horwood sam 637533 journal

HRWD

STUDIO AIRSAM HORWOOD 637533

sam horwood | 637533 | abpl30048 | studio 05 | caitlyn parry

CONTE

NTS

ii.intro / experience

02.part a

26.part b

83.part c

Hi! I’m Sam. I’m a third year architecture major studying at the Melbourne School of Design.

My interest in design in general came from a part in my life when I was old enough to start questioning what was happening around me and more importantly why it was happening. As soon as I started asking these questions design jumped out at me because

I see design as being able to create some out of nothing and have the ability to change the way in which we think or do things.

My interest in the empathetical theories that design had to

offer did not however, start in architecture. Before Melbourne University I studied drama at Deakin university for a year, During this time I was also able to dabble in graphic design as a minor study.

Drama is usually not seen as particularly relevant when it comes to architecture, however, I like to disagree. I see them both as having

a stage and creating something interesting and new out of nothing.

These experiences have entered their way into the architecture I had designed over the past two years. I have always tried to focus on the experiential aspect of design. Attempting to create not only a space to be in but one to experience along the way.

I love multidisciplinary thinking and I think that it actually sparks some extremely interesting design outcomes. I think that more people should think in this way and accept that their field of expertise is not the only one in existence. If more people thought like epithetic designers the world would be a better place.

I definitely enjoy more the simplistic rationalistic architecture of the greats like Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies Van Der Rohe, however, I am really keen to go full depth into computational design. It’s an exciting new-ish field of study and to actually understand it one must be ready to fully embrace it. I’m looking forward to this semester and what it has to offer.

INTRODUC

TION

STUDIOAIR ii

HRWD

My experience within the digital architecture world is extremely limited at this point. I did this project for a subject called Virtual Environments. The project was called second skin and the basic premise was to create a piece of wearable design using a specified technique.

The technique that I was given for the project was called profile and section, which basically involves having two pieces of planar material, notching into them then preceding to connect the pieces to construct a 3d object.

I found this both a very challenging but insightful task to complete. I did however, feel that I did not stretch my computational abilities due to lack of confidence in my abilities in this type of design.

This subject really deterred me from exploring digital design in my other works and not that I was in anyway unhappy with other works I have produced as I begin this studio I am starting to see the amazing dynamic nature of it.

EXPERIENCE

STUDIOAIR iii

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 01

HRWD

SECTION

A

03.design futuring

07.design computation

11.design computation

15.conclusion

16.outcomes

17.algorithmic sketchbook

18.references

STUDIOAIR 02

HRWD

DESIGNFUTUING

This project provides really interesting look into the future of design fabrication. More and More this has became a topic of conversation when discussing the influence of architecture on the sustainability of our futures. Architecture and the building industry have had a very long history of being particularly wasteful in their material wastage and energy demanding practices, and now architects are starting to say, this has to change.

Digital fabrication is starting to arise as a solution to this problem. For architects today it is increasingly possible for manufac tu r ing goods to be

produced using the digital information associated with them. As an industry digital programs are not new and although the use of these products is not fully embraced a lot of what architects make is design within a digital space. This process stops when in comes to the industrial world and this project is trying to breach this gap.

The interesting part of this projects

is that it is less about the style and more about the conceptual idea behind it. In this case it is simply a wall, but this wall is only the beginning of the entire concept behind it.

In terms of the discussions now starting to occur about the future of digital design in the field of architecture I think that digital fabrication is the first to enter from the conceptional world into the realistic vernacular or architectural design.

We are already beginning to see the shift towards modular elements within the architectural environment today and this is a very close step towards fully integrated digital fabrication.

With the advent of technological innovations such as laser cutters and 3d printers our options for complexity in the digital realm has increased dramatically . The possibilities of geometry is now almost limitless and this brings on the necessity to move from traditional fabrication techniques into the techniques of digital design.

STUDIOAIR 03

HRWD

gramaziokohlerthe sequential wall

STUDIOAIR 04

HRWD

foster&partnersthe british museum

STUDIOAIR 05

HRWD

DESIGNFUTUING

The Choice of my front cover for the subject this is one of my favourite pieces of design full stop, not only within the digital architecture world. This is an amazing example of how digital architecture can be used to make something beautiful.

The key to this project for me is the seamless way in which it blends the very old with the very new styles of architecture. I think this is a really important point for the future of architectural design. The ideas of styles and eras are starting to become less important than just an honest piece of design that attempts to solve some design problem.

For a museum this was quite a radical change in the way they are usually approached. Museums are usually synonymous with quiet, artificially lit spaces and can be sometimes quite plain designs. This design opens up that idea, literally. I’ve been there myself and as you walk into the main hall you a greeted with the mos amazing glass ceiling that floods the whole space with light, even on a cloudy London day.

This ceiling was obviously made possible by digital forms of architectural design. I think that this

has not only had a huge impact on the digital architects of today, but also shown everyday people the beauty that can come of digital design.

The design definitely opens more doors than it could ever close in term of future design. This building shows a lot of people how digital design can actually produce working, beautiful, built form and actually enhance a space further than what you could have with traditional forms of design.

I think this could be one of the most important design for the future of architecture as it opens up the possibilities for this type of design within the civil and public spaces and still make it work for every person that visits. It’s an amazing space and can not be described in words or pictures this is a fully experiential space.

STUDIOAIR 06

HRWD

Computer aided design (CAD) has been part of the architectural vernacular for quite some time. Architects have been using computer programs to enhance the drafting process, making it easier to edit, move and precisely draw technical drawings. Now thanks to the advent of new design based computer programs the involvement of the computer within the design process itself has increased dramatically.

T h e u l t imate g o a l of the architect ( a n d designers alike) in it’s most b a s i c form is to delve and design a so lu t ion

to a set of problems given to them from a brief or client. And as tomorrow becomes today the design problems that architects face are growing in complexity exponentially. This complexity has led to an increase in the amount of architectural practices taking up the concept of digital and computational design.

