ANTONY PAULO MAUBACH328962desigN JOURNALARCHiTeCTURedesigNsTUdiOAiR

seMesTeR 1 2014UNiVeRsiTY OF MeLBOURNeFACULTY OF ARCHiTeCTURe, BUiLdiNg & PLAN-

2

THE FOLLOWING JOURNAL DOCUMENTS MY RESEARCH, DESIGN EXPERIMENTATIONS AND FINAL PROJECT FOR ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO AIR, A 3RD YEAR PARAMET-RIC DESIGN STUDIO AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE. THE FINAL PROJECT AIM WAS TO ENTER THE 2014 LAGI - ‘LAND ART GENERATOR INITIATIVE’ COMPETITON, AN INTERNATIONAL BIANNUAL SUSTAINABLE DESIGN COMPETITON . IN 2014 THE COMPETITION SITE WAS IN REFSHALEøEN, A FORMER INDUSTRIAL AREA IN THE HARBOUR OF COPENHAGEN, DENMARK. THE FINAL PROJECT WAS DONE IN A TEAM OF 3. ALL ANALYSES AND DISCUSSIONS PRESENTED IN THIS JOURNAL ARE MY OWN.

3

THANKS FOR A GREAT SEMESTEST TO MY TUTORS FINN WARNOCK + VICTOR MILNES, MY GROUP MEMBERS NICK LOVE + JO DE KLEE, SENIOR TUTOR ROSIE GUNZBERG + LECTURER STANISLAV ROUDAVSKI. SPECIAL THANKS TO DON TOJO AROUND THE CORNER.

4

CONTeNTsNTRODUCTION P.1PAST WORK P.2ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE + PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE P.4 PART A: CONCePTUALisATiONA1: DESIGN FUTURING P.6A2: DESIGN COMPUTATION P.8A3: COMPOSITION/GENERATION P.10A4: CONCLUSION P.12A5: LEARNING OUTCOMES P.12A6: APPENDIX: ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES P.13 A7: REFERENCES P.16

PART B: CRiTeRiA desigNB1: RESEARCH FIELD P.6B2: CASE STUDY 1.0 P.8B3: CASE STUDY 2.0 P.10B4: TECHNIqUE: DEVELOPMENT P.12B5: TECHNIqUE: PROTOTYPES P.12B6: TECHNIqUE: PROPOSAL P.12B7: LEARNING OBJECTIVES + OUTCOMES P.13 B8: APPENDIX: ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES P.16B9: REFERENCES P.16

PART C: deTAiLed desigNC1: DESIGN CONCEPT P.6C2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS P.8C3: FINAL MODEL P.10C4: ADDITIONAL LAGI BRIEF DOCUMENTS P.12C5: LEARNING OBJECTIVES + OUTCOMES P.12C6: REFERENCES P.12

5

BEnv (Architecture) 3rd year

ANTONY PAULO MAUBACH

iNTROdUCTiON

I am in my 3rd year of BEnv (Architecture) at the University of Melbourne, and have previously completed a BArts (Urban De-velopment major) at Monash University. I was born in Melbourne and spent over a year living in Austria and then the swiss alps before returning to attend school. I am fluent in German and try to get over there as much as possible. I love travelling.

After high school I spent 12 months

living in Berlin where I worked as a con-struction assistant for the artist Gregor Hildebrandt. I gained experience building large and small scale installations and learned alot through observing the design process and lifecycle of numerous art pro-jects. I currently works part-time as a junior urban planner in a large multidisciplinary archi-tecture + engineering design firm. I often works closely with in

house urban design-ers (many of whom are trained architects), and have a strong interest in pubilc realm design including place making, sustainable development and community orientat-ed design. As such, I keenly follow the works of architects/urban designers such as Jan Gehl, and more locallyam interested in the works of organisa-tions such as Co De-sign Studio & Village Well to name a few.

1. FOLLY + VIEWING PLATFORM, MAUBACH 2009

6

PAS T

WO

RK

2. COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAUBACH 2010

7

I have very limited experience with computational architecture & cons-siders myself a keen beginner when it comes to parametric architectural theory & design. I completed a first year computer engineering elective at Monash University where I learnt basic coding in Matlab and Excel (VBA), and also completed calculus 2 as a first year Uni Melb breadth. Both have helped so far in understanding Grasshopper.

