behave similarly. I would prefer slightly elastic cabling because it can keep the strain away from the knots more successfully, and has a cute bouncing tendency when it experiences strain. That will make it more endearing to occupants.

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

20

Tree Installation Plan.

DOUBLE PLY LOOP LOOSE AROUND BRANCH

TENSILE FORCE

SPACE ENCLOSED BY OBJECT

LOOP AROUND TREE TRUNK TO TRANSFER FORCE TO GROUND

B5. Prototyping: Structure.

TREE TRUNKCIRCUMFERENCE

~3.8M

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

Tree Suspension Plan.

AREA OF STRUCTURE

UNDER BRANCH

AREAS OF STRUCTURE BETWEEN BRANCHES

21

This structure can easily be designed into many of the geometries I have produced with the Voussoir Cloud iterations. It also hangs off the five thickest, strongest oak branches. It will serve as a design parameter and is also a structural necessity, to prevent the tree from being damaged whilst holding up to five people. I have chosen to hold five people, because that is the number of gaps between the branches. This tensile structure is a way to stop the tree from looking stifled by the design, because it is thin and subtle whilst also being strong. I am hoping to achieve a fairly intimate relationship between the object and the tree, and the branches and foliage above it.

This diagram shows the tree in plan and the general arrangement of the object around the branches. The areas indicated are subject

to change, depending on the results of Grasshopper definition scripting and the effects of gravity and tension. The need to counter

for several point loads, and transferring the tension to the tree’s branches and trunk is already fairly influential in the design. The

method of achieving structural stability can be altered with respect to materials chosen, and the digitally created geometry.

N

B5. Prototyping: Custom Textiles.I created prototypical textiles by weaving on a 20cm x 20cm loom with raw cotton twine. Using Egyptian knot weaving, which involves looping thread around each warp, a light, elastic fabric is created. It has many holes, but surprising longitudinal strength. It is stretchy along its width. One problem in weaving is that it is highly labourious, so to control that, I will use thick cord or rope, and have large gaps between warp and weft threads. Knotting ensures that the connections you make between threads never move, so if I make a woven object in the tree, it cannot break as easily or totally unravel the fabric. If I design a wireframe or skeleton in Grasshopper, like the rubber band model I prototype, it can automatically act as a “loom”, where I weave to fill holes with panels of net or fabric. The fabric would probably be loosely informed by scripted geometry in Grasshopper as well.

22

TOP: Lightweight Egyptian knot weave, created by wrapping around each warp thread. It resembles triangulated meshes generated in Grasshopper, so it is possible to script this weaving. ABOVE: Thicker Egyptian weave with elasticity and thick ribbing. Ribbing is more pronounced with thicker thread. LEFT: testing how skipping and alternating knot direction influences the fabric. Like in the Nike Flyknit shoe, varying weave sequences controls how opaque or thick the textile is.

B5. Prototyping: Custom Textiles.

In this Achim Menges project, Hypersurface, Fabric is pulled at specific points and suspended using knotted, twisted loops of rope. This is a

very complicated structure that performs in a specific way, so thin, strong material manipulated manually is working very successfully.

The structure I design into the tree will not be as irregular or complex as this. If it is complicated, though, I would aim to have some level of

consistency or repetitiveness in the tensile suspension system. I would use thicker cabling than this, and would triangulate most of the gaps

between supports for ensuring stability.The ICD/ITKE Pavilion 2013/14, pictured below, employs polygonal wireframe elements with screws in them to allow warp threads to

be woven over. This system can be conceptualised in Grasshopper as vectors between points on curve geometry. It is a simple, but elegant

way to integrate custom textile components into the structure.

23

INDICATIVE SITE MAP. SCALE: 1:200Merri Creek Bike Trail/Collingwood Childrens’ Farm Precinct.

