1

A I R

ABPL 30048 ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO: AIRSEMESTER 1 2015//TUTOR: BRADLEY ELIAS (#8)

CELLYN JOSEPHIN DIONE LEGOH//613169

2

3

Table of Contents

Introduction 03

PART A. Conceptualisation 05

PART B. Criteria Design 20

PART C. Detailed Design 50

4

INTRODUCTION

My name is Cellyn, third year architecture stu-dent, currently still finding my way through all the assignments and decisions in life. Other than architecture, my interests don’t drift too far from designing field. I’ve always been intrigued by designs, whether its interior or even fashion. Art is also something that i’ve always enjoyed.

Before taking on the environments degree, ar-chitecture was just about designing buildings - i didn’t really think about other aspect that makes an architecture. But throughout my stud-ies, i’m learning that architecture is more than just realising a design into something visible.

Architecture involves a lot of different factors, mediums, people and principle to create a space. And i also learned how powerful archi-tecture can be. It shapes the way people inter-act with their environments, it creates spaces that can accommodate varied purposes and architecture is also a translation of different ideas, influencing the way people think and live.

Nowadays, there has been quite a shift in ar-chitecture, that is the emergence of com-puter generated deisgns. Studio AIR fo-cuses on this field of architecture, finding the best design through computation.

With the growing existence of computation-al architecture, studio AIR is an ideal medium for students like me to explore the field and discover new alternative in designing process.

I have been introduced to parametric design be-fore in ‘Virtual Environments’ subject and it did give a new sight, especially for me, as it was the first time for me to use any kind of 3D modelling soft-ware, such as Rhino 3D and its plugin, Grasshop-per, which is the key element in this studio project.

Now, by revisiting all the software and computa-tional design process, i hope that i can gain more knowledge and applying it on my ongoing aca-demic and carreer journey. Also, hopefully, it will open my eyes to many different design possibilities that will keep evolving in the architectural scene.

5

about me

6

CONCEPTUALISATIONPART A.

7

PART A. CONCEPTUALISATION

A1. Design Futuring 03

A2. Design Computation 05

A3. Computation/Generation 20

A4. Conclusion 50

A5. Learning Outcomes 55

8

A1. DESIGN FUTURING

For a long time, architecture was fixed to only the de-signing and constructing aspects. When you look up architect on the dictionary (or the mighty Google for that matter), it states that architect is someone that is responsible for the design of a building and that is sup-posed to be held accountable for inventing and bring-ing ideas to real life [1]. Architect is only responsible for creating the outcome of the design, and this idea had been around for quite a while, in which buildings in the thirteenth century were built only by the master masons. Even during the renaissance era, the “builders” pass on the detailing work to the craftsmen. Their ap-proach was strictly attached to plans and elevations [2].

However, starting from the 19th century, different ideas started to emerge in architecture. With the de-velopment of new technology, other aspect besides designing starting to be incorporated in creating the final outcome of a process, in this case buildings. Ar-chitects in this era begged to differ by working along-side the engineers to create buildings that not just looked pretty in person, but also provide solutions to

different problems that the design faced at the time. Buildings like King’s Cross Railway Station in London designed by Lewis Cubitt was one example that exhibit the exploitation of new structural technologies, in which would not be possible without the help of the structur-al engineers [3]. This movement driven by the industrial revolution brought an impact in the field of architecture. The development in design encouraged more communi-cations between architect and other experts in order to realise the design. Hence, the idea of architect being a sol-emn master builder was slowly replaced by this new idea of incorporating other aspects in the process of designing.

With the ongoing development in various aspects of human lives, including technology and ideas, design-ers face different problems. Structural problems that were solved by the involvement of engineering solu-tions are now changed with the issues that concerning the environments. the rapid augmentation of tech-nology, worse side effects of our existence as humans seem to be more apparent than the good ones [4].

9

This is where the idea of architect involves more factors should come into play. The definition of a design should have lesser importance compared to the process [4]. As more problems and issues emerged, designs should address these issues and be a medium that can bring solutions. In a way, this is saying that designers should take more into account the process of achieving the final outcome rather than the product itself. Wood specified that “designers should become the facilitators of flow, rather than the originators of maintainable ‘things’…” [5].

In achieving this, as technological advancement took place, computational architecture started to become one approach in tackling these issues and facilitating ar-chitect to become more engrossed in the process rather than the final outcome. Computational design process provide today’s architects with the tools they need to deal with issues that they face today, such natural deg-radation and limited resources[6]. This kind of measure is needed in order for humans to exist. Human brain alone is not enough to handle and come up with best solution.