Programs such as Grasshopper

and Microstation have allowed for computational algorithmic design to bleed it’s way into the general design process of architects today. These programs allow architects to process large amounts of information quickly, efficiently and most important edit this information parametrically.

This can mean as in the following example that architects can design a form and then using a computational program add a complex material or construction process onto this form. This allows for an extremely quick work-flow producing an extremely complex design using the program as a way of doing all the heavy lifting.

The nine bridges country club is a perfect example how using computational design can produced an amazingly dynamic yet also extremely efficient design in both material usage as well as construction process. Having programs like grasshopper that allow you to make surfaces to create form first is invaluable. The parametric nature of being able to orient geometry onto these surfaces means less time is spent on trying to make it work and more time can be spent on trying new ideas

With digital design they were able to create something new and

DESIGNCOMPUT

ATION

STUDIOAIR 07

HRWD

shigerubanarchitectsnine bridges country club

STUDIOAIR 08

HRWD

foster&partnersserpentine institution

STUDIOAIR 09

HRWD

DESIGNCOMPUTATION

exciting something that could only have been achieve through the use of these programs. It’s projects like this that you can get really excited about for the future of design.

To the left is another exciting project using surfaces and meshes as the ground plane for geometrical exploration. This project too has applied a grid to intersect along a undulating surface to create a truly dynamic space.

The really interesting part about these two projects is that both are using some of the most basic commands and tools that a program like grasshopper has to offer and yet when the designs come to fruition in the real material world they suddenly come to life and evoke quite a seemingly complicated well considered form.

This is an important topic to discuss in the future of digital design and Gwyllim discussed this in his lecture. He asked the question does parametric design have a style? Is parametric a style? And this is a pretty serious topic that we have to look at and be extremely mindful of when discussing the future of design.

Tools like grasshopper let uses

come up with forms such as the two precedents here reasonably quickly which means that these techniques tend to be taught to new comers first and if they chose to just stick at this level we will start seeing a very samey version of architecture start to be produced.

Gweyllim discusses this using the example of the voronoi cells and he said that this is one of those tools that

everybody goes to first resulting in the same forms coming up time and time again.

So now that firms are starting to use these tools in real world applications like these two can these same ideas be used again? Does a form like the Fosters ceiling become a new standard for ceiling design?

STUDIOAIR 10

HRWD

COMPOSITION /

GENERTATION

Generative architecture has many benefits when it comes to the always changing architectural design process. It is closely linked with parametric design but focusses more on an algorithmic way of thinking.

Algorithms can be very hard to define as shown in this weeks reading (MIT Encyclopedia). This is because of their extremely complex nature and very programmatic thinking style. But simply put they are

a certain set of

instructions that cause a product to result from them.

Like parametric the algorithm can be change resulting in new outputs from the system. This can be a radical change in the entire algorithm or can just be a slight change in one of the components.

This is best seen in an example so let’s talk about the Tower Dubai, in particular the outer facade.

The facade consists of a overall form with a geometric pattern applied to it, resulting in many penetrations throughout the form. And thus, we have a few different algorithms working together to create the final form.

The fist algorithm is defining the general form of the outer skin. The second is defining the pattern that is being orient to the surface created in the first. And the third is defining the relationship between the two I.e. telling the pattern to penetrate the surface. Now, there’s probably a lot more working here but for simplicity we can limit them to these three.

Compared to composition design methods all of these algorithms are written independently of each other which allows us as designers to manipulate each of the elements separately and still have the overall model update.

For instances we can change the overall form of the shell and the oriented pattern will change it’s orientation to the new surface without intervention. Likewise we could change the geometry of the pattern and this will not effect the overall form. This can open up many possibilities when it comes to the design process as it allows designers to explore much more variation without needed to ‘redraw’ any elements.

Not only is this great for the designer and the design process it’s also a really helpful tool for

STUDIOAIR 11

HRWD

reiderumemototower dubai

STUDIOAIR 12

HRWD

EMBTspanish pavilion

STUDIOAIR 13

HRWD

COMPOSITION / GENERATION

changing construction issues.

Problems ultimately arise in the construction phase of design resulting in sometimes the need to change certain structural members. This may be caused by availability or cost and can change deigns subtly or more drastically.

In traditional modelling this would mean for some the re-modelling or redrawing of any of the elements that are changing as well as any other elements that the change effects.

This is where parametric design and using algorithms can really come in handy. Using the Spanish Pavilion (EMBT) as an example we can see how this can be a helpful tool in the design process.

The underlying structure which can be seen faintly behind the wicker facade is made of a series of steel tubes that follow the geometry of the entire building form. If we have this information stored within our design model using algorithms it can be extremely easy to change this if need be.

Say for instance after design engineers come back and say that the diameter of the tubes has to increase for structural stability. In traditional modelling techniques with something this

complex it would be a literal nightmare to make a change this drastically. However, if we have an algorithm that determines the diameter of the tubes it is as easy as changing the input to match the specification of the engineer.

This wouldn’t effect and of the specified connections or joints and the model would simply update and that w o u l d be the e n d of the story. A m u c h l e s s stressful s t o r y .

This just one area s h o w s us the

potential of parametric design and how it can help architects not only in the design phase but all phases of the architectural process.

STUDIOAIR 14

HRWD

Computational modelling is rapidly changing the way in which we interact, form, design and edit in the architectural world. It opens up a whole new way of thinking and approaching design and is proving to be the next step in architectural design.

Computations let the designer to create in such a way that allows for rapid experimentation and powerful editing. This is all thanks to parametric modelling which

records your history as you go so that you can come back and change just one aspect of the design without effecting the rest of the space.

Computational programs like rhino and grasshopper have opened the floodgates into a whole new realm of possibilities for the modern designer to explore and create. We can see that this knowledge is making its way into the everyday

vernacular of the present day architect and the importance of 3d representation has dramatically increased as this knowledge has been made more available.

Computational design is making a big splash within the current architectural space because of it’s amazing benefits that can be put into the designers toolbox.

