JOURNALJOSHUA GRAF 587672

ARCHITECTURE STUDIO AIR

3

CONTENTS

Introduction

Part A: ConceptualisationA.1. Design Futuring

Urban Algae Pavilion - EcoLabStudio Table Cloth - Ball Nogues A.2. Design Computation

A.3. Composition to GenerativeA.4. Part A Conclusion

A.5. Learning outcomes Bibliography

4....

6....

8.... 10.... 12....14....18.... 18.... 19....

4 5

My name is Joshua Graf, a final year Undergraduate Environments student, majoring in Architecture. Along side architecture I study a diploma in Japanese, and in my 3rd year I spent that year on exchange in Edinburgh, Scotland, focusing on architecture history and seeing a lot of it. I also got to spend Christmas in Poland with some long lost family and make my first ever snowman!

INTRODUCTION

A BIT ABOUT ME

WHY DESIGN?

DESIGN HISTORYThe core of my design work has formed during my time at university but my first attempt at it really began in high school. In my final year of school I opted to take a Visual Communication class over a calculus one because I wanted to practice these design skills. I designed a very aesthetically based Art Gallery and made a model to prove it. I then moved onto University and took my first studio Virtual Environments where I got stuck into rhino and its panelling tools and left the subject with a hanging, papercraft lantern emulating the skin patterns of a snake. My second studio that year left me designing a very theoretical tactile “judgement tower” which was my first time properly engaging with a site and immersing myself in developing and responding to ideas. Then came the Architecture Design Studio water where I learnt to familiarise myself with the work of Architectural Masters, designing a boathouse using the formal strategies of my chosen architect Herzog and De Meuron.

I derive a passion for design from 2 perspectives. The first is just part of me. I have always liked to draw, make paper mache, construct pyramids of lego, or help my dad build things. I suppose you could see this side of me as the desire to create both for the sake of aesthetics and out of enjoyment for the process.

A ABOUTBIT

ME

The second perspective is that I have come to realise that design can have a purpose and actually be useful, and so in turn I can have a purpose and be useful. And I believe it is this side of the 2 that is stronger in driving my passion for design because it itself grows as I slowly pick up and understand more about the world and how design can help and inform it.

How’d I get up there?!

6 7

Part AC O N C E P T U A L I S AT I O N

8 9

URBAN ALGAE CANOPY - ecoLogicStudio A.1. DESIGN FUTURING

THE PROJECT

THEORY ENGAGED

FUTURES IMAGINED

large is the possibility of considering architecture almost as a literal organic structure. As portrayed by ecoLogicStudio, “it is now time to overcome the segregation between technology and nature typical of the mechanical age, to embrace a systemic understanding of architecture” (EcoLogicStudio, 2014). This “systemic understanding” is an attempt to frame architecture through a glass that acknowledges that what we choose to construct should not only serve people and their needs but should too be integrated into, and have integrated into it systems that can work to negate the destructive effects our societies unquestionably create for the environment we inhabit. The Urban Algae Canopy attempts to engage this theory of natural integration and give a tantalising example of how technology like that developed in “algaetecture” could be effectively assimilated into the general urban fabric.

It is not so radical an idea as ideas for adapting algae for various uses in architecture have been developed in the past (such as algae panels to generate electricity). However it is definitely very timely and very effective in getting people to properly imagine a future where organic life is intricately comwbined into the built environment. The qualities of a place like a forest could be established, with variable lighting and shade, generated oxygen and a response to visitors and beings within its presence.

The Urban Algae Canopy is designed by the team at ecoLogicStudio for the World Expo 2015 in Milan as part of the Future Food District Project. Whilst being a canopy, the structure involves a bio-digital system developed by the team over the past 6 years which runs a flow of algae, water, energy and CO2 through the structure which not only generates the equivalent oxygen of 4 hectares of woodland and up to 150kg of biomass per day but also responds to user presence via increasing the flows within the system to dynamically alter the available shade and its intensity. It is this union of nature and parametric design that drew me to this project.

The relevance of this project to society at

Image 1 - Urban Algae Canopy Render

Image 2 - System prototype currently be-ing showcased at the University of Milan. The prototype depicts the algae system and the shading reaction to visitors.