Computation becomes one way of com-municating ideas in architecture.

This leads to the idea of design futuring, which should be using a framework that influence change on peo-ple and also the environment. Futuring should redirect designers to take on new ways in practicing their ideas and create new ideal future, toward the new nature of sustainability [4]. The idea of design futuring should be the pursuit of architects today to achieve a sustainable outcome. With this ideology of the desirable future, ar-chitecture should not only focus on the final outcome, but more on the process, looking at things that are ac-countable for the success in both achieving the design and not giving negative forces to the surroundings.

“Architecture as a design practice that contributes ideas to the on-going disciplinary discourse and culture at large.”

10

A1.1 Design Futuring: Precedent 01

Lynn wanted to test the idea of ‘mass customisation’ in which enabling mass production of individually modified products with individual characteristics [7]. He then experimented with geometrical modelling and character animation software to create numerous iterations. First, he set the parameters for the basic geometry of the form through Microstation software, which later used to establish a set of rules for the design. The result was then transferred into Maya, 3D modelling software, to create the digital and physical models. Through these soft-ware and the accurate geometrical limits, he mass produced the outcomes, each with distinctive characteristics to mark the aim of his experiment – design innovation and investigation.

The Embryological House was also resulting in nu-merous variations that were derived from many as-pects of human lives, such as lifestyle, site and climate.

Works of Frank Lloyd Wright and other modernist archi-tects were based on the stripped form of classical archi-tecture, seen in the use of simplistic and geometrical shape in their works. Architecture was focused on the form based on existing-recognisable forms. In this project, Lynn wanted to challenge that idea. Embryological House is a result of Lynn’s contradicting idea of a form should also be based on limitless iterations of the basic forms.

By including all these factors, this project sought to initiate the idea that formal perfection is achieved through each individual’s complex characteristics [8].

Lynn was applying the idea of design futuring with all the possibilities that he achieved for his design through compu-tation. With the initial idea that he had, he wanted to achieve the best possible outcome and project the new ideal condi-tion of the future, and was done through an array of digitally generated forms that were based on numerous consideration.

Embryological House,Greg Lynn (1997-2001)

11

http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/medium/2002.85.jpg

http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/large/2002.86.jpg

12

As an architectural research project displayed at the Ma-terials and Application Gallery in Los Angeles, this project depicts the essence of design futuring as nature was one of the consideration of the design process. The initial ques-tion behind this project was whether the static form of the buildings is changeable or not. The architect, Doris Kim Sung, was intrigued by the possibility of buildings that can breathe and respond like the way human skin does [9].

Her approach was to test out several materials that can per-form this characteristic of breathable skin. The proposal was to create a more dynamic and responsive building skin. One option that was developed was bimetal skin, which was cre-ated by joining two thin sheets of metals that can spread out whenever the temperature changes and the metal el-ement of the skin will shrink when heated. The tessellated pattern of the skin of the building react to the sun, affecting the use of air conditioning inside the building. In addition, the window system of the building was distinctively devel-oped to create efficient regulation of sunlight and heat, in hopes to reduce the energy used within the building [9].

The element of futuring here is epitomised through the use of computational design approach in getting all the configuration for the building elements. The pattern and materiality of the building was generated with the help of computers. By incorporating the human intelligence and technological system, an optimal design can be generated and thus moving towards the idea of a sustainable condition.

BloomDoris Kim Sung, Displayed in 2011-12

A1.2 Design Futuring: Precedent 02

http://www.slate.com/tomorrowtoday/dist/lexus/images/dorissung/bloom-bg.jpg

13

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331306080-bloom-img-03-brandon-shigeta-528x352.jpg

http://qe1pr67o4hj19lx494tvhiwf.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Bloom_BrandonShigeta_4.4.jpg

14

A2. COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN

“The problem of digital architecture is that an algorithm can produce endless variations, so an architect has many choices.”

15

We have entered the digital age of architecture. The use of computational design has infiltrated architec-tural practices and being realised into urban settings. But what is exactly computational design? It under-lines the symbiotic connection of human ideas and the generative characteristic of the computer in creating an outcome, in this case built forms. Computational design approach has challenged the traditional prac-tices and become a seminal medium in architectural revolution [6]. More possibilities have been construct-ed, new paradigm has been implied. The digital com-putation through computer-aided material enables designers (architects) to explore with (almost) limitless variables and come up with a way to handle a specific issue. With the use of sets of rules and parameters, al-gorithm is created to help generating the output [13].