Nurbs surfaces, meshes, triangulation, division and contouring are just some of the tools made available to the designer for their projects. The most important aspect is that all of these tools can be applied simultaneously, independent and parametrically in the design process. The tools can be changed and changed over again and again meaning that variations can be checked in a much more simple straightforward efficient saving the architect time to do with in other aspects of the project.

Undoubtedly parametric and computation design will be the future of architecture in the world and it’s shaping up to be quite an event.

CONCLUSION

STUDIOAIR 15

HRWD

Part A of this studio has been an absolute eye opener for me as a designer. When I started 3 weeks ago I had no clue of how to use grasshopper and now after a short time using the program I’m starting to realize how many of my older projects would have been so much easier had I known!

As first glance grasshopper looks really intimidating and scary and seems like it’s going to be the most complex thing you’ve ever seen. However, one you got into the grasshopper way of thinking it actually for me became an extremely intuitive way of designing and became just an extension of how to design.

The most amazing part of it was how easy it ended up being the create dynamic interesting designs with a few clicks.

To be 100% honest my expectations of me enjoying this kind of design at the start were slim to none. I thought that this type of design was not something that I would enjoy doing. This is starting to become no longer the case. It’s amazingly dynamic and you are able to get incredibly complex geometries without having to worry about the

problems one use to deal with when using tradition 3d modelling tools.

By making it more straightforward in the way geometry is made one gets to spend more time playing around with iterations of that particular design move. Allowing more time for designing and less mucking around with programs with limited capabilities.

Apart from all of the technical side

of things it is actually just really fun and enjoyable way of designing space and form. It allows me to just play with some forms and have more fun with form and geometry.

From the outside looking in it looks extremely daunting and serious however, I have found it to be quite fun and intuitive in its approach of how we can design in the future.

OUTCOMES

STUDIOAIR 16

HRWD

I really like the way the orient to surface was working out and I wanted to see what would happen if the surface itself became more complex. I created this flute like surface by lofting for circular curves together as is shown on the cover of this weeks tasks. I wanted to create an actual space that people could explore and

experience to start to see maybe a hint of real world application. I implemented the surface into the grasshopper function by adding it into the algorithm as a brep and hey presto! I was able to get this really interesting form very quickly and with very little effort.

ORIENT TO HEXAGONAL GRID

STUDIOAIR 17

HRWD

creating a space

STUDIOAIR 18

HRWD

‘British Museum, Great Court’, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/British_Museum_Great_Court,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg > [accessed: 11.03.2015]

‘The Great Court’ < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/great-court-at-the-british-museum/> [accessed: 11.03.2015]

‘The Nine Bridges, Country Club’ < http://www.archdaily.com/490241/nine-bridges-country-club-shigeru-ban-architects/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

“The Serpentine Institute’ < http://www.dac.dk/media/11590/smithsonian_ChuckChoi_RGB.jpg> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

‘The Sequential Wall’ <http://www.rok-office.com/projects/sequential-wall-068/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

‘The Spanish Pavilion’ <http://img5.adsttc.com/media/images/53f9/1873/c07a/8009/6200/0749/large_jpg/1272406253-spain2.jpg?1408833639> [accessed: 26.03.2015]

‘Tower Dubai’ <http://www.homedit.com/o-14-tower-in-dubai/> [accessed: 26.03.2015]

REFERENCES

STUDIOAIR 23

HRWD

‘British Museum, Great Court’, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/British_Museum_Great_Court,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg > [accessed: 11.03.2015]

‘The Great Court’ < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/great-court-at-the-british-museum/> [accessed: 11.03.2015]

‘The Nine Bridges, Country Club’ < http://www.archdaily.com/490241/nine-bridges-country-club-shigeru-ban-architects/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

“The Serpentine Institute’ < http://www.dac.dk/media/11590/smithsonian_ChuckChoi_RGB.jpg> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

‘The Sequential Wall’ <http://www.rok-office.com/projects/sequential-wall-068/> [accessed: 18.03.2015]

‘The Spanish Pavilion’ <http://img5.adsttc.com/media/images/53f9/1873/c07a/8009/6200/0749/large_jpg/1272406253-spain2.jpg?1408833639> [accessed: 26.03.2015]

‘Tower Dubai’ <http://www.homedit.com/o-14-tower-in-dubai/> [accessed: 26.03.2015]

STUDIOAIR 24

HRWD

BIOMIMICRY

Digital forms of architecture are quickly changing the way we do architecture and these technologies being produces are being heavily embraced by many architects today .

Somewhat ironically as we delve further into digital design it has begun to bring us closer to the natural world, designing with

f a b r i c a t i o n and materiality already in mind shrinking the gap between the digital and the real.

This is where b i o m i m i c r y comes into play as an extension of this ideology. B i o m i m i c r y

at its core come from the idea that nature is one of our biggest resource of inspiration and precedents that we can utilise to solve our design problems. This inspiration can come in different forms.

Inspiration from nature can take on many different forms and the main of these are materiality, form and

function of the space.

For me I’m really interesting in the idea that the function of the space can mimic nature. Creating spaces that work in similar ways to spaces in nature seems like a really deep field of exploration and I think that it can produce something that’s both dynamic and interesting.

These three projects show some examples of how these three different ideas can work when it comes to architecture. They to me are really dynamic and produce some really interesting outcomes for design.

INTRODUC

TION

materiality

STUDIOAIR 29

HRWD

function of space mimic through form

STUDIOAIR 30

HRWD

There is a vast number of inspirational ideas and precedents when it comes to nature and biomimetic architecture, but something that I haven’t seen much in research is inspiration from the dynamic movement of

nature.

This is something that I am really i n t e r e s t e d in exploring and I think could produce s o m e t h i n g interesting for

the area.

Movement surrounds the site, with the river right next to it seems only natural to produce something

that can move itself according to the conditions of the site reacting

directly with its context.

A really good precedent for this kind of design and that is the Rolling Bridge designed by Heatherwick Studio. This projects provides pedestrians with a way to cross the river as well as providing access for boats. Hetherwick said that he wanted to make the movement the great moment of

the design.

This is really interesting in the function of the item is being determined by a natural instance where this occurs, and with that has been manipulated to fulfil a function needed to solve a

problem.

