STUDIO AIR JOURNAL

JENNIFER GREALY661521

FROM ALGORITHMIC SKETCH BOOK

CONTENTS PART A: CONCEPTUALISATION

A.0 INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------4A.1 DESIGN FUTURING ----------------------------------------------------------------------6A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION -------------------------------------------------------------12A.3 DESIGN GENERATION -----------------------------------------------------------------18A.4 CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------25A.5 REFLECTION------------------------------------------------------------27A.6 ALGORITMIC SKETCHES------------------------------------------------------------28A.7 REFERENCES------------------------------------------------------------32

A.0 INTRODUCTIONA.0 PAST WORK

4

T-shirt design for Lonely Goat. Mixture of hand and computational techniques.

3D printing excersize for studio Earth. First experience of Rhino.

Previous studio model: Earth.

INTR

OD

UCTIO

NWHO AM I AND WHY AM I HERE?

There has always been a constant force in my life pulling me towards creative expression. I feel quite fervent when engaging in playful design and have always believed that this passion has defined me. In school I was “that chick who hangs in the art room” and amongst my friends I am known as the “artsy” one.

So naturally after graduating high school, I pursued the most crazily creative, hands on and imaginative career path: a bachelor of Commerce. That de-scription was all sarcasm, obviously. After one se-mester, I realised how much I missed my daily serve of creative juice and looked for other options.

And here I am today. A twenty year old, third year Bachelor of Environments student at the University of Melbourne, looking to find a future in Architecture.

Outside of uni, I am a co-founder and the Design Leader of a street wear label called Lonely Goat (www.lonelygoat.com.au). I design by hand and us-ing Adobe Creative Cloud software. I am confident using Photoshop and Illustrator.

Upon commencing Studio Air, I realised that my familiarity with Rhino was relatively low. I have used the rudimentary Rhino functions for studios in the past and have dabbled with basic 3D printing in my last studio, Studio Earth. At this early stage in the semester, complicated modelling and grasshopper algorithms are new and often confusing for me. However they present a learning challenge that I am keen to embrace.

A.0 INTRODUCTION

5

“ ”...engage the complexity of design

as a world changing force...

6

-Tony Fry 1

A.1 DESIGN FUTURING

Given that the past informs the present which itself in turn fathers the fu-ture, a backward look can often lead the way forward, yielding instruc-tive information not only about the process of future-forward architectural design, but also its content, effect and application.

Collectively as human beings, our population has aided the destruction or ‘defuturing’ of the planet through our anthropocentric viewpoint and selfish, unsustainable practices. It is our duty to seize what chances we have to optimise our existence and work towards a better future for our world.

Design is vitally important to our success; design acts as a cycle spurring on further design and we must change our attitude as to the process and product of our creation, as we have exceeded the limits for nature to support us1. If communally, we perceive design to be a tool to be utilised in creating sustainable solutions, we will be witnesses to positive transfor-mational action.

In this time of increased knowledge about the state of our world, actions count more than ever. We must design for sustainability. Design to incor-porate natural elements as much as possible. Design so as not to inhibit natural fauna and flora. Design as a community, not just one single build-ing at a time, but as a network of supporting designs.

7

8 Sketches of Plan Voisin 3

PLAN VOISON, 1925LE CORBUSIER

9

The early years of the 20th century were a time of renewal and change due to the First World War and technological advances. In the field of architec-ture, Le Corbusier (1887-1965) “proclaimed democracy and equality through the built environment” 2, believing that orderly, scientific urban design would give everybody equal access to quality of life2. His future- ready thinking saw architecture as an essential element of urban planning and vertical cities as blue prints for the future. His state of the art project, Plan Voisin, idealistically intended as a re-birth of a dying, squalid area of Paris, promoted a then-fu-turistic plan of office, residential and green space areas. Le Corbusier based his design on concrete statistics, the proved reliability of certain materials, a new form of social and economic organization, and a more rational ex-ploitation of real property 3. As a vision for the future, Plan Voisin was seen as too radical and was rejected. Saved from the skyscrapers, that same area is now vibrant, fashionable and architecturally significant, representing the tri-umph of organic regeneration over imposed urban behemoth development, which, since the 1960s has been seen as having a detrimental, rather than beneficial, effect4.

