1

WESTERN GATEWAY DESIGN PROJECTROXANNE DOWLING (558553)STUDIO DESIGN AIR

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS1.0 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PART 1: CASE FOR INNOVATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................41.2 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE...........................................................51.3 COMPUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE...............................................................81.4 PARAMETRIC MODELLING......................................................................121.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS...............................................................141.5 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................151.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES............................................................................16REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................17

2.0 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PART 2: DESIGN APPROACH2.1 DESIGN FOCUS.......................................................................................192.2 CASE STUDY 1.0.....................................................................................20

2.2.1 REVERSE ENGINEER...............................................................................................222.2.2 MATRIX EXPLORATION............................................................................................24

2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0.....................................................................................262.3.1 REVERSE ENGINEER........................................................................................... 282.3.2 PROCESS ANALYSIS..............................................................................................30

2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT.................................................................322.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES ................................................................... 362.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL.........................................................................382.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES......................................................................402.8 LEARNING OUTCOMES...........................................................................42REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................43

3

1.O CASE FOR INNOVATION1.0 CASE FOR INNOVATION

4

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In response to the brief set out by Wynd-ham City, for an ‘inspiring, innovative and thought-provoking installation,’ it is with-out a doubt that an architectural paramet-ric design is the best approach and solution for the Western Gateway Design project. The reason for this is because at current archi-tecture as a discourse is paving the way for a design revolution like never before. Through architecture, Wyndham City has the oppor-tunity to make a significant impact on how society views architecture, thus participat-ing in and generating this new discourse. In order to see the revolution one needs to first understand what architecture is, the role that its plays in society, the meaning of architecture as a discourse, the current state of the discourse and the potential of the discourse. These topic areas I hope to cover in the first section of this journal, to fully provide understanding as to how I will approach the Gateway Design project.

5

1.2 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

Architecture in its definition is an expres-sive form of culture, closely woven into the fabric of art, that relates to the human in-habitants of the environment. It is its phi-losophies, processes and productions that constitute the built environment. It can be said then, that architecture is a central thread of everyday life and is inescapable on a daily basis1. The continuous develop-ment and redevelopment of the built envi-ronment continues to showcase the ability of architecture to construct our identities by shaping and reshaping the world we live in2. Architecture as a discourse therefore, medi-ates what we know, the connection between people and place.

Architecture as a discourse is by its defini-tion many things that generate discussion concerning the philosophies and theories, approaches and outcomes of the human inhabitants of the earth. This discourse is expressed in many ways including, conver-

sations, presentations, exhibitions, maga-zine articles, blogs, sketching/drawing and CAD file sharing. Architectural discourse is at the forefront of the revolutionary shift toward parametric digital design. But its stance in the revolution has not been with-out upsetting its traditional mode of en-visaging the architectural subject and the structure of the traditional profession. Tra-ditionally architecture discourse has been largely a discourse of form, dominated by debates around style ‘appropriateness’3. To encounter the significance of this shift it must first be compared to the last of its magnitude and so I refer back in time to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution produced rapid advances in physics and chemistry and in-turn technical progression in the prefabri-cation of steel and sheeted glass. Yet the adoption of these advances into the build-ing industry by Joseph Paxton’s 1851 Crys-tal Palace and Gustave Eiffel’s 1889 Eiffel

What is architec-ture? What role does it play in soci-ety? What is archi-tectural discourse?

6

Tower (almost 40 years later) were seen at the time as an extremely bold step forward. Although some looked upon these buildings with discomfort at the time they became the most famous architectural and engineer-ing masterpieces of this period. Their in-novative influence saw a worldwide adop-tion of glass and steel, in terms of distance spanned and volumes enclose4, for the cen-tury of buildings that followed. The Crystal Palace and The Eiffel Tower showcased the potential that these new materials had and inturn stimulated the very esthetics that is the metropolis skyline, as we know it to-day5. The cultural repertoire that followed the architecture of the industrial revolution is undeniable. Any discomfort deemed by the unfamiliar was soon replaced with en-lightenment towards the potential that the future could hold. In comparison to the industrial revolution, it is within the last few decades’ society has experienced a revolution of its own time; it

is referred to as the digital-information age. The introduction of computers and the In-ternet has without a doubt revolutionised the world today, as we know it. Like the in-dustrial age, the digital-information age has the ability and still an undiscovered poten-tial to evolve the architectural realm as well as the societal realm that follows it. This im-pact is already present in the work of archi-tect Frank Gehry who’s Guggenheim Mu-seum in Bilbao (1997) alone has showcased what can be achieved when one embraces the possibilities of this new architectural discourse of digital design. Described as a state of transition between solid and liquid6, Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum is social ac-cepted to be the most significant structure built so far in the 21st century7. This impact on the greater culture of society in their acceptance and appreciation to a building that is so innovative and unique was only achievable because Gehry embodied the spirit of the digital-information age through