I have completed 2 first year and 2 second year architecture design stu-dios leading up to AIR. I am familiar with AutoCAD, Sketchup, InDesign, Illustrator & Photoshop, + have a basic understanding of Rhino. I enjoy design development through sketch modelling (see 2.).

I am using Grasshopper for the first time in studio AIR. Through my early algorithmic sketch experimentations I have already begun to appreciate the vast new possibilities this parametric program offers me as a designer.

I am excited to challenge myself + learn as much as possible from my fellow students and tutors.

digiTAL desigNeXPeRieNCe

PAS T

WO

RK2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

8

“The rise of new digital design technologies increasingly allows users such as myself to push boundaries and actively participate in the debate. We can all contribute to architectural discourse in our own way (for example through experimentations and discussions presented in this journal) by actively engaging with and challenging architectural ideas.”

ARCHiTeCTURAL disCOURse + PARAMeTRiC ARCHiTeCTURe

The first studio AIR tutorial began with the question ‘what is architectural discourse?’ This ultimately lead to the question ‘what is architecture?’ As a beginner in parametric architectural theory and design it is important to first understand how and why new digital design techniques fit into and compli-ment the study of architecture.

Ultimately, architecture can take on a plurality of meanings depending on the context. From an anthropologi-cal perspective, architecture can be understood through Fry’s definition of design as “our ability to prefigure what we create before the act of creation...it defines one of the fundamental char-acteristics that make us human” (Fry, 2009, p.2). Thus, Fry’s understanding of architecture highlights a reciprocity between the ‘state of design’ and the ‘state of the world’ (natural resource depletion, unsustainability).

Schumacker defines architecture as an ‘autopoietic system’; a distinct subset of communication within a broader, all-encompassing system of societal communication. For Schumacker, completed buildings are but one aspect of the architectural communication network. This is due to the fact that “the completion of a new building is a rather rare occasion, and their immedi-ate presence within the discourse - by being directly experienced during an architectural excusion - is so

rare as to be negligible” (Schumack-er, 2011, p.3). As such, Schumacker highlights the importance of architec-tural communication mediums such as drawings, photographs, lectures, books and blogs, all of which depend upon and reproduce existing societal communication structures and ideas.

The aforementioned definitions move beyond a simplistic bricks and mortar understanding of architecture. For Antony, they highlight architecture as a language. As such, it is the intent of this language to produce mean-ing, rather than its ultimate functional goal (eg. habitation), that defines architecture. Constructability and representation through more traditional architectural plan and section draw-ings do not necesarilly have to be the primary focus in order to contribute to the debate.

The rise of new digital design technolo-gies increasingly allows users such as myself to push boundaries and actively participate in the debate. We can all contribute to architectural discourse in our own way (for example through experimentations and discussions presented in this journal) by actively engaging with and challenging archi-tectural ideas.

I look forward to challenging my-self and contributing to architectural discourse in my own way through this journal.

CONCePTUALisATiON

9

CONCePTUALisATiONPART A

10

A1: desigN FUTURiNg

THeO JANseN- sTRANdBeesT(1990 ONWARds)

Jansen’s ‘Strandbeests’ relate strongly to Fry’s notion that the ‘state of the world’ is linked to and a product of the ‘state of design’. Jansen is in essence trying to redesign his own world, which he calls “a new nature”. His creations are able to store wind energy as air pressure, and are thus powered by their surrounding natural environment. He ima-gines that they will oneday survive on their own.

The Strandbeests help stimulate the imagination and

the possibilities of renewe-able energy systems. Their most valuable contribution to sustainable living practices are their inherent educational capabilities through viewer observation and participation. This is evidenced by the fact that Strandbeests are exhib-ited all around the world with exhibitions including public demonstrations. Furthermore, some Strandbeests have in-built handles enabling the visiting public to ‘walk’ and feel the Strandbeest’s energy system.

•ENERGY SYSTEM•INTERACTIVE•EDUCATION

11

Archigram’s ‘Plugin City’ ties in with Schumaker’s notion of archi-tectural communication and the autopoetic system. As Schumak-er asserts, “completed buildings are but one aspect of the archi-tectural communication network” (Schumacher, 2011, p.4). Though never built, Archigrams archi-tectural discourse of over 900 drawings “provoked fascinating debate, combining architecture, technology and society” (Archdai-ly, 2014). This supports the notion that architectural discourse does not necesarilly have to be built to be succesfull.