Algorithm thinking itself is understanding the pro-cess of setting up codes and rules, so that design-ers are able to modify them and use it for further development [6]. By having an understanding in al-gorithm, it eases the designers in the process of de-sign. It also opens up more potential in both the de-sign outcome and the knowledge of the designer.

Thus, in a way, computational design is one method of design that should not be discouraged. The limitless possibilities of the application can bring about so many positive forces, not just for today’s society but also in the future - with possibility of creating “second - nature”.

Fig 4

Fig 4:http://www.musicmonks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/4.png

16

Oxman created a project that looks into the physical features of a terrain, which expresses the dispersion and the significance of the force that formed the ter-rain itself. This project tests the way the materials form the shape through the information on the structural load that it can bear and the environmental conditions.

In creating this project, Oxman referred back to different natural element, as she looked into leaf section, a butter-fly wing and a scorpion paw. She examined the structure and pattern of these objects and realising them into the design through the application of hypothetical physical responses. The structural tissues from these natural objects are visualised, analysed and later be reconstructed into 3D macro-scale prototypes. This is related to the idea of design computation, which is what we are learning in this studio. Oxman exemplify the process of coming up with a focus for a project and use computer-generated physical rules to realise her idea. She also tested the material be-haviour by applying limited element that focuses on the object and looking at various properties of the material [10].

Neri OxmanSubterrain, 2007

A.2.1 Computational Design: Precedent 01

http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/073/w500h420/CRI_286073.jpg

17

http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/subterrain

http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/subterrain#prettyPhoto[subterrain]/2/

http://www.materialecology.com/projects/details/subterrain#prettyPhoto[subterrain]/1/

18

This project of building a temporary research pavilion fo-cused on the materiality and how it can be maximised through computational design. The project started by un-derstanding that material has its own internal and external forces and constraints that help make the materiality prop-erties and that they are mutually related. Computational de-sign process in this project is used as an approach to gener-ate form based on the information that is derived from the material physical behaviour and characteristics. The relevant and evident material features were translated into paramet-ric rules and were defined through numerous physical ex-periments. They were focusing on the range of deflection of the material used, in which is thin plywood strips. Finite element method (FEM) was used to simulate the structural performance, which generate the ‘intricate equilibrium’ of the bending ability of each element. The calculation also helped in understanding the internal stresses due to the bending of the material in regards to the external forces. Based on the 6400 lines of code, the computational process generated all the geometrical data needed and providing the information for structural analysis of the project. The rules and computing mechanism benefited in terms of outputting the informa-tion and enabling the realisation of this project. The process of achieving the best structure with optimum performance was made possible through the computation process. [11]

A.2.2 Computational Design: Precedent 02

ICDI/TKE Research PavilionA. Menges & J. Knippers, Stuttgart University,

2010

http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4443

http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4443

19

http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4443

20

A3. COMPOSITION/GENERATION

“Processing of information and interactions between el-ements which constitute a specific environment, it pro-vides framework for negotiating and influencing the inter-relation of datasets of information, with the capacity to

Sean Alquist & Achim Menges inPeters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic

Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2.

21

Composition is one design approach that focuses on details, looking at the intricate composition of something and then creating a different interpre-tation of the object by modifying the composition to get the desired outcome. For a long time, this was the way to go for architects in designing a building.

But a shift has happened that impacted on the archi-tectural practices around the world. The change to genereation has created a whole new outcomes in terms of built forms. Generative architecture outcome is “calculated by the chosen generative computational method” [17]. Kolarevic also continued on how this ap-proach emphasising in internal generative logic, which then reproduce varied outcomes that the designer can choose from to determine the best optimal result.

This influenced different aspect of architecture, in-cluding fabrication and construction. Computational generative design bring about the ability to explore “parametric families of component” [6], allowing effi-cient fabrication and construction of buildings, espe-cially highly detailed projects. Parametric modelling helps realising complex structural form and design, giv-ing room for the architect to explore and experiment with numerous things. Designers can achive a more diversed and unexpected outcome. They are also given the capacity digitally simulate the performance of the elements of the buildings through the imposed rules by the algorithm. This proves the power of parametric and computational modelling in this digitalised era.