7

the adoption of digital design (BIM). It can be said then, that Frank Gehry’s Guggen-heim Museum in Bilbao holds similar val-ue to the architecture and societal change that the innovations that’s Joseph Paxton’s presented during the industrial age. Gehry, like Paxton once did, is challenging how ar-chitects and designers alike, design, manu-facture and construct buildings.

It is this approach used by Frank Gehry, in using digital design that I will approach my design for the Gateway Project. I hope to prove with precedents that this is the best approach for ensuring Wyndham City is truly ‘put on map’ in inspiring and gener-ating continuous innovation into this new discourse, that’s potential has barely been scratched.

Footnotes

1. Williams, R. 2005. Architecture and Vi-sual Culture. In: Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Vi-sual Culture: Definitions, concepts, contexts. Ed-inburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 102.

2. Dutton, T. A. & Mann, L. H. 1996. Reconstruct-ing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practic-es, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Page 1.

3. Leach, N. 1997. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge. p. xiii.

4. Hitchcock, H.-R. 1958. Building with Iron and Glass: 1790-1855. Architecture: Nineteenth and Twenti-eth Centuries. Middlesex: Penguin Books. pp. 115-129

5. Kolarevic, B. 2003b. We Have Seen the Future, and It is Pixellated: Branko Kolarevic connects the dots in the time-line of the digital revolution. Architecture, 92, 83-85. p. 83.

6. Giovannini, J. 1997. Gehry’s reign in Spain. Ibid., 14. [Accessed 20/02/2013).

7. Tyrnauer, M. 2010. Architecture in the Age of Gehry. Vanity Fair [Online], 2. [Accessed 03/04/2013].

Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Mu-seum in Bilbao (1997)

8

1.3 COMPUTIONAL ARCHI-TECTURE

Historically digital technology has generally only been used in architecture as a virtual drafting board, increasing the efficiency of editing, copying and the precision of draw-ings that are generated from a preconceived idea of the mind8. This mode of working has been termed ‘computerisation’9. In moving with the digital-information age, over the last few years advances in computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manu-facturing (CAM) technologies attained in the automotive, aerospace and shipbuild-ing industries, have finally started to have a profound impact on architecture and construction practices. Architecture is now witnessing the almost elimination of draw-ings from design where instead architects are working with complete, comprehen-sive three-dimensional digital models right from the start, from design through to pro-duction10. This mode of working has been termed ‘computing’.

‘Computing’ as expressed by Architectural Design magazine writer Brady Peters ‘is the use of the computer to process information through an understood model which can be expressed as an algorithm,’11 which is a par-ticular set of instructions written in a code that is understood by the computer12. What the architectural discourse has and con-tinues to witness is an outpour of intrinsic and complex curvy forms that are now even more appealing because they can be con-structed; the design information becomes the construction information. Computing is redefining the architectural practice in more ways then one.

For example the integration of technology has been paramount to the development of the Museo Soumaya in Mexico City by Fernando Romero EnterpreE (FREE). The design was approached using the adop-tion of computing techniques that saw a

9Museo Souma-ya, Mexico City By FREE

10

three-dimensional digital model at the heart of the design and construction. The complex nature of the form meant that it would not have been achievable using a traditional two-dimensional drawing for it would have left too much open to interpretation, risking the overall design intent13. Furthermore, what became an important factor in this design is that by using this approach it allowed for the whole project team to work concurrently on the building allowing for different aspects of the building to be designed and iterated si-multaneously.