What remains is Le Corbusier’s vision, which introduced many of today’s ar-chitectural elements such as modular/mass construction, concrete slabs, piloti stilts, free flowing floor plans and roof gardens, but there is much dis-cussion over his failures, examining them for flaws in theory, practice or ap-plication, thus generating new ways of thinking and doing 5. As such it would appear that LeCorbusier’s contribution to modern architecture is derived as much from his failures as from his successes.

Thus today, the concept of zoning introduced by Plan Voisin is still being de-bated. Mixed-use or active, flexible spaces could be either creative or all too predictable; defined areas could be confining or conversely, liberating if specialising maximises spatial effect, identity and output, contributing to a rich diversity6. There is a similar paradox in the notion of democratic planning, which is self-defeating if is paternalistically imposed, without any public input or consultation6. The close relationship between architecture and the city is another area that is still evolving: today, singularity of design is preferred to homogeneity, but with the condition that it engages with its circumstances – the urban setting with its opportunities, limitations, needs and attributes. An architectural dialogue with the city’s imperatives of space, location, culture and society can be a catalyst for cooperative, intelligent, inventive, mean-ingful, productive and future-enhancing design solutions.

Sketches of Plan Voisin 3

10Card Board Cathedral8

11

CARDBOARD CATHEDRALSHIGERU BANThe February 2011 Christchurch earthquake devasted the city; killing close to 200 people, injuring thousands and damaging up to 100 000 buildings, in-cluding the 19th century neo-Gothic Cathedral, which remains mired in de-bate over restoration, rebuilding or destruction choices.

Against a similar background of controversy, Shigeru Ban’s cardboard cathe-dral (dubbed CaCa in ChCh) was quickly and sustainably built within two years, spiritually spearheading the city’s regeneration. The cathedral stood as a symbol of hope and rebirth, and as an iconic tourist attraction, whilst still portraying its religious function7. Yet its real value lies in the future forward thinking behind the design.

Shigeru Ban’s inspiring vision of finding strength in instability by looking for the limitations and taking advantage of them8 has universal application at all levels at all times, but especially in this current climate of world-wide environ-mental, political, social and economic uncertainty, upheaval and change.

The cardboard cathedral literally demonstrates the strength of Ban’s ability to make a virtue out of necessity. Because simple forms and readily avail-able materials are economical and quick to build especially in emergency situations, the building’s design (an A-frame of cardboard tubes over ship-ping containers), necessarily conveys a ‘temporary quality’ that is however not necessarily related to strength or longevity of construction. Originally designed to last 20 years, a change in brief, accompanied by appropriate engineering of the original plan to provide for locally sourced LVL wood in-serts in the cardboard tubes, has extended the life of the building to 50 years or more. Thus ordinary cardboard was manipulated into a structure strong enough to withstand earthquake conditions, justifying the claim that the strength of the building was not associated with the material. This is a good demonstration of the viable alternatives to concrete and steel paves the way for future innovation and design possibilities aimed at sustainability, recy-cling, and savings in construction costs and scarce materials.

Given it’s genesis as a survival response to environmental or social disasters, Shigeru Ban’s architectural vision has already confronted the future – name-ly, its natural disaster aspect - and his flexible, hybrid approach can generate a groundswell of progressive thinking.. His cardboard cathedral ticks all the right boxes – it is sustainable, using environmentally friendly, vernacular, recy-clable materials; it is economical in cost, material and build-time; it is truthful in form, function and identity; it is beautiful, inspiring and innovative. If there is any hope at all for ensuring an autopoietic antidote to man’s destructive tendencies It would surely be to adopt or adapt these future-affirming sign-posts into pathways to a ‘probable/ plausible/ possible/ preferable’ future9.