Image 2 - System prototype currently be-ing showcased at the University of Milan. The prototype depicts the algae system and the shading reaction to visitors.

10 11

TABLE CLOTH - Ball Nogues Architects

The base of the design develops from Ball Nogue’s research into the reuse of temporary structures and installations. Instead of destroying or disposing of the installation after its purpose has been served, they have developed a manufacturing methodology they call “Cross Manufacturing” that constructively critiques the three R’s of sustainability (recycling, reuse and repurposing), processes that normally down-cycle material into less valuable states. Cross Manufacturing defined by Ball Nogues is “an integrated design and manufacturing strategy that harnesses digital computation and fabrication technologies to make architectural scaled installations that become collections of smaller scaled products” (Ball Nogues, 2010). In the context of this project, at the end of the installation period the ‘fabric’ was

As a symbolic gesture of sustainability and a reminder that the buildings we construct are impermanent, the installation envisages a less deterministic view of products, buildings and materials into the future. Table Cloth questions single-purpose or un-adaptable creations almost with a view that waste for the sake of ‘something we don’t want to use anymore’ is unacceptable.

THEORY ENGAGED

FUTURES IMAGINED

Table cloth by Ball Nogues is an architectural installation designed for a music school courtyard that creates a “fabric” from tables and stools collectively linked together. Each of these low, coffee-style tables and 3 legged stools are unique and are designed specifically for the installation but also to be used day to day. Table Cloth serves as an “integrated set piece, backdrop, and seating area for student musical performance and everyday social interaction” (Ball Nogues, 2010).

THE PROJECTbroken down into its ‘smaller scaled products’, i.e. tables and chairs, and distributed out to the local community. As such, in the one action the project is making a comment both on how we think about building and reusing architectural installations, and one-purpose-consumer products we manufacture.

Image 1 - Top View of Table Cloth

Image 2,3,4 - Detail Views

Image 5 - View from behind installation

A.1. DESIGN FUTURING

12 13

Computing itself cannot design, we the autonomous must still provide the rules, algorithms and intent to make the computer generated relevant to real life. But as argued by Kalay (2004) computing as a form of untiring and exact calculation influences the design process by allowing us to create things our easily distracted and

often mistaken minds cannot. By utilizing contemporary programs and technologies, such as grasshopper, there is greater potential for geometrical and formal theoretical exploration via the program’s ability to flesh out visual form based upon the complex algorithms we have not had the ability nor time to comprehend. A great example of this exploration is shown through the studio Biothingy, whose projects such as Climath demonstrate an application of very complex and algorithmic based forms to enhance and inform the creation of a real space.

As such, computing has re-defined practice in architecture (and design in general) particularly in the past 20 years, with documentation for example shifting from hand drawn to digitally drawn and now even to BIM methods for distributing construction information. In the past 5-10 years, the elevated level to which complexity can be achieved through computation has begun effecting the industry and has led to increasing the variety and scope of designs. In addition, the advent of new

fabrication technologies has changed the way construction too is thought about. Projects and installations such as Hotel Puerta America by Plasma Studio, or Softlab’s GAUD13 are good examples of this, where the scope of 3D moves beyond the linear and into a realm of complexity and distortion. This computation also has the potential to begin imbedding into the complexity systems for evaluating sustainability and assessing things like material use or structural integrity.

12 13

DESIGN COMPUTATION

Image 1: Climath by Biothingy Image 3: Hotel Puerta America by Plasma Studio

Image 2: GAUD13 by Softlabs

A.1. DESIGN COMPUTATION

14 15

COMPOSITION TO GENERATION A.3.COMPOSITION TO GENERATIONThe past 15 years have seen a deep change in architectural practice and thinking occur, the major influences of which have been sustainability and technological advance (Peters, 2013). The combination of these two factors is interesting because it simultaneously represents a time where more is being demanded of architecture, particularly in terms of performativity, and design methods and opportunities are increasing and evolving at an unprecedented rate; i.e. stricter conditions but greater ability. To address this shift, one of the fundamental changes that has occurred is the shift from compositional to generative design. The main reason this is important is that whilst compositional design is primarily concerned with the organisation of form, the move into generative architecture presents a system where formation precedes form, where emphasis is on designing the design’s logic or process over the design’s form (Leach, 2009). The benefit to this model of thinking is at the current rate, form (in terms of architectural requirement, technology, etc.) is quickly outdated, but designing a process that is able to adapt to what is relevant means generated form can always be relevant and push our boundaries.