Mountain Dwellings (Copenhagen, 2007) de-signed by BIG Architects in another example of what can be achieved through the adoption of parametric modelling. The project uses the recreation of its site in a parametric form to extrude from it a series of geometrical dwell-ings that essentally mimic the natural con-tour of the site. This projects significance is evident in its award achievements including, Winner of Best Housing Project for the World Architecture Festival Awards 2008 and nom-inated for the Mies van der Rohe Prize 2008.

Footnotes8. Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectur-al Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013].

9. Terzidis, K. 2006. Algorithmic Ar-chitecture, Oxford, Architectural Press. p XI.

10. Kolarevic, B. 2003a. Architecture in the Digital Age: DEsign and Manufacturing, New York, Spon Press.

11. Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectural De-sign [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013]. p. 10

12. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. 1999. The Mit Ency-clopedia of Cognitive Science, London, The MIT Press.

13. Romero, F. & Ramos, A. 2013. Bridging ACulture: The Deisgn of Museo Soumaya. Architectural Design [Online], 83. pp. 66-69.

14. Mountain Dwelling. Archinect [Online]. Avail-able from: http://archinect.com/firms/project/39903/mountain-dwellings/9172196 [Accessed 23/03/2013.

11

Mountain Dwell-ings, Copenhagen (2007) by BIG Ar-chitects

12

1.4 PARAMETRIC MODELLING

Computing obviously has its advantages but at the same time has its limitations. Com-puting is constrained to the capabilities of the software, that is the parametres out-lined by the programmer. What this essen-tially means is that the design created in the space is constrained by what the program-mer has established as the necessary tools required for designing. In order to overcome these limitations one must learn how to re-write the software in order customise their design environments. This allows the user to set there own limitations and constraints to the software algorithms14. This process is referred to as ‘scripting’ and is now made available through plug-in software such as Rhinoscript, Microstation and Grasshop-per, just to name a few. What’s more is that these softwares are then able to interact with design performance software such as Geco and Ecotect. My next precedent ex-plores this concept.

Competition entry for Shenzhen Border sta-

tion, Hong Kong, (2011) by SPAN illustrates how scripting can be utilized to determine the performance outcome of a design. The computer program GECO was adopted early by the architects of this project and what this allowed them to do was to perform a so-lar access analysis of the roof design over a time period of one year, to develop precisely the appropriate roof openings and their re-lationship to the form of the overall design using Ecotect. This information was then translated into an algorithm/s and import-ed back into Grasshopper without having to reworking the model repeatedly15.

The revolution of computing and script-ing all relate back to the architectural dis-course. ‘Scripting Architects’ are now emerg-ing changing the traditional envisaging of a ‘pen to paper’ profession and the architec-ture subject at large. An architectural realm is finally embodying the digital-information age, there’s no going back!

13

FOOTNOTES

15. Burry, M. 2011. Scripting Cultures: Architec-tural Design and Programming, Chichester, Wiley. p. 8.

16. Grabner, T. & Frick, U. 2013. GECO: Architec-tural Design through Environmental Feedback. Archi-tectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 25/03/2013].

Competition entry for Shenzhen Bor-der station, Hong Kong, (2011) by SPAN

14

1.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORTAIONSFigure 1 shows the out-come of using the con-touring algorithm in Grasshopper. Here I have show it in wireframe to in-dicate the direction that the contour lines are cut-ting through

Figure 1.

Figure 4.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4 is showing a bool-ean form that has been created from a box solid that has been random-ly populated with solid spheres.

Figure 3 is the outcome of a 2D rectangular grid that is has been populated with extruded cylinders.

Figure shows the outcome of creating form using the Voroni algorithm.

15

Parametric modeling tools are becoming increasingly popular in architectural prac-tice because the advantages of using such tools are extraordinarily limitless as proven by precedents. The architectural discourse is moving away from an era where archi-tects use software to one where they create the software. Only by embracing these new technologies presented by the discourse of the digital-information age is an architect truly enabled to directly and entirely en-gage with the project, from the design pro-cess of a building through its construction phase. I will be using this new concept as the framework for my design for the Gate-way Project. This will allow me to achieve an installation that is inspiring, thought provoking and will encourage ongoing in-terest in the Western Gateway Interchange.

1.6 CONCLUSION1.5 ALGORITHMIC EXPLORTAIONS

Figure 4.

Figure 2.

