{Architecture Design Studio –Air ABPL30048} A Case For Innovation and Interest- JOURNAL

Timothy Lamb: 541195

Tutorial: 11- Tutor: Daniel and Adam

CONTENTS

1- [Week 1]- Architecture as Discourse

2- [Week 2]- Computational Architecture

3- [Week 3]- Parametric Modeling

4- Algorithmic exploration

ADS-AIR ARCHITECTURE AS DISCOURSE

WK 01

About Me

My Name is Timothy Lamb and I am a third year bachelor of Environments student, currently majoring in architecture. I really enjoy architecture because of the creative nature there is to designing as well as the somewhat grounded nature of a plausible building that fulfills it’s function. Starting first Year University I did the Bachelor of science and then later changed to Environments in order to pursue a career in Architecture hence my background is scientific coming into this subject. In terms of past subjects with software usage I have done studio water, and Designing Environments. I Have not had much experience with computer designing software and hope to learn it more thoroughly during this semester. Currently I have experience in sketch up and not much else, hence this Semester I would like to learn this field of architecture that being parametric design and increase my computer skills.

Architecture As Discourse

  Lecture Discussion

  Essentially it is the series of critique that surrounds a project in architecture, For example the idea of “form” in architecture has been discussed and debated in questioning whether a style of a building has to have a sort of meaning to it like a appropriateness or functionality. As well it can be anything to do with questioning the design process or the finished product. Alongside this is the thought of buildings in relation to a wider context, the possibility that rather than just the finished product fulfilling function but more of a “social and professional practice” [1] of ideas that come together to create something that is both useable and relates to the context and value. Hence therefore the case for innovation is a curious argument because of different industry and audience.

  Reading Discussion

  The readings brings these ideas discussed in the lecture together into a more refined discussion of whether computational design is better than sketch ideas. For example in the reading by Richard Williams on visual culture, he discusses how architecture contains “symbolic value and this means there is a more expanded view of architecture because of this” [2]. The ideas questions the barrier between computer design and whether this makes design devoid of creativity or symbolism and that sketching is the only real way. Therefore architecture can be created in several ways however the way that is chosen can change the outcome, and coming back to architecture as discourse this also relates because the design process can be critiqued in the use of computers or other means.

Architectural Discourse- Buildings (1) - Casa De Musica (Oporto, Portugal) By Rem Koolhaas

This somewhat interesting building from the mind of Rem Koolhaas, has a great journey of exploration behind it. As of now still a concert hall, and it contains large monumental halls and the piercing natural light from skillfully placed windows it is truly a unique space. As a usual Koolhaas statement the context doesn’t matter hence, despite the building bordering between the residential district and the industrial district, being a true modern building it does not really fit into either side of the city however because of this it stands out. This is timeless piece because of the way it sticks out in it’s context. The theories used to create such buildings are intriguing because the design process may be somewhat a mystery, but it is because of this that the end product is also a mystery from the presentation of the architect. Therefore the overall perception of the building is mostly intrigue because of it’s strange shape and monumentality, the exact reason for the choices of form and experience are hard to determine. Hence It is truly a stepping stone for modernist architecture and a creation of ornamentation and intrigue.

[2]

[1]

Architectural Discourse- Buildings (2) - The Bibliotheca of Alexandra (Alexandria, Egypt) By international firms

The bibliotheca in Alexandria has always been a hub of Egypt for international knowledge and affairs, ever since the ancient original Alexandria bibliotheca was in use until it’s demise by fire. It was built by a group of international architects and meant to reflect the grandeur of the original. The context of the library is on the coast of Alexandria, it is modern architecture in the heart of old Egypt, this choice of modernity was to make it suitable for international crowds and stand out. The Building is still used as a library and museum. The side of the museum has letters from all languages, to show this cultural significance and world knowledge all in one place. The design process was essentially to create something timeless for future generations to learn within. For discourse the symbolism is very prominent by markings and not so much the construction. The journey through it reveals high roofs and suspension for a suitable circulation pattern. However in it’s entirety the library is essentially a symbol of progress for Egypt and this is seen in it’s modernist style and choice of concrete materials.

