Design Studio Air: Case for Innovation

1541738 Monday 9-12 Chris and Rosie

Design Studio: Air

Elise Weavers 541738

2 3Design Studio Air Case for Innovation Elise Weavers


Contents

Introduction

01 Architecture as a Discourse

02 Computational Architecture

03 Parametric Modelling

Conclusion

EOI

Bibliography

5

6-11

12-17

18-28

28-20

30

31



My name is Elise Weavers and am currently a 3rd year Architecture student at the University of Melbourne. Design Studio Air will be my 6th design studio and my 3rd studio that will make use of the design program Rhino. Before Air I have complete Virtual Environments, 2nd semester, 1st year and taken the Rhino workshop that was made available in Visual Communications, 1st semester 2nd year. However, I would describe my Rhino skills as still quite basic and this design studio will be my first introduction of the

Grasshopper software.Although I have found working with Rhino quite challenging to say the least, I found Virtual Environments to be one of the most rewarding subjects, in terms of learning and satisfaction with my work, in the course to date. I look forward to another challenging semester of Rhino that hopefully will see my skills improve and result in an equally suprising and satisfying outcome as I found with Virtual.

Introduction



Architecture as a DiscourseRichard Williams’ ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’ (2005) introduces what I believe to be a very interesting discussion about the societal implications and power architecture has to shape and influence the public realm. As architecture is often viewed as an exclusive field in which an in depth understanding and formal training are compulsory prerequisites which without, do not qualify one to participate. The field is so exclusive, that just as other social ‘cliques’, it is not uncommon to come across double standards. Take the point raised by Williams; not all buildings can be

considered architecture, however not all architecture must a building. Williams (2005) discusses what he defines as ‘three related, but distinct, approaches to architecture: architecture as a form of art; architecture as a symbolic realm; and architecture as spatial experience. The main conclusion of the article as reinforced by Stanislav in the lecture; ‘Architecture ought to be seen as a discourse.’ Architecture in it’s built form are just one element of the overall field of architecture, a field which is better regarded as a network of practices and debates about the built environment.’ (Williams, R., 2005).

02. De Stijl Cover, September, 1921.Source: Willis, J., 2013

01. ‘Relatively unseen forms or structures’ a design by Greg Lynn- The European Central Bank competition. 2003. source: http://glform.com/buildings/european-central-bank-competition



Figure 2. Pier and Ocean, Piet Mondrian, 1914Source: Willis, J., 2013

‘An immense amount of spectacular new architecture has been built in the past two decades, a product of the desire on the part of social and political authority to update the public realm in the context of unprecedented prosperity.’ (Williams, R., 2005) This new architecture, with relatively unseen or imagined forms and structures (see figure 01.), sometimes described as “blobs”. This is discussed in Lynn’s ‘Blob Tectonics, or why Tectonics is square and Topology is Groovy’ (1998) challenges the preconceived idea a building, like a human must stand upwards and discusses that understanding these new forms requires a ‘reconsideration of identity as neither reducing toward primitives nor emerging toward wholes’. In other words, from what I understand, a completely new way of thinking about architecture cannot be related back to a pre-existing theory. This brings me to my precedents of discussion that I believe, although approximately 100 years old, are existing examples of what Williams and Lynn discuss- the coming of new ideas and developments in architecture. These precedent make example of the influence and importance architecture, as a discourse rather than a built form, can have on the understanding or imagining of what architecture might be and the social impact this can have. I believe the De Stijl movement is a prime example of the successful and influential reimagining of architecture through a discourse predominantly in the unbuilt form. I would particularly like to focus on the De Stijl journal published by the Dutch painter, designer, writer, and critic Theo van Doesburg. (see figure 02.)



The abstract imagining and analyisis of shape, form and composition unlike anything seen before is a strong example of the power designing in this way can have on creativity and the buildings that were actually built were direct developments of the thought processes and artworks that preceded them. (figure 5.)

Designs saw buildings with no gravitational anchorage- no defined top or bottom, visual clues as to what something was (ie. The entrance) were removed. For example Gerrit Rietveld Schroeder House, Utrecht, 1924. (figure 3). Another important development that occurred during the De Stijl movement, and my second precedent, was a new form of architectural representation. This new form being Axonometric drawings to represent forms in the 3D. (figure 4) Popularity in axonometric representation grew after Doesburg published his drawing illustrating his ideas on fundamental building planes (Wilis, J., 2013). The way in which something is represented can be very influential on the way we understand something, the way we envisage something and the way in which we conceptualize what some thing can be. The

growing popularity of using axonometric representation could be seen, subtly perhaps, as the changing discourse and ideas of architecture during this period of experimentation. I believe this is a relevant precedent to discuss from the perspective of what we may learn in this course. For many of the students parametric design may be something relatively new to us. Using this new tool and knowledge we gain throughout the semester learning how to use rhino and grasshopper, will bring with it a new understanding and perception of what design and creativity is and how it may be represented or created through 3D modeling and parametric design.

