maxwell bracher studio air part a

This is the first printable page in your book and will print on the right side.

These instructions should not appear in your exported pdf.

Please be sure to complete your Pages design prior to creating your Cover template. The Page Count must be exact when creating your Cover template.. You’ll need to upload a PDF for the pages and at least one cover type.

Remember, all books must be an even number of pages. The first page will be on the right side as you open the cover and the last page will be on the left side as you close the book. Hardcover books include an end sheet on both the front and back of the inside pages for binding purposes.

Please note, all critical text and art should appear within this gray area. Any content outside this area may be unevenly trimmed or hidden by the gutter when the book is bound. If you would like your artwork to extend to the very edge of your finished book then pull your artwork edge to the red bleed line.

Be sure to review your exported PDF in an outside program (like Adobe Reader) to ensure it appears correctly and without these instructions.

Further info can be found at:http://www.blurb.com/apps/indesign-plugin

Place a background image

Book Size: Standard Portrait 8x10

STUDIO AIRJOURNAL 2015, SEMESTER 1, PHILIP BELESKY

MAXWELL BRACHER

Front cover: Federation Square Flinders Street Facade. Author’s own photograph.

Opposite: Federation Square frontage to Birrarung Marr. Author’s own photograph.

Table of Contents

3 Introduction

7 A1: Design Futuring 8 Grollo Tower 10 Project Orange

13 A2: Design Computation

14 Al Bahar Towers 16 M-Auditorium Dame Elisabeth Murdoch Concert Hall

19 A3: Composition / Generation 20 Toyo Ito Serpentine Pavilion 2002 22 Nordpark Cable Railway British Pavilion Shanghai Expo 2010

24 A4: Conclusion

26 A5: Learning Outcomes

28 A6: Appendix: Algorithmic Sketches

30 Bibliography

4 CONCEPTUALISATION

Who I am

Born and raised amongst the Eucalyptus in Emerald, Victoria, over time I have developed an acute awareness both the built and natural environments that surround me. From a very early age I was encouraged to draw and to use creative outlets as an expression of self. Whether expressed through illustration, playing the piano or the trumpet, designing aircraft liveries or ‘dream houses,’ artistry was in my blood.

It wasn’t until much later in my schooling that I decided architecture was for me. This was a career that would allow me actively engage in the world in which we live, and to shape places for a better future. My interests in the built form are wide and varied. Throughout my childhood, many happy memories directly involve country towns. The distinct architectural typology in Victorian country towns in particular has given me an intense interest in heritage architecture: how we can preserve it, interpret it, and adapt it for the future. This interest has led me to join the Heritage Advisory Committee at the Puffing Billy Railway, at which I have been volunteering my time for five years.

Conversely - perhaps contradictorily - I am fascinated in the rise of the skyscraper and the growth of Melbourne’s skyline. We are living in such an exciting phase in our city’s history. The rate of development is faster than we

have ever seen before, proliferated by massive investment from Asia and counteracted by concerns over quality control and minimum living and construction standards. Even the process from proposal to fruition has quickened: this is where computational design has a role to play.

My experience with computational design is limited at best. Up until now I have relied on tactile design: the feel of a grey lead between the fingers is all too familiar and it has been a loyal companion in my design story. However the rise of the computer is undeniable and change must come.

From my meagre point of view, computational design is causing a great shift in the industry for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is allowing architects, engineers, urban planners, designers in general, to produce work within a much shorter time frame than what was once possible. Unfortunately, this has the added result of putting designers under increased pressure. Secondly, computers encourage the generation of forms thought previously impossible. Buildings no longer are limited by the scope of the architect’s imagination: technology now pushes design to its very limits, surprising and challenging us along the way.

I am looking forward to Studio Air inspiring me to look to the way of the future; to challenge my conceptions of design and to further my creative story. Let it begin!

Introduction

Next page: Federation Square public concert, 2014. Author’s own photograph.

CONCEPTUALISATION 5

FIG.1: SOUTHBANK EPITOMISES MODERN MELBOURNE’S RAPID GROWTH. AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPH.

A1Design Futuring

8 CONCEPTUALISATION

The fact that a supertall building was to be constructed in Docklands presented a series of construction issues. The soft Coode Island Silt at the site would not be sufficient for the foundations of the building. 30 metres of friction piling would be required to support the tower. It would not be practical or desirable to build any structures within close proximity to Grollo Tower simply because of the deep foundations necessary. The park was the only logical option.