12

Cartoon10

A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION

Gone is the perception of an architectural firm to be filled with black tur-tle-neck wearing workers sitting behind drafting tables, laboriously hand sketching plans and sections. Rather, when we think of an architectural practice, we see state of the art computers with the latest technology being tooled by designers to reshape preconceptions of the built world. Though the turtle neck stereotype is sadly still present.

The presence of technology in architecture has spurred great innova-tion. Technology has altered the design process- from pre-renaissance times when buildings were constructed not planned11. Design process-es have changed; parametric programs allow for quick adaptations of forms and the methods of precedent projects to be studied and easily modified.

Computer technology and human sense are a perfect relationship. Computers do not experience humanistic flaws such tiring and making mathematical errors. Computers are unbiased, analytical machines that provide deep insight and appraisal into the information they are pre-sented with11. These evaluations are incredibly useful for judging perfor-mance criteria and producing optimal results for given data. However, not all information can be analysed quantitatively. Human senses that add value to the expression and atmosphere are complex processes that cannot be fully rationalised and robotically reproduced.

In this age of rapid technological advancement, there is a greater re-quirement for architects to have up to date computational skills. Tech-nology plays a large hand in modern society’s pattern of mass customis-ation, and offers solutions as to how to accomplish differentiated design in responding to the needs of our rapid and large-scale urbanisation 12. It is our responsibility as architects, how we embrace the revolutionary advancements developing in the world of architecture.

13

14

Gehry Guggenheim sketch15

Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao 16

15

In this transitional stage when computation is still being explored for its design possibilities, the relationship between architect and computation is still being negotiated. One of the most iconic buildings, Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, represents the current best case relationship between architect and computer design program, in this case, CATIA. Gehry’s sketches, de-veloped from a basic concept and based on a plan, were transferred and completed on CATIA, but at each stage Gehry directed the approach, re-maining in control of the process and staying true to his concept and plan13.

Integration of computers in the design process allows for problem analysis of a design. The capacity to produce extremely complex forms in intricately interactive shapes makes it imperative that physical elements be considered: what building material will be used, how will it be constructed, and how will it be manufactured. The design of the Guggenheim Bilbao originally envis-aged a series of reinforced concrete shells, but the physical elements of con-crete would have caused problems in forming the complex free form design, so steel was chosen to create the structural grid, mimicking the properties of the original concrete shell, but without the construction complications14.

Computers were vital to information sharing among the team involved in the design, manufacture and build. The complex geometry of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao necessitated intensive computer modelling and information sharing between the architects in Los Angeles, the engineers in Chicago and the steel fabricators in Spain to successfully achieve the design, fabrication and construction of the Museum in Bilbao14.

GUGGENHEIM MUSEUMFRANK GEHRY

Beijing National Stadium 20

The Beijing National Stadium project utilised computation from the earliest stage, when the use of a 3D parametric model was deemed essential to the design process if the project bid was successful. The software package CATIA, developed by Dassault Systems and used in airplane and automobile design, was selected17.

CATIA was used to model complex geometry, which was then imported into specially adapted, iterative structural-analysis package18. The ability to tailor software to a partic-ular project need was used to achieve the specific requirements of an Olympic stadium, including the precise geometric requirements of Olympic tracks and facilities18.

It was also used to achieve other more open-ended goals by translating the goal into specific parameters. Thus the provision of an outstanding Olympic spectator atmosphere was achievable if the seating was as close to the action as possible. Specially created parametric software, MicroStation, helped with the provision of the optimum universal proximity to the arena by enabling the comparison and analysis of 33 different seating options in mere days, rather than the weeks it would have taken to draw the necessary sections by hand18.

Computation was instrumental in achieving the exactingly high level of information shar-ing and communication that would be key to the success of the project. Integrated soft-ware forged a close, and unified working relationship between the architects, engineers and construction team18.

