S T U D I O AIR

By Mandy Chu

3

STUDIO AIR 2014 SM2

2014 SM2Architecture Design

S T U D I O AIRMandy Chu584917

4

STUD

IO A

IR: Contents

CONTENTS Introduction 5Part A Conceptualisation 6

A1. Designing Futuring 7A2. Design Computation 14A3. Composition/ Generation 20A4. Conclusion 26A5. Learning Outcome 26A6. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches 27reference 28

Part B Criteria Design 30B1. Research Field: Sectioning 31B2. Case Study 1.0 32B3. Case Study 2.0 37B4. Technique: Development 44B5. Technique: Prototypes 48B6. Technique: Proposal 50B7. Learning Objectives & Outcome 56B8. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches 57reference 58

Part C Detailed Design 60C1. Design Concept 61C2. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes 66C3. Final Detail Model 68C4. Learning Objectives & Outcomes 70reference 71

5

Introduction

I am Mandy Chu.This is my 3rd of Bachelor of Environ-ments, majoring in Architecture.

At First, it was my dad that wanted me to do archi-tecture as I had no idea what I wanted to do.

At the start I knew nothing about architecture, but as I learn more and more through out the past semes-ters, I began gaining interest in Architecture and also figuring out my own style of design, discovering a whole new world that I have began to explore.

Architecture is the perfect balance between logi-cal and craziness that perfectly represent myself. Through out Studio Air, it takes me through a semes-ter of craziness that revolves around using programs that I’ve never explored before (Rhino, Grasshop-per, InDesign, Blurr, Photoshop). Through out this semester, it helped me to learn more about myself, and what is my designing style. Also exploring the unending process of designing, also exploring para-metric designs using Grasshopper through a range of precedents and also creating my own set of rules in design.

STUDIO AIR: Introduction

6

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

Part A Conceptualisation

7

Studio Air: Part A

A1. Designing Futuring

In Tony Fly’s ‘Designing Future: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’, Fly talked about design future and how design can impact our future as we continues to use our resources, but not regenerating an amount of renewable resources that can cover our expense.

‘Changing Our Thinking, Then How and What We design’

In the text, Fly stated the current designs that we are pro-ducing is mostly consisting of just a design within a design and it mostly focuses on the appearance and functions, but we rarely think about how our designs would impact the future and also how it can sustain the environment as these problems don’t accrue to us as it is not right in front of our eyes.

‘Design Futuring’ actually requires us as designers to have a clear sense of what design needs to be mobilized for or against and to stand for what we believe in. As statistics show that the planet’s renewable resource are being used up at a rate of 25% faster than it can be renewed. Therefore meaning that as humans we are destroying the planet via continuously taking more resources than we are given. Fly suggested that the only way that we can have a future is to start designing designs that can produce renewable resources and start focusing on the usage and producing instead of the aesthetics and current function, design with time in mind.

‘Whenever We Bring Something into Being We also Destroy Something’

Hence, ‘design futuring’ have 2 tasks to achieve:1. Slowing the rate of defuturing2. Redirecting us towards a far more sustainable modes

of planetary habitationAs humans we are often so centred towards ourselves, but through design future we need to think of the planet and the future.

LAGI 2012LAGI (Land Art generator Initiative) is a architectural design competition that runs worldwide and it focuses on designing to regenerate energy through the including various energy generators

In 2012, LAGI partnered up with New York City’s depart-ment of Parks & Recreation. The participates were to design a site specific public artwork that also functions as clean energy infrastructure within Freshkills Park. Fresh-kills Park have a number of wildlife existing and it is also a national park that was previously a landfill site, it includes a number of public facilities and also an expanses network of paths, recreational waterways and access to and from the West Shore Expressway. Through this competition, the requirements were to design an artwork within the site and the participates were judged based on a set of criteria which heavily involves the energy generation.

The LAGI competition is a design competition that is directed to ‘design futuring’ as the criteria needed the art-work to be energy generative and the participates have to understand the technology of the energy generator before designing, hence the function and how the design affects the future comes before appearance and how it directly affects the community and surrounding environment.

Competitions like LAGI reminds us as designers to design with time in mind and how our design would impact the future and not just the present, it gets our minds thinking about the amount of resources that we use and destroy, as the relationship between creation and destruction are closely linked together.

8

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

This design entry for the 2012 LAGI competition uses two different energy generators to generate energy: Solar and Water. As the team of designers thought of the change in weather climates, and included 2 types of energy harvesting system, the solar bubble cells and water tentacles, the de-signers also expressed that the Atmospheric can be placed anywhere on site.

The Atmospherics creates its own ecological system on its own via the harvest of sunlight and water that can benefit the vegetation on the Freshkills Park. It was designed to become a cyborg landscape and integrate with the original Freshkills Park seamlessly, although this design changes the appearance of its environments, it actually adds more to what the park has already existing as it doesn’t disturb the circulation of the existing network of paths. The site can also still be used as a park for leisure. By creating this cyborg landscape it may reduce the speed of destroying the existing vegetation and wildlife, hence it’s design Futuring to slow down the rate of defuturing.

The fragments of Atmospherics’ tomographic surface are reminiscent to the crystal Palace’s symbolic gesture. It’s simple geometric shapes of the cyborg landscape makes it interesting and also creates a shelter for as it collects sunlight to produce solar energy. The original idea were to create this design for it to blend into a landscape and also while having its own ecological system it is also part of the larger ecological system of Freshkills Park. This opens up to a range of design possibilities as the cyborg landscape as potential to creates it’s own system via the use of some renewable resources from its surrounding environment and via the energy produced it can create a consistent environ-ment making wildlife and vegetation have a more consistent habitat as the rate of destruction of natural habitat is quickly disappearing as the world population continue to grow in a

rapid pace. It’s generic form also makes the design easy to be put on any other site via little adjustment to the terrain of other sites.

This project although it does not generate much energy back to the community it sustains itself. Like Tony Fly’s text, he mentioned the two tasks that ‘design Futuring’ needs to be achieved, the Atmospheric definitely works towards the two task. The designing team thought about how the design would impact the site and how it would impact the future, it may not be aesthetically pleasing to some others, but in Fly’s text, he strongly suggested that we as design-ers should aim at the designs impact and affect to its future and environment and not just design something hats only pleasing to the eye.

For me, personally I really thought this design was inter-esting as it introduced the ides of cyborg landscape and creating it’s own ecological system via the use of different resources from its surrounding. Also the patterning of each tomograhic surface panel creates much more dynamics to the design and also separating design and a typical solar panels.