Despite the Authority’s rejection of this proposal, I believe Grollo Tower proved to set a precedent for tall buildings not only in Melbourne, but across the world. This design was subsequently shipped to Dubai and proposed as the first incarnation of the Burk Khalifa. That building itself is surrounded by an immense parkland. In Melbourne, only now are we beginning to realise the possibilities of supertall living. Thanks to the potential of computation, these towers are becoming more structurally and aesthetically complex.International investors are entering our property market with ambitious plans for residential towers, but it is a shame that few present a similar standard of living that the Grollo Tower offered.

Grollo Tower

DENTON CORKER-MARSHALL / Melbourne, Australia

It was Bruno Grollo’s symbol of the future: a building that would eclipse all others to become the world’s tallest. At the time of its proposal in 1997, first at 680 then 560 metres, the building would have been at the very forefront of computerised design: both it its aesthetic and its structural capability1. The Victorian Government got so far as approving it until the Docklands Authority quashed the plans citing financial issues2.

This would be a high-tech structure, with 60 lifts and a 110-metre ‘light beacon’ crowning the tower, shooting a light beam further into the sky above Melbourne (see note 1 above). The site plan itself was different from anything in Melbourne at the time or even today. The entire Batman’s Hill precinct was to be given over to the development, with only the central footprint to be taken up by the tower. The rest of the parcel would be used as a public park.

1 Mark Baljak, ‘Grollo Tower: One man’s vision unrealised’, Urban Melbourne (2013) < https://urban.melbourne/design/2013/08/20/grollo-tower-one-mans-vision-unrealised> [accessed 3/3/15]2 Maxine McKew, ‘Grollo’s dream tower won’t crown Melbourne’s skyline’, 7.30 Report (1999) < http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s21693.htm> [accessed 3/3/15]

FIG.2 GROLLO TOWER AS IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED IN MELBOURNE’S SKYLINE. (WALKING MELBOURNE 2008)

CONCEPTUALISATION 9

FIG.3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROLLO TOWER AND CBD

FIG.2 GROLLO TOWER AS IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED IN MELBOURNE’S SKYLINE. (WALKING MELBOURNE 2008)

10 CONCEPTUALISATION

Whilst the project was never fully realised, its delivery could never be possible without computational design.

The extreme transparency of the form makes the structural components challenging to comprehend. The vast underground galleries assumedly provide structural duality in masking the foundations. To achieve the acutely angled segments, high strength steelwork would be required. Computer modelling would allow the architect to assess weak points and optimum form. The influence of Utzon’s Sydney Opera House is undeniable: the ‘sails’ of the Opera House were cut from one sphere, meaning that the ‘segments’ of this building would be of the same essential shape.

Project Orange

Foster and Partners / Moscow, Russia

Yuri Luzhkov was the ambitious mayor of Moscow who proposed an orange-shaped building along the banks of the Moscow River. Technically, the structure was to be made up of five fifteen-storey ‘wedges’ position so as to appear as a segmented orange1.

The hotel and exhibition complex was envisioned to replace an existing gallery, but was met with widespread contempt from Moscow locals. Revealed to the public in 2008, Norman Foster’s futuristic design challenges the prospective user’s understanding of gravity. The orange is traditionally seen as a symbol of opulence in Russia: spearheaded by Luzhkov’s wife, the project would send exactly that message to the world2.

1 Dina Savelyava, ‘Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov’s crazy ideas’, The Telegraph (2010) < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/politics/8056837/Mayor-of-Moscow-Yuri-Luzhkovs-crazy-ideas.html> [accessed 4/3/15]2 AJ Welch, ‘Project Orange: New Moscow Building’, E-Architect (2008) < http://www.e-architect.co.uk/moscow/project-orange-moscow> [accessed 4/3/15]

FIG.4: ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OF ‘PROJECT ORANGE’ ON THE BANKS OF THE MOSCOW RIVER. (E-ARCHITECT 2008)

Next page: Hamer Hall refurbishment: frontage to Yarra River. Author’s own photograph.