Computers were also used for problem solving to meet project requirements. A request for reduction of project costs midway through construction created a problem that was solved by analysing the design and deciding on the removal of the retractable roof. The domino effect on the rest of the design and construction would have presented huge im-plementation difficulties however computational design systems not only negated those issues, it turned them into positives since changes could be easily made and explored. Overall, savings were made as the roofless section (kept small for retraction) could be enlarged, further reducing weight and support requirements and thus cutting down the amount of steel used, as well as enhancing the appearance of the building17.

Computers were also used as an interface method with key stake holders and the public. At state level, the project was a public relations and marketing opportunity showcasing China; it was also an opportunity to acquire overseas management concepts and skills. The design therefore had to incorporate Chinese culture and creativity, train high-level Chinese personnel and adhere to standards of openness, efficiency and innovation, and ultimately, create a new image of Beijing and China. At project level, the expected out-comes were to meet the requirements of Olympic stadia while also being cost effective and profitable19. In order to achieve all these objectives, state-of-the art technology was required and involved in every stage and aspect of the project.

BEIJING NATIONAL STADIUMJACQUES HERZOG, PIERRE DE MEURON, LI XINGGANG & OTHERS

18

“

”

When architects have a sufficient understanding of algorithmic con-

cepts, when the digital is no longer viewed as different, then computation can become

a true method of design...

-Brady Peters21

A.3 GENERATIVE DESIGN

19

Design computation involves processing data and connections between inter-related elements of a system which produce a specific result21. Computational simulation software allows for the generation of more responsive designs and ef-ficient analysis of design possibilities at a rate impossible by human composition.

Parametrics in computational design has had several connotations over the years. First coming into popularity in the seventies, the term described curves through parametric equations22. The term has since evolved, incorporating the recogni-tion of structural components, mathematical equations and the use of numeric data that can be modified and controlled.

But it is not the definition of the word that is important, rather the possibilities that such technological advancement presents. Parametric design goes beyond sim-ply designing the form of a building; instead it calls for the assembly of principles governing form. This allows for quick and efficient iteration of design ideas, which using previous methods such processes would take lengthy periods of time. Para-metric systems are constantly developing. The proposed production of ongoing digital models that use parametric information creates opportunity for continuing analysis of a buildings life that incorporates situational changes over time21.

Like any transition, the progression from human composition to parametric design has its admirers and its doubters. Patrick Schumacher for example, believes that parametricism is a useful tool with the potential to organise and articulate the increasing diversity and complexity of architectural systems and reshape the con-straints of design through the creation of dynamic, animate design entities23. Oth-ers stand to caution such enthusiasm: Daniel Davis warns against the complexity and scale of parametric modelling, asserting that we have a limited understand-ing of such systems22.

These views are spread throughout the architectural community on various spec-trums and can b the demand for computation experts. The integration of com-putational knowledge into architectural firms has four different approaches ac-cording to Brady Peters: Computational design specialists, computational design consultants, designing with fully integrated computation practices and software engineer/designers21. The different approaches implement by firms when adopting computational techniques describes the value each firm places on such knowl-edge. A full integration of design computation into the design process shows a high regard for the advancements of such technology.

The accessibility of scripts and templates online through sharing platforms such as the Grasshopper Community, present an opportunity to engage in the sharing of ideas that are a gold mine to harness. Yet such opportunity and the limited na-ture of scripting (in terms of requiring certain elements for a script to work) poses questions: At what point do we cross from designer to software engineer? Are we still designing when it is the script that produces the end product?

20

Subdivision in 3D modelling refers to the representation of a smooth surface through a piecewise linear polygon mesh. Essentially, this breaks a polygonal face into smaller divisions that as an enti-ty represent a smooth surface. Hansmeyer explored the process of sub-division and the embellishment of orna-ment. He used an abstracted column as an input form and tagged components, allowing the subdivision process to define separate elements25. The parameters are allowed to vary according to different forms, creating an elaborate aesthetic.

“A NEW ORDER”SUBDIVIDED COLUMNMICHAEL HENSMYER (2010)

21

A.3

GEN

ERA

TIVE

DES

IGN

This design process focuses on the pro-duction of a column, rather than the de-sign of a column. Iterations can be easily produced, creating several highly de-tailed columns, highlighting not a single column, but the collection as a whole.