ALGORITHMIC THINKINGA large part of generative design is made possible through algorithmic thinking. Algorithmic thinking is in a way a form of specific problem solving whereby solutions are arrived at via a process of functional decomposition, parameterization, and repetition, in essence breaking down a problem into its smaller/smallest components and devising a set of steps to arrive at the solution (Cooper et al. 2000). This thought process lends itself strongly to generative design because when our design problems are broken down into a simple series of steps, a computer’s tireless and precise processes can be applied to the situation to extrapolate those simple steps beyond the capabilities of the normal human mind. A good example of this thinking in practice is the ‘Rules of Six’ installation by Aranda/Lasch where the rules of a snowflake were broken down, formed into steps, and replied recursively to a create wall piece for the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Image 1: Snowflake patterns generated through algorithm

Image 2: Final installation at the Modern Museum of Art, New York

16 17

As with anything however, despite the immense benefits generative design provides us with it is also important to be aware of a methods limitations. One such limitation is how the computational potential and flexibility is limited by the algorithmic components available to the program or language. This can be seen for example in how before plug-ins such as ‘Anemone’ or ‘Hoopsnake’ programs such as grasshopper were restricted in how they could approach recursion. Of course, there are ways around it, and as technology improves a lot of these issues become more and more negligible, but the restriction still exists. In addition, another concern embedded within the last issue is addressing the misconception that parametrics reduce design complexity (Dino, 2012). Whilst algorithmic thinking and parametric modelling provide fantastic tools for addressing complex issues and designs, the complexity of the issue still remains. The importance of the correction of this misconception is that people commissioning a building, or even a designer who holds this misconception, may wrongly believe that dealing with such a design is ‘easy’ and underestimate expertise and effort implementation of such programs require.

L IMITATIONSPARAMETRIC MODELLINGParametric modelling is then the engagement of the scripts developed out of the algorithmic thinking method applied to modelling form. The key element of this type of design is that the building, for example, can be first thought about in terms of its important components, with these then used as the building blocks of a design. These parameters can then be varied to easily test and experiment the different potentials for the building. The Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre by Foster + Partners for example utilised a form-finding algorithm to quickly generate a variety of forms for its cable-net structure in order to assess alternatives (Peters, 2013). The true potential in parametric modelling however lies in the ability of it to inherently incorporate performative qualities. For example, if a performative logic were to be written into a script to assess the efficiency of structural members or to minimize sun load, the resulting forms are automatically optimised to such requirements. This method is effectively shown in the Aviva Stadium by Populous, where a design loop was implemented in the model that proposed rotation values, recorded ventilation areas and windblown gaps, and a 3D representation produced. This data was then able to be analysed to determine which configuration was most efficient in dealing with wind load to inform decision making (Hudson et al., 2011).

A.3.COMPOSITION TO GENERATION

Image 2: Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Image 1: Aviva stadium shutter performative design process: (1) Rotation Angles defined (2) Venting provision compared to requirements (3) Wind blown rain check (4) Model assess aesthetically

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

17

18 19

A.4. CONCLUSION A.5. LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the conclusion of Part A I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of digital computation in architecture and the direction it is currently leading us. At the beginning of semester I knew a little about grasshopper and algorithmic thinking, particularly via messages that had been passed down to me by friends and previous students of this subject. Some were really positive and saw digital computation and generative design as a fantastic tool. Others were sceptical, and saw generative processes taking the ‘design’ out of peoples work. Now that I have engaged with this subject I have begun to develop hope for where digital computation can lead us into the future. For me personally, environmental impact and response is a key driver for my goals as a designer, and I believe that the performative qualities of parametric and generative design in digital computation are slowly (and sometimes rapidly) creating new and interesting solutions to these issues, as society too slowly understands better and identifies where we need to address these issues. In addition, I find the process of algorithmic thinking quite an enjoyable task to engage with, with both the unexpected and interesting results, and the struggles sorting through the code resulting in what I feel to be a worthwhile challenge.