ATMOSPHERICSDesginer: Rosalea Monacellla, Craig Douglas, Greg Afflick

9

Studio Air: Part A

10

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

1111

Adaptive Mutation is a spine-like adaptive shelter that provides shading and seating, it can adapt to it’s surround-ing context and then collects sunlight via the photovoltaic panels on the exterior surface which feeds back to the city grid. Each bone-like structure is an individual hollow plastic housing and then it’s joint together with a spine “attachment”. Each hollow housing also consist of a LED that’s imbedded into the tip of each module which creates a illuminating plastic membrane at night which uses some of the solar energy that was collected during the day. The Adaptive Mutation can expand into more future possibilities as it provides a different types of housing possibilities, al-though with the Adaptive Mutation it is only used to provide a shelter, with more modification it can definitely be a form of housing.

For the Adaptive Mutation it has the maximum benefit by placing the structure in the most sunlight areas within the Freshkills Park, this may interrupt the public facilities and circulations. It also does not consider the existing wildlife and vegetation, as it does interrupt the existing environ-ment. The structures main purpose is to provide shelter and seating to the public, and also produce solar energy. For me, I think the Adaptive Mutation does not consider ‘design Futuring’ as it does not really slows down the rate of defuturing and it also interrupts the existing habitat and may potentially destroy the surrounding environment. This

design also uses part of its energy generated to illuminates itself for the sole purpose of just illuminating, therefore the function of illumination seems to just be a design of aesthet-ics and not think about sustainability as the major point of design intention.

Adaptive Mutation although provides an interesting form of housing it doesn’t really design via the intention of sustain-ing and the only idea that the designer got was to design a DNA/ spine-like structure. The design is very aesthetically driven and it also do not provide a different way of thinking and living.

For me, this design does not consist of much thought other than putting in a form of energy generating because of the brief. Although the designer worked on making a very interesting form of structure, it’s purpose is mainly just a illuminating shelter within the park, and part of the energy that’s being generated is used up via only illuminating itself at night.

ADAPTIVE MUTATIONSDesginer: Joseph Sarafian

Studio Air: Part A

12

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

The Scene-senor was the winner of LAGI 2012 and it uses a type of wind energy generator as it’s main source of en-ergy collector. As the wind blows across the wall of mirrored wind generator it collects energy as well as creating an image of the wind movement and paints the Fresh Kill site with an extraordinary imaginary of nature.

I think this design idea is very unique as it incorporates and uses nature to decorate the exterior of the structure, at the same time it also generates energy without taking much horizontal space on the site. Compared to the other design, it’s concept is simple and it also generates the most amount of energy, I can see why this design won the competition at the same time it creates such an amazing transforming art-work, it also bends in with the site without being an abstrac-tion to its surrounding. The Scene-senor’s exterior is an mirrored image of the site making it less cyborg as the other two designs discussed previously. Although it may seem very boxy is structured, I believe that one being at the site it would look less like a box and more realistic and blending in with the site more. For me this design is very interesting in terms of its material use and also the more worthy it is for it to be actually built in the near future.

This design definitely gives an infinite amount of design potentials for the future and it’s not just thinking about being just aesthetically pleasing, but also gives back to the future via the amount of energy that it can generate as ‘design Futuring’ is designs that think about designing with time and also more giving and less taking of our natural material. As explained in Fly’s text that designing future isn’t about being pretty and marketing the packaging of the product, but the actual function and future benefits that it may produce to the user.

Therefore this design is an interesting mix that incorporates nature into its design and uses wind movement to paint and decorate and also generate energy. The uses of mirrors also opens up a more user-friendly quantity of this design, as we always think of design Futuring as something exotic and cyborg with cold metal, this design suggests a different point of view about the future and that the future can also look natural and more to what we have already know and experienced.

When designing, I think that it’s the best to always design something that users and relate to and simple to use. It is easier to build on something we have already experienced than creating something completely new which may be hard to except and get use to.

LAGI 2012 1ST PLACE WINNERSCENE-SENOR // CROSSING SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL FLOWSDesginer: James Murray, Shota Vashakmadze

13

Studio Air: Part A

14

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

A2. Design Computation

For this week, we talked about Design Computation and how the advancement of technology has aided in design-ing, especially in architecture. Also what is the difference between computeration and computational design.

“Computational Design is the discipline for developing and/or applying computational approaches to problems that originate in

design...”Carnegie Melton University’s School of Architecture stated that ‘Computational Design is the discipline for developing and/ or applying computational approaches to a problems that originate in design...”, Meaning that computational design incorporates computer science’s science and art to solve a design problem in it’s designing process (creation, presentation, analysis, evaluation, interaction to aesthetic expression...). As we step froward into the digital world, designing with computers have also evolved into not just using computers to ais our design process, but also creat-ing algorithms and sets of rules to design something that continues to evolve as more restrictions are applied into the solution to the problem and using computers to find multiple solutions within the design boundaries.

As we generate into a more digitally orientated world with the invention of computers and also now a countless number of software that aids us into making the design process much easier and less physical drawing and crafting compared to the old days, this also aided into the develop-ment of more complex designs that can only be created via the aid of computers. Also making the designing process a much easier to learn and master. Architecture use to not be a profession as builders were the designers as they are masters in carpentry and/or masonry,. making it much harder to become an architecture without being an expert in those areas.

Although with the invention of architectural drawings it was easier to communicate what the designer wants, but it was very time consuming and also lots of mistakes can be made. With the invention of computers it became appar-ent that human calculations mistakes were much easier to eliminate and also cuts down a large amount of time spent on drawing and re-drawing physical architectural drawings with just a click of a button.

COMMUNICATIONComputer-aided design systems were invented to establish a way of communication between humans and computers, which relies on a shared language that different parties can interpret it the same way. In Yehuda Kalay’s book ‘Archi-tecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design’ over the fifty years most devel-oped computational systems can be categorized to three catalogues:

1. Drafting and modeling system2. Analytical system3. Knowledge-based system

Drafting and modeling systems are the most simple systems as it only aids in creating simple lines and other geometrical entities and models via a direct input from the designer, this type of systems don’t require the computer to think and it’s simply designed to just cut down on the long processes of drafting and modeling. This programs are 100% human designer.

Analytical systems are systems that can “understand” the data input and be able to provide a rational appraisal of the human designers’ solution. Meaning this type of system are based on a set data provided and draw out the exact form of what the designer wants, meaning although it does not come up with a solution on its own, it can imitate what the designers’ design.

Knowledge-based systems are also called “intelligent” systems that can come up with its own solution just via a set of rules given by the human designer, meaning that the designer had no idea how the design would look like until the set of rules are input into the system.

“Communications the ability to share infor-mation between humans and computers.”

