Architecture Design Studio: AirABPL30048

Reflection JournalMalcolm Kennett

Hello my name is Malcolm Kennett,

I am a third year architecture student.What I hope to learn from this subject is to become more familiar with the different theories in creating a design concept. I also hope to become more familiar with different types of creative software since at the moment I haven’t started to specialise in any particular category of software yet.

My only experience with using Rhino was from doing Virtual Environments back in my first year. Other software I have used for other subjects are: AutoCAD, InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator. Experience with design theory was mainly learnt from previous design subjects (Designing Environments, Virtual Environments, Design Studio Earth and Water) which I was also more focused on hand drawings than using drafting and design software.

Outside of university I work part-time in electronic retail sales and my hobbies are photography, computer games and travelling.

i

ii

Contents

Part A. EOI I: Case for innovationA.1. Architecture as a Discourse 2A.2. Computational Architecture 6A.3. Parametric Modelling 10A.4. Algorithmic Explorations 14A.5. Conclusion 17A.6. Learning Outcomes 18A.7. Part A References 19

Part B. EOI II: Design approachB.1. Design Focus 22B.2. Case Study 1.0 23B.3. Case Study 2.0 27B.4. Technique Development 29B.5. Technique Prototypes 35B.6. Technique Proposal 39B.7. Algorithmic Sketches 41B.8. Learning Objectives and Outcomes 43B.9. Part B References 45

Part C. EOI III: Project proposalC.1. Gateway Project: Design Concept 48C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements 52C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model 56C.4. Algorithmic Sketches 67C.5. Learning Objectives and Outcomes 68

“The beauty of what you create comes if you honor the material for what it really is.” - Louis Kahn

1

To me architecture a discourse means seeing architecture as more than just a building and instead is a reflection of culture and technology. Williams (2005) supports this statement by arguing that architecture is a reflection of culture can also be seen as a public art which can also be an interactive urban and social experience. I am in favour of viewing architecture as more than a simple architectural production but as an interactive environment between the structure and its occupants, which is also influenced by its surrounding environment and social context. With the support of innovative technology, this can help create new ways in which architecture can be an interactive experience. During the lecture this week, discourse in architecture was mentioned about exploring and utilising the latest construction and material technologies in the dynamic world of digital to further express architecture as advancement in technology and improve productivity. This can influence my approach to the major assignment in several different ways. First of all when creating an initial design I will consider the different possibilities of how the users will interact with the structure. Secondly how I will utilise Rhino and Grasshopper to create a design proposal. Third, the selection of materials for the physical model; rather than settling for basic materials such as cardboard I intend to research for more sophisticated materials to reflect advances in technology for model making.

A.1. Architecture as a Discourse

2

The Optical glass house designed by Hiroshi Nakamura in 2012 is a design which has recently won the ar+d Awards for Emerging Architecture (Design boom, 2013). The main issue addressed in the design of this house was to create a glass façade which serves as an acoustic barrier between the interior and the noise pollution of the nearby main road of Hiroshmina which at the same time allowing views of the surrounding environment (Design boom, 2013). The glass façade also provides natural light into the house and views of the busy exterior environment which can be observed from the silence of the home. In terms of patterns of the living, the structure blurs the distinction between interior and exterior space from using the green spaces as a buffer zone between the inner structure and external environment. The trees in the green space also help filter the sunlight to prevent excessive exposures and offer a natural haven which all surrounding rooms face towards (Design boom, 2013).

This structure was inspired by the Water/glass house by Kengo Kuma and is a Japanese style hotel which can also be used as a private guest house and made in 1995 which uses glass as the majority material for both the structure and furnishings (Kengo Kuma and Associates, 2013). What I like about the optical glass house is that the use of optical glass shows the new possibilities of utilising glass with modern technology for a solution for solving the noise pollution issue in building a house in a high density areas. Also I like the design of the green space and how people interact with it as an environmental haven whiles it actually serves a functional purpose to the whole structure of reducing noise pollution.