Digital computation in design is potentially the most important element of current architectural theory that needs to be engaged with. The countless number of unexplored and unimagined solutions contained within current technology, in conjunction with new technology likely to be created into the future presents a strong case for continued engagement within the discipline. When these computational processes are coupled with thinking about design futuring, a very positive or hopeful outlook is generated where digital experimentation and simulation can help foster thought on these issues of sustainability, in regards to materiality, structure, passive design, and other forms of performative system inclusion. As such, the design approach I intended to follow is one that engages with cutting edge applications of digital computational tools, with the overall intent then being to question and further the discussion on both the use of these tools and our potential futures. An approach such as this is significant purely for its use in testing and pushing boundaries. If a project is able to work at and push the extents to which we understand how we design and the limits of technology, it ultimately benefits both the people who are working within these boundaries, and people on the receiving end of design, particularly if these new perspectives or designs are able to flow on to affect how society thinks about other issues.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cooper, Stephen, Wanda Dann, and Randy Pausch. “Developing algorithmic thinking with Alice.” The Proceedings of ISECON 2000. Vol. 17. 2000.

Leach, N.(2009) ‘Digital Morphogenesis’, Architectural Design, 79:1;32-7

Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15

Image 1 < https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4027/4479248423_16d858fb3c_b.jpg>

Image 2 < https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3263/3192008252_0c5007ca04_z.jpg?zz=1>

Dino, İpek GÜRSEL. “Creative design exploration by parametric generative systems in architecture.” Metu Jfa 1 (2012): 207.

Hudson, Roly, Paul Shepherd, and David Hines. “Aviva Stadium: A case study in integrated parametric design.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 9.2 (2011): 187-204.

Image 1, Hudson, Roly, Paul Shepherd, and David Hines. “Aviva Stadium: A case study in integrated parametric design.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 9.2 (2011): pg 198

Image 2 < http://www.bancrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Aviva-Stadium-2.jpg>

Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 5-25 Image 1: http://plethora-project.com/completeworks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/20c-hires-mod.jpg Image 2: http://softlabnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/guad_2013_17.jpg Image 3: http://www.plasmastudio.com/work/images/architecture/Hotel_Puerta_America/PS_HPA_PHOT_BILT_02.jpg

Ball Nogues. 2010. ‘Table Cloth for courtyard at Schoenberg Hall’ < http://www.ball-nogues.com/#project-87> [accessed 6:15pm 12/03/2015]

Image 1 < http://www.ball-nogues.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big_image/mayoralPhoto_ball_tableclothSchoen-bergHall_highRes-8_2.jpg> Image 2 < http://www.ball-nogues.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big_image/DSC04266.JPG> Image 3 < http://www.ball-nogues.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big_image/mayoralPhoto_ball_tableclothSchoen-bergHall_highRes-18_2.jpg>

Image 4 < http://www.ball-nogues.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big_image/mayoralPhoto_ball_tableclothSchoen-bergHall_highRes-13_2.jpg>

Image 5 < http://www.ball-nogues.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big_image/mayoralPhoto_ball_tableclothSchoen-bergHall_highRes-4_1.jpg>

ecoLogicStudio. 2014. ‘Algae Canopy’. ecoLogicStudio < http://www.ecologicstudio.com/v2/project.php?idcat=3&idsubcat=59&idproj=137 > [accessed 3:19pm 12/03/2015]

Testado.J. 2014. ‘The Urban Algae Canopy shows the power of “algaetecture” for Milan Expo 2015’. Archinect News. < http://archinect.com/news/article/98218917/the-urban-algae-canopy-shows-the-power-of-algaetecture-for-milan-ex-po-2015> [accessed 3:35pm 12/03/2015]

Image 1 < http://www.ecologicstudio.com/v2/medias/imgs/projects/1746-P-137-20141020073418.jpg>