Figure 3. Schroder house, Utretch, 1924. Gerrit RietveldSource: Willis, J., 2013

Figure 4. Above. Theo van Doesburg, Archi-tectural Analysis.Figure 5. Below. Theo van Doesburg and Cornelius van Eersteren, House Design, 1923. Source: Willis, J., 2013

The group’s principal members were the painters Piet Mondrian, Vilmos Huszár, and Bart van der Leck, and the architects Gerrit Rietveld, Robert van ‘t Hoff, and J.J.P. Oud. (Wilis, J., Dutch Opposites: de Stijl and the Phantasts, 2013). Van Doesburg was heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright’s philosophy on organic architecture and used this as the basis for the works produced in this era. During this time Doesburg and his associates took to analysing and reimagining;

of space and movement. Some of the most influential examples of this analyisis are the artworks. For example Modrian’s Pier and Ocean. (figure 2). A bird’s eye view of the movements of the ocean into horizontal and vertical lines. This analysis being refined and represented as horizontal and vertical forms was a key development and motif of the reimagining of architecture done by De Stijl members. This work was abstract and unlike any of the architecture that preceded it.

It is important to note this movement occurred during the period of world war one, which heavily reduced architect’s and client’s capacity to build, leaving a lot of the innovation and experimentation of De Stijl un-built (Wilis, J., 2013). As discussed in the lecture a new level of creativity can be reached when the preconceived ideas and constraints of what a built object or building should be are lifted from the design process.



Computational ArchitectureThe use of computers has been seen in the architecture industry for quite a while, however, until recently computers in architecture were mainly used to digitise existing procedures, such as virtual drafting. Innovative thinkers such as Brady Peters and Xavier de Kestelier of the Specialist Modelling Group (SMG) have been at the forefront of developing the way in which computers are used within the industry. The pair have been very influential figures in the architectural industry shift from ‘computerisation’ (digitizing existing procedures) to ‘computation’. Computation is the utilization of the computer aided design to explore and innovate creative design potentials by combining the ability of computers

where ours fall short and use our abilities where computers fall short.- Computers will contribute rational and search abilities while we contribute the creativity and intuition needed to solve design problems (Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004). Computation not only allows us as designers to extend our abilities to deal with highly complex situations is also provides us with the opportunity to go beyond out own intellectual capabilities and provide inspiration through generating unexpected results in the design process.

Foster + Partners, Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2010: Computational design was used to make many itterations of the potential form of the cable-net structure.

Foster + Partners, Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2010. Source: plusmood.com.



The use of computerization in the architecture industry is redefining the definition of an architect. Architects using computation are now also become programmers. A designer can customize design environments by writing programs using visual programming language (rhino and grasshopper). Creating and Modifying the code to explore new options and speculating further design potentials. Computation not only works but has become necessary to build the largest projects in the world. Given the complexities of form and the compressed timescales of construction today, groups such as SMG have become essential aspects on the construction of many

projects (Peters, B., & de Kestelier, Computation works: the building of algorithmic thought, 2013)Computation is closing the gap between the architects designing simply the form and aesthetics of a building and the separate manufacturing/structural design process. These tasks can now be done almost simultaneously through the use of computation. This drastically reduces the amount of time between initial design and the beginning of construction, making the entire process far more efficient. As David Davis spoke about in the lecture, it also gives the designer much greater control over design changes for a far longer period of time in the development of

the project and also reduces the impact these changes will have on the project until a later stage, making them much less costly than if a similar change were to be made if the project was being developed in a more traditional way. For example the Fabpod project David showed in the lecture which was still being designed up to 4 days before construction commenced. (Davis, D., Studio Air Lecture 3: Parametric Modeling, 2013). Or Foster and Partner’s Bejiing International Airport, one of the worlds largest buildings that was designed and built in 5 years. Without the utilization of computation neither of these projects could have been achieved in the time frame they were designed and built in.