[3]

[4]

References

  IMAGES

  [1]- http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/the_17_sides_of_a_cultural_id.php

  [2]- http://www.e-architect.co.uk/portugal/casa_da_musica.htm

  [3]- http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/the_17_sides_of_a_cultural_id.php

  [4]- http://www.lacona10.org/venue.htm

  TEXT

  [1]- Williams, Richard (2005), Architecture and visual culture, in Exploring Visual culture Definitions, Concepts and contexts, By Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh, Edinburgh university press) pp102-116, pg 108

  [2]- Richard Williams, 'Architecture and Visual Culture', in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 – 116

ADS- AIR COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE

WK 02

Computation in Architecture

  Lecture Discussion

  The main ideas that were explored was “Computation” or the use of computers for designing. Up until now the computer software has only been seen as a refining tool, however in today age it can be considered as a form of creativity to utilize the computer to make grand design from scratch. As well as this it would seem that the use of electronics for a design is inevitable, as most designs can begin on paper but have to be constantly refined on the computer because the values are more precise and it might be easier to read. However this collects a lot of debate around whether these software's are limiting our creative ability as described by terzidis that “it is possible to claim that a designers creativity is limited by the programs that are supposed to free their imagination” [1]. However the arguments are to do with things such as the design process and space, or the analysis and evaluation of design and seeing if computers can aid or rejects these. There it is an interesting topic that is surrounded by many opinions in the design community.

  Readings Discussion

  contemporary design is mostly CAD aided according to both readings and because of this we should learn to embrace it. In contemporary design the use of computation is indeed become more common this is because of the way new shapes and forms can be created, by using the technology these forms can also be somewhat feasible. Some of the techniques that are used within design is parametric and vector design, this can be seen within the use of rhino and other designing software’s

  The readings this week included “whither the design?” and “Architecture in the digital age” the main contentions that come out of this is the distinction between the relationship with computation and human design and how some of these programs work in making design. In the first reading Woodbury describes how the software does not only create new design but it “amplifies human cognition” [2] showing that it can extend our ideas beyond or capabilities and take things further. This is an ambitious claim for CAD but some of the new great pieces of architecture has developed from this and contributes to innovation. However there are several that think the opposite but in my opinion I think as long as there is still interesting and innovative architecture being created, it is still the person that initiates the software to assist in creativity as long as there is an element of choice it is still coherent.

  From The reading “whither the design” another idea that contributes is the design space, it is the journey or process that is used to create a final outcome

Computation Design (1) - BMW Welt (Munich, Germany) By Coop Himmelb(1)au architects

The BMW Welt building is currently being used as a showroom and museum for BMW automobiles. the main design purpose was to create a large open space that could showcase these cars. As a result a large structure with various curves, a fluid shape but also geometrical qualities was created. In terms of computational design the most obvious use of this and the centre piece of the structure is this corner ramp and showroom, it is essentially a hourglass shape swirl that almost looks likes the windows are stretching and becoming twisted. The fluidity of the design could only be achieved by the use of a generated software. The supports for the structure, steel beams are bent and angled to create this fluidity along with curved and smoothed windows assist in this construction. In terms of the design process the designer may have used inspiration for this design, but to create a shape so complex the design might have started small and was only amplified by the software. The idea was refined and made plausible by software and therefore a shape like this could only be made probable by determining the calculation and methods within the software for then real time engineering and construction methods that would have taken much longer otherwise that is why computerization is quickly becoming a standard in the industry.