Hence, with the continuous development of design systems it makes designing intricate patterns much easier. There-fore making designs like the Effiel Tower much easier to replicate and do much more complicated patterning with just a simple design process.

15

Studio Air: Part A

16

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

17

Studio Air: Part A

ZA11 PAVILIONDesginer: Dimtrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan HambasanLocation: Cluj, Romania

After doing the readings for this week, now looking at some precedents that uses computational design systems to generate these designs. For this particular project was designed for the ZA11 Speaking Architecture event in Cluj, Romania in 2011. The pavilion is an open circular space that are made up of 746 uniquely shaped plywood pieces and joints.

This pavilion is a parametric design via the use of programs Rhino and Grasshopper. The designer team generated the geometric shapes, then labeled each piece and assembly logic that helps the final construction of the project. Then sending the model into fabrication to get the design precise-ly cut. Without the help of “intelligent” design systems this type of design can be deemed impossible as it considers the careful assembly and calculation of the shape of each individual plywood pieces to not fail under gravity and also careful crafting of the bend and size of the pieces.

The designer team entered a set of rules into Grasshop-per and then generated all the unique pieces, therefore although the design team might have a vague idea of the end product, but as the design progresses it was hard to predict what the final outcome could look like and also how to assemble the pavilion together. Therefore making this project a parametric design with the design process starting without know the end result. Some restrictions that the

design team may input into grasshopper maybe the overall ring-like shape, the site boundaries, the vague design size and location and the amount of pieces wanted to generate this design.

With the combination of computation and computeration this pavilion cuts down the amount of time needed to product the design with only a few clicks and commands within Grasshopper. This creates many more unique opportunities to generate designs similar to this just by changing the set of rules that frames the overall design restrictions within Grasshopper. Like a master in masonry to create a similar design in a different site, via a slight different input we can alter how the design can fit into a completely different site and introduce a similar design.

Due to the development of design systems like Rhino and Grasshopper, it makes the process of designing very easy to learn and master, and anyone will be able to produce abstract and crazy designs, like we can now easily replicate the Eiffel Tower via drawing it into programs like Rhino or Sketchup. Because of the easy to learn process it opens up more ideas that aren’t bound by a set of architectural rules or guidelines that we have to stick to.

18

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

LCD Exhibits “As Autumn Leaves” at Beijing’s 2013 Design WeekDesginer: Students of Laboratory for Computational DesignLocation: Beijing, China

For the Laboratory for Computational design (LCD) exhibits in 2013, the team of students designed a structure called “As Autumn Leaves (AAL)”, which tried to assemble nature especially how the form of an autumn leaf. The team of stu-dents worked on creating a growing pattern as to how it can populate the site. In this case, the form of each individual panel, with the use of some computaterization design sys-tems that are not only define systemic and formal language of parametric designs, they also used a range of cataloging and locating components for assembly of this structure,

Compared to the Za11 Pavilion this structure integrates with the existing surrounding and it is also started with each panel design and not the overall form. For the AAL it seems that the students approached the brief with a generative and growing design instead of the usual overall shape then trying to pattern the exterior with a parametric pattern. AAL had a huge amount of control for each panel, but for the final design and how it structure it was completely up to the computerization which is very interesting and different compared to other designs that we have looked at so far. AAL truly showcased the “intelligences” of computers and how it can design based on a set of guidelines.

For me, it seems that it is much easier to design like the ZA11 Pavilion to decide the overall shapes and then detail the design via the use of parametric patterning; where as for AAL the designer needs to first figure out how each panel will look (some panel designs on the right page) and the also the flexibility of the material, then use its existing sur-

rounding to decide on how these panels with “grow” into the site making it look not just a stand alone monument, but an ornament of another structure, to me it has an odd beauty in how the old and new and interlock with each other. With a design like AAL also meant that it can be generated in a different landscape and the overall shape will integrate and mould into another beautiful structure.

For designs like AAL it provides many more opportunities to change up its design and still have a quantity that is the same, where as structures like ZA11 Pavilion the change in it’s overall shape will make it look like a completely different design and also the parametric pattern is also harder to change.

19

Studio Air: Part A

20

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

A3. Composition/ Generation

21

Studio Air: Part A

For this week’s topic Composition/ Generation, we talked about how the creation of computer-aid design systems impacted how we design. In this week’s lecture “Complex Systems, Generative Design’ by Gwyillim Jahn talked about the Turing machine (computer) and how thinkers proposed logic and paradox and also suggesting that computers can be “intelligence” and eventually work like a brain. Jahn also brought up the terms “Top-Down” designs vs “Bottom-Up” designs, and how it impacts the process of design.

“In a top-down approach an overview of the system is formulated, specifying but not detailing any first-level subsystems...In a bottom-up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail.” (Priceton.edu)

It is discussed that in previous designs, a top-down ap-proach is often used as it gives the team of designers guidelines and also a direction that on tributes to the original overall design. A disadvantages of a top-down design is that is does not allow the designers to have a free flow of cre-ativity as the overall design has already been determined. A top-down approach is often by some of the most famous architects like Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid.

A Bottom-up approach is exercised to design something experimental and it is used to generate more design pos-sibilities, but compared to top-down designs it has less restrictions and doesn’t have an overall system, meaning that it may lead to many dead ends and many possibilities that don’t work. With a bottom-up approach it is usually used by design students and it is also much more compli-cated as it needs to first design the smaller sub-systems that will contribute to the overall system. Especially with the aid of these “intelligent” design systems like grasshopper that designers can input a simple set of rules and simple op-erations, the computer can generate a complex design that is unimaginable by humans and also undrawable by hand. Bottom-up designs contribute to the creation of parametric designs as a set of algorithms are simple and it helps the designers to generate a very complex and detailed design that are emerged from the simplest input and operations like folding, but it allows the designer to determine where the fold is imputed and then forms a various similar complex outcomes.

In Michael Hansmeyer’s TED talk video ‘Building Unimagi-nable Shapes’, Hansmeyer talked about how as an architect he often gets stuck with a Top-down design of having a overall design, and he suggested that when stuck on cre-ativity look towards nature as an inspiration and use nature to mimic it’s formation and extract it’s natural pattern to a simpler form to create a set of algorithms that can contribute to a base of a bottom-up design.

“‘Computation’ means the use of the com-puter to process information through an

understood model which can be expressed as an algorithm.”

In Brady Peter’s entry in Architectural Design, he talked about how computation is used in modern architecture and how it effected the design process as he stated that computation “generate and explore architectural spaces and concepts through the writing and modifying of algorithms that relate to element placement, element configuration, and the relationships between elements”. Hence, computational designs are actually bottom-up approaches where it looks at generating the relationship between spaces and then letting it ‘grow’ into a structure via the set of algorithms generated.Therefore architects that uses bottom-up approaches have a deeper understanding of the relationships between each components and how it can effect the overall system. It also means that generative designs are possible with endless possibilities and different starting point can generate a dif-ferent outcome via the same set of algorithms.