FabPod, RMIT, 2013. Source: www.designresearch.rmit.edu.au

FabPod, RMIT, 2013. Source: Davis, D., Studio Air Lecture 3: Parametric Modeling, 2013



As mentioned above computation has the potential to provide inspiration and go beyond the intellect of the designer and increases their capability to solve complex problems. It is programs such a Rhino and Grasshopper that multiple iterations of a geometric form to be generated, analysed and evaluated efficiently. Small changes are updated in a visual 3D model instantly where as if a small change were to be made in a design that was being drawn by hand or even using computation,

it may take hours for the update to be redrawn. Also the use of experimentation through computation can lead to the discovery of unpredicted results that may not have been the designer’s intentions at all, but could provide a design solution that may never have been considered or imagined by the designer. Design can be an open-ended search for new possibilities, not only problem solving. As discussed in Woodbury’s ‘Whither design space” (Woodbury, R. and Burrow, A., ‘Whither design space?’,

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2006.) Discovering new possibilities and problem solving is aided by computation. Computer support has the potential to provide rapid access to both a breadth of alternatives and depth of exploration. When looking at design possibilities cognitively, one is normally sacrificed for the other. Usually many options are looked at briefly or only one option is looked at in detail. Computation bridges this gap.

Foster + Partners, Beijing International Airport, Beijing, 2008, in Computation works: the building of algorithmic thought, 2013. For many problems including some phases of the architectural design process, knowledge of how to achieve a solution cannot exist prior to the search itself, since the sought-after solution is unique, and the process of finding it is characterised by missing information and uncertainty. (Kalay, Y., 2004). Computation provides an efficient means of exploration to develop or find this information. In summary, computation has become an integral part of

modern design solutions. Computation provides an extremely efficient way of exploring many variations of a design or solution and can be a source of inspiration itself, through the discovery of unexpected results. Computation is bridging the gap between the design and construction process of a project and drastically increasing the efficiency and control we have as designers over the project form start to finish.

Foster + Partners, Beijing International Airport, Beijing, 2008. Source: fostersandpartners.com.



Parametric modeling is a highly debated topic in the architecture field. Some strongly supporting it as the new way of designing, some strongly opposing it, seeing it as reducing the significance of age old techniques such as sketching and rendering. As with any process or technique parametric modeling has some significant advantages however it is not exempt from any downfalls either. Designers utilizing parametric design should be aware of its advantages and disadvantages to ensure they are designing in the most appropriate and efficient way.

Advantages of Parametric DesignExploration:

Provides a new medium for exploring, experimenting, representing and communicating forms. New processes of designing lead to new processes of thinking, which can be creatively releasing for the designer. Experimentation free of preconceived results or goals can be explored in a way that is different from traditional design techniques.Analysis: Computation provides a much stronger analytical tool than a person on their own (Peters, B., & de Kestelier, Computation works: the building of algorithmic thought, 2013) Explorations can be easily and clearly visually documented making evaluating different design solutions efficient.

Analytical capabilities of the program can be used to make the comparison and production of design options more efficient (see efficiency).Efficiency: Designs can by updated and manipulated efficiently by changing parameters.(Woodbury, R., Elements of Parametric Design, 2010) New models do not have to be rebuilt or redrawn with every change. (Woodbury, R., 2010) Parameters can be set to ensure only relevant design solutions are produced, reducing time wasted exploring unviable options.Innovation: Similar to other techniques of designing, exploration can start or occur before a brief is provided. The

significant advantage of parametric design is the control in which the designer has over making changes to the design once new/extra restrictions are placed on the project from the brief. (See figures 1 & 2. Davis, D., Studio Air Lecture 3: Parametric Modeling, 2013).Collaboration: Parametric design is pushing innovation in design and structural technologies and encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration. With new forms being produced by designers, a much closer collaboration between engineer, manufacturer and designer is required to make these new forms a reality. This could also be seen as a disadvantage.

ParametricModelling

“Design is change, parametric modelling represents change.”Woodbury, R., 2013

Figure 1: Figure 2:



Disadvantages of Parametric Design:Computational parametric design requires an understanding of programming and think algorithmically, to use it as an effective design tool, making it an exclusive field to those who can and those who cannot. “…one misplaced character means that an algorithm likely w ill not work. You must work in a domain of textual instructions … algorithmic thinking differs from almost all other forms of thought. But the sheer distance between representations familiar to designers and those needed for algorithms exacerbates the gap.” (Woodbury, R., 2010)However it can be learnt. As a beginner parametric designer it is easy to see how the program may start to dictate my design due to my lack of skill

and knowledge, reducing my own creative input. Designers are restricted to the tools of the programs they are using and their design demands may not always be met. However this may encourage further development of the software. (Woodbury, R., 2010)New, complex forms that push the structural and technological knowledge of manufacturers may be more costly than they are efficient, making the actual construction of parametrically designed buildings unaffordable or impractical. Some forms may simply be too complex to be built. The way in which models are produced using parametric design is quite complex. The more elements or detail a design has to it, the more complex the programming behind it is. This can making specific