ST HELIERS ST

ABBOTSFORD CONVENT

COLLINGWOOD CHILDRENS’ FARM

MERRI CREEK TRAIL

Merri Creek

JOHNSTON STREET BRIDGE

site area

FARM MARKET

LEGEND

N

FARM CAFE

WATER

PAVED ROAD

GRAVEL CARPARK

AGRICULTURAL LAND

NATIONAL PARK

CITYLINK TRAIL

HEURIF

GRAVEL PATH

TOPOGRAPHICCONTOURS

ATTRACTIVE VIEWS

NATIVE TREE

MAJOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

5MM 5M

B6. Technique Proposal.

24

The parametrically designed object suspended into the tree will have to be accessible from ground level, and capable of holding 5 people. In addition to these fairly obvious structural requirements, the object should also be somewhat transparent or lean in appearance, so that it does not have an

oppressive, domineering relationship with the tree and its branches. How I achieve that will be partly determined by the geometry I make and how it needs to be engineered. It should also offer some unobstructed or interesting views around the landscape, the farm and the Merri Creek Trail.

DESIGN IN HERE

B7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes.

25

Consulting academic research about morphogenetic design and parametric design has allowed me to appreciate outcomes of new program technology in design and building, and how and why they are made. I used to find it really ugly or hard to understand because of how left of field

it seems, and how radically different it is to architecture produced through CAD or analogue, traditional drafting, as in 19th and 20th century architecture. After reading the research and thoughts of Menges and Kolarevic in particular, I have gained some inspiration of how to allow

parametric design to be relevant to solving design problems and producing architecture. What has been even more valuable, however, is looking at case studies and buildings within the general umbrella of generative, parametric and experimental design. These allow me to harvest a range of possibilities in programming physical objects into Grasshopper that take into account all the high priorities, like gravity, tension and certain spatial

issues. I am still trying to become more fluent and efficient with my definition in Grasshopper, and controlling data to achieve deliberate results and having more control over algorithms. I have developed a few general strategies of making shapes, but there is still more that I want to learn to have

more versatility in Grasshopper and the outcomes I produce.

B8. Algorithmic Sketches.

26

Voussoir Cloud/Seroussi Pavilion script experiment. The strips are radial and could be built as fabric straps or hard materials folded and converging in a ring. The BREP resulting from the general definition is very buildable and suitable for arranging around a tree.

Polar BREPs from Voussoir Cloud have high fabrication potential, and could be executed by nesting polysurfaces and creating notches and folds. Finding the points experiencing the most stress would be necessary in order to fabricate geometry of this general type. But it is worth incorporating into future Grasshopper scripts.

Punctured objects or wireframes can be rotated to form dream catcher like weaving plans, similar to what I made above .

Footnotes.Brady, P. (2013). Realising the Architectural Idea: Computational Design at Herzog & De Meuron. Architectural Design, 83(2), pp.56-61.

Chatterjee, A. (2009). Green Void: Anuradha Chatterjee reviews LAVA’s installation at Sydney’s Customs House. Architecture Australia, May/June, pp. 25 - 26.

Feature > Matter of Substance – The Architect’s Newspaper. <http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6531#.VSpKc2aHeo8> retrieved 12/4/15, 8:00pm.

ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 « Institute for Computational Design (ICD)<http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=4458> retrieved 26/7/15, 3:34pm.

Jenny Sabin Studio | MyThread Pavilion. <http://jennysabin.com/?p=684> retrieved 12/4/15, 9:00pm.

Oxman, R.; Oxman, R. (eds); Kolarevic, B. Computing the Formative. In, Theories of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 103 – 111. New York: Routledge.

Kolarevic, B.; Klinger, K.R. (eds) (2008). Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. In, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. pp. 6–24. New York; London: Routledge.

Menges, A. (2012). Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design. Architectural Design 82(2), pp.14 – 21

Nike Flyknit Collective: Architectural Installations Inspired by Sport – Core77. <http://www.core77.com/posts/23690/Nike-Flyknit-Collective-Architectural-Installations-Inspired-by-Sport> retrieved 12/4/15, 8:49pm.