22

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

Guggenheim MuseumDesginer: Frank GehryLocation: Bilbao, Spain

For a top-down design approach would be Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum as even via the sketches that were first drawn it contributes to the final form of the design and through it’s desgin process the team of designers try to resemble what Frank Gehry have imagined as it gives the team of architects to have a direction to work towards.

Although the design seem very complex, but due to the overall system have already been mapped out, the team of architects under Frank Ghery just have to design the sub-systems (smaller parts) of the design and also the material-ity for the curves and hence the generative design oppor-tunity is very limited as the overall form is already decided. As the Guggenhiem Museum ia a fusion of complex swirling form tand captivating materiality that responds to an intri-cate program and an industrial urban context. The team of architects used a 3-D design software called CATIA, which allows for cpmplex designs and calculations to be possible to design and manufacture all the swirling and curves of Gehry’s design.

For me, I feel like Frank Gehry’s design approach takes a very fairytale-like approach as he design crazy un-imaginable forms and then leaves his sketches to a team of architects to further refine the sketch and also to use complex programs to make the design resemble the sketch. With these not every detailed sketches Gehry puts different parts together and form the overall space and volume and gives it complexity that hs not been previously seen in the architerctural industry.

Another way that Frank Gehry designs to have a complex design is to combine various different swirls and shapes and merge them into one giant spacing making form that is centred around one main space.

As a top-down design, although the design did result in a complex form and interesting materiality, it is different to a bottom-up design as it generates a more stable outcome. And also giving a direction to how the process is going to-wards and not just using creativity as a driver to the design.

23

Studio Air: Part A

24

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

25

Studio Air: Part A

Subdivision ColumnsDesginer: Michael Hansmeyer

Michael Hansmeyer is a comuptational architect, as he designs a set of algoritthm and inputs them into “intelligent” design systems that will automatically generate complex de-signs. In these subdivision columns, Hansmeyer explained in his TED talk “Building Unimaginable Shapes” he talked about having a simple input and operation, but using a computerized programs to generate many different verisons of this object.

“Effectively, the architect designs a pro-cess that produces a column, rather than designing a column directly. This process can be run again and again with different

parameters to create endless permutations of columns.” (Michael Hansmeyer, 2010)

Michael Hansmeyer used a bottom-up design approach to this project as he was looking at how the toppography can change the overall design of the column as each input is changed a differnt outcome occurs. With these columns it looks very differnt compared to each other, but it still used the same the set of algorithms and the same parametric design. Via the simple operation the column is made out of a repeatition of this operation over and over again and it is not just the overall design, btu also when zoomed in it still

creates a very complex and the algorithm not only occurs on the outside surface but also continues to extend within the column.

With a bottom-up design it generates many differenet outcomes via a change of a simple output. Although the algorithm created by Hansmeyer were very complex and undrawable by humans, it has proposed some problems especially when it comes to fabrication. As the column is so complex it is had to fabricate as the only way to fabricate these columns were to cut a 1mm piece and lazer cut and then reconstruct each piece together. As each column is made out of 7800 pieces of 1mm thick arylic panels and the weight of these columns were 600kg. It has proposed a problem in parametric design as some very complex designs can not translate from 3D digital world into the real world as it is still impossible for us to fabricate it.

26

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

A4. ConclusionA5. Learning Outcome

In week 1, we looked at what the definiton is for ‘design futuring’ and how it can impact us and also how the socity is currently approaching this problem. Althrough it is expressed in the readings that “design futuring’ is some-thing that is not common, but it is definiatly something very important and designers need to take an urgent approach to this problem as out resources are running out. Therefore to understand more about how we can approach thios problem we did some research on the LAGI 2012 competition and also some of the entries that contribute to some solutions to solving the defuturing problem.

In week 2, we researched about computational and com-putation designs, and how with the aid of computaters and computater design systems how this effected the design industry. We also learned about the 3 different types of design systems: Drafting and Modelling System. Analyti-cal System and Knowledge-Based System. Also talked ab out the degree which computers can aid a deaign to still maintain it’s designerability and can still be called human design, as some programs now are so ‘intelligent’ that it can generate it’s own design via a set of algorithms provided by a human designer.

In week 3, we talkabout top-down and bottom-up design ap-proaches to a design problem and how it can effect the final outcome and the process of the design. Althrough it is hard to believe, but many top designers still use the top-down ap-proach as it gives a more standard and guidelines through out the process by knowing how the final product would look like; whereas a bottom-up approach is used more to gener-ate ideas and to a more unrealistic approach to the design problem. A bottom-up approach also means that there’s more crazy possiblities that can occur through out pthe process as it was not already pre-defined. As bottom-up ap-proached progresses, it is not bounded by a overall design, instead it creates it’s own set of rules and continues to trial and error to generate the final product, meaning that the possiblities of it’s final design in infinite, unlike a top-down approach where the overall design is already determined and the possiblities are limited.

Through Part A’s research and readings, I have learnt how each problem can be approached in differnt ways and also how computational designs are different to the ways to de-sign then what we’re learnt in previous studios. As previous studio’s focused more on a top-down design and Studio air is a generative studio that used the aid of programs like Rhi-nosaurous and Grasshopper to generate a set of algorithms that are the bases of an infinite design outcomes. through research I’ve also learnt the importance to design futuring and how it can directly effect the environment through our deisgns.

With the basic understanding of computation, parametric and algorithms it shows how nature can be inspirations to the ‘growing’ patterns of a generative design. Therefore via a set of simple input and operations, many generative outcomes can occur via a slight change in component. It also outlines how we can approach the LAGI 2014 brief by precedents that we’re researched about. We have also learnt that nature can be mathermatically abstracted into a pattern and aid the process of design.

27

Studio Air: Part A

A6. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

For Part A, we looked at how to use Grasshopper as a medium to generate parametric designs and also how to create a set of algorithms that depend on simple input via a number slider or referencing to a curve or surface created in Rhinosaurous.

I choose this design to put into my journal as it displays what we have talked about in the past 3 weeks. As the wall is generated by two curves and referened into Grasshop-per to generate a surface populated by triangles. And then to colour the number of triangles is generated by a set of algorithms, therefore although it looks random it is actually matherically calculated.