changes in a model can be difficult, even for the designers themselves. Identifying the correct parameters to change to make the specific change can be near impossible. (See figure 3, Davis, D., 2013.)This is also a disadvantage if the design requires input from outsiders who come into the design process after the model has been made. The existing parameters and code would be extremely hard to understand. (Davis, D. 2013). Another disadvantage of modeling using parametrics and computation, due to it’s complexity, is that changes (sometimes critical or detrimental) can go unseen until its too late (See figure 4, Davis, D., 2013), as seen in Daniel Davis’ Responsive Acoustics Smart Geometry, 2010 example in the lecture (Davis, D. 2013).

Figure 3: Figure 4:



“One of the earliest (and effective!) demonstrations of parametric modeling in architecture was the International Terminal Waterloo by Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners. Lars Hesselgrcn crafted the original model in the I EMS system. More than 15 years later Robert Aish used a similar model to demonstrate the CustomObjects system (which later became Generative- ComponentsTM). A salient site condition is that the train track curves through the station. A parametric model need not be initially constrained by this curve; fitting it to location can be deferred.” (Woodbury, R., 2010) The International Terminal Waterloo is an example of a successful built project that provides a strong starting point for the discussion of the advantages of parametric design and architecture. Grimshaw & Partners took advantage of parametric design’s ability to update and manipulate their design without having a huge impact on the end result through the increased control this technique of design allows until a later stage in the design. If a more traditional design process was adopted to produce this design, something like changing the width or the point in which the terminal curved any later than early design stages would have been detrimentally costly and time consuming. This strongly supports the points raised in the section outlining the advantages of parametric design. The increased adaptability and control parametric design provides as designer is a deliberate strategy to ensure design is completed in an efficient way.

Grimshaw Architects, Internaional Terminal Waterloo, online, available: http://grimshaw-architects.com/project/international-terminal-waterloo/, 2013.



However changing the order in which modeling and design decisions goes against almost all the studios we have undertaken in this degree. ‘The site should influence and inform your design’ has almost become a studio mantra. Some would argue designing parametrically completely disregards the site and designs could literally be placed anywhere and have the same effect. Although in the case of the International Terminal Waterloo was modeled to the site later in the design process, some may argue the design is not site specific as it could have been adapted to fit anywhere. Perhaps this point only reinforces the flexibility

parametric design provides.However, does the ability to make updates or changes in the design until later in the design process leave more room for mishaps? There comes to a point in a project when the designer must stop designing and let the project progress. Making it possible to continue to make changes to a design until much later in the design process could potentially be detrimental. If changes are made while it is still possible, but perhaps there is not enough time to test or prototype the change before it is implemented, it could do more damage than good.

“Changing the order in which modeling and design decisions can be made is both a major feature of and deliberate strategy for parametric design.”Woodbury, R., 2013





Working up until close to deadlines is something that happens more often than not in architecture, often cutting things fine. As mentioned in the previous example, parametric design can essentially “extend the deadline” on some of the design decisions. Daniel Davis showed an example of where the advantage of parametric design’s ability to support rapid change late in the design process (Woodbury, R., 2010) actually led to a massive flaw being produced in the joint alignment of sound resonating tiles. Responsive Acoustics project by SmartGeometry, 2010 used ‘emergent-parametric tools to search for doubly ruled surfaced forms that accentuate certain frequencies of sound and muffle others… The resulting designs will be prototyped at 1:5 using the hot-wire cutter, constraining the geometry to doubly ruled surfaces (the same vocabulary Gaudí used in his later years) and allows for the analysis of the parametric models’ accuracy.’ (SmartGeometry 2012). Davis worked as a member on this project and in Lecture 03- Parametric Modelling, (2013) described how a small change to the parameters of the design another team member made to the design to solve a specific problem actually caused a small gap to form between the joints of all the tiles. The change was that of only a few millimetres and went unnoticed until it came to physically assembling the pieces of a prototype model together. The gaps meant the tiles did not fit together as intended and the structural integrity of the model was compromised to such a point it could not be completed. Responsive Acoustics, Smartgeometry,

Source: Davis, D. 2013.



This example highlights the importance of physical prototyping.-Not everything can be left in the virtual world until manufacturing. This could be a critical downfall of parametric design. Allowing changes to the design to be made, with too little time to be properly prototyped coupled with the difficulty in observing small changes in models can lead to a potentially costly and time consuming manufacturing process. Although a small update to one part of a design in non parametric design may be far more time consuming and tedious as the entire model may have to be manually updated, any effects the change has made to other elements of the model, will probably be highlighted to the designer during the updating. As

parametric design updates the model automatically with the change of one parameter, without close inspection implications of the change are easily unnoticed, as seen in the Responsive Acoustics example.