[1]

[2]

Computation Design (2) -ContemPLAY Pavilion (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) By McGill School of Architecture DRS

[3]

[4]

The McGill pavilion was designed by a group of architecture students as a final design project, and is used a public sitting area for university students and others. It sits in the university as a display and a statement. This steel and wood structure was designed using a DRS software created by the university, and this was a project created with that software to shows it’s power. The interesting shapes and curves were made to demonstrate again fluidity and versatility of computation. The ways in which the wood is curved and bent could be achieved through calculation, however if this model was made on the computer the values could be already determined and different ways in which it could be constructed can be determined purely from that. It both speeds up the process and refines it. The ways in which materials are used can also be maneuvered to create new form properties that can expand the use of timber for more fluid than rigid design. Therefore with the range of tools in software decision making is key and there still choice in what tools to use which in return regulates the design.

REFERENCES

  IMAGES

  [1]- http://www.theluxuryspot.com/tag/modern-art/

  [2]- http://csupomona2013wkapeller.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/architect-coop-himmelblau-location.html

  [3]- http://inhabitat.com/twisted-contemplay-pavilion-is-a-complex-piece-of-street-furniture-made-with-local-materials-in-montreal/

  [4]- http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=4&pro_id=20684

  TEXT

  [1]- Terzidis, Kostas (2009) Algorithms for Visual design using processing language, Pg xx

  [2]- Woodbury, Robert F. and Andrew L. Burrow (2006). 'Whither design space?', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20 , 2, pp. 63-82

ADS- AIR PARAMETRIC DESIGN

WK 03

Parametric Design

  Lecture Discussion

  Parametric design is a particular type of computational design. It is essentially a “series of equations that express quantities explicit functions called parameters” [1] this is seen in the software grasshopper an add on for rhino in which you program the changes in design, the nodes or parameters are set. Parametric design is seen as extremely fluid design, shapes that are smooth and do not necessarily conform to rigid square shapes, the surfaces are usually soft and continuous lines are evident. The debates surrounding parametric design are that because there can be several changes in design this might means there is an excessive amount of changeable steps, an eventually the computer can become cluttered. However at the same time this means the design process can be pinpointed where something went wrong for example. Parametric design on the other hand is now just performed on computers in this century, however as described by Ash and Woodbury “parametric modeling is not new, building components have always been adapted to context” [2] Therefore Parametric design is essentially a calculated and collective design process of a series of equations used to make a design.

  Readings Discussion

  The main readings included Woodbury's “elements of parametric design” and Mark Burrys “Scripting Culture: Architectural design and Programming”. Essentially these two readings focus on the main discussions of the limitations and strengths of parametric design. In particular in Woodbury's paper he describes how designing can usually be an abstract process, but with parametric the data flow and thinking process can be conceived through the computer. This enhances the way that design can become both mathematical and algorithmic. For example although sketching in most cases is the first an foremost design step, drawing on paper and conceiving a design, this can be taken further. Such as if a circle is created the computer can be used to explore this form further by creating dimensions and geometry to understand the shape further than what was originally intended, the circle can be manipulated to become something more than just a circle. “The CAD model is a set of mathematical propositions” [3] which is why each new step is a choice or decision in the design process. This again contributes to decision in using a computer software and what separates parametric design from other forms

Parametric design (1) - Kunsthaus Graz (Graz, Austria) By Peter Cook and Colin Fournier

[1]

[2] [3]

The Kunsthaus Graz was originally built as a centre of contemporary art in Graz, Austria and it still functions as this today. The interesting design was created originally and entirely by the use of parametric design, it has smooth exterior shape almost that of a blob and the interior is created and composed of geometric forms that are sharp and precise. The journey through the building is a collection of large viewing spaces and rooms contained with rounded windows in the fluid shape. This project expresses the contemporary programming that is seen in today's architecture. The form embodies what new software hopes to achieve. Most critiques of the building consist of whether it is aesthetically pleasing in it’s context and is this the future of architecture shapeless blobs that are strange and don’t fit? I defend this by saying that it perfectly embodies modern design as shapes like these originally could never be made due to limitations in designing, material use is of modern technologies such as acrylic glass for the exterior, hence the style demonstration moving forward and making progress in design not going back to traditional design. Back to discourse it effectively is a new journey through design in creating new shapes and journeys, it has an extensive use of computational design and this is seen with the use of parametric. Therefore this building is monument to what can be achieve through computerization and creates a steady tangent towards what future architecture will embody.