3

Source: www.designboom.com/architecture/hiroshi-naka-mura-nap-optical-glass-house

Source: www.designboom.com/architecture/hiroshi-naka-mura-nap-optical-glass-house

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

The Lotus Dome is an interactive project by the Dutch design studio Roosegaarde and was awarded with the Media Architecture Award 2012 in the category of Future Trends; this design is a living wall powered by electricity and made of foils that fold open in response to human interaction (Studio Roosegaarde, 2013). When individuals walk by this design, the little aluminium foils unfold in an organic way which opens voids between private and public spaces (Design Playgrounds, 2013). This living wall technology was used in the Lotus Dome in which as the name implies, is a dome made out of these foils and exhibited inside a 17th century Church to create an interactive play of the light inside the dome (Studio Roosegaarde, 2013). The behaviour of the foils can be appreciated as creating a poetic morphing of people and their environment which makes me think more of the impact that well-chosen materials can have on a design.

What I like about this design over the Optical glass house is that the interaction of the structure and user seems much more intimate. For example, the optical glass house is using optical glass technology to reduce noise pollution yet still provide city views and natural lighting to its inhabitants which seems more influenced by the external environment. The Lotus seems to be an interactive experience that focuses more on the user than its surrounding environment since its changes in form are dependent on how the user moves and interacts with the design to illuminate its surrounding environment.This may seem a bit too ambitious but this could influence my design by utilising technology to create a model with would physically change and interact with its users and surrounding environment depending on different situations such as the Lotus Dome design. As to how this idea can be realistic I am not yet sure of but it would be looked into.

4

Source: http://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/lotus/photo/#lotus-dome

Source: http://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/lotus/photo/#lotus-dome

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

“Liquid architecture. It’s like jazz - you improvise, you work together, you play off each other, you make something, they make something...” - Frank Gehry

5

With contemporary design techniques I think of digital technologies such as CAD. Although some points during the lecture this week suggest that software such as CAD might be negative for original design and instead create a fake creativity, I agree more with the view that design computation is just a tool which it still requires an input of the user to create. For example Wilson (1999) describes an algorithm as a method bound by rules or operations that requires the input of a human to create anything, which supports this mindset of digital design techniques as just a tool than generating design by itself. This is evident from using Grasshopper in which the designs are made by the user inputting nodes, restrictions and parameters into the software to make creation based on instructions inputted into it.

Woodbury (2006) argues that the use of a computation in the design industry can be seen as an evolution in the possibilities of architectural design; this allows more breadth in several different types of software rather than specialising in a select few. What I find most convincing is Woobury’s (2006) argument of favouring digital design technologies is that humans at the moment only work within their limits of unaided problems solving strategies and design technology is made to help support humans to design work on a level of exploration that would be beyond human capacity.

This can be seen as a new versus traditional dilemma in which this new approach to design can help individuals design on a capacity beyond their limits such as the productivity benefits of being able to rescale a whole design on AutoCAD with a single command instead of creating a whole new physical drawing. Yet as a downside I believe that we are limited by our knowledge of the software. I have this problem with designing on Rhino with Grasshopper in which my ability to create designs is limited to my knowledge and experience with the software. Although investing more time into getting familiar with this software will benefit more long-term use of Rhino and other types of design software.

A.2. Computational Architecture

6

The ICD/ITKE research pavilion at the University of Stuttgart was constructed for a biological research collaboration between the Institute for Computational Design and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design in 2011 (Dezeen, 2011). This project was inspired by the biological principles of the sea urchin’s skeleton morphology and was created by computer design and simulation software along with computer-controlled methods of fabrication with industrial seven-axis robot for accuracy of building assembly (Dezeen, 2011). The pattern was created by digital information between the project’s model, element simulations and computer numeric machine control to analyze and modify the critical points of the model (Dezeen, 2011).

The exterior is assembled by three plate edges always meet together at just one point in a modular system of polygonal plates of which are made from a fine 6.5mm of plywood which is fastened to the ground to prevent it blowing away (Dezeen, 2011). The exterior plywood panels are slotted together using finger joints, in the same way as minute protrusions of a sea urchin’s shell plates notch into one another (Dezeen, 2011). This type of technology contributes to architectural design by providing digital simulation on the resulting spatial and structural material-systems in full scale before its actual assembly which would be cost efficienty in both time and material cost.

From seeing the possibilities of creating elaborate geometries via digital design, I feel more inspired to embrace digital design technologies to create sophisticated modular systems and geometries for the major assignment which would be beyond my own limits with just pencil and paper.

7

Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-re-search-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart

Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-re-search-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart

Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6

Another design made with digital design technologies is the Queen Alia International Airport by Foster& Partners in March 2013 which was inspired from Bedouin tents to create a system of domes of traditional Islamic architecture to generate shapes used throughout the airport terminal that opened in Amman, Jordan (Dezeen, 2013). From what can be seen the tessellated style roof is made from a series of concrete domes, which extend out to provide shading for the façade. The domes branch out from the supporting columns like the leaves of a desert palm and daylight enters the interior through split beams at the column junctions (Dezeen, 2013).