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

FIG.6: ABSTRACT CONCEPT FOR PROJECT ORANGE

FIG.4: ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OF ‘PROJECT ORANGE’ ON THE BANKS OF THE MOSCOW RIVER. (E-ARCHITECT 2008)

FIG.5: MODEL SHOWING UNDERGROUND SPACES (WERK5 2008)

A2Design Computation


The world of architectural design in shifting. Brady Peters writes that “we are moving from an ear where architects use software to one where they create software.”1 Computers will play an ever-increasing role in the design process, and it is to the benefit of the architect to push the boundaries of what is possible to make his buildings better. Whilst computers have of recent times created wondrous parametric forms, we can put the power of technology to better use. From the outset of idea generation, designers must consider how a building will perform, and how aesthetic can play a role in the function of a project.

Computers allow buildings to better respond to their environment. Quick calculations can be made in regard to cost, area, materials, and climate among other factors2. Computation can been put to good use in the dry heat of Abu Dhabi. The Al Bahar Towers - 145 metres tall - are defined by what is deemed a ‘responsive facade’. The umbrella-like shades that clad the outer skin are inspired by traditional Arab geometries, and respond automatically to varying intensity of sunlight. Aedas Architects made use of a parametric description of the geometric skin to simulate its operation in response to various levels of sunlight, angles of incidence, and time of year. Computer modelling estimates there is at least a 50% reduction in solar gain thanks to the skin’s function3.

1 Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works’, Architectural Design (January 25, 2013): 1-8 2 Allison Arieff, ‘New forms that function better’, (July 31, 2013) <www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/> [accessed 17/3/15]3 Saimir Lita, ‘Al Bahar Towers responsive facade’, (2013) < http://arkitekture.al/al-bahar-towers-responsive-facade-aedas/> [accessed 17/3/15]

FIG.7: AL BAHAR TOWERS’ FACADE TREATMENT


FIG.8: AL BAHAR TOWERS WITH SKIN CLOSED (THE SKYSCRAPER CENTRE 2012) FIG.9/10: AL BAHAR TOWERS IN RESPONSE TO SUNLIGHT (ARKITEKTURE 2013)


FIG.11: ELISABETH MURDOCH CONCERT HALL INTERIOR (MELBOURNE RECITAL CENTRE 2015)


Because of the possibilities of computational architecture, changes within a building’s design can be made very quickly and with ease. Allison Arieff suggests that due to this ability, Architects are often now more accommodating to making revisions (see note 2 on previous page). Whilst the Architect is more often than not the person directly involved with computation, simulation technology has allowed the construction industry itself to become more aware of the function of the structures they build. Design tools such as Grasshopper and Revit allow the relationships between building components and between components and function, to be more closely monitored.

Let’s consider two projects in particular, similar spaces in terms of their function, designed around closely aligned parameters. The M-Auditorium in Mumbai, India was designed so as to carry sound from the stage to the rear seats without any noticeable drop in intensity. The ceiling and walls are wave-formed, projecting volume to the very last row. Material choice was such that sound would not reverberate, but would retain its clarity. The design was the result of various simulations, such that its form was determined by its expected function. Planet 3 Studios completed this project in 20141.

Preceding the M-Auditorium by 5 years, the Elisabeth Murdoch Concert Hall within the Melbourne Recital Centre was designed by Ashton Raggatt McDougall in conjunction with Arup. The panelling of the interior of the auditorium is much more detailed than that in Mumbai: it serves more of an aesthetic function, whilst the overall form of the hall is functional. To effectively ‘seal’ the hall from outside noises, the essential form is a ‘box within a box’, mounted on giant springs to remove vibration from the trams and traffic outside. These solutions were modelled and simulated using computer technology2.

1 Planet 3 Studios Architecture, ‘M-Auditorium’, archdaily (2014) < http://www.archdaily.com/572832/m-nil-auditorium-planet-3-studios-architecture/> [accessed 17/3/15]2 Australian-Architects, ‘Melbourne Recital Centre and Melbourne Theatre Company’, Australian-Architects (2015) < http://www.australian-architects.com/en/arm>

FIG.12: M-AUDITORIUM, MUMBAI (MRIGANK SHARMA 2014)

A3Composition /

Generation

Previous page: Deborah Halpern’s ‘Angel’ at Birrarung Marr. Author’s own photograph.