INITIAL IDEAS

STUDIOAIR 31

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 32

HRWD

sky lartibbitsvoltadom

STUDIOAIR 33

HRWD

sky lartibbitsvoltadom

STUDIOAIR 34

HRWD

VoltaDom, by Skylar Tibbits - for MIT’s 150th Anniversary Celebration & FAST Arts Festival (Festival of Arts, Science and Technology) - is an installation that populates the corridor spanning building 56 & 66 on MIT’s campus. This installation lines the concrete and glass hallway with hundreds of vaults, reminiscent of the great vaulted ceilings of historic cathedrals. The vaults provide a thickened surface articulation and a spectrum of oculi that penetrate the hallway and surrounding area with views and light. VoltaDom attempts to expand the notion of the architectural “surface panel,” by intensifying the depth of a doubly-curved vaulted surface, while maintaining relative ease in assembly and fabrication. This is made possible by transforming complex curved vaults to developable strips, one that likens the assembly to that of simply rolling a strip of material.

That was the description taken from Tibbits’ website. I put it in here because it’s always interesting to hear from the actual designer what they think

the project means to them which can be either beneficial or damaging.

MIT is a very technical heavy school and being a festival celebrating art, science and technology this seems to me to be quite a fitting installation because the project itself come under all three of those branches.

This acts as an art piece enhanced by the references to the grand vaults of old cathedrals. For me an interesting juxtaposition between the forms of old and the technology of new that went into the making of the piece.

The installation in also at the forefront, architecturally, of both technology and science. Digital methods have been used not only in design but in fabrication as well utilizing laser cutting.

This project is quite interesting and produces quite an amazing interior space.

“

VOLTADOM

STUDIOAIR 35

HRWD

voltadom exterior

interior view

STUDIOAIR 36

HRWD

Because of the way in which the cones trim one another the system can only handle so many items within it. The original document only allowed for 35 points to be randomly generated in the source plane. I took this up to 70 as I wanted to see the point of breaking for it.

breaking point of the no. of points in systemNUMBER OF

POINTS

STUDIOAIR 37

HRWD

Because of the way in which the cones trim one another the system can only handle so many items within it. The original document only allowed for 35 points to be randomly generated in the source plane. I took this up to 70 as I wanted to see the point of breaking for it.

10 20

40

6050

30

70

STUDIOAIR 38

HRWD

The seed number is changing the position of these points that are being generated within the source plane. Whats interesting is that I’m seeing a pattern between odd and even numbers in this slider. It seems to me that odd numbers are producing the opposite arrangement of the points and visa versa.

I’ve found that with this slider the system breaks down very quickly. I think that you would have to alter the

script to allow more functionality within this project.

SEED NUMBER

STUDIOAIR 39

HRWD

The seed number is changing the position of these points that are being generated within the source plane. Whats interesting is that I’m seeing a pattern between odd and even numbers in this slider. It seems to me that odd numbers are producing the opposite arrangement of the points and visa versa.

I’ve found that with this slider the system breaks down very quickly. I think that you would have to alter the

script to allow more functionality within this project.

CONE RADIUS

STUDIOAIR 40

HRWD

HEIGHT RATIO

STUDIOAIR 41

HRWD

Adjusting the height ratio is resulting in taller cones. The practice application of this is that this can easily

increase the volume of the interior space.

1.0 1.5

3.0

5.04.0

2.0

STUDIOAIR 42

HRWD

The size of the openings interests me quite a bit as the altering of this element can dramatically change the space within. These could also be ranged so that you would get varying light forming in different parts of the design.

SECTION CUT

STUDIOAIR 43

HRWD

The size of the openings interests me quite a bit as the altering of this element can dramatically change the space within. These could also be ranged so that you would get varying light forming in different parts of the design.

0.1

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

0.2 0.3 0.4

STUDIOAIR 44

HRWD

I thought that it would be really cool to see these faults with the box morph applied to them. Let’s be honest I was right! These look super cool and could be a really interesting space to be involved with.

POTENTIAL OF

DESIGN

STUDIOAIR 45

HRWD

interior space

exterior surface

STUDIOAIR 46

HRWD

unitedvisualartistscanopy project

The canopy designed by united visual artists is a light sculpture for the footpath of the Maple Leaf Square building in Toronto, Canada.

The light filled instalation spans a huge 90 metres and house hundreds of individual leaf shaped boxes. Some of the boxes are simply finished in metal however, most act as light boxes which are programmed turn on and

off individually creating a spectacular show for passers by.

The canopy is designed to mimic the dappled light when walking

through a forest environment. The modules are arranged within the structure in a non-uniform growth pattern abstracted in form by the shape of a leaf with a combination of both artificial and natural light source bleeding through.

There are multiple scales at which the installation can be viewed, from their website they have likened the pattern and light show to be reminiscent of the cells of an

individual leaf, leafs within a forest canopy or even the twinkling lights of a city scape as seen from above.

There is a video on their website showing the light work in action and it is extremely memorizing. The light flicker and dapple in an almost choreographed dance. Bouncing of one another they seem to be reacting to their surroundings.

This brings quite a playful life-like nature to the structure. The lights almost look as if they are playing with each other whilst jumping around the canopy.

view from the street

CANOPYPROJECT

STUDIOAIR 49

HRWD

the canopy effectview from the street

STUDIOAIR 50

HRWD

I think that ultimately the finished outcome worked pretty well. The geometry of the individual pieces looks to be the same as that of the existing project.

I obviously needed some help from the nice people on the grasshopper forum and that was really handy without which I wouldn’t have been able to get the geometry right at all.

The part that needs work is the boundary surface that creates the surfaces open or closed. This was the best / only way I could think of completing the task and unfortunately it seems to be a

very heavy algorithm. This makes the outcome slightly less parametric then I wanted it to be.

The glass areas in my engineered version are simply just planes that I have materialised with a glass texture through Vray. In the actual project you can see that there is in-fact a 3 dimensional geometry to the glass most likely dispersing the light in a nicer way than just a flat

piece.