In week 2 we talked about computational designs and get-ting started to learn Grasshopper really changed my view on designing as through Grasshopper and Rhinosaurous we can generate very complex designs within seconds which I have found very hard in the past to even imagine calculating very single panel and fabricating it. With the use of these “intelligent” design systems it redefines how complex a design can be.

For this particular sketchbook task we were also asked to generate a opening within the design, but it won’t affect the placement of opening even if the initial curve or nuimber of triangles is changed. For this design using Grasshopper it’s

really interesting to see how it is very differnt to previous studios as it is mostly focused on a top-down design ap-proach, where as for Studio Air we focus on doing bottom-up designs to generate some very different outcomes and testing wherther they work or not. Via the use of a bottom-up approach it shows how computerization aided the design process and helps to generate designs that we won’t think of.

Through trials and error this design is made possible to resemble Buildig 80 from RMIT and it is amazing to see how easy it was to regenerate the building as it looks very complex and lots of calculationgs were involved in the de-sign, but the regeneration process only took a few hours in reality. With the knowledge on how to use these “inteeligent” design systems it can take architecture into a new level.

28

Stud

io A

ir: PArt A

reference

“AD Classics: The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao/ Frank Gehry”, Archdaily, Date Added 1st September 2013, http://www.archdaily.com/422470/ad-classics-the-guggenheim-museum-bilbao-frank-gehry/“Adaptice Mutation”, Land Art generator Initiative, Last modified 2012, http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/jk598vb2/“Atmospherics”, Land Art generator Initiative, Last modified 2012, http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/AXBXXBXA/#“Computational Design (CD)”, Carnegie Melton University, Last modified 2014, http://www.cmu.edu/architecture/programs/graduate/cd/index.html“CLJ02: ZA11 Pavilion- Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan“, Futures + Design, Date Added 31st August 2011, http://futuresplus.net/2011/08/31/clj02-za11/Fly, Tony. Designing Future: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. pp.1-16. Oxford: Berg, 2008.Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Comouter-Aided Design. pp. 5-25, Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004LAGI. The land Art Generator Initiative: Design Guidelines 2012 Design Competition. US: LAGI, 2012. http://landartgenera-tor.org/LAGI-2012/design-guidelines/LAGI. The land Art Generator Initiative: Design Guidelines 2014 Design Competition. US: LAGI, 2014. http://landartgenera-tor.org/designcomp/downloads/LAGI-2014DesignGuidelines.pdf“LCD Exhibits “As Autumn Leaves” at Beijing’s 2013 Design Week”, Archdaily, Date Added 23rd November 2013, http://www.archdaily.com/451572/lcd-exhibits-as-autumn-leaves-at-beijing-s-2013-design-week/Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman. Theories of the Digital in Architecture. pp. 1-10. London, New York: Routledge, 2014 (eds)“Parametric Designed Wooden Pavilion in Romania / Stefanescu-Bedarf-Hambasan “, Evolo, Date added 30th June 2011, http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-designed-wooden-pavilion-in-romania-stefanescu-bedarf/Peter, Brady. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmib Throught. Architectural Design, 83, 2, 2013. pp 8-15“Subdivision/ michael Hansmeyer”, Archdaily, Date Added 26th May 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/138323/subdivision-michael-hansmeyer/“Subdivision Columns - A New Order (2010)”, Michael Hansmeyer, Date Added 2010, http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns_info.html?screenSize=1&color=1#undefinedTop Down and Bottom Up Design. Youtube Video. Uploaded by Engineering.com. Published on 26th November 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVVz6Yy9uhA“Top-down and Bottom-up design”, Princeton, last modified 2014, https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design.html“ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan”, Archdaily, Date added 5th July 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/

29

Studio Air: Part A

30

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Part B Criteria Design

31

Studio Air: Part B

B1. Research Field: Sectioning

For Part B, I started looking into a research field that can contribute to my final design, and the research field that I took interest in is sectioning as this incorporates creating a general curve and then using sections and stripps to generate and shape the overall curved shapes. The examples given by are:

(Top) Webb Bridge by DCM with Robert Owen(Middle) ICD/ITKE research Pavilion 2010(Bottom) One Main Street by dECOI

From the images in the next page there’s a few common quantites, Sectioning is usually made from contouring (One Main Street) and/or waffle grids (Webb Bridge) and the whole structure is composed via smaller sections and then binded together to have some negative space within the design. By combining all the sections together, the structure creates a general space and it also creates something that was previously impossible to generate without the help of “intel-ligent” design systems that was previously talked about in Part A with the help of these computational design systems the form of these shapes were created and then fabricated using the precise calcula-tion from the design program.

Something that is only creates via the sectioning field is from the space between each section it casts a beautiful shadow onto the ground that contributes to the overall affect that the structure holds. I love the patterning and sections of an illusion of smooth curves and surfaces and also generating each individual piece that is very unique to each design.

32

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

B2. Case Study 1.0BanQDesginer: Office dA

For case study 1.0 I choose the BanQ Restrauant designed by Office dA, as part of my research field for sectioning as my case study 1.0. I was interested in researching about sturcture as the LAGI 2014 Design Guide is located in every large area with minimum structure on site, and via looking into designing structure it would be interesting to design something that stands on it’s own, rather than adding extra elements to existing structure,

With the BanQ restrauant, although it is an additional structure to an existing restrauant shown through the cross section (below), it was raelly interesting how this design is added via simple inout and viz the change in:

Image Sampler Initial Surface X, Y, Z Value Number of slices

Which generates an amazing variation of designs. As for the real design it was interesting of how the contours and overall form contribute to making the column not only as a structure support, but in someway a form of ornament as well. Gottfried Semper stated that “the functional and structural requirements of a building were subordinate to the semiotic and artistic goals of ornament”. For the BanQ restrauant, I think it satisfy both the ohysical and artistical point of view for a structure and ornament,

I love how the structure is cut into soild pieces b ut together in the overall shape it generates a smooth curve and con-tributing a general overall shape. This type of design was also unable to be designed without the aid of “intelligent” design systems as the amount of calculations weer impos-sible to do before with humans. As this set of alogrithms form a very intricate design it actually only takes a simple input and simple operation to design.

With the striated wood-slatted system being used it also conceals the view of the serving system for mechicani-cal, plumbing and lights, therefore giving the restrauant a smoother concealed finish and also a more artistical expres-sion of the restrauant.

33

Studio Air: Part B

34

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

34

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Case Study 1.0 Matrix

Image Sampler

X,Y,Z Unit

Number of pieces

Random

Base Surface

35

Studio Air: Part B

35

Studio Air: Part B

36

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

For the original design, the algorithm was to design a roof and column that looks smooth and also have the ability to conceal the interal serving systems. For me, the task was to alter the algorithm to look less like a column without the extreme height of the column and also to make the algo-rithm to look more like a structure that can stand individually without the aid of another structure and less ornament-like.