16

1.7 LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the start of this semester I was confused with the concept of architectural comput-ing. I guess coming from a more comput-erisation background I was unaware of this other way (computation) of approaching de-sign. So for me it was a hold new concept to wrap my head around. I think that most of my confusion came from the understand-ing the dialogue and terminology used to describe architectural computing, such as ‘discourse’, ‘computerisation’, ‘computing’, ‘scripting’ etc. It was through the research of precedents, actually seeing the outcome of this approach that I was able to gain a better understanding. I feel that I have now grasped the concept of architectural com-puting and this is valuable because I am now able to see the purpose behind this way of approaching design where as at the start I guess I was sceptical about that. The chal-lenge for me now is to put my theory knowl-edge into practice and generate an output that explores this enlightenment.

17

Mountain Dwelling. Archinect [Online]. Available from: http://archinect.com/firms/proj-ect/39903/mountain-dwellings/9172196 [Accessed 23/03/2013.

Burry, M. 2011. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, Chichester, Wiley.

Dutton, T. A. & Mann, L. H. 1996. Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Giovannini, J. 1997. Gehry’s reign in Spain. Architecture [Online], 14. [Accessed 20/02/2013].

Grabner, T. & Frick, U. 2013. GECO: Architectural Design through Environmental Feed-back. Architectural Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 25/03/2013].

Hitchcock, H.-R. 1958. Building with Iron and Glass: 1790-1855. Architecture: Nine-teenth and Twentieth Centuries. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Kolarevic, B. 2003a. Architecture in the Digital Age: DEsign and Manufacturing, New York, Spon Press.

Kolarevic, B. 2003b. We Have Seen the Future, and It is Pixellated: Branko Kolarevic connects the dots in the timeline of the digital revolution. Architecture, 92, 83-85.

Leach, N. 1997. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge.Peters, B. 2013. Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmis Thought. Architectural

Design [Online], 83. [Accessed 28/03/2013].Romero, F. & Ramos, A. 2013. Bridging A Culture: The Deisgn of Museo Soumaya. Archi-

tectural Design [Online], 83.Terzidis, K. 2006. Algorithmic Architecture, Oxford, Architectural Press.Tyrnauer, M. 2010. Architecture in the Age of Gehry. Vanity Fair [Online], 2. [Accessed

03/04/2013].Williams, R. 2005. Architecture and Visual Culture. In: Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Visu-

al Culture: Definitions, concepts, contexts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. 1999. The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, London, The

MIT Press.

REFERENCE LIST

18

2.0 DESIGN APPROACH

19

By applying an architectural computing ap-proach to the Gateway Design project I am faced with an array of design possibilities. To narrow down these possibilities I have chosen an area of interest to focus on, that I feel is most appropriate to the project brief. My chosen area of interest is ‘Sectioning’.

‘Sectioning’ within the architectural com-puting realm is described as a technique that uses but is not limited to, contouring and waffle grids to develop an overall form that is made up of a many different parts. I feel that this technique is directly relatable to the city of Wyndham because it consti-tutes what a community is made up of. It signifies unity and the coming together of many individual parts to create a strong and defined form.

My design intent is to create a gateway that acts as a recognisable landmark that aes-thetically and in an abstract manner rep-resents Wyndham as a strong and united community. Furthermore, I also want to highlight Wyndham’s bond with the nearby City of Melbourne. The idea behind this dual

concept is based upon ‘seperation without isolation.’ Meaning that although the city of Wyndham is sperated from Melbourne and has its own unique identity it is not remote and out of touch with its neighbour-ing state capital. The use of an architectural computing approach shows just this, that Wyndham is very much aware of and a par-ticipant in the current and growing archi-tectural discourse of parametric modeling design.

This next part of my journal I will use to research ‘sectioning’ precedents as a basis for my argument and then use this infor-mation to explore my parametric approach as a form finding technique for my design proposal.