I couldn’t quite figure out how to perform this task but it’s something I would like to look into.

The original project is quite simple in form being a long rectilinear form it doesn’t hold many surprises. From this point I’d like to try and see what happens when the surface input is changed. Will it work?

Another part I would like to change is the vertical length of the pieces themselves. In the project all of the pieces are the same height and I think this could be varied to create something more dynamic in nature.

Overall I think it worked out pretty well and resembles the original design with respect.

FINAL OUT

COME

STUDIOAIR 51

HRWD

final interior space

STUDIOAIR 52

HRWD

SELECT A SURFACE

CURVES

FACTOR IN Z AXIS NON-UNIFORM SCALE

EXTRUDE

MAKE BOUNDARY SURFACE BASED ON CURVES

SPLIT SURFACES USING CURVES

PANEL TRUE OR FALSE DISPATCH TO CREATE 2 GROUPS

BAKE

POINT POINT CHARGE RANGE

THIS IS NOT NEEDED FOR ORIGINAL DEFINITION

SUBDIVIDE SURFACE APPLY SCRIPT TO SURFACE USING DOMAINS DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

GRAPH MAPPER

DEFINITION

STUDIOAIR 53

HRWD

SELECT A SURFACE

CURVES

FACTOR IN Z AXIS NON-UNIFORM SCALE

EXTRUDE

MAKE BOUNDARY SURFACE BASED ON CURVES

SPLIT SURFACES USING CURVES

PANEL TRUE OR FALSE DISPATCH TO CREATE 2 GROUPS

BAKE

POINT POINT CHARGE RANGE

THIS IS NOT NEEDED FOR ORIGINAL DEFINITION

SUBDIVIDE SURFACE APPLY SCRIPT TO SURFACE USING DOMAINS DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

GRAPH MAPPER

STUDIOAIR 54

HRWD

I needed to create surfaces behind each of the extruded pieces of geometry. This was solved easily with making a boundary surface using the curves from the script as the input. This create one surface the shared the extents of the geometry. However, a portion of the panels seemingly random in choice were

pieces of metal the others were glass panels to let light through the canopy skin.

I needed to figure a way of selected the panels I wanted so that I can change their materiality separately. I had one surface and needed to divide it into individual segments based on the geometry

below and to do this I figured the best option was to use a surface split command using again the curves as the trimming device.

This worked in creating individual surfaces for each piece. Unfortunately this was an extremely ‘heavy’ command apparently

resulting in the inability to change to amount of geometry without crashing my system.

Pushing through I needed to separate the collection of surfaces into two different groups in order to create a random selection of faces. To perform this task I used a dispatch command that selects items in a list according to a true / false input and places them into 2 groups. Perfect!

I was then able to place in a panel for the true / false input and create a very parametric and relatively random way of creating the two different panels.

DISPATCH ANA

LYSIS

STUDIOAIR 55

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 56

HRWD

TRUE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE

TRUE > FALSE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE

DISPATCH ANA

LYSIS

STUDIOAIR 57

HRWD

TRUE > FALSE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE

TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE

TRUE > FALSE > TRUE > TRUE > FALSE > FALSE > TRUE

This is a really interesting tool. This enables me to somewhat control hoe much or how little light can get through the structure and as you can see has an extremely high amount of variation built in.

This would be something that I want to explore more and see how much I csn manipulate it. I really want to have more control over it as in maybe a point attractor

that can switch the panels on and off that could maybe be triggered by something on the site. This could be an interesting thing to explore for my design project.

STUDIOAIR 58

HRWD

SUBDIVISION -

ROWS

STUDIOAIR 59

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 60

HRWD

SUBDIVISION -

COLUMNS

STUDIOAIR 61

HRWD

Both adjusting the columns and the rows bares similar results. If on is kept constant the other simply stretches the geometry in the direction that it adds divisions.

This seems somewhat not useful however as I have attempted to place this algorithm on other surfaces this becomes really important.

The surface divisions needed to create

the correct geometry changes drastically when applied to different surfaces and more importantly the ratios of columns to rows changes as well. This is what I think is a somewhat limitation of this script as you have to constantly adjust these two parameters when altering surfaces which becomes cumbersome and time consuming.

STUDIOAIR 62

HRWD

5:1RATIO

STUDIOAIR 63

HRWD

From testing the different iterations of subdivided surfaces I realised fairly quickly that there was a constant ratio needed between the rows and columns to create the exact shape in this case study.

This ratio was 5 rows to 1 column and as you can see this ratio applies through the spectrum of variations you had, as long as the ratio stayed the same the profile of the geometry would as well.

This makes the system very easy to add density to. I can now easily create higher density of geometry and knowingly have the same profile of the pieces.

As this is the only geometry I need for this definition a simple expression could be set up that represents this ratio meaning only one slider would have to be changed to add density.

STUDIOAIR 64

HRWD

DESIGNPOT

ENTIAL

BEZIER

SINC

GAUSSIAN

SINE

GRAPH MAPPER

STUDIOAIR 67

HRWD

The graph mapper makes the scale adjustment of the fins almost limitless. I really like how many different outcomes you can achieve just by changing this one element.

As you can see the changes are not only virtually limitless but they drastically change from one graph to the next making this a very powerful tool.

This is also good because the shape of the curve could be something relating to the site context which could be really awesome for my design project.

GAUSSIAN

SINE

PARABOLA

SINE SIMULATION

PERLIN

SQUARE ROOT

POWER

CONIC

STUDIOAIR 68

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 69

HRWD

One area that I really want to explore was varying the height of the modules themselves. When considering how to complete this I wanted to add a more dynamic and surprising nature to this shift.

This is why I decided to use a point charge as I could obtain a varying height difference as the charge began to wear off.

This worked out really well I and meant that I could get a much more dynamic and perhaps even a more responsive design outcome. These point attractors could be related to something occurring on site and could provide the design with a changing form responding to the site.

This feature has added quite a bit to the design and was a relatively easy and painless operation just using the force of the point charge as the input for the force in the z axis on a non-uniform scale parameter.