Fig 5:http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/icd-imagedb/ICD_WS10_

Fig 5

22

A.3.1 COMPOSITION/GENERATION: PRECEDENT 01

The brief of the project was to create a new service building for one of the most successful vineyard in Switzerland. It was looking for a solution for the façade structure of the building, as to accommodate the function of the building (http://phaid-onatlas.com/building/gantenbein-winery/1070). Gramazio Kohler Architects came up with t6he solution through gener-ation approach. The initial step of the process was to imagine the structural frame that was already done there as a basket that was to be filled with grapes with different diameters. They created a simulation on the gravitational force of the grapes when the grapes fall into the basket and fill it full [12] .

Based on that simulation, they administered the logic and rules behind and using them to form the façade. The gen-erative process of this project demonstrated the amount of understanding that is needed to achieve a specific outcome. By examining one particular process, they came up with certain pattern and rules which later be applied on forming the final outcome. Generation approach represented the ex-tended possibility of computational and parametric design in addressing specific issues in design and construction[13]

ICDI/TKE Research PavilionA. Menges & J. Knippers, Stuttgart University,

2010

Also, this project shows the possibility of architecture acting as a platform to combine technical system and nature. In the assembly process of the façade, they used programmed pa-rameters to determine the angle of the bricks to strategically place each of the brick, resulting in optimization of natural light and air [12]. Parametric design method allows the op-timum utilization thus bringing benefits for the building.

http://blog.bellostes.com/media/gantenbein-winery-03.png

23Fig 3:http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/501f4a8c28ba0d024200005a_winery-gantenbe-in-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architekten_060719_036_baustelle_ml_038_pr.jpg

Fig 2:http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/up-loads/2012/08/501f4a3728ba0d0242000054_winery-gan-tenbein-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architek-ten_080701_036_aussenaufnahmen_ralphfeiner_03_pr-

Fig 1:http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/up-loads/2012/08/501f49e028ba0d024200004e_winery-gan-tenbein-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architek-ten_060823_036_dokumentation_ralphfeiner_006_pr.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/501f4a9328ba0d024200005b_winery-gantenbein-gramazio-kohler-bearth-deplazes-architek-ten_060719_036_baustelle_ml_040_pr-1000x750.jpg

Fig 1 Fig 3Fig 2

24

A.3.2 COMPOSITION/GENERATION: PRECEDENT 02

Sigmund Freud PavilionChristoph Hermann, Austria, 2009

In attempt to solve the integrating-with-nature dilemma of a project, Hermann took on a different approach in designing this project. The site of the project is the Sigmund Freud Park in Vienna, one main recreational area in the region and he want-ed to create an assembly of spatial configurations that fluent-ly collaborate with one another to cater the existing qualities on the site being a recreational area and the expected one, which is an exhibition space [14]. Compared to the generative process, Hermann’s approach was more compositional, as he looked into how he could modify the conventional measure of the site and transform it into what he had in mind. He looked into the ground composition of the site and its segregation.

As a start, he examined the site and treated it as one intercon-nected system that work underground, looking at the details of the existing site condition. From the retrieved information, parametric design approach was used based on the dynamic system of the ground, creating the form of the pavilion. In order to achieve a permeable structure, Hermann altered the parameters to create some geometrical outcome [16].

http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_420367_DGgR6XNx_m5uBGeG5oYEQE6Qg.jpg

http://www.formakers.eu/timthumb.php?src=./media/1.936.1381759468.parametric-architec-ture-pavilion-christoph-hermann_formakers_08.jpg&h=402&w=600

25

In attempt to solve the integrating-with-nature dilemma of a project, Hermann took on a different approach in designing this project. The site of the project is the Sigmund Freud Park in Vienna, one main recreational area in the region and he want-ed to create an assembly of spatial configurations that fluent-ly collaborate with one another to cater the existing qualities on the site being a recreational area and the expected one, which is an exhibition space [15]. Compared to the generative process, Hermann’s approach was more compositional, as he looked into how he could modify the conventional measure of the site and transform it into what he had in mind. He looked into the ground composition of the site and its segregation.

As a start, he examined the site and treated it as one intercon-nected system that work underground, looking at the details of the existing site condition. From the retrieved information, parametric design approach was used based on the dynamic system of the ground, creating the form of the pavilion. In order to achieve a permeable structure, Hermann altered the parameters to create some geometrical outcome [16].

http://www.coroflot.com/christoph_hermann/freud-pavillion

http://www.coroflot.com/christoph_hermann/freud-pavillion

http://www.christoph-hermann.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/parametric-ar-chitecture-pavilion-christoph-hermann-01.jpg

26

Architecture has always been a discouse to communicate ideas, cultures and values through structure or built forms. Even so, it has had numerous shift throughout the years. With the ongoing technological advancement, the shift is now to-wards the digitilisation of architecture, which is signaled by the use of Computer Aided Design tools in computational design. These tools help designers to deal with numerous issues that occur in today’s society, especially environment.