2.1 DESIGN FOCUS

20

At the start of this semester I was confused with the concept of architectural comput-ing. I guess coming from a more comput-erisation background I was unaware of this other way (computation) of approaching de-sign. So for me it was a hold new concept to wrap my head around. I think that most of my confusion came from the understand-ing the dialogue and terminology used to describe architectural computing, such as ‘discourse’, ‘computerisation’, ‘computing’, ‘scripting’ etc. It was through the research of precedents, actually seeing the outcome of this approach that I was able to gain a better understanding. I feel that I have now grasped the concept of architectural com-puting and this is valuable because I am now able to see the purpose behind this way of approaching design where as at the start I guess I was sceptical about that. The challenge for me now is to put my theory knowledge into practice and generate an output that explores this enlightenment. Furthermore, I find it an interesting and an almost amusing thought to consider what outcomes may have been generated in past projects if I was able to apply this same ap-proach. For example, I can now see that in my ‘Wearable Architecture’ project that the

form that was created was dictated by the structural integrity of materials I used. I believe that if I had applied a architectural computing approach and used say Rhino and Grasshopper I would have been able to explore a larger range of forms without that particular constraint and instead with given parameters.

Driftwood was designed in the summer of 2008-9 by AA 3rd year students, Camille Steyaert, Danecia Sibingo, Feras El At-tai, Hisashi Kato, Jerome Tsui, Kyungtae Jung, Lyn Hayek, Rama Nshiewat, Ryan Phanphensophon, Suram Choi, Taeyoung Lee and Yoojin Kim with their Unit Tutor : Charles Walker, Martin Self and Engineer-ing Consultants(Arup) : Ching Lau as a part of the Architectural Associations Summer Pavilion Program. The project was unveiled on the 27th of February 2009 in Bedford Square, London and was chosen by judges as the overall winner of the annual exhibi-tion. Its overall concept is to provoke a re-minder of the UK’s link to the sea’ through its form created by the motion of waves1.

This concept was made achievable through the use of computer-generated scripting in Grasshopper. The basis of the design was fashioned by a given parameter which ma-nipulated the movement of lines in a contin-uous parallel manner to create a line draw-ing2. This line drawing was then able to be lofted giving it a poly-surface and an overall

form. The technique of sectioning was then applied to this form by using a series of ex-truded offset curves as a basis for generat-ing resolved intersecting surfaces that were equally spaced. When the exploded tool was applied it then became possible to select the sectioned surfaces in Rhino so that the end result is a series of individual surfaces that create the overall form. What’s more is that the structural frame of the form was able to be generated using surface planes that in-tersect the form thus creating a structural skeleton that is hidden by cladding.

What is significant about this project is that its concept is delivered in an abstract form yet still concisely received by its audience. The overall form of the ‘Driftwood’ Pavil-ion alludes complexity but with the use of computer-generated scripting it enables it be simplified in its creation so that it can be tweaked, manufacturing and constructed straightforwardly. I plan to use this proj-ect as inspiration to create an architectural sculpture for the Gateway project that is thought-provoking in its abstract form yet readable in its design concept.

2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0‘DRIFTWOOD PAVILION’

21

‘DRIFTWOOD PAVILION’

The image above shows the original Grass-hopper algorithm sequenced used to design the Driftwood Pavilion. This also shows the evolution of scripting itself as the Grasshop-per program has become more and more simple to understand as illustrated in the reverse engineering of this project on the next page.

FOOTNOTES

1. Driftwood by AA Unit 2. (2009, June 25). Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Dezeen Magazine: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/

2. Welch, A., & Lomholt, I. (2012, September 10). AA Summer Pavilion London : Driftwood, Bedford Square. Retrieved april 20, 2013, from e-architect: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/driftwood_pavilion_design.htm

22

2.2 CASE STUDY 1.02.2.1 REVERSE ENGINEER

A series of parallel and con-tinuous lines.

The 2D lines are lofted to create a 3D solid shape and referenced into Grasshop-per as a Brep.

New 2D curves are draw around the brep and refer-enced into Grasshopper as a curve componet.

23

2.2.1 REVERSE ENGINEER

The inner curve is then offset and extruded to create a series of inter-secting surfaces.

The interacting surfaces are then resolved using a brep/brep component and the surfaces a spilt, ultimately taking the form of the original brep in a sectioned form.

Intersecting planes are then added to create the internal structure of the noe sectioned brep.

24

2.2 CASE STUDY 1.02.2.2 MATRIX EXPLORATION

In this series I explored dif-ferent distances between the offsets of the intersecting planes.

What I noticed with this se-ries was that when the offset curves where too close to-gether the sectioning of var-ies plane surfaces was not noticeable, instead the form looked solid.

On the other hand when the distance between the planes was increased dramatical-ly parts of the overall form were lost because the gap was too big and there were no planes intersecting espe-cially towards the distinc-tion of the perimeter of the form.