Guillén, M. F. (2008). The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: Scientific Management and the Rise of Modernist Architecture. Administrative Science Quarterly. 52(3), pp. 492 – 496.

Moussavi, F.; Kubo, M. (eds) (2006). The Function of Ornament. pp. 5 - 14. Barcelona: Actar.

Oxman, R., Oxman, R. (eds),Woodbury, R. F. (2014). How Designers Use Parameters. In, Theories Of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 153–170. London: Routledge.

Oxman, R. & Oxman, R. (2010). The New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies. Architectural Design. 80(4), pp. 15–23.

Brady, P. (2013). The Building of Algorithmic Thought. Architectural Design 83(2), pp. 8–15.

27

28

C1. Detailed Design: Siting & Concept.

I have determined the parameters that are the most formative to the site character, and they also lend themselves the most to algorithmic work. The parametric approach is building on the picturesque and engineered aspects of the area’s layout and atmosphere, and radiating off from the tree. How the project physically expresses itself geometrically and materially can be determined through physical models, as well as Grasshopper and Kangaroo. General, rough physical prototypes can help in embedding basic material and connection logic. Mesh relaxation work can also be a good form-finding algorithmic practise. The major tree branches, heights and relative positions can be used as starting points for an algorithm, so that the object seems to meld with the tree and form an interesting dialogue with it. The web, cocoon and canopy archetypes are all necessary to keep in focus. All objects are flexible, fragile, and loosely support and shelter people. Sheltering 5 people seems too ambitious. I will no longer pursue that, because it forces the project to conform to a rather heavy-duty structural strategy. I’m working towards using the absurdity in the brief and site to heighten occupants’ understanding of Merri Creek as a natural environment tamed by the city. Hopefully this instigates reflection on the lack of communality in our urban development, and how essential nature and gathering areas are to our health and community resilience.

B1

B3

B2

B5

B4

PLAN

lines of sight from trail

EAST ELEVATION

Composition Diagrams

B1

B2B3B4 B5

space occupied by project

gap for access/less

visual crowding

trail curvature

possible sheltering of path

N

suspension points to reference

P1P2

P4

PLAN EAST ELEVATION

Site Parameters

B1

B2B3B4 B5

trail curvature (NURBS)

N

suspension points

P5

sitting height

point height above ground

P3

orientation of attractive views

(Vector)

C1. Implementation & Prototyping.

A gap on the North-East side of the design allows people to get into the object and tempts them from the path. It can prevent the object from visually stifling the tree. This relates back to Picturesque devices that control suspense and the way people interact with landscapes. Employing new, digital architectural tools using some longer serving design concepts extends on the site’s heritage and also makes digital craftwork feel less alien to its users. Delicate, thin geometry also justifies using the tree as the frame. I will keep connection systems very thin, lightweight and tensile, with irregular geometry that draws the eye across the project. Simple weaving techniques can be constructed into Grasshopper geometry and the fabrication process can be organised from the baked Rhinoceros geometry. Another way to code weaves is to design frames or ribs with holes for threading tensile cabling, as in the ICD/ITKE Design Pavilion 2013.

29

SUSPENSION SCHEME

Rough prototypes serve as research into achieving strength between thin elements with stitching and knotting as connective systems. This rough model explores the practise of forming “pods” with folded elements stitched together. The results are not as compelling or parametric as they could be but the general technique leads to good strength and interesting material effects and contrasts. I will be incorporating this general connection logic into my definition and design once it is refined

and structurally calibrated further.

C1. Construction & Workflow Development.

The design form will be taking branch suspension locations as major design parameters. Other parameters will be incorporated into form generation, such as the sunpath, the trail’s bend around the tree and orientations of views. This definition workflow creates a deformed dish shape around the tree and is fitted around all branches. At this point, the definition lacks embedded fabrication and material logic, which is being harvested through physical models and prototyping studies. Even though the design aim and effect will remain somewhat constant, the early definition will change and develop as more fabrication knowledge is gathered.