With the utilisation of parametric design and algorith-mic thinking, new logic and thinking in crafting the built forms and environments are erected. Other than that, more possibilities - that were unthinkable during the pre-vious era - have been implied and used in application of architectural practices. Designers in the digital era is now focusing in the behind-the-scene area, and less on the fi-nal outcome, as was mentioned on the discussed projects.

Even though this change is still rejected by some group of people, I personally think that this design approach should be embraced more and not discouraged, as it creates more opportunities - good ones. In order for change to happen, sometimes we need to get out of the box. Not overlooking the computational design is one way to make changes happen.

Looking at architectural literature and numerous projects on computational architecture has been one eye-opener to another design method that I have not really explored before. I did aware of all the change but never really notice - let alone study the reasoning and principles behind it. When I first studied the Grasshopper plug in, it felt a bit daunting because it is still very foreign to me.

However, the readings and process of finding out prec-edents give me more understanding. The definition of computational designing itself is interesting for me, because i have never come accross something like that. I began to gain more knowledge and build more interest towards this subject.

Also, exploring grasshopper is something that help me understand algorithmic approach and how it influence my thinking towards generating forms - because we have to first figure out the input before processing it into the output. It is undeniable that it is still very difficult to familiarise myself with all the elements of this design approach - especially the software bit - but it has exposed me to new knowledge and raise my awareness about how architecture has changed.

A. 3. Conclusion

A. 4. Learning Outcomes

27

A.5. Alogorithmic Sketch

“Initial idea of the first Grasshopper tri-al was to transform a smooth-curved surface into sets of boxes. The aim of this exercise is to see how Grasshop-per system act to give partition and grid on the surface.”

The first version use the slider to determine the number of points that’s contained in one square.

The second one - connects the slider into the square input. The result is bulkier compared to the first one. This shows that different inputs can create different out-comes, thus the all process must be thoroughly considered (input-process-output) to generate the outcome.

28

Reference List

29

1: Oxford Dictionary. (2015). viewed 17th March 2015, <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/architect>.

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

3: Mordaunt-Crook. (1971). Victorian Architecture: A Visual Anthology. Plates 44&45.

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

5: Wood, John (2007). Design for Micro-Utopias: Making the Unthinkable Possible (Aldershot: Gower).

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

7: Canadian Centre for Architecture. N.d. Greg Lynn: Embryological House. Viewed 16th March 2015. <http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/6-greg-lynn-embryological-house>.

8: Burns, Karen. N.d. Greg Lynn’s Embryological House Project: The “Technology” and Metaphors of Metorsmof Architecture. Viewed 16th March 2015. <https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/2100/467/Burns_Greg%20Lynn.pdf?se-quence=1>.

9: Lander, Jessica. (2014). Doris Kim Sung ’86: Breathable Buildings. Viewed 17th March 2015. http://paw.princeton.edu/is-sues/2014/03/05/pages/5853/index.xml>.

10: Oxman, Neri. (2007). Subterrain. Viewed 16th March 2015. <http://materialecology.com/projects/details/subterrain>.

11: Menges, Achim. (2010). ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion. Viewed 17th March 2015. <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4443>.

12: Kohler, Gramazio. N.d. Gantenbein Vineyard Façade, Flasch, Switzerland, 2006. Viewed 16th March 2015. <http://www.gramaziokohler.com/web/e/bauten/52.html>.

13: Gu, Ning. 2014. ‘Computational Design Thinking’. Architecture Bullertin – Spring 2014. pp. 10-11.

14: Coroflot. N.d. Freud Pavilion by Christoph Hermann. Viewed 18th March 2015. <http://www.coroflot.com/christoph_her-mann/freud-pavillion>.

15: Uncomn. N.d. Sigmund Freud Pavilion: Parametric Architeture Explorations. Viewed 17th March 2015. <http://www.un-commn.com/parametric-architectures/parametric-architecture-pavilion/>.

16: Arch2O. 2013. Sigmund Freud Pavilion – Christoph Hermann. Viewed 16th March. <http://www.uncommn.com/paramet-ric-architectures/parametric-architecture-pavilion/>.

17: Kolarevic, Branko. 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press).