Therefore focused on altering the original form of the overall surface. And some of the results I got were very extreme as some of the iterations started to fold into each other and generating some intersting fi gures. Also changing the direc-tion of the panels would go was also a way to make it look less column like.

Selection Criteria

For this iteration I not only altered the base surface but also extruded the X,Y, Z units and I found it very intesrting how each piece folds into each other, which generated a swirl in-stead of a column, which generates an ornament fi rgure like structure that presents some possiblities of how I can use this to place it unto the LAGI 2014 Conpengahen site which such a broad fl at environment. This iterations also present how it is so different to the original yet, in some form it still has a quantity of the original algorthim presentated (the dividing of each piece)

For this iteration I decided to experiment withe the image sample and using it to alter how the patterning would work. It worked out reasonably well and it was really interesting in a sense that as the panels weren’t extruded in the Z direc-tion enough to create a fl at surface, but instead it generated overall wave-like surface. This iteration can potentially be placed onto the LAGI site for a more dramatic environment to introduce more curves onto the site. It can also be lifted up and generate a very interesting looking roof that can collect solar energy.

Although this iteration looks the most altered in terms of geometry, it was easy to recreate by pulling the control points of the base surface into different directions and this iterations really refers back to MichaelHansmeyer’s TED talk, it uses a simple input and then through simple opera-tions generating a complex output. This iteration is very scupltual and it can make a very interesting form being out onto the LAGI site. It represents curves folds combinations of usage of both changing in basic surface input and altera-tion of algorithm.

This iteration choosen shows how each panel folds into each other and it also emphasis that although the algorithm combines into a form of an overall shape, it is actually still made out of many different panels and this iteration show-cases extreme distortion of X, Y, Z units and also the folding into each other although each panel does not interfear with each other,

37

Studio Air: Part B

B3. Case Study 2.0Research Pavillion 2010Desginer: ICD/ ITKE

This temporary research pavillion was designed by Institute for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) and it consist of plywood strips that surrounds the structure that weaves in and out to form the overall shape. The bendablity of the plywood gives the possibility of the structure to be able to be constructed and hence therefore forming both the strcture and also the ornamented and aesthetic element of the pavillion.

I’ve decided to regenerated this research pavillion as it was interest-ing to see how the strips are generated both the overall structue and also the ornamented element. As the overall shape is very simple it would be great to generate the weaving of in and out of the plywood strips and also applying a similar concept to more complex shapes and playing with different number of interceptions and number of strips.

It was great to see how a very simple shape can be so complex just via the complex in adn out weaving of the strips and also generates negative space and also inviting some light into the research pavil-lion. ICD and ITKE deliberatly picked the quality of the matterial to suit the design and I think the orginal colour of the plywood defi-nately adds a very organic feel to the pavillion and also adding a less polished look and more degrading into nature.

38

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Regenerating ProcessICD/ ITKE Research Pavillion 2010

Experiment 1Through out the regenerating process I first started to simplify the research pavillion via just generating one individual strip and try and recreate the weaving pattern. It was proved to be easy as it was simply generating a number of points and using interpolate to generate a smooth curve connecting the points. This method provded to require a lot of manual calculations of locating the points and also time consuming and ineffective to repeat the process.

Experiment 2The next thing I tried was to start from manually drawing a number of curves to locat where the interceptiong of the curves would be, and then dividing the curves into equal parts and connecting them as individual strips. As the process went on I would only from a one way with these set of curves and it meant that I have to again manually form another set of curves to generate the other set of weave. Another problem that occured was that the curves would not alternate. Via the use of this method it was again very ineffective and also time consum-ing to keep generating the curves.

Experiment 3Moving on to the next approach I decided to first generate the overall shape into a surface via lofting 3 curves and then dividing the surface into a desired amount of points. Also I scaled the lofted surface into a smaller (scaled by 0.9) and a larger (scaled by 1.1) to generate the basic structure of the weaving pattern. Via the use of grasshopper I was able to easily formulate the 3 surfaces if another shape was plugged in. This was a better way to reproduce the precedent as it was less time consuming and also creates a lot more possiblilities for future designs.

I then first had to use Filp Matrix so the way Grassopper labelled he points were listing the points vertically instead of horizontally. From then on I had to cull pattern for each individual surface to select the right points for the weaving pattern.

Surface 1 -- original surface (Cull Pattern: True -> False) in RedSurface 2 -- scaled by 0.9 (Cull Pattern: False -> True -> False -> False) In YellowSurface 3 -- scaled by 1.1 (Cull Pattern: False -> False -> False -> True) in Green

39

Studio Air: Part B

At this point 3 lists were generated with all the points that was needed for the waeving pattern. Therefore I used the Weave Component to manipulate the way it selects and combines the 3 lists together that it forms a repeated pattern: Surface 1 -> Surface 2 -> Surface 1 -> Surface 3. After combining the date I then used the component Inter-polate to form a smooth curve between each point to generate the 1st set of weaving pattern.

In the next step I tried to loft the curves together but as the surves were being put into 1 long list it was unable to do so, Also if lofted it creates 1 continuous surface instead of alternating strips. I tried to use Cull Pattern again to just have 3 curves together to form a strip, but it still would not loft. This also meant that tghe strip being presented were very thick.

With some research I tried to use the dispatch component which helped to put every 2 items into it’s own individual list. therefore i could use the Loft component to form each individual strip, but it was lofting each individual strip without alternating, therfore I manipulated the Dsipatch Pattern in the Dispatch Component via the use of Boolean Toggle: True -> False and hence generating the alternating strip.

Therefore I repeated the process to geneate the 2nd set of weaving pattern, but this time changing the Culling Pattern for the weaving surface to:

Surface 1 -- original surface (Cull Pattern: True -> False)Surface 2 -- scaled by 0.9 (Cull Pattern: False -> False -> False -> True)Surface 3 -- scaled by 1.1 (Cull Pattern: False -> True -> False -> False)

Also shifting the list by 1 to alternate the lofting of the strip to the space left.

40

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

41

Studio Air: Part BStudio Air: Part B

42

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

43

Studio Air: Part B

With a little alteration from the original circles I made the overall shape resemble more like the precedent. Also as some areas are now being lfited up the strips form a more intricate shape and hence making it more interesting and dynamic as to just having a dounut shape like structure.

Also I have altered the number of dividision of the surface to a higher number to make it more refined and thinner to give off a more weaving and folding in and out of each other.