FIG.13: TOYO ITO’S 2002 SERPENTINE PAVILION WAS AT THE FOREFRONT OF COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN (RICHARD WAITE PHOTOGRAPHY 2015)


Where exactly does computational design begin? Is there a point in history to which we can point and say, ‘it started there’? Patrik Schumacher reports that the precursor to Computer Aided Design (CAD as we know it) - Sketchpad - was invented in 1963 by Ivan Sutherland, and just two years later the Boston Architectural Centre hosted a seminar entitled ‘Architecture and the Computer’1. Certainly the computer wasn’t embraced as essential to architecture at this point.

Today, we know that computational technology is the way of the present and future of architecture. Few would argue in 2015 that computers do not have a role to play as the industry moves forward. The contention arises when we discuss how they will be utilised. Are architects, as Peters suggested, simply becoming ‘software designers’2 - writing algorithms at the sake of good design or are computers only useful to realise potentially improved building performance, or does computation just make an Architect’s life easier?

Many express concern that by making use of algorithmic thinking, parametrics, and script cultures, Architects lose their essential ability to draw and to compose intellectual designs of their own. Much of this opinion arose in the 1960s with the arrival of the computer into Architecture.

Apart from the fact that Engineers, Planners, and Contractors were already embracing the technology, Architecture was seen as a ‘creative’ field, and that it should not be constrained by the limitations of

1 Patrik Schumacher, ‘Parametric Design: What’s Gotten Lost Amid the Algorithms, Architect (2013) <www.architectmagazine.com/design/parametric-design-whats-gotten-lost-amid-the-algorithms_o> [accessed 18/3/15]2 Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works’, Architectural Design (January 25, 2013): 1-8

the computer. The Boston Seminar of 1964 was attended by over 600 people, many young graduates, and many ‘old hats’. The overwhelming sentiment - whilst many were excited - was one of worry: what would happen to the old industry?1

Of course, in the 21st century, the industry is well aware of the implications of the computer and the potential it holds into the future. Apart from the obvious extensions to design skills to which it gifts Architects, it has become a useful information sharing resource, with forums and discussion sites allowing for the infiltration of design concepts and algorithmic methods into firms and schools of design across the world (see Peters note above). Whilst scripting cultures are progressively shared, schools of design - experienced first-hand at MSD - encourage students to master the skill of hand drawing: as there is no substitute to human design skill.

London’s Serpentine Gallery charts an interesting history of the rise of computation in Architecture, from Toyo Ito’s 2002 contribution to Sou Fujimoto’s 2013 ‘cloud pavilion’ - the very best of the architectural industry have embraced computation. The generation of Ito’s idea is apparently algorithmic - is this intellectual design at all? Simply compare the first pavilion by Zaha Hadid in 2000 to her work of today. In fifteen years, we have seen the astronomical rise of parametric design in the field: now seen as a style of its own.

3 Evangelos Kotsioris, ‘Architecture and the computer: a contested history’, The Architectural Review (2015) < http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/architecture-and-the-computer-a-contested-history/8678167.article> [accessed 18/3/15]


A prime example of Hadid’s work is the Nordpark Cable Railway. Hadid prepared a comprehensive plan for each of the stations along the 1.8 kilometre line, clearly parametric in design, but evidently inspired by the snow-capped peaks of Austria rising behind. Whilst Schumacher contends that Parametric design shows a complete disregard for history, it does not have to ignore its context. Hadid’s larger scale works may arguably do exactly that; but these fine-grain, relatable sculptures of genius design demonstrate a process of concept generation that goes well beyond a random ‘click’.

Another such Parametric design notably generated from its functional, historical, and environmental context is the British ‘Seed’ Pavilion that appeared at the Shanghai Exposition of 2010. Heatherwick Studio of London won the competition to design the pavilion in 2007, and if ‘Bless this Stuff’ is anything to go by, it is one of the architectural wonders of the century1. The facade is made up of 60,000 transparent rods - each 7.5 metres in length - that on the interior reveal a different seed inserted in the end. The whole composition comes together to appear like a giant dandelion, blowing in the wind.