The point charge is also being controlled by a graph mapper which means that I can alter the graph and create linear and non-linear fall off from the charges. This factor is probably the most interesting because using that graph mapper

let’s you come up with an extremely large amounts of variation with very little effort involved.

EXTRUSION LENGTH

STUDIOAIR 70

HRWD

CERES

BLYTH ST

MERRI CREEK PARK

What really interested me about the site was the difference in the quality of the areas around the park area. Most of the site seemed very clean to

me. Almost to clean to be honest. It seemed to me that the park area was attempting to emulate a natural environment yet still having all the amenities that a normal park has, bike paths, bench seating, nice green grass.

It struck me as a little fake, like they wanted it to be this nice natural place but really it’s virtually the same as a park in the south east suburbs. That being said there are some parts of the area

that feel more interesting to me and the site that I’ve found really struck me when I got to the site.

I think that placing my design here could bring something really interesting to the site in genera and produce somewhere on the site for people to chill out and experience the ‘natural’ parts of the are more.

SITE CONTEXT

STUDIOAIR 71

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 72

HRWD

The next step for me is to tryout different forms within the algorithm. For me I don’t think it is necessary to have the geometry of the leave within the structure as I want to focus on the light potential of the space based on the circumstances of the site.

The script that runs the geometry is quite processor intensive and makes the whole design run quite

slow so changing this geometry to something more simple like a hexagonal grid may be a good direction to go. This way I can focus directly of the manipulation of the form and the other algorithms that will make my project more interesting and engaging.

LIGHT AND MOV

EMNT

STUDIOAIR 73

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 74

HRWD

To say that this part of the course has been tough would be a vast understatement. Part B has been an eye opener to how hard these concepts can be to grasp.

The thing is that watching the video tutorials and following the steps is actually an extremely easy thing to do. Part B introduced the challenge of coming up with our own definitions to solve our own problems.

This was a challenging but amazingly rewarding experience. When you’re forced to start from the bottom up and attempt to use your own scripts to solve a problem it becomes a lot harder but ultimately the goal becomes more exciting to experience.

I think my next step is clear, after the crit it was obvious to me that I needed to have a solid pick of my certain script that I wanted to use and I need to just explore every single possible thing I can do with it. I simply need to just try and try again until there is nothing left but a better sense of what I’m doing.

From seeing other peoples projects it was clear to me that I needed to try more

LERNING

OBJECTIVES

STUDIOAIR 75

HRWD

To say that this part of the course has been tough would be a vast understatement. Part B has been an eye opener to how hard these concepts can be to grasp.

The thing is that watching the video tutorials and following the steps is actually an extremely easy thing to do. Part B introduced the challenge of coming up with our own definitions to solve our own problems.

This was a challenging but amazingly rewarding experience. When you’re forced to start from the bottom up and attempt to use your own scripts to solve a problem it becomes a lot harder but ultimately the goal becomes more exciting to experience.

I think my next step is clear, after the crit it was obvious to me that I needed to have a solid pick of my certain script that I wanted to use and I need to just explore every single possible thing I can do with it. I simply need to just try and try again until there is nothing left but a better sense of what I’m doing.

From seeing other peoples projects it was clear to me that I needed to try more

possibilities. I was being too conservative and not trying to take the system to the point at which it nearly breaks. I was simply performing tasks until I thought it looked good, and a I now know that simply should be my concern.

This being said from where I started in this subject i do feel a sense of accomplishment in my understanding of these concepts. I do not think that what I’ve done has shown that yet but I am keen to make that much more obvious from this point onwards.

I look forward to this exploration and hope that Part C will force me to step out of my comfort zone and into somewhere I haven’t yet been.

STUDIOAIR 76

HRWD

I wanted to start looking at different geometries and how this same process would on them. This proved to be quite interesting actually and spat out some really usable forms especially when using straight sections. I thought that this form would make a cool skin for a building and then just fill in the blank spaces with a curtain wall. Could be interesting.

LINEARGEO

METRY

STUDIOAIR 77

HRWD

CURVEDGEOMETRY

STUDIOAIR 78

HRWD

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 2

STUDIOAIR 79

HRWD

close up of height changes

STUDIOAIR 80

HRWD

BEIZER PURLIN

GRAPH MAPPER

STUDIOAIR 81

HRWD

PURLIN SINE PARABOLA

The graph mapping technique became extremely useful to me through my exploration of my design proposal and in these sketches I discovered the vast potential of this tool. I will definitely attempt to use this tool in my final design outcome.

STUDIOAIR 82

HRWD

SECTION

C

85.reflections

87.design concept

123.model

130.learning outcomes

From my interim presentation I now have a few areas that need to be considered. The one big point that I received from the presentation was adding control to the definition. The variation in the surface script and dispatching was good but there needed to be a reason for it and that reason needed to then be chanelled back into the design itself. I wanted to play around with light quality within the space and this is good but the light needs to be a reaction to something on site that can influence the amounts/quality of light directly in the design.

REFLECTIONS

STUDIOAIR 85

HRWD

From my interim presentation I now have a few areas that need to be considered. The one big point that I received from the presentation was adding control to the definition. The variation in the surface script and dispatching was good but there needed to be a reason for it and that reason needed to then be chanelled back into the design itself. I wanted to play around with light quality within the space and this is good but the light needs to be a reaction to something on site that can influence the amounts/quality of light directly in the design.

This also applies to the form. The form I created for this presentation was simply to test the spacial quality of the script, now I need to attempt to create a form based of specific elements learnt from the site itself.

STUDIOAIR 86

HRWD

FLEMMING PARK PHILLIPS

RESERVE

MERRI PARK

BATMAN PARK

JONES RESERVE

ROBERTSRESERVE

METHVEN PARK

CERES ENVIRONMENTAL

PARK

N

PANELLING

IDEAS

On my interim presentation I simply copied the panelling geometry that I had in my reverse engineering project. This was fine but I wanted to create an original geometry that was derived from an element of the site that I was interested in,

My concept for the design is to direct attitudes towards the natural

a s p e c t s of the site thus this I began to look into the c o n t e x t of the site within a wider area. I w a n t e d

to see the amounts of natural space within a wider circle of area.