In conclusion I would like to highlight the capability of parametric design to enrich the design process in terms of efficiency and creativity. I will engage in computation and parametric modeling to explore a broad range of possible design outcomes in an efficient and well documented way. By experimenting with computational tools, rhino and grasshopper many expected and unexpected solutions will be explored.

Considering unexpected results as valid design explorations provides opportunity for a design solution to be found that may have never been imagined if I were to limit myself to simply my own ideas. The efficiency and control in which parametric design provides during the design process makes it an innovative and exciting way to design. An exploration of form or structure can be explored before any real life parameters from a brief are placed on the design. The knowledge and outcomes from initial explorations of forms or possible structures or fabrication options can be adapted and updated to provide an appropriate solution to fulfill a brief. Using computation and

parametric design is significant as the design exploration process will not be limited by my own cognitive abilities and the rate at which the explorations and forms can be updated, explored and analysed makes it even more significant. It does not restrict me to only designing what I already can imagine, which is most likely something that has been seen before. Experimentation and exploration of parametric techniques will aid in producing a design solution that is unique, innovative and relevant to the aim of the gateway project.

Parametric design exploration of Responsive Acoustics, Smartgeometry, Source: smartgeometry.org



My understanding of computation and parametric design has developed from what I thought I already knew about the field to now, a far greater appreciation and informed understanding of the significant opportunities that can be provided by using these techniques. Initially I thought parametric design was being taught as it was the way all architectural design was leading. However, it is clear the direction of architecture is a very debated topic. A topic which I now think should be debated. I see now, especially after reading many contrasting opinions in week 3’s readings, it is important to challenge new ideas and techniques as it can lead to change. Whether it is successful or not, a lesson will have been learnt or an observation can be made which could be used to inform decisions later on, and this is helpful. This is where I now see the most value in using parametric design. Not because it is the technique used to produce ‘new age’ architecture, but because it provides us with an opportunity to explore in a completely new way. This exploration will provide a result, whether it is successful or unsuccessful and we can make an observation or conclusion about why it resulted the way it did and learn from that. Or we might find the outcome is so unexpected we do not understand it, but it has given us a new perspective. At the beginning of the semester I also thought ‘blob’ architecture was simply a new style of architecture (which some controversially argue it is) however that view now seems a little uninformed. Parametric design is bridging

the technological gap between engineering and manufacturing and design. Parametric design is making the designer a far more informed designer of the way forms and structures may perform, join together and be fabricated. ‘Blob’ architecture represents a new innovative, efficient, intelligent way of design resulting in the possibility to construct new forms that have previously been un-buildable. This new knowledge I have acquired from the first part of this course has allowed me to reevaluate how I may have approached my design development in the past and the way I may approach it now and into the future. I think the most useful knowledge and skills I have gained and will develop throughout the rest of this course is the importance of exploration. Exploring many options I believe will provide a more successful solution than following an initial idea loyally from beginning to end. Due to the nature of the projects in which we undertake as students I believe parametric design is a very logical choice. We are very restricted by time and exploring many different paths may be time consuming, however parametric design allows for efficient reproduction and adaption and iterations that can be documented easily and analysed in a much shorter period of time. I think this is something that can be easily overlooked, parametric design is not replacing the designer with a computer, it is providing a new medium and therefore opportunity for designers to experiment and explore design options and solutions in a very efficient way.

Case for Innovation Reflection Bibliography

Davis, D., Studio Air Lecture 3: Parametric Modeling, 2013.

Foster + Partners, Beijing International Airport, online, available: fostersandpartners.com, 2013.

Foster + Partners, Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre, online, available: plusmood.com, 2013


Kalay, Y., Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, 2004.

Lynn, G., Blob Tectonics, or why Tectonics is square and Topol-ogy is Groovy, .1998.

Peters, B., & de Kestelier, Computation works: the building of algorithmic thought, 2013

SmartGeometry, Responsive Acoustic Surfacing, online, avail-able: http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59%3Aresponsive-acoustic-surfacing&catid=37&Itemid=56, 2012

Williams, R., Architecture and Visual Culture, 2005

Wilis, J., Momo to Pomo: Dutch Opposites: de Stijl and the Phan-tasts, 2013.

Woodbury, R., Elements of Parametric Design, 2010

Woodbury, R. and Burrow, A., ‘Whither design space?’, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2006.

Documents

Design Studio Air: Case for Innovation