Image 2 < http://cdn.archinect.net/images/514x/wv/wvemft8agvhqy7bd.jpg>

pg 8-9 - A.1. Design Futuring - Urban Algae Canopy

pg 10-11 - A.1. Design Futuring - Tablecloth

pg 12-13 - A.2. Design Computation

pg 14-15 - A.3. Composition to Generative

pg 16-17 - A.3. Composition to Generative

20 21

PART B C R I T E R I A D E S I G N

22 23

B.1 RESEARCH FIELDRECURSION

RECURSION is, in its simplest form, the PROCESS of continuously repeating or LOOPING a basic operation through an ALGORITHM over and over to arrive at a solution that would otherwise be highly labour intensive. This operation can be as simple as folding a surface at a certain point, but can still result in very COMPLEX, DETAILED, and INTERESTING forms and configurations, depending on the extent to which the algorithm is allowed to loop.

so that along this new branch another branch is created at this proportion and so on (3). Following this process means before long quite a complex network of branches are created (3). An important thing to note in this is process however, is that as the creator or controller of this algorithm only a basic amount of effort is required in setting up the definition, and the more labour intense process of exactly sketching out the form is left to computation. This inherently situates recursive form-finding as a generative process.

Recursion is not strictly a form finding technique but when applied to geometry it can result in some very unique and dynamic applications. One very famous example of recursion is the L-system, a process that can be seen to replicate the manner in which branches on a tree split off and form. Here the base theory (or algorithm) is that starting with an initial branch, at some point along the branch another branch is created at some proportion to the inital branch (1). This algorithm is then looped

X

0.7X 0.7X

0.7(0.7X)

0.7(0.7X) 0.7(

0.7X

)

0.7(0.7X)

(1) (2) (3)

24 25

RECURSION EXAMPLE - BLOOMcreated. Interestingly, the project was opened up to the public as “Bloom: The Game”, allowing people to get a hold of these components and generate their own designs, much like a Lego set. Here we not only see an engagement with community but also the design breaking out of the digital realm, where designs are tested by adjusting parameters and extents of recursion, and into the control of an individual user, which provides a very organic, human means by which the initial definition can be explored. Whilst in this perspective it can be said that the generative process is handed back over to labour, it is still a relevant point to consider as engaging the process with an intelligent mind allows solutions to be found in a very different way to the exact way in which an algorithm would.

A real world application of L-system recursive geometry is in the project ‘Bloom’ by Alisa Andrasek. The beauty in this project’s approach to adapting a recursive definition is in the way it has maintained the element of simplicity to generate complexity. The adaptable installation relies on a single component mass produced, which contains within it 3 connection points that can slot multiple of these components together. In the definition, the distance and angle of the slots from the central point of the component can be manipulated, with these variations affecting the overall structure.

From this premise alone, depending on which slots are chosen and the order these are configured, almost unlimited variations and designs can be

B.1 RESEARCH FIELD

26 27

A fantastic example of this in practice is the project ‘The Evening Line’ by Aranda Lasch. The design is based upon a fractal distribution of these scaled truncated tetrahedrons, which are then laced with unique patterns on each surface. The result is a project that is visibly extremely intricate on multiple scales, drawing you in to appreciate smaller details, whilst also maintaining an appreciable relation of formal proportions between its various elements. The project is a good example of combining two simple operations looped in an algorithm to generate an interesting complex form that still contains structure and formal relationships.

RECURSION EXAMPLE - THE EVENING LINE

(1) (2) (3)

The fact that recursion relies on the repetition of base algorithms also makes recursive geometry susceptible to fractal formations. This is meant in the sense that many forms can be created through a recursive application of an algorithm to create a geometry that at many different scales contains similar, or indeed exactly the same proportioned elements and shapes.And, while this may initially seem like a trivial bi-product it is in fact a rather unique quality of recursive definitions.

For example, a pyramid (1) can be truncated using scaled versions of itself (2). Those triangles used to initially truncate can then be scaled and truncate themselves again (3), beginning the series of an infinite potential of fractals. As such, intersecting and orienting these scaled elements can lead to rather unique distortions of forms and methods for creating ornamentation, all of this still being framed within a generative model.

B.1 RESEARCH FIELD

28 29

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0PROCESS EXPLANATION

30 31

L-SYSTEMS B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

32 33

L-SYSTEMS B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

2 POINT BOX

2 POINT BOX

34 35