The construction process will essentially involve the design of the harder structural elements that carry tensile loads (suspension parts) and compressive loads (parts people sit on). These are basically thin pieces that comprise the geometry; sectionsThese will be separated into ribs from the surface baked from Grasshopper. Knotted meshes and nets will be wrapped around branches to suspend it.point load determine frame

element locations

organise warp thread locations with holes

- reduce warp density facing attractive views- define warp threading points in grasshopper onto surfaces/vertices

shape suitable for supporting people/sheltering space

?

weave & knot to complete skeleton of object and suspension elements

design shape around tree using branch points &

other parameters in

grasshopper

1. Points 2. Interpolate NURBS through points

3. Fit circle through Points

> > >4. Offset Circle to

diameter of approximately 9m

5. Ruled surface between NURBS &

Circle

>6. Convert to UV mesh

for Kangaroo deformation

7. Re-triangulate Kangaroo output for

truss frame of geometry

30

C2. Tectonic Element Prototyping & Design.

To minimise self strain and also carry tensile loads, I’m designing rigid, thin sections of Grasshopper Geometry with holes for weaving through. The geometry could be reconstructed as a translucent, delicate object with weaving techniques. The weaving will be programmed by rows of holes with varying densities, where the thread is pulled through. The laser-cut model (a & b) was a holistic example of this connection system, to see how strong it would be and what visual and physical behaviours it has. It is too weak and flimsy, and fairly labour intensive. But the weight is extremely low, which is what I was aiming for. This was a good start for an unusual and efficient way to connect rigid elements into an installation. Something that is simple to execute, but with lots of repeated steps would be better and lead to better aesthetic effects. I experimented with an additional weaving system between stacked elements that takes strain away from the major punctured ribs, which are vulnerable to failure (c to e). It also adds webbing effects, which could provide an interesting canopy to shelter users. This would be executed with polyethylene, commonly used in playgrounds. Hopefully I can resolve these 2 systems into one more elegant object which can be parametrically designed.

a b

c d

e

31

C3. Design 1: Model & Material Lessons.

The geometry of this project descends from a relaxed mesh, draped around the tree’s major branches. Its dish shape shelters people on the ground, and lets them climb in so they can sit and hover safely above ground without too much swinging. The mesh was triangulated to unroll concentric truss frames, giving the object its shape and strength. The physical model expressed form and basic connection methods at 1:50. Much of the construction process was omitted from both the definition and model. I was devoting too much time to achieving a certain shape to consider the material and fabrication logic sufficiently. To suspend the design in the tree, suspension mesh extends upwards from the edges, connecting to the branches. It partially conformed to the geometry but could have been considered much early. So there have been many issues with this model, as the jump from output geometry to fabrication was too drastic. Not enough coordination between elements has been achieved, and the construction is too complicated. More could be done with less material and labour. The structure has also lost its parametric features and lacks responsiveness to its context. By using more site parameters in my design and the newly gained material and fabrication knowledge in a better algorithm, the design agenda can be fulfilled more efficiently.

32

Above: relaxed meshes

retriangulated with differing Z vector

magnitudes.Left: Unrolled truss

rings to be printed.

33

Building the physical model manually and doing light studies has brought some new design issues into focus. the delicate shadows casted by the mesh and woven areas is very delicate and varied, but the shadows casted by the frames are chunky and very uniform. Even though the shadows are interesting, the combination is oddly heavy and busy in some areas.

C4. Criticisms & Further Development.