44

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Case Study 2.0 Matrix

Divide Suface

Base Surface

Roof-like base Surface (#2)

Roof-like base Surface (#1)

Coloumn-like Surface

Patterning Input

Sphere

Diifferent Base Shape

B4. Technique: Development

45

Studio Air: Part B

46

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

For this precedent, ICD/ ITKE Research Pavillion 2010 was designed to be a temporary shelter and hence I produced this matrix to see the possibilities to see if this design can lead to sometthing greater than just the function as a shekter. For the matrix I wanted to keep the weaving pattern as my main point of linking each iterations, jand tried to alter mainly on the basic shape and also the number of division on the surface as it changes to number of bends and also

the number of panels (frequency of panels).As the matrix progresses I found that the combination of changing the base surface input and getting a perfect amount of division on the surface has the best outcome and also the most impact on the design, which also gives a dif-ferent feel and introduces possible functions to the iteration.

Selection Criteria

With this iteration I kept the base surface input and changed the division of the surface. With this iteration I wanted to showcase how the change would effect the design, there-fore the number of panels is significantly deceased and the number of bends is increased by a lot. This iteration gives the surface a wave/ ripple effect, but may not be effective as it means to require material that is supe bendable and also stable to hiold the basic shape of the design.

For this iteration, I changed the base surface to a sphere and it gives it a completely different look and looks more like a scuplter than a shelter. Also I only have 1 set of panels in therefore it showcases the hollowness of the design and also it takes away the main weaving pattern and making it look like strips instead. for me, this iteration doesn’t really present itself to a practical design as it is made out of nega-tive space and also more as a form of artwork more so than a functional structure.

This iteration again uses a sphere for its base surface input, but looks much more complex than the previous iteration. With this iteration I have changed the input of the weav-ing pattern of the 2nd set of panels and this shows how the structure folds into each other and adds much more complexity and fine detail to the inner core of the sphere. The 1st set of panels is the same as the previous design via the use of the complex and siple set of panels it generates a very intense and complex design that is hard to regenerate in real life.

47

Studio Air: Part B

With this iteration it is made out of a simple base surface like in case study 1.0 and it generates a coloumn-like structure, and via the extreme alteration of the scale of the basic surface it creates a ribbon-like structure and it also creates a very interesting design as it can present itself like a coloumn or it can also present itself like a scuplture. Although this iteration is generated with a simple base surface, it ands a completely different feel to the design with the deformed weaving pattern.

for this iteration, it is made out of a simple surface to cre-ate a roof like structure. that generates a number of folds instead of weave like pattern, with this iteration the folds overlap on top of each other generating a surface for future possibilities of adding solar panels onto the roof and also the negative space of the structure introduces sunlight into the space below which will provide a shleter which also includes negetive space.

With this iteration I changed the basic surface input and made it look more like a hub than a shelter and it intro-duces a interesting coloumn in the middle that is irregular and makes the shape look differnt compare to the original design, WIth this iteration it helps to produce more functions compare to previous designs as this introcduces a inter-esting. Although this design looks the most similar to the precedent it is acutally more functional and with a little more lateration I can see how this would fit into my future design.

This iteration it has a pyrmaid like form and is more isolating compare to the previous shape. Compared to the precedent it introduces more panels, but wit the hollow cap it adds a ray of sunlight into the middle of the design.

48

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

B5. Technique: Prototypes

49

Studio Air: Part B

With the prototype I wanted to test out how the light would cast onto the weaving of pattern and also how to join each fold together. As shown above the weaving pattern creates an amazing shadow, but some constrains that I had was: 1. The stiffness of the material 2. Joining each strip togetherAs I worked through the prototype, I had to use folds instead of bends to create the prototype and I also had to create tabs and mini cuts onto the prototype to join the strips together without it falling all over the place, and also

the tabs helped to form the overall shape as well. Due to the stiffness of the material I was able to somehow form an overall shape with the ends of the strips secured in place, btu if the material was softer I would have to have a frame on the inside to support the overall shape.

50

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

B6. Technique: Proposal

51

Studio Air: Part B

52

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Mood Board

53

Studio Air: Part B

The exsiting site is a large piece of grass, and I still wanted the LAGI site to contain Copengahen’s relaxed site and hence I wanted my design to provide a place of get away or a picnic place for weekend hangouts or family outings. As this site can be a city escape, but also be easily accessable as most of Copengahen’s population travels by cycling, as Copengahen is one of the greenest cities on the planet.

The location of the LAGI site is located right besides the river side and hence I wanted to my design to project a riverside dock that is already exsiting on the site. I wanted my design to have feel like a troll along the riverside to feel the wind over the site.

The site on weekdays are a place to relax and on Sunday’s it can be a loud Sunday Market where locals and come with their own handcrafts and local products to sell to also provide a community and to let visiters to experience the culture of Copengahen.

54

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

North EastNorth West

South EastSouth West

FrontBack

RightLeft

BottomTop

55

Studio Air: Part B

For the proposal I choose to propose this iteration as it can be used as hubs and a nice resting place and also provide more privacy to each individual. These hubs are scattered across the site and forming a semi oval shape having it facing away fromthe river for shading purposes and also by having the closed off side towards the river the design can again more solar energy from havaresting sunlight.

With the LAGI site I wanted to provide a mini gate away from having this big piece of flat land and therefore I wanted to have these hubs that can provide shelter, but also having some negative space in the design so that sunlight can shine through my design. As it procresses the weaving pattern of this design really worked well as the weaving happens at a certain angle that the light enters the hub it provides a certain amount of light into the hub and creating an amazing view within the hub. Therefore this proposal is

great for couples who want their own semi private space and also for families who want their own family time.

But on Sunday’s I wanted these hubs to become mini shops for a sunday market, for locals to bring some local goods and handcrafted items into the LAGI site to generate a form of community and also promoting the Copengahen culture and becoming a tourist attraction to gain the local experience. As each hub will become an individual shop to provide to anyone that wants to come and sell some goods as the hubs provide a great shelter and also a good little shop for its market purposes.

56

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

B7. Learning Objectives & Outcome

After the interim presentation, some feedback that was given was to change my design as it looked to similar to the precedent, therefore I was encouraged to be more bold and creative and not be too concerned about the look of the final product as this tends to bound my creativity and stops be from growing my design. Also as I proposed that my proposal would become a Sunday Market I can have more structure to how I position my hubs and also have more variations across the site to accomodate different purposes of goods that would be sold eg. clothing store, restrauant, food vedors etc. During the presentation some of the feed-back was also to look at the bending of timber as I proposed to maybe use timber for my design.