‘Plugin City’ was a diagrematic experiment that proposed an al-ternative urban scenario and lib-eration from social consequences of modernism such as suburbia. The crain mounted living pods depicted in ‘Plugin City’ can be “plugged in wherever their inhab-itants wish” (Archdaily, 2014). Whilst this work is of a different social and political context, it is interesting to note how Archigram playfully attempted to subvert traditional notions of the city and in particular the role of mobility and connectivity in a city. In a similar manner, Antony envisages to use the LAGI competition and its reference to a 2025 carbon neutral Copenhagen to investi-gate cultural norms associated with energy use in citys.

ARCHigRAM- PLUgiN CiTY (1964-66)•ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE•HOW TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT•SYSTEM THINKING•CULTURAL NORMS

12

» Still frames of 2D animation of cell relax-ation from pure voronoi network to relaxed voronoi network (vorlax)

Researching the role of computa-tion in the overall design process of this biomimcry piece has helped Antony to see parametric design as a “new form of logic of digital design thinking” (Oxman et al., 2014). Using programs such as Grasshopper, Kangaroo, Py-thon and Lunchbox to in conjunc-tion with parameters inspired by nature, Matsys were able to “input precise information without risking bias from the designer” (Matsys, 2014).

The notion of ‘setting parame-ters’ was initially quite a foreign concept to Antony, and he wasn’t quite sure what it all meant. However, it is quite clear through this experimentation that the designer was very much aware of the direction of the project as evidenced by the continuity from design inspiration to conception to construction. Whilst Antony’s early experiments with Grasshopper thus far have been quite random, he is beginning to see the value of creating direction through setting parameters.

As discussed in the week two tutorial, some argue that digital design trivialises design and takes it out of the hands of the designer. However, for Antony, this is but one project that disproves this notion and highlights the extreme potential of computation an an accountable design tool (rather than a tool that simply results in random geometries).

MATsYs desigN- CHRYsALis (iii)(2012 PARis)

•CELLULAR MORPHOLOGIES•SELF ORGANISATION•SPRING NETWORK (MOVEMENT)•VORONOI NETWORK

A2: desigN COMPUTATiON

13

Son-O-House by Nox was initially chosen as an example because of its relevence to the LAGI competition. The public pavilion is located in a large industrial park where “visitors can sit around, eat their lunch and have meet-ings” (Archspace, 2014). In addition, the structure itself is interactive with 23 sensors within the building allowing visitors to participate in the composition of a musical experiment which can be heard within the structure. An-tony’s team has been discussing incoporating interactive elements into their LAGI competition design.

After further research, Antony realised this is in fact not a good example of computational design. In many ways, his choice of this building relates more to traditional formal characterists of architecture such as location and function, which have been engrained in him through previous studios but which he wants to let go of in this studio. The building has thus been analysed as a learn-ing exervcise to why it is not computational architecture.

Peters (2013) refers to ‘computerisation’ distincly from ‘computation’. ‘Computatation’ allows users to extend their abilities, imagine the unimaginable building, and go beyond a form they may have preconcieved in their mind. In contrast, ‘computerisation’ refers to the use of computers and technology to help realise ideas that are preconcieved in the mind of the designer. The design process of Son-O-House was first developed through physical sketch modelling and later digitised. Thus, whilst computerisation may have played a vital part in enabling it’s construction, the design process involved was infact more traditional. than Antony first thought.

NOX -sON-O-HOUse(2002 NeTHeRLANds)•SOUND•INTERACTIVE•INDUSTRIAL AREA•PUBLIC ART

14

Computational design, as opposed to computerisation, is defined by its ability to generate form beyond the imagination of anything the designer could themselves alone concieve or draw. Thus, todays understanding of digital design sees a shift from composition to genera-tion, whereby the computer becomes an integral part of the generation of a design rather than simply a tool to aid 2D or 3D representation of a preconcieved idea (as with Son-O-House). As Hanmeyer stated in his 2012 TED talk, “we are moving from an era where architects use software to one where they create software.” This notion is evident in Hanmeyer’s ‘Subdivided col-umns’. Here algorithms are key to the generation of the design. Algorithms are used as intelligent design agents to explore and discover endless iterations within Han-meyer’s set parameters. “In each case I didn’t design the form, I designed the process that generated the form.”

An interesting byproduct of this type of digital fabrication is that unlike traditional architecture, the overall form and the minute detail are all fabricated as one. This throws traditional readings of form and ornamentation out the window and highlights the endless possibilities that could potentially be achieved when digital design and fabrication are eventually integrated into the mainstream construction industry.