Previous Algorithm & Site Parameters:Define 5 branch points>interpolate NURBS through branch points (clockwise)>offset by 8800mm>divide selected curves 30 times for anchor points>Ruled surface

between curves>convert surface to UV mesh>deform with unary force, -Z vector in Kangaroo

More Site Parameters to incorporate:Tree branch points

Interpolated curve through branch pointsBranch radii

Merri Creek path curveOutline of flattened dirt area

34

The construction of the model and object was overly complicated, and many aspects of it were not contributing to its performance or function for its users. This photograph is focusing on the webbing and suspension element, which had interesting shadow effects, good material economy and could be built to conform to

linework geometry coded in Grasshopper.This can easily be knotted and woven once baked linework is exported from Grasshopper, using carefully engineered Voronoi diagrams and other methods of increasing strength and intricacy. To further develop my design, I’m going to explore the practise of defining meshes using algorithms in

Grasshopper. This mesh pictured can be approximated with the following algorithm:

The algorithm I used resulted in a vaguely site-responsive mesh, but did not have enough fabrication information embedded into it. The construction was highly complicated and could have been more simple and more closely descended from site parameters and Grasshopper programming. The model created has changed

significantly from the digital model. There is also too much solidity in the design which makes construction difficult and less elegant. The design intent could be achieved by reverse engineering the most economical part of the model in Grasshopper, which is the mesh part. It already loosely conforms to a Voronoi cellular diagram, created

by concentric curves divided with several points.

Circle with diameter 3000mm>Offset using Sequence or Set, multiplied by a negative number>divide curves for number of loops or “cells” in mesh>Flatten or Cull list>Voronoi 2D>Extract Vertices (knots in real life)

Define 5 branch points>define path curve as NURBS>interpolate NURBS through branch points (clockwise)>offset with Fibbonacci series>Offset NURBS again by 6000mm>Sift curve list using Boolean series: True, False,

False>Divide selected curves with points>Voronoi 2D>move along Y axis>Polar Array 5 times>Scale to cover ground enclosed by trail>Array around offset NURBS through points polar 5 times>array along trail outer curve 10

times

C4. Further Development: Parametric Nets.

a b c

d e

g

f

h i

a A = 3, F = 5, D = 17, V = 2995mm, S = 0.6, C = 5, 2

b A = 3, F = 6, D = 20, V = 6000mm, S = 0.31, C = 5, 0

c A = 3, F = 6, D = 20, V = 6000mm, S = -0.28, C = 5, 0

d A = -5, F = 6, D = 18, V = 4207mm, S = 0.31, C = 5, 2

e A = -5, F = 6, D = 18, V = 4207mm, S = 0.31, C = 3, 0

f A = 0, F = 3, D = 60, V = 5298mm, S = 0.36, C = 5, 2

g A = 49, F = 4, D = 27, V = 6000mm, S = 0.24, C = 5, 0

h A = 51, F = 4, D = 27, V = 6000mm, S = -0.08, C = 5, 2

i A = 13, F = 4, D = 30, V = 3505mm, S = -0.23, C = 5, 2

A = START OF FIBBONACCI SET NOF = NO. OF VALUES IN FIBBONACCI SERIESD = DIV CURVE NO V = VORONOI CELL RADIUS (mm)S = SCALING FACTOR C = ARRAY CURVE NUMBERS

35

This algorithm constructs radial nets that can transfer tensile strength to the outer edes, or naked boundaries. They can be made with the weaving employed in the 1:50 physical model and a rigid frame to support the outlining edge and possibly other elements. The 9 iterations descend from 3 major adjustments to the definition, or “species”: 5 sided arrays, 10 sided arrays, and flower-like formations formed with negative A values for the Fibonacci Set.

C3. Further Development: Optimised Fabrication.