Through Part B, I learnt a lot more about how to apply my Grasshopper skills from ExLab into designing some itera-tions and altering it to make a matrix of designs. Especially in Case Study 2.0, this really tested out on how I use my skills to generate something from scatch and through this process gaining a deeper understanding of how each com-ponent works and comparing to Case Study 1.0, this case study was much easier to make iterations out of as I have designed this Grasshopper definition and I know how each compomnent controls the design, like in my case the base surface input, number of strips and folds, patterning etc. this helped me to know which would have the most impact on the design.

Developing the technique was a great experience as I’ve experienced parametric designing by not knowing how the outcome would look like and it’s only by trial and error that the design was born, which is why we have the matrix. This really helps me to understand why people would do a bottm-up design and why was it much more creative not knowing how the final design would look like.

Through the regeneration of the precedent, I was really hard to just regenerate a Grasshopper definition as I had no idea where to start and also not knowing how each component would effect each other, as this processes I have ran into lots of problems I strips not lofting together, not knowing how to provide a weaving pattern and it was hard to admit that through the process of trial and error of the failures that we have gone through, as designers we always try to show-

case out best and always wanting to exceed in the first itme.Again this was tested during the prototype as handcraft-ing the prototype made it more stiff and not exactly how i wanted the design to look as I wanted the material to be curved and smoothed with the strips interlocked together, but as a result I had to score the material for it to bend as the materal used was too stiff, but this also meant that it would hold the overall shape inplace. This showed how I can experiment with materiality to see how it will work in the real would as somethings digitally designed cannot be fully protrayed in the real world as we have exteral sources like gravity that the digital world does not consider.

By making prototypes and also rendering the design into the site it started to make the items that we have produced into something that is more like in the real world and through the last few bits of Part B, it started to show how designing via Grasshopper and Rhino and translate into the real world as Grasshopper’s designs don’t consider the real world it was great to test it out.

Through Part B, it was a really fun learning process and it geve me the experience on how to use Grasshopper and translating it into something more commonly seen and also testing out how to reproduce these iterations into proto-types.

57

Studio Air: Part B

B8. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

Moving on from previous algorithmic tasks for Part B’s Algo-rithmic tasks was more focused on analysising the design instead of creating something out of scatch. Especially in Week 6 and week 7’s algorithmic task was analysising the annual energy output of the surface and also analysising the amount of sunlight onto the surface.

Vis Part B’s Algorithmic task, it shows how we can use Grasshopper as a way to analysis data and also to aids us in designing something more energy effi cent and also analysising the design using real world data inout. We also used the Ladybug Grasshopper input to produce useful graphs to help display useful data to help us analysis the effi ciency of our design.

As for Part B’s journal we used a lot of the designing aspect of Grasshopper, it was great to have some form of analyis to help with binding the real world measurements into a digital calculation to help predict how digital design would reacti with external factors.

58

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

reference

“BanQ / Office dA”, Archdaily, Date Added 3rd December 2009, http://www.archdaily.com/42581/banq-office-da/“ICD/ITKE Research Pavillion 2010”, Unversity of Stuttgart, 2010, http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=4458 LAGI. The land Art Generator Initiative: Design Guidelines 2014 Design Competition. US: LAGI, 2014. http://landartgenera-tor.org/designcomp/downloads/LAGI-2014DesignGuidelines.pdfSemper Gottfried, The Four Elements of Architecture: A contribution to the Comparative Study of Architrecture”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1989

59

Studio Air: Part B

60

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Part C Detailed Design

61

Studio Air: Part B

C1. Design ConceptAfter the interm presentation, a feedback from the critics were to have it less like the original precedent, but as my self producted Grasshopper definition was already conplex, it was given feedback that by changing the basic input could be given many possibilities to produce many different output that can vary as shown in the Case Study 2.0 matrix.

Therefore I started on exploring the change in having a hub/ shelter-like space, but this resulted in confining the way I designed and looking somewhat similar to the precedent. Which lend me to try other forms in my matrix, with one in particular.

Inspired by the Queen Victoria Market, i was inspired to generate a roof-like shelter instead of the original hub-like design that i was trying really hard to portrate. Therefore i looked at a few interesting roofs like:- Southern Cross Station - 2007 Housing Competition by Federico Rossi- Muscat Cultural Center by AS Architecture Studio

Using my definition I used a basic surface as its base input and produced a roof-like structure that acts as the roof of my Sunday Market. As my Case Study definition already and a weaving in-and-out design, adding in an elgant base surface made a perfect design.

62

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

63

Studio Air: Part B

64

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

Final Design

For my final design, i used 3 basic input surface to generate the weav-ing pattern via dividing the surface and using Grasshopper to select which points to weave and with this technique generating a parametric design. As shown in the diagram below there’s 2 sets of points selection from corresponing surfaces that alternates through out the design which the first is from (i) 1->2->3->2->1 (ii) 3->2->1->2->3With this pattern my design is then just altered by the basic input.

65

Studio Air: Part B

66

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

67

Studio Air: Part B

68

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

C2. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes

To construct my design i have used steel and timber as my main ma-terials with the timber pre-bent and then brought to site to construct. Also the metal frames runs across the design horizontally to hold up the timber and also helps to maintain the shape of the design.

As shown in the above diagram, the timber strips are then combined together to fit as a bigger individual piece.

69

Studio Air: Part B

70

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

C3. Final Detail Model

71

Studio Air: Part B

72

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

73

Studio Air: Part B

74

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

75

Studio Air: Part B

76

Stud

io A

ir: PArt B

C4. Learning Objectives & Outcomes

After the final presentation, some of the feedback given was some of the imagery weren’t presentated as to what the image could protentially shown therefore I needed to tweek a few of them to show how the design can truely impact the 2014 LAGI site. Also the imagery shown comparing to thepysically model it’s lost the sense of elgancy that was presentated in the modle, therefore my goal were to make sure my design was expressed well and adding tones of shading to really show off the weaving pattern.

Also the feedback that i was given was to really think about the Tectonic Element and how my design can stand up alone and also how to really construct it. Therfore I worked hard to try and use diagrams to show what really goes on in my design.

As this subject progesses, it’s been amazing to learn about parametric designing as it’s something that one of the previ-ous design studios have donw before and it was completely new to explore. Although it was a little difficult to learn to use both Grasshopper and Rhino at first, it was fun to just type in a bunch of commands withour knowing what it can do.

77

Studio Air: Part B

reference

“Eco-Sustainable Housing – Parametric Design “,Evolo, Date Added 13th Feburary 2010, http://www.evolo.us/architecture/eco-sustainable-housing-parametric-design/“Muscat Cultural Center / AS Architecture Studio”, Andrew Michler, Date Added 5th May 2011, http://www.evolo.us/architec-ture/muscat-cultural-center-as-architecture-studio/