The middle model of this se-ries had the best outcome where the distance between the planes was neither too large or too small.

25

2.2.2 MATRIX EXPLORATION

In this series I explored dif-ferent geometrical shapes that I used to generate the sectioning planes from. In the reverse engineer of the Driftwood Pavilion the shape that if offset to create the in-tersecting planes is curve shape that is similar to the form outline of the original brep. So I wanted to see what contrasting geometries would create.

The first model I used an offset of circles, the second model I used a hexagon and the third in the series was a straight line.

What I noticed the most in this series was the contrast-ing view angles that the hexagon created. By creat-ing a cornered angle it es-sential gave the view through that section a dead end and blocked the light from going through. This is something that I will try to avoid in my own design for the Gatewayproject.

In this series used a popu-lated grid to extruded cyl-inders through the original brep of the Driftwood Pavil-ion.

I experimented with differ-ent rates of populations, dif-ferent sizes of the radius of the cylinders and an explod-ed trimming technique.

I found the first of this se-ries to be the most useful because it kept its overall form.

The second of this series I exploded the intersecting cylinders and in my opinion this created a real mess.

The last of this series I ex-plored a low rate of popula-tion. I found this was similar to the results of the first se-ries where too large to dis-tance between surfaces took away the definition of the overall form that was trying to be achieved.

26

‘Outdoor Sculpture’ was design and fabri-cated by students of the Washington Uni-versity School of Architecture: Zephyr Anthony, Andrew Davis, Kyle Fant, Xiaosh-uang Hu, Allyson Justmann, Andrew Mc-Cready, Kelly Peoples, Xiaofei Ren, Bo Sheng, Jordan Smith, Benjamin Stephen-son, Duo Yu, Thomas Watkins under the direction of Joe MacDonald of Urban A&O.

The concept of ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ was in-spired by the patterned skin of animals. In particular animals have non-repeating pat-terns on their skin such as a giraffe or a python. What the students noted was that the patterned skins of these animals com-prised of lines and surfaces that generated like a network and that arise spontaneously but inevitably from their programmed ge-netics 3 . Using this phenomenon as inspi-ration ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ ultimately aimed to reassemble this network of surfaces as a form-finding technique. The result is the formation of an overall organic shape that is sectioned with a series of concaved shapes

that expose deep contrast between shad-ow and light and thus, recreating an over-all pattern on the ‘skin’ of the sculpture.

This project too, successfully portrays its concept through an abstract form. It is this project that my team will use as a ba-sis for learning how to generate the tech-nique of sectioning in Grasshopper. The next part of this journal explores our re-verse engineering process in remaking this ‘Outdoor Sculpture’ project in Grasshopper.

FOOTNOTES1. Evolo. (2012, December 4). Parametric Explora-tion for n Outdoor Sculpture. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Evolo: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-explorations-for-an-outdoor-sculpture/

2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0‘OUTDOOR SCULPTURE’

27

‘OUTDOOR SCULPTURE’

28

2.3 CASE STUDY 2.02.3.1 REVERSE ENGINEER

We started with the algorithm for a solid sphere.

By applying a non-un i f o rm scale to the sphere we were able to create a ellipsoid shape.

We then use the twisted-box algorithm to create a twisted shape that is thinner at one end.

Using the pop-ulate geometry tool we were able to random-ly populate our twisted ellip-soid with small-er spheres.

29

2.3.1 REVERSE ENGINEER

We then ap-plied the non-uniform scal-ing tool again, this time to the spheres that were populat-ing the twisted ellipsoid form.

By applying a trim algorithm we were able to ‘cut’ the small ellipsoids that populated the form out thus leaving their shapes im-printed in the form.

Finally we used the contour-ing algorithm to section our final form. We were able to manipulate the distance be-tween sections and the vec-tor to which the section was created.

30

SIMILARITIES> Sectioned> Solid shape subtracted from overall form> Form morphed from an ellipsoid shape> Twisted form

DIFFERENCES>Solid shapes that have been substracted are uniformed and do not vary in shapes and sizes.> Overall form is slightly different- thicker in some areas and flattern in others

31

> Over population: When the populated el-lipsoids were touching they were unable to generate so we had to make sure they were not touching. We also felt that an over pop-ulated surface took away the distinction of the overall form.