36

A mesh system made from string networks collapses on itself without a rigid outer edge or frame to stretch it. A thin band, which can be represented as the geometry outline or Naked Edge can be easily designed and fabricated with wire or metal. Dream catchers are constructed in this general manner; a wire loop forms the frame, which is then wrapped tightly in cord. The first knots or loops are cast over it, and then the weaving sequence works towards the circle’s centre. Blogger Stardustsoul illustrates the technique through these photographs (left). Her weaving is also very similar to the mesh knotting I used, except she only uses single floating loops, which could unravel completely as soon as one weak point occurs. I will loop and then knot most of the loops, for extra safety and strength. Using a dream catcher as the starting point for fabrication ideas will impart the hippie feel and aesthetic into the project as well. This is well in line with the site’s general demographic and pre-existing modes of use.

Dream Catcher construction in progress. Photographs courtesy of Stardustsoul.http://stardustsoul.blogspot.com/2013/05/diy-dream-catcher.html

This prototype (bottom) is constructed with a wire core polyethylene frame, and polyester thread. It turns out it is very hard to match it to Voronoi diagrams unless you have at least 2 rigid base frames that take the loops and pull them in specific spots to control the geometry. The dream catcher weaving technique (spiralling inwards) doesn’t allow you to vary the weave or make it conform to other geometry. Planning and determining how the baked cellular diagram can be woven is also necessary, and very difficult without prior understanding. The shapes and sizes of the holes naturally stray from the diagram, because the tension in the strings changes throughout the process and affects how taught or loose all the weaving is. Many radial designs I have made would be very loose in real life. Also, you cannot always control cell size. It seems to remain somewhat constant, or get bigger with each successive row. So constructing the major axes within the diagram as warp threads first, and filling in sections seems like a good way to achieve accuracy. As soon as something becomes inaccurate, it helps to stop, knot and work elsewhere.

37

The first prototype has a geodesic pattern that is more ordered at the edges, and becomes increasingly randomised towards the centre. It does not conform to any Voronoi algorithms I made. This is because spiralling inwards causes each successive row of knots to be further apart from each other. Despite this fundamental failure in the weaving logic, the new construction strategy works very well. The whole object is very rigid, strong and light. It’s also visually elegant compared to the previous design. As long as the weaving can be controlled and predicted, this system can be developed into a good ‘tree web’ that can act as an outdoor shading system, or a safety net to sit in. But hole sizes need to be minimised and threads need to be perpendicular to the framing for it to hold sitters. Adding an internal ring shaped to the interpolated NURBS makes it site responsive and will allow me to imitate my Voronoi diagrams more closely.

38

This second model has an inner ring descending from the interpolated NURBS through the tree branch points. It controls the weaving qualities and makes them more uniform and dense. It also acts as the point where suspension is integrated between the branches and web, and protects the trunk. The diagram (bottom right) explains the sequence in which the weaves were executed between the two rings. If this was to be construction detailed, the same number of loops would be required for a uniform, intricate weave to be executed throughout. It has required an extensive amount of physical modelling, as well as definition scripting, to reach this level in the design. It is not possible to fully control the weave yet. But it is certainly exciting and interesting to have control over just one part of the object, and allow the rest of it to unfold naturally and unexpectedly. To get the Grasshopper definitions and physical weaving coordinated with each other, I attempt to define definitions of the cellular geometry using Voronoi 2d and the base frame geometry.

C4. Further Development: Optimised Fabrication.

1

23

4

1 frame loops2 inner row of small cells (knotted)3 large triangular cells/tensile cabling (knotted)4 cross-weaving to subdivide cells

Circle>Offset by 30mm inward Branch Points>Interpolate Nurbs>Offset by 30mm outward>Divide all curves 29 to 40 times (depending on weave density desired)>offset both

curves by 30mm>Voronoi 2d (flatten point list)

C4. Objectives & Outcomes.

The step from digital design to fabrication was difficult and arduous. I had trouble anticipating all the fabrication issues I wanted to consider and have control over. Because I was opting for a very complicated fabrication technique, the number of connections and joints made embedding material logic quite hard. I realised that in order to achieve something nearing the sophistication of my precedent projects, I would have needed to work far harder, and have more than just one transition from digital design to fabrication. My choice of material and the material performance focus of the design was more exhaustive than I had thought. Gathering material logic is labour intensive. Another issue was that my mesh relaxation algorithm lacked material logic and site responsiveness, so I developed my outcomes further.