Patrik Schumacher in his piece, ‘The Parametricist Manifesto’ - contends that Parametricism itself was adopted as a style around the turn of the 21st century. In itself it is remarkable because for the first time in Architectural history we have a predominant style that is completely generated through computational tools. Schumacher states that Parametricism displaced the uncertainty of architectural ‘style’ caused by the aftermath of Modernism and is set to endure2. Whilst the ‘new style’ ensures consistency of ambitions and principles, it is hard not to feel at aloss for the enduring loyalty of ‘yellow trace paper and a soft lead pencil’. If Parametricism is to become architecture’s future, let us not forget the past.

1 Bless This Stuff, ‘UK Pavillion at World Expo 2010 Shanghai, By Thomas Heatherwick’, Bless This Stuff (2015)< http://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/culture/travel/uk-pavillion-at-world-expo-2010-shanghai-by-thomas-heatherwick/> [accessed 18/3/15]2 Patrik Schumacher, ‘The Parametricisist Manifesto’, The Architect’s Newspaper (2010) <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=4623> [accessed 18/3/15]

FIG.14: THE INTERIOR OF THE UK PAVILION: EACH ROD HOSTS A DIFFERENT SEED (KARMATRENDZ 2015)


FIG.15: (TOP) STATION ON THE NORDPARK CABLE RAILWAY BY ZAHA HADID (ARCHITECTURE WEEK 2013)

FIG.16: (BOTTOM) EXTERIOR VIEW OF THE UK PAVILION BY HEATHERWICK STUDIOS (KARMATRENDZ 2015)

Opposite: Eureka Tower as seen from the roof of the Australian Institute

of Architects Headquarters. Author’s own photograph.


What a welcome to the world of computation! Having comprehensively covered the rise and continued appreciation of the power of computational design, I am looking forward to further delving into a ‘hands on’ approach to parametrics. This outcome’s lectures, readings and tutorials have engaged my interest in architectural history, making connections with algorithmic thinking, parametrics, and scripting cultures I never expected. My research - especially in A3 - gave me faith that even in today’s computer age, design does not have to turn its back on history or environmental context.

As such, moving forward, my design approach will be to take visual, emotive, and functional cues from the site’s context and translate them into a parametric form. These cues may range from the ripples caused by a stone thrown into the creek, from the spinning motion of a Eucalyptus leaf falling to the ground, or from the feeling of calm caused by a visit to the site. I am seeking to be innovative through the feeling of surprise that the users might experience when visiting the outcome; surprise in its contextual referencing, surprise in its relatable scale, or surprise in its construction method. I do not believe the general public currently emotionally relate to parametric design in the way they relate to a Victorian terrace, a grand country hotel, or perhaps their local railway station. I hope to challenge the user to ‘feel’ this project, to ‘connect’ with it physically and emotionally.

A4Conclusion

Opposite: Royal Exhibition Building as seen through the canopy of

DCM’s Melbourne Museum. Author’s own photograph.


Three weeks ago, my knowledge of computational design was limited at best. I had undertaken Virtual Environments two years ago, which had given me a brief (albeit self-taught) understanding of Rhinoceros concepts. However, I began Studio Air with little confidence in my technological ability, having become all too comfortable using pens, pencils, and other manual presentation tools. One thing I have great faith in is my ability to conceive an idea, plan it methodically, and execute it to a standard - using the aforementioned manual tools - that I feel is on par with my peers.

Now, thanks to the knowledge I have obtained, I understand why and how computational design works. I am beginning to wrap my head around ‘cause and effect’ of parametrics, algorithmic thinking, and scripting. I am finding enjoyment in this process which is a welcome surprise. Had I known the implications of computing before, perhaps I would come away with even greater satisfaction in my projects. Nonetheless, I do not think computational design is the only option. I will always appreciate the architect who wields a pencil and demonstrates his intellectual skill.

A5Learning

Outcomes

Opposite: Federation Bells at Birrarung Marr. Author’s own photograph.


FIG.17: WEEK 2 ALGORITHMIC SKETCH: A ‘HIGH RISE’

FIG.18: WEEK 3 ALGORITHMIC SKETCH: A ‘FOREST’

A6Appendix:

Algorithmic Sketches

This is the last printable page in your book and will printon the left side.