“in each case i didn’t design the form, i designed the process that generated the form”

MiCHAeL HANMeYeR-sUBdiVided COLUMNs(2011/12)•ORNAMENT + FORM CONTINUOUS •ENDLESS PERMUTATIONS•LASER CUT 1MM THICK SHEETS

A3: COMPOsiTiON / geNeRATiON

15

The generative computational methodology of Kokkugia’s experi-mentation is perhaps best explained by the artists own explanation of their work. “The articulation and readaing of the project is inseparable from its methodology – it is a vivid expression of the intensive algorithmic process of its becoming” (Kokkugia, 2014). It is clear that the generative nature of the computational algorithm and the design process is one and the same thing in the eyes of the artist.

» Prototype

KOKKUgiA - FiBROUs HOUseTeXAs- 2012•STRANDS •FIBROUS ASSEMBLAGES•COMPOSITE FIBRE TECHNOLOGIES

“The articulation and reading of the project is inseperable from its methodology - it is a vivid expression of the inten-sive algorithmic process of its becoming”

16

»Wave Farm

We are interested in har-vesting ocean wave (tidal) energy, since the LAGI site is located in a harbour. We are also interested in creat-ing an interactive environ-ment where visitors to the site will help create energy through walking/climbing over/through/under/around oscillating surfaces that could be linked to the main energy harvesting system in the water. Experientially, visitors will ‘feel the tide’.

“A naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical en-ergy through kinetic motion”

After researching numerous design approaches, our team has developed the fol-lowing mission statement:

A4: C

ONCL

UsiO

N

» Our Team

(left to right):

Jo de Klee,

Antony Maubach

and Nick Love

17

»Wave Farm

At the beginning of the semester parametric archi-tecture felt competely foreign to me. This is because the formal design processes that I have thus far become ac-customed to, such as sketch modelling and sketching with a pencil, are no longer the central focus of the design process. I am now coming to understand the role of computation and algorithms in the design process, and the importance of learning to ‘steer’ these by ‘setting parameters’. I think ‘setting parameters’ needs to be our team’s focus in the coming few weeks.

A5:LeARNiNg OURCOMes

18

ALgORiTHMiC sKeTCHesPART A6

19

ALgORiTHMiC sKeTCHes

WEE

K 1 A

RRAY

WEE

K 1 A

RRAY

WEE

K 1 A

RRAY

WEE

K 1 A

RRAY

WEE

K 1 A

RRAY

WEE

K

20W

EEK

2 PER

PEND

ICUL

AR F

RAM

ES W

EEK

2 PER

PEND

ICUL

AR F

RAM

ES W

EEK

2 PER

21W

EEK

3 POL

AR A

RRAY

WEE

K 3 P

OLAR

ARR

AY W

EEK

3 POL

AR A

RRAY

WEE

K 3 P

OLAR

ARR

AY

22

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

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

Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15

Ferry, Robert & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘Design Guidelines’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 1 - 10

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Ar-chitecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10

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

Rabee M, Reffat., Architectural Exploration and Creativity usingIntelligent Design Agents, University of Sydney,NSW 2006, Australia Theo Jansen, ‘Beast’, accessed 20/03/14 from http://www.strandbeest.com Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Column’, accessed 25/03/14 from http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com

Kokkugia, ‘Fibrous House’, accessed 24/03/14 from http://www.kokkugia.com/fibrous-house Arcspace, ‘Son-O-House, accessed 22/03/14, from http://www.arcspace.com/features/nox/son-o-house/

Matsys Design, CHRYSALIS (III), accessed 16/03/14 from http://matsysde-sign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/ TED, ‘Michael Hansmeyer: Building Unimaginable Spaces’, accessed 24/03/14 from http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unim-aginable_shapes#t-343509

ArchDaily, ‘The Plug-In City’, accessed 13/03/14 from http://www.archdaily.com/399329/ad-classics-the-plug-in-city-peter-cook-archigram/

A7: ReFeReNCes

23

A7: ReFeReNCes

CRiTeRiA desigNPART B

24

CRiTeRiA desigN

“Options are evaluated, tested and selected.”

(AIA, 2013)

“Develop a particular technique or tectonic

system using computa-tional methods through

case study analysis, parametric modelling

& physical prototypes.” (Studio AIR Course

Reader, 2014)