Computer generated design is comple-mented by the complexity, and intricate nature of the columns appearances. Such variance and detail would be ex-tremely laborious if generated through human conception.

Subdivided Column 25

2222Kokkugia Project: Experimentations with publiic spaces26

23

SWARM ARCHITECTUREKOKKUGIA PROJECTLED BY ROLAND SNOOKS AND ROBERT STUART-SMITH

Swarm Information is based on the formation of movement vectors within a distributed system od various interacting elements (e.g, people, animals, substances etc.). Swarm modelling steps beyond the generative values of spline modelling and parametric design. In paramet-ric design, the commencing condition governs possibility, whilst with emergent design follows non-linear systems and influences order from the smallest component26.

The Kokkugia project is an architectural re-search collaborative who explore generative formation26. Their experimentations are the expressions of growths from the processes of complex systems. In application, these projects are demonstrative method of understanding the emergent nature of public spaces.

Such a design process takes the architect’s control away from the end result. Rather, the beautifully organic and fluid nature of the works arise from the interactions of its own el-ements; a process which is impossible for hu-mans to wholly recreate.

23

Part A has encouraged thinking on the innova-tive and progressive changes occurring in the cur-rent design world. The future direction of architec-tural design is governed by how we react to these changes, and their outcomes becomes our responsibility.

The topic ‘Design Furturing’ addressed issues that are now more serious than ever. In human kind’s short exis-tence on this planet, we have managed vast and dev-astating destruction. With this knowledge, it is our obli-gation to demonstrate better practices through design.

Design computation technology provide unparralled ad-vancements in the nature and course of design. We now have a great ability to rationally analyse solutions and work to optimal performance of materials and form.

Taking a step above design computation, design gener-ation uses algorithms and parameters to control and influ-ence the creative process. Great work efficiency can be achieved with humanly impossible precision and detail.

My own design approach will hopefully reflect the knowl-edge I have gained studying these topics. I aim to bet-ter the existence of my Merri Creek site, in a way that re-spects the context and I will experiment with computation and generation to create possible solutions for my design.

A.4 CONCLUSION

25

“”

I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it.

-Pablo Picasso

26

Immersing myself within the theory and practice of archi-tectural computing has broadened my perspective on the possibilities of the design world. I once believed that the pen and paper were the most important tools for design, howev-er learning about computer aided strategies has changed my view. Generative processes have endless value, allowing for design formation in ways that would not be wholly pos-sible without such technology. It is interesting to learn that some architectural projects that I have always thought were original imaginative ideas arose through these methods.

The most significant hurdle of such software is learning to use it. At the beginning of the semester I felt extremely daunted when faced with Rhino and Grasshopper. Algorithms and script formations often confused me, and to be honest I felt that I would be better off doing everything by hand. How-ever as this unit has progressed, I feel a growing apprecia-tion for the parametric manipulations and adjustability of-fered by such software. I feel that such knowledge would have given me better results for past studios; allowing me to quickly and easily experiment with design variations and create realistic 3D renders.

I still feel rather intimidated by some aspects of this software, as my computational techniques and knowledge are still lacking. I feel that this lack of knowledge will give my designs an unpredictable nature as their results would most likely be through a misconstrued algorithm. Yet I acknowledge that this subject delves into experimentation and I am keen to learn and better my techniques.

A.5 REFLECTION

27

TOPOGRAPHYFOR EASIER FABRICATION

28

A.6 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHESA SELECTION FROM MY ONGOING ALGORITMIC SKETCHBOOK

TRIANGULATIONALGORITHIMSEXPERIMENTATION WITH DIFFERENT CURVES

29

GEODESICALGORITHIMSEXPERIMENTATION WITH DIFFERENT FORMS AND CHANGING X & Y INPUTS

30

The algorithmic sketchbook is my favourite component of the Studio Air assessments. Documenting experimentations with algorithms is incredibly useful as it allows me to reflect on what forms I feel compelled to and how I may manipu-late them further.