> Twisted form: It took us a while to work out how to twist the shape. The secret we discovered was to use the points referenced into grasshopper for the twisted-box algo-rithm had to be in a sequenced manner.

> Form too thin for subtraction: At the thin-nest part of the form we found that when we trimmed/subtracted the populated el-lipsods it actually created an protrusion in some parts. We added thickness to the form in order to stop this from happening.

WHAT’S NEXT?From here we plan on creating our own forms to apply sectioning to. We want to experiment with different geometries and distances between sections to see if we can create an interesting shape that is more ap-propriate to the Gateway project site.

2.3.2 PROCESS ANALYSIS2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0

During our reverse engineering pro-cess we encoun-tered a few prob-lems that we had to overcome. These are outlined below:

32

2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

The technical development behind ‘Series 1.0’ is based on the angle at which the sectioning occurs. What we noted with this se-ries is that the models that had straight views or ap-prox. 45 degree angles of-fered better views through the sectioning then the models that have sharper angles.However, we consider that if we were to angle all of our sections for our Gateway project model then only one direction of traffic would benefit from the views that the sectioning would create.

Series 2.0 shows experie-mentation with different distances between sections. What we noted here was that too big of a distance took away the distinction of the overall form, where as too small of a distance did not allow for views and light to come through. A medium would be ideal.

SERIES 1.0 SERIES 2.0

33

Series 3.0 explores varia-tion of sectioning to cre-ate one form. The sections vary in geometry and in distances apart. I feel that this series is too confusing and an overall form is not presented. Creating a unit-ed form is the underpin-ning of our design concept so it is important that it is easily depicted. I also think that the travelling speed of a car would not be able to grasp the overall form and thus concept because there is too much going on.

Series 4.0 explores sec-tioning together with the subtraction of geometri-cal shapes from the overall form. We concluded from this series is that where sectioning does not occur the form becomes too heavy and bulky, which is not our design intent. The last three models in this series I feel create the same distraction as those in the series before, where there are too many ele-ments. From this we decid-ed that we want to keep our design simple and sleek so that design concept can be fully interpreted.

SERIES 3.0 SERIES 4.0

34

2.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT...continued

The technical development behind Series 6.0 is based on sectioning determining the form of the model. Se-ries 5.0 on the otherhand is a combination of series 6.0 and 4.0. We concluded that at the end of series 5.0 that too many geometries created confusion as to what the overall form was.

Series 6.0 is more simple and evolves from similar ge-ometries. The middle of this series shows more clarity to the form that is begin-ning created by the section-ing that is occuring. I think that this best illustrates our design concept of a strong overall form.

SERIES 5.0 SERIES 6.0

35

Series 7.0 shows our explo-ration with circular section-ing. We noted that when the sectioning was too close to-gether that it was clear as to what technique was oc-curing. We also noted that at the end of the series that too many intersecting sec-tions was confusing. What we like about this series was the fluidty of the arcs that were created and how the smaller arcs or circles of the series created a fo-cal point and thus a line to travel for the eyes.

Series 8.0 experiments with different geometrical shapes that are used a the basis to create sectioning from. We felt that the vary-ing directions of the sectio-nign created by the corners was too abrupt in its rate of changed and preferred the smooth transition that se-ries 7.0 created instead.

SERIES 7.0 SERIES 8.0

36

2.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

37

Our group development a series of model prototypes to further develop our tech-nique. We discovered the following con-siderations:

> Proportion: The thicker the mate-rial we used the smaller the distance of the sectioning became.

> Distance apart: the more distance we put between the elements the greater the light infiltrate in com-parison to shadow. The greater the distance also determined the extent of the view that was given/ recieved.

> The taller the structure the longer the shadow.

> Geometrical Variation: The more subtle the variation in geometry be-tween individual elements the softer the the straight lines and jaggered corners became.

> Height Sequence: starting smaller to larger or vise versa, created a line of travel for the eyes to follow.

Overall we concluded that too big of dis-tance between elements and too much variation between the geometrical shapes of the elements took away the clarity of the overall form. We want to create a strong form from individual elements so it is important that we find the right balance between the individuality of ele-ments and group relatability to create a readable form.

38

The next step of our design development was to take the design considerations that where generated by the outcome of our pro-totype models and apply them to the site for the project.