After finding all of these spaces around the site I was able to connect all of them together. This created an interesting geometry that was a result of site context that will influence the design.

I wanted the geometry to become fully parametric so that if any of these spaces were to change, removed or if there were new spaces added then the geometry would reflect this in future interations of the project.

To do this I created a simple rectangle that worked as my canvass for the geometry then through subdivision and list management I was able to connect the lines together at the correct spacing.

This geometry can the be used to create the panelling on my surface now it was time to develop to form.

finding the spaces

STUDIOAIR 87

HRWD

FLEMMING PARK PHILLIPS

RESERVE

MERRI PARK

BATMAN PARK

JONES RESERVE

ROBERTSRESERVE

METHVEN PARK

CERES ENVIRONMENTAL

PARK

N N

connecting the dots

parametrizing the geometry

finding the spaces

STUDIOAIR 88

HRWD

form findingscale 1:500

z axis down

z axis up

plan geometry

point attractors

STUDIOAIR 89

HRWD

FORM FINDING

Through my concept I was asking people on the site to stop and consider the different aspects of the site. Thus it became an obvious conclusion that I could not ignore the site myself when it came to a form finding exercise.

I wnted to create a form that was solely developed by the context of the site itself.

First things first I wanted to look into the different aspects of the site that were involved in my concept for the design. These were, movement, man made elements and the sun paths along the site. These reflected my concepts of users of the site, directing towards natural spaces by using light qualities.

I came up with the idea that these site elements could be reduced down to simply line work which could then be divided into points.

These points could then be converted into point attractors that could mould a form and create a space.

form findingscale 1:500

z axis down

z axis up

plan geometry

point attractors

STUDIOAIR 90

HRWD

TRIMMED SURFA

CES

To attempt to complete my idea I needed to use a matix of points that could respond to the point attractors and inturn create my desired form. This uses the patch command in grasshopper which creates a surface that follows the evaluation of the matrix of points.

This worked great and gave me a surface that had a base form of the geometry created by the site analysis as well as being moulded by the site elements related to my design concept.

Unfortunately this results in a trimmed surface. The problem with this is that the surface division technique does not accommodate trimmed surfaces and thus results in a formulated simple rectangle which fits the extents of the trimmed surface.

This is frustrating however, from research there seems to be no way around the problem. It has to do with the way rhino can perform tasks with trimmed surfaces which means that even if you break the parametric model and bake the surface the subdivision will return the same results.

I felt that the formation of the form was more important than the fact that it was built off my found geometry o I decided to accept this as reality and move on to the surface panallisation.

STUDIOAIR 91

HRWD

To attempt to complete my idea I needed to use a matix of points that could respond to the point attractors and inturn create my desired form. This uses the patch command in grasshopper which creates a surface that follows the evaluation of the matrix of points.

This worked great and gave me a surface that had a base form of the geometry created by the site analysis as well as being moulded by the site elements related to my design concept.

Unfortunately this results in a trimmed surface. The problem with this is that the surface division technique does not accommodate trimmed surfaces and thus results in a formulated simple rectangle which fits the extents of the trimmed surface.

This is frustrating however, from research there seems to be no way around the problem. It has to do with the way rhino can perform tasks with trimmed surfaces which means that even if you break the parametric model and bake the surface the subdivision will return the same results.

I felt that the formation of the form was more important than the fact that it was built off my found geometry o I decided to accept this as reality and move on to the surface panallisation.

STUDIOAIR 92

HRWD

CREATE RECTANGLE

GEOMETRYCREATION

VECTORDIAGRAM

FORMFINDING

SUBDIVIDE SURFACE USING LIST ITEMS CHOOSE POINTS FOR GEOMETRY

DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

SUBDIVIDE SURFACEDOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

CREATE RECTANGLE POPULATE WITH POINTS

MERGE POINT ATTRACTORS TO ONE FORCE

APPLY PATCH TO MATRIX OF POINTS

APPLY SELECTED POINT ATTRACTORS

MOVE IN Z AXIS EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE

PANNELINGSURFACE

MOVE ACCORDING TO VECTOR AMPLITUDE BASED ON ATTRACTORS

RULE SURFACE BETWEEN TO GEOMETRIES

APPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHIM TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE

SCALE DOWN USING POINT ATTRACTORS

STUDIOAIR 93

HRWD

CREATE RECTANGLE

GEOMETRYCREATION

VECTORDIAGRAM

FORMFINDING


DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V


DOMAIN V

CREATE RECTANGLE POPULATE WITH POINTS

MERGE POINT ATTRACTORS TO ONE FORCE

APPLY PATCH TO MATRIX OF POINTS

APPLY SELECTED POINT ATTRACTORS

MOVE IN Z AXIS EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE

PANNELINGSURFACE

MOVE ACCORDING TO VECTOR AMPLITUDE BASED ON ATTRACTORS

RULE SURFACE BETWEEN TO GEOMETRIES

APPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHIM TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE


VECTOR DIAGRAM

STUDIOAIR 94

HRWD

RENDERINGS

This was the final form and panalisation of the surface and these are some of the renderings I produced for the project. The finsihed material was to be timber most likely plywood and each panel had the gometry panelled upon it.

Overall I was relatively pleased with the outcome however, as I will go into detail in my

reflections on the presentation I realised that it was not exactly what I was looking for.

STUDIOAIR 95

HRWD

main elevation main perspective

interior space panelled surface

STUDIOAIR 96

HRWD

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

DAPPLED LIGHT

DIAGRAMING

SUCCESS

STUDIOAIR 97

HRWD

BIKE / RUNNING PATH

GREENERY / MERRI CREEK

VIEWS OF MAN MADE OBJECTS

VIEWS OF MERRI CREEK

STUDIOAIR 98

HRWD

There was a lot to think about after this presentation. Basically what I took from the experience was that the concet was good and the crits liked the nature of the context of the design directly effecting and manipulating the final form and design elements. However, they did not feel that what was produced as a final piece reflected what I spoke about in the narrative of the design.