I found that the process of compiling these sketches gave me a first hand experience of the theory content taught in the lectures, tutorials and readings. Although these sketches demonstrate more basic algorithms, they present the possi-bilities of computation. I chose these sketches as they show how computation can be used to make quick variables in designs and how a form can be manipulated for easier fab-rication.

OCTREEEXPERIMENTATION WITH FORM, VOIDS AND OFFSET

31

1. Fry,Tony, Design FuturingL Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Ox-ford: Berg, 2008), p. 1-16

2. Almeida ,Teresa, Le Corbusier: How a Utopic Vision Became Patho-logical In Practice (Orange Ticker, 2013) < https://orangeticker.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/le-corbusier-how-a-utopic-vision-became-pathologi-cal-in-practic/> [accessed 4 August 2015]

3. Foundation LeCorbusier, Plan Voisin, Paris, France, 1925 (Foundataion Le Corbusier) < http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=6159&sysLanguage=en-en&itemPos=2&item-Count=2&sysParentName=Home&sysParentId=65> [accessed 6 August 2015]

4. Lubin, Gus, Why Architect Le Corbusier Wanted to Demolish Down-town Paris (Business Insider, 2013) < http://www.businessinsider.com.au/le-corbusiers-plan-voisin-for-paris-2013-7 4> [accessed 6 August 2015]

5. Minthorn, David, ‘Exhibit Surveys Early Influences on Titan of Modern Architecture’, The Canadian Press, 16 January 2013

6. Eisenschmidt, Alexander, Importing the City into Architecture An in-terview with Bernard Tschumi <http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=01303c38-56cc-4b06-8ab9-7c7843ce3b08%40sessionmgr113&vid=0&hid=103> [accessed 8 August 2015]

7. Bridge, Adrian, ‘From Natural Disaster to Divine Inspiration’, The Daily Telegraph (London), 12 May, 2012

8. Barrie, Andrew, Shigeru Ban: Cardboard Cathedral, (Auckland Uni-versity Press 2014)

9 Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction and Social Dreaming (MIT Press 2013).

10. cartoon: Architects then, Architects now < http://www.dwll.in/> [ac-cessed 10 August 2015]

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

12. Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds. Theories of the Digital in Archi-tecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014),

-END PART A- REFERENCES

32

33

13. Jehlen, Myra, ‘Guggenehim in Bilbao”, Raritan 18.4 (1999)

14. Iyengar, Hal, Novak, Lawrence, Sinn, Robert & Zils, John, ‘Framing a Work of Art’, Civil Engineering (08857024) 68.3 (1998)

15. Gehry, Guggenheim Museum Sketch < http://www.detnk.com/files/node_images/161e252e902cc5b9.jpg>

16 Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao , Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/1241/guggenheim-museum-bil-bao-guide-director-favourites.html>

17. ‘Carrying the Torch’, Civil Engineering (088557024) 78.8 (2008)

18. Cobb, Fiona, Dissecting the Bird;s Nest, Architects’ Journal (00038466), 227.17 (2008)

19. Yu Wen Liu, Guo Fu Zhao & Shou Qing Wang Tsinghua University, Many Hands, Much Politics, Multiple Risks- The Case of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Stadium,The Australian Journal of Public Administration 69.1

20. Christian Berleie Gonzalez, Beijing National Stadium, < https://www.flickr.com/photos/yushimoto_02/6896611382>

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

22.

23. Davis, Daniel, ‘Quantatively analysing Parametric Modeling’ Interna-tional Journal of Architectural Computing,12. 3 (2014)

24. Schuchmacher, Patrick, ‘Let The Style Wars Begin’, Architects’ Jour-nal, 231.16 (2010)

25. Hansmeyer, Michael, <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/proj-ects/columns_info4.html?screenSize=1&color=1#undefined> [accessed 12 August 2015]

26. Vehlken, Sebastian, Computational Swarming: A Cultural Technique for Generative Architecture, Dynamics of Data-Driven Design (2014)