REFERENCES

  IMAGES

  [1]- http://www.graztourismus.at/cms/beitrag/10030636/2866010/

  [2]- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graz_-_Kunsthaus1.jpg

  [3]- http://spluch.blogspot.com.au/2007/08/neat-architecture-kunsthaus-graz.html

  TEXT

  [1]- Weissen, Eric (2003) CRC, Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, second, Florida: Chapman& Hall CBC

  [2]- Ash, Robert and Woodbury, Robert (2005), Multilevel interaction in Parametric design, In smart graphics 5th international symposium,, Andreas, buzz, Brian Fisher, Antonio Kruger and Patrick Oliver, Pg 151-162

  [3]- Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48

ADS- AIR ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATION

WK 01-03

CURVING

[1]

GRIDSHELL

[2]

Algorithmic Explorations

  Exploring the physical aspects of the rhino and grasshopper through the use of online tutorials and getting to know the software better has shown me the power of the tools within the software and what sort of things they can achieve.

  The two sketches that were chosen are from week 1’s tutorial one curve tools and week 3’s on creating grid shells

  The Main reason for choosing these two is because they relate to each other in creating a total shape that can become something much like the Kunsthaus Graz

  CURVING

  This tool works in drawing random curving shapes and can be manipulated into such things as arcs that which when divided and joined to the existing shapes can create fluid surfaces. However the fluid surfaces have a sense of geometry because of guidelines that appear on the shape show the curving points. In the grasshopper interface it shows the curves being selected, divided and adjusted by a number slider, which then determines the size of the arcs and connections between them. Hence with this series of commands a shape is created, and any part of this series of connections can also be altered to again change this shape. This relates to the design process and utilizing these tools as part of the creative process rather than other means.

  GRIDSHELL

  This process is again going back to creating more curves but this time in the form of a shell or object. This relates directly back to the curving tool, except in this case the arcs created can be divided between more curves. The curves used as guides for the arcs the shape created are more shaped and comprehensive. There is still plausibility and it can be changed on the move using grasshopper programming.

  Therefore just two simple tutorials have shown me how workflow can be altered and create more versatile and interesting shapes using grasshoppers approach to programming a design. In terms of the entirety of the first three weeks this fits into being for computational design and parametric design as a way of the future.

REFERENCES

  Image [1] and[2]- Timothy Lamb, 2013, rhino screenshots

Conclusion

  Over the period of so far 3 weeks several different arguments have been explored, mainly between the idea of computational architecture which is represented by the use of parametric design and Traditional architectural practice or creation

  However after exploring several views on the design process and space I have develop my own sense of a design approach. I still find that beginning a design with sketches is useful, but after the initial stage is explored this can be explored further with the use of a software such as rhino. It can make the ideas plausible as well as expanding on existing ideas further. Therefore As of the first few weeks I have realized the power of computerization and will be using it more in the future. However it will still be seen predominantly as a refining tool, it can still be used for creation.

  It is innovative to design in this way because it brings designing to a new age, technology has become increasingly better and therefore it should be put to good use, such as refining architectural design. It is significant to design using parametric design because even now computers are doing all the refining and calculation for design, with the use of rhino and grasshopper the design can be controlled to single command and equations. Originally when a computer programmed the user would always be able to program the computer, in later years the computer has become smarter and does all the programming and distanced the average person. Whereas now with grasshopper we can go back to programming in a step back to more directed design that is in controlled by the user and not the computer. Therefore to design this way is indeed the future

  As for the case of Innovation this debate surrounds this notion and with all computers and traditional design testing. As long as architecture is still interesting and evolving in style and substance with the use of new technology and thinkers. Then if someone uses a computer or their hand than it shouldn’t matter.