Design Process Outlined in Studio: Air

The re-designing Process

Precedent Research in Computational & Algorithmic

Design

Developing GrasshopperLiteracy (throughout process)

Formation of Design Intent Algorithmic Design Process Refinement & Fabrication

Material Observations from Prototypes and Model

Site Selection &Analysis

Physical Prototyping

Criticisms of Final Outcome

Embedding Material Logic into Algorithmic Repertoire

Final Outcome

Further Prototypes

Redeveloped Design

39

The issue with part C is that you must rapidly gather material understanding of how you will build, whilst rapidly working towards an algorithm that achieves your design intent. But ultimately, you cannot achieve anything at all without a decent fabrication approach that is already pre-conceived in your algorithm. A high level of synthesis is necessary, which may not be achieved in the time frame, or with a linear process involving digital design work, and then prototyping and fabricating. Even though I began to consider material issues very early, this was not enough. I resorted to some ad-hoc solutions that could have been embedded in my algorithm. Embedding of connection logic and structural logic needs to occur, right from the start of the algorithmic process. And in order to do that, you need relevant physical prototypes and experience. By physically building my model using manual techniques, I ended up harvesting an intimate understanding of how cellular geometries behave and can be organised in Grasshopper.

C4. Objectives & Outcomes.

After this subject I have become more proficient in physical, 3D media that was previously daunting to consider or build in designs. I can also program them with a decent level of control and now have some ability to anticipate geometric characteristics of data structures in Grasshopper. Another skill I have learned is seeking out tectonic opportunities within definitions and algorithms, and building structural features or organisations into them. Embedding material logic was a serious challenge, and it became apparent that it’s something you have to focus on in itself to develop skill and success with it in design. I’m also starting to develop multiple ways of creating geometry with distinctive character. This was, however, very difficult, as certain components and strategies in Grasshopper become discovered by all sorts of designers and architects. The labour required to explore and comprehend innovative and idiosyncratic ways of using the program is very high. I still find myself making very simple definitions, and didn’t have much confidence for more complicated algorithmic approaches until quite late in the course.Digital fabrication was challenging. My first fabrication phase for the physical model ended up compromising my algorithmic work. I ended up worrying too much about how things would fit together, instead of allowing construction details to be driven by the data structures in the definition and the opportunities in the geometry. I found myself creating issues where there weren’t any to begin with. Reconciling the physical and fabrication issues with the objects created in Grasshopper has become easier. I used to dismiss everything that wasn’t simple in an attempt to achieve accuracy and elegance, but now I think challenging yourself with complex geometry is more interesting, and not much harder at all. Striking the right balance between complexity and simplicity requires discipline, a good grip of the site and contextual and programmatic issues, and also a healthy level of imagination and playfulness. Being too safe results in poor outcomes. Design risks are better, even when failure occurs, the learnt lessons are highly valuable for future attempts.At the start of the subject I couldn’t really appreciate or critique computational or algorithmic architecture as effectively as modern, or classical architecture. Precedents all seemed very daunting, alien and and even pointlessly showy at times. Indeed, such qualities can occur in some examples of parametric architecture. Using literature prescribed by the course, and looking at what architects intended in their work helped me to understand how this new type of architecture responds to economic, cultural and physical concerns. I also developed increased understanding of how Grasshopper can work for designers, instead of the other way around. Now I am fascinated by practically any research in this field, and any knowledge that can be used as parameters or the basis for definitions in Grasshopper. It will become a very worthwhile tool and explorative tool. Its other adavantages is that it can be time-saving as a drafting tool, great for form-finding and an efficient design refining tool. I look forward to using my new insights and keep learning Grasshopper.