Bibliography

Arieff, Allison, ‘New forms that function better’, Technology Review (July 31, 2013) <www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/> [accessed 17/3/15]

Australian-Architects, ‘Melbourne Recital Centre and Melbourne Theatre Company’, Australian-Architects (2015) < http://www.australian-architects.com/en/arm>

Baljak, Mark, ‘Grollo Tower: One man’s vision unrealised’, Urban Melbourne (2013) < https://urban.melbourne/design/2013/08/20/grollo-tower-one-mans-vision-unrealised> [accessed 3/3/15]

Bless This Stuff, ‘UK Pavillion at World Expo 2010 Shanghai, By Thomas Heatherwick’, Bless This Stuff (2015)< http://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/culture/travel/uk-pavillion-at-world-expo-2010-shanghai-by-thomas-heatherwick/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Kotsioris, Evangelos ‘Architecture and the computer: a contested history’, The Architectural Review (2015) < http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/architecture-and-the-computer-a-contested-history/8678167.article> [accessed 18/3/15]

Lita, Saimir, ‘Al Bahar Towers responsive facade’, (2013) < http://arkitekture.al/al-bahar-towers-responsive-facade-aedas/> [accessed 17/3/15]

McKew, Maxine, ‘Grollo’s dream tower won’t crown Melbourne’s skyline’, 7.30 Report (1999) < http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s21693.htm> [accessed 3/3/15]

Peters, Brady, ‘Computation Works’, Architectural Design (January 25, 2013): 1-8

Planet 3 Studios Architecture, ‘M-Auditorium’, archdaily (2014) < http://www.archdaily.com/572832/m-nil-auditorium-planet-3-studios-architecture/> [accessed 17/3/15]

Savelyava, Dina, ‘Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov’s crazy ideas’, The Telegraph (2010) < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/politics/8056837/Mayor-of-Moscow-Yuri-Luzhkovs-crazy-ideas.html> [accessed 4/3/15]

Schumacher, Patrik, ‘Parametric Design: What’s Gotten Lost Amid the Algorithms, Architect (2013) <www.architectmagazine.com/design/parametric-design-whats-gotten-lost-amid-the-algorithms_o> [accessed 18/3/15]

Schumacher, ‘The Parametricisist Manifesto’, The Architect’s Newspaper (2010) <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=4623> [accessed 18/3/15]

Welch, AJ, ‘Project Orange: New Moscow Building’, E-Architect (2008) < http://www.e-architect.co.uk/moscow/project-orange-moscow> [accessed 4/3/15]

Image Credits

Fig.2: The Collector, Grollo Tower, 2004 < http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/forum> [accessed 5/3/15]

Fig.4: Foster and Partners, Project Orange: New Moscow Building, 2008 < http://www.e-architect.co.uk/moscow/project-orange-moscow> [accessed 4/3/15]

Fig.5: Foster Inteko, Project Orange Presentation Model, 2008 < http://www.werk5.com/ArticlePage/Foster_and_Partners_Project_Orange?lang=EN> [accessed 4/3/15]

Fig.8: Aedas Architecture, Al Bahar Tower 2, 2012 < http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/al-bahar-tower-2/9130> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.9/10: Aedas Architecture, Responsive Facade, 2012 < http://arkitekture.al/al-bahar-towers-responsive-facade-aedas/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.11: Melbourne Recital Centre, Elisabeth Murdoch Hall, 2015 < http://www.melbournerecital.com.au/venues/emh/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.12: Mrigank Sharma, M-Auditorium, 2014 < http://www.archdaily.com/572832/m-nil-auditorium-planet-3-studios-architecture/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.13: Waite, Richard, Toyo Ito, Serpentine Gallery, FT Magazine, 2015 <http://www.richardwaite.com/#photograph/720> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.14: Karmatrendz, The UK Pavilion designed by Thomas Heatherwick, 2010 < https://karmatrendz.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/uk-pavilion-for-shanghai-world-expo-2010-by-heatherwick-studio/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.15: Huthmacher, Werner, Five Works by Zaha Hadid: Nordpark Cable Railway, 2013 < http://www.architectureweek.com/> [accessed 18/3/15]

Fig.16: Karmatrendz, The UK Pavilion designed by Thomas Heatherwick Exterior, 2010 < https://karmatrendz.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/uk-pavilion-for-shanghai-world-expo-2010-by-heatherwick-studio/> [accessed 18/3/15]

This is the last printable page in your book and will printon the left side.

maxwell bracher studio air part a

Documents