Getting home after the presentation was interesting to say the least. To be brutally honest I was very angry. Angry at myself for producing the level of work that I did and

REFLECTIONS

STUDIOAIR 99

HRWD

There was a lot to think about after this presentation. Basically what I took from the experience was that the concet was good and the crits liked the nature of the context of the design directly effecting and manipulating the final form and design elements. However, they did not feel that what was produced as a final piece reflected what I spoke about in the narrative of the design.

Getting home after the presentation was interesting to say the least. To be brutally honest I was very angry. Angry at myself for producing the level of work that I did and

creating something that really didnt respond to what I wanted. Not only that there were other factors that I disliked about the design. But instead of wollowing in self pity I decided to look at this as a good thing. I knew the concept worked so really the hard part was done with but I needed to use this information I collected much more directly into the design. It was time to go back to the drawing board and a fresh design awaited.

STUDIOAIR 100

HRWD

FORM FINDING

base geometry extrude edges

STUDIOAIR 101

HRWD

extrude edges diagonal curves loft curves

I went back to the drawing board and refined down the form finding exercise to it’s bear essentials. This was what I wanted to create based upon the rules I originally set up in it’s most simple form.

What makes this effective, I think, is that it is very clear to read, there is no trying to understand how or why

I got here it is a clear appreciation of the information I got from the site analysis.

What is nice is that although simple in nature I think that the overall form is quite interesting and full of plenty of surprising spaces to encounter.

STUDIOAIR 102

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 103

HRWD

NEW PLAN

The new plan solves many of the problems with the old and has created a much better outcome to my agenda.

The plan still directs people to move off the bike track and towards he natural areas of the site but it also does something else in that it slows traffic down.

The nature of the form dictates that people slow down in the middle of the space. To further enhances the agenda in the way that people will start to appreciate the natural spaces and the overall beauty of the site.

From this plan you can also see the dynamic nature of the shadows created by the panelisation and material properties,

The differing panelisation treatment grows in scal as the spectator moves through the space creating more viewing area and directing people to where they should go.

This has created a nice scattering

of shadows differing in size. The inherent qualities of a translucent material have also created a more dynamic effect.

Shadows now overlap one another creating a next level of shadow complexity. This will of course change throughout the day creating suprising and dynamic shadows to be viewed by the audience of the site.

I started this deisgn by going back to the simple and defining the rules that matter. I started with my original geometry as a base and didn’t sway from that it was very important that this stayed true and could be witnessed through the design itself.

STUDIOAIR 104

HRWD

elevation 01

elevation 02

STUDIOAIR 105

HRWD

elevation 03

elevation 04

STUDIOAIR 106

HRWD

CREATE RECTANGLE

GEOMETRYCREATION

VECTORDIAGRAM

FORMFINDING


DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

OFFSET EACH SURFACE TO CREATE FRAME

DECONSTRUCT BREP EXTRUDE EDGES CREATE LINE DIAGONALLY INTERSECTING EACH FACE

LOFT EACH LINE TO THE NEXT IN THE ROW

PANNELINGSURFACE

USE LIST MANAGEMENT TO SELECT INNER PANELS


DOMAIN VAPPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHIM TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE


VECTORDIAGRAM

STUDIOAIR 107

HRWD

CREATE RECTANGLE

GEOMETRYCREATION

VECTORDIAGRAM

FORMFINDING


DOMAIN U

DOMAIN V

OFFSET EACH SURFACE TO CREATE FRAME

DECONSTRUCT BREP EXTRUDE EDGES CREATE LINE DIAGONALLY INTERSECTING EACH FACE

LOFT EACH LINE TO THE NEXT IN THE ROW

PANNELINGSURFACE

USE LIST MANAGEMENT TO SELECT INNER PANELS


DOMAIN VAPPLY GEOMETRY CREATION ALGORYTHIM TO SUBDIVIDED SURFACE


STUDIOAIR 108

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 115

HRWD

CONSTRUCTION

I didn’t feel that it was right to have a large join between the individual panels. The design relys on the sweeping movement of the form and that would be interrupted by large joining elements.

Thus I used a technique that would allow me to create a small piece that would define the angle between

the two elements that need joining. This poved to be quite a nice detail in that it was subtle enough that it didn’t get in the way of the design and also could stand out on show without being covered up so that if you wanted to know how it was built you didn’t have to look very far.

STUDIOAIR 116

HRWD

ITTERATIONS -

HEIGHT

STUDIOAIR 117

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 118

HRWD

ITTERATIONS -

X AXIS

STUDIOAIR 119

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 120

HRWD

ITTERATIONS -

Y AXIS

STUDIOAIR 121

HRWD

STUDIOAIR 122

HRWD

REFLECTIONS

As stated in my last reflection there was a lot to think about after my ‘final’ presentation, and I’m happy that there was. I’m glad that I was able to take another look at the project because what I finished with I am pretty happy with.

I spent a lot of time thinking about my design and refinig it down to what I really wanted to do. I needed it to be a simple gesture a play between light and space to create a design that was inherently straightfoward to read.

STUDIOAIR 123

HRWD

As stated in my last reflection there was a lot to think about after my ‘final’ presentation, and I’m happy that there was. I’m glad that I was able to take another look at the project because what I finished with I am pretty happy with.

I spent a lot of time thinking about my design and refinig it down to what I really wanted to do. I needed it to be a simple gesture a play between light and space to create a design that was inherently straightfoward to read.

This project was not easy to put it lightly. Grasshopper has an extremely steep learning curve and left me more frustrated than I have ever been designing. That being said it does have many benefits when it comes to this type of dynamic architecture.

This subject was definitely rewarding, I had never really tapped into this area of digital design and I am glad that I have had the oppurtunity to do so. Ultimately I enjoyed what I was able to produce and although some may say it was not the point I did like my final piece and I am truly happy for that.

STUDIOAIR 124

HRWD

sam horwood

horwood sam 637533 journal

Documents