Bibliography (Part A)

Achim Menges.net: ‘Hyper-Toroidal Deep Surface Prototype’. <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5190> retrieved 18/3/15, 4:10pm.

Architecture & Design. ‘Charges against Grocon for Melbourne Construction Site Death dropped for plea Bargain’. http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/charges-against-grocon-for-melbourne-construction accessed 19/3/15, 4:00pm.

‘Ban | Orproject’. <http://orproject.com/ban/> retrieved 19/3/15, 5:56pm.

Design Boom. ‘In Progress: BIG’S W57th tops out Manhattan’ < http://www.designboom.com/architecture/big-w57-tops-out-11-06-2014/> retrieved 13/3/15, 8:14pm.

Dezeen. ‘University of Stuttgart unveils woven pavilion based on beetle shells.’ < http://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/26/icd-itke-pavilion-beetle-shells-university-of-stuttgart/> retrieved 18/3/15, 3:30pm.

Dunne, A. and Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Pp. 1 – 9. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fry, T. (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Pp.1 – 16. Oxford: Berg.

Grocon. Archaeological Dig at Carlton Brewery site. <http://www.grocon.com/media-releases/archaeological-dig-at-carlton-brewery-site/> accessed 18/3/15, 3:30pm.

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

Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. pp. 3-62. London: Spon Press.

Oxman, R. and Oxman, R. (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 1–10. New York: Routledge.

Schumacher, P. (2011). The Autopoiesis of Architecture: A New Framework for Architecture. pp. 1-28. Chichester: Wiley.

Silk Pavilion Environment | CNC Deposited Silk Fibre & Silkworm Construction | MIT Media Lab. <http://matter.media.mit.edu/ee.php/environments/details/silk-pavillion> retrieved 16/3/15, 2:13pm.

Bibliography (Part B)

Brady, P. (2013). Realising the Architectural Idea: Computational Design at Herzog & De Meuron. Architectural Design, 83(2), pp.56-61.

Chatterjee, A. (2009). Green Void: Anuradha Chatterjee reviews LAVA’s installation at Sydney’s Customs House. Architecture Australia, May/June, pp. 25 - 26.

Feature > Matter of Substance – The Architect’s Newspaper. <http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6531#.VSpKc2aHeo8> retrieved 12/4/15, 8:00pm.

ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 « Institute for Computational Design (ICD)<http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=4458> retrieved 26/7/15, 3:34pm.

Jenny Sabin Studio | MyThread Pavilion. <http://jennysabin.com/?p=684> retrieved 12/4/15, 9:00pm.

Oxman, R.; Oxman, R. (eds); Kolarevic, B. Computing the Formative. In, Theories of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 103 – 111. New York: Routledge.

Kolarevic, B.; Klinger, K.R. (eds) (2008). Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. In, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. pp. 6–24. New York; London: Routledge.

Menges, A. (2012). Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design. Architectural Design 82(2), pp.14 – 21

Nike Flyknit Collective: Architectural Installations Inspired by Sport – Core77. <http://www.core77.com/posts/23690/Nike-Flyknit-Collective-Architectural-Installations-Inspired-by-Sport> retrieved 12/4/15, 8:49pm.

Guillén, M. F. (2008). The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: Scientific Management and the Rise of Modernist Architecture. Administrative Science Quarterly. 52(3), pp. 492 – 496.

Moussavi, F.; Kubo, M. (eds) (2006). The Function of Ornament. pp. 5 - 14. Barcelona: Actar.

Oxman, R., Oxman, R. (eds),Woodbury, R. F. (2014). How Designers Use Parameters. In, Theories Of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 153–170. London: Routledge.

Oxman, R. & Oxman, R. (2010). The New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies. Architectural Design. 80(4), pp. 15–23.

Brady, P. (2013). The Building of Algorithmic Thought. Architectural Design 83(2), pp. 8–15.