Site AnalysisIn a team discussion we decided that set back restrictions for site C left very little room to be utilised so we decided that we would construct on site A and B only. As apart of our design concept ‘isolation with-out separation’ we want to showcase Wyn-dham as a unique and strong community but also allude to its relationship with the city of Melbourne. We decided to use the two sites A and B to create two structural forms that hold a relationship with one an-other. In doing so we believe that we can use the project site to metaphorically show the interaction of this relationship between two destinations. On the larger site (A) we decided we would showcase Wyndham and on the smaller site (B) we would represent Melbourne city using the abstract sectioned forms we have been prototyping. What would theoretically occur over the motorway

would be an interacting connection between these two structural forms and beneath this connection would the movement of the mo-torway traffic indicating quiet literally the evolving strands of connection between the two. In summary, we ideally want to high-light the site as a node where a relationship occurs and not just merely a mode of transit from two places.

Furthermore, the overall form that we are working to create will be innovative in the sense that it will push the ‘norm’ for what is expected for the material structure of the final form. By using parametric modelling as our approach it has allowed us to gen-erate unique forms that stretch out across the motorway thus making a significant im-pact it its ability to provoke thought about its creation.

Our final prototype shows the outcome of the ongoing considerations that have been progressed throughout this journal. What will be interesting is how we will further de-velop our design from this but you will just have to wait...

2.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

39

Figure 2: Final Prototype Model

Figure 1: Gateway Project Site

40

2.7 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

We generated a series of arcs using the ARCS SED algorithm in Grasshopper. This particular algorithm creates an arc defined by given start and end points and the direction of the arc is generated by the input vector. This allowed us to manipulate the shape of the arc sequence so the arcs became smaller to-wards one end of the sequence.

This model is the result of a two lofted surfaces that are trimmed from one another. The interaction algorithm solves the interssection between the two surfaces and then a trim algo-rithm can be applied to subtract one surface from the other.

41

We then able to manipulate our arch form using anchor points. When we were happy with the shape.

When the sectioned our solid using the contour algorithm set at a given numerical distance apart. this created a series of sectioned plane surfaces.

We then offset the sectioned planes and lofted them together to give each plane a solid thick-ness value.

42

2.8 LEARNING OUTCOMES

By choosing a particular technique to focus on I believe that it has really allowed me to develop my understanding and skills in parametric modelling. With my focus on ‘section-ing’ I have been able to demonstrate my ability to use Grasshopper to manipulate design outcomes by changing, adding and subtracting algorithms to produce a variety of models. Furthermore, my conducted research into case studies 1.0 and 2.0 showed me the differ-ent ways that sectioning can be achieved and the variety of outcomes that can be gener-ated from this specific technique. I learnt from this particular task that although these case studies look complex in their form and construction their use of parametric modelling simplifies their approach and has allowed me to gain acknowledge on how they were able to be achieved. I believe that these case studies reiterate my argument, that a parametric design is the best way to approach the Gateway Design project as both case studies pro-voke interest into the architectural discourse through their ability to use computational architecture to generate unique forms that push the boundaries of the ‘norm’.

Over the last few weeks my team has been able to continuously development our tech-nique and this included the creation of physical prototype models. These models allowed us to further progress our technique and build upon our gathered data limitations. These models in conjunction with the feedback we received during our mid-semester presenta-tion have given us direction as to how we can continue develop and push our design fur-ther. Some areas that we are wanting to explore include; implementing more individual characteristics to the individual sectioned components that make-up our form, creating a reliant structural relation between our two forms to further express our concept of the relationship between Wyndham and Melbourne, the creation of purposeful views using different angles of sectioning and a stronger consideration to the structural integrity of our form. I hope that the next part of this journal will show successful solutions to these considerations as our design for the Gateway Project continues to develop.

43

Driftwood by AA Unit 2. (2009, June 25). Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Dezeen Maga-zine: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/25/driftwood-by-danecia-sibingo/

Evolo. (2012, December 4). Parametric Exploration for n Outdoor Sculpture. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Evolo: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/parametric-explorations-for-an-outdoor-sculpture/

Welch, A., & Lomholt, I. (2012, September 10). AA Summer Pavilion London : Driftwood, Bedford Square. Retrieved april 20, 2013, from e-architect: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/driftwood_pavilion_design.htm

REFERENCE LIST