In terms of design the underside of each dome is embossed to resemble the surface of a leaf, while the supporting grid of concrete columns feature split ends designed to look like plant stems (Dezeen, 2013). In relation with digital design technology, what I find most interesting with this design is that the complex geometry of the roof shells and fabrication strategy was developed in conjunction with Foster + Partners in-house geometry specialists (Dezeen, 2013). This shows that although Woodbry’s argument of expanding breadth over depth is not widely adopted and that people specialising in a specific factors of a building design is still in demand. In relation with the major assignment, a possible setup for the group could be that each group member specialises in a specific aspect of the assignment instead of trying to cover all factors, which means each member would have more in-depth contributions to the assignment.

8

Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/22/queen-alia-international-airport-by-foster-partners/

Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/22/queen-alia-international-airport-by-foster-partners/

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8

“The good building is not one that hurts the landscape, but one which makes the landscape more beautiful than it was before the building was built.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

9

Discourse on parametric modelling and scripting cultures in architectures can be viewed as a set of equations that express a set of quantities as explicit functions of a number of independent variables, known as ‘parameters’ which can be mathematical formulas that can presented in mediums such as spread sheets and grasshopper as mentioned during the lecture this week. A parametric design is a sequence of nodes that are able to express these parameters in architectural design gives the opportunity for the efficient use of complex mathematical equations in the design which otherwise may have been too troublesome to put into a design without digital technology. From implementing coding theorems and constructions into graphs and nodes, designers can experiment and observe the physical effects that mathematic formulas can have on designs at a much faster rate than without the aid of digital technology that allows designers to be more in depth with the exploration and discovery of the possibilities of parametric design (Woodbury, 2010). This is an advantage to someone like me who is not that advance with mathematics to be able to implement accurate math formulas into the design much more efficiently than applying it manually.

An advantage of using node based software for architectural design such as Grasshopper is that once a design has been created it can be easily modified and broken down into specific sections. Woodbury (2010) mentions that in parametric modelling nodes are s schemata, each containing properties for the design and associated with a value/function that involves making complicated design sequences of simple nodes to create elaborate design and to provide designers to making design decisions in a explicit, readable and editable form that can be duplicated and reused. I have experience this first hand with Grasshopper when designing, in which each node serves a single purpose which has to be combined into a sequence. If there are any issues with the sequence of noes the data is auditable to be able to observe what specifically is the issue which can be modified or even duplicated to make several different approaches to the design issue.

One problem I do find with digital technology for a group project which I have previously experienced is that sharing files maybe a bit difficult. This is because when you give someone work they need to add to it, the individual needs some context of the progress. This issue would probably occur if I was to give a group member a Grasshopper file that is full of nodes and wires everywhere, they would need context on what is going on, main components, components which they are not allowed to modify etc. which would need to be addressed if the group was to use an online services such as Google Docs or Dropbox as a hub for our work.

A.3. Parametric Modelling

10

The Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart, Germany was built in 2006 and is a design based on the geometry of a clover, with the spaces connected between two ascending ramps, around a central exhibition space to help create an original approach to a museum layout (Basulto, 2010). This can be observed from the exterior photo that shows its soft and fluid exterior and well-made integration between the solid surface and the windows. The flow of movement begins with visitors traveling up through the atrium to the top floor from where they follow the two main paths that unfold chronologically as they descend through the building (UN Studio, 2013). This makes me consider how people would experience movement in the design made for the case study and how different components and materials of the structure will interact with each other to create an interactive experience.

At the top floor there is an opton of two tours, during which they descend through the building with the paths meeting on each floor, enabling visitors to switch between tours if individuals want to (Basulto, 2010). What I like about this design is that you would expect the flow of movement to be linear since it is a museum, but actually more freedom to switch to different tours and different spaces.

11

Source: http://www.unstudio.com/projects/mercedes-benz-museum

Source: http://www.unstudio.com/projects/mercedes-benz-museum

Figure 1.9

Figure 1.10

The Aviva stadium in Dublin, Ireland (2010) is an example of the structure made from Grasshopper (Populous, 2013).The design philosophy behind this was that the city of the site has been the traditional home of rugby in Ireland since the first game was played there in 1876 and the existing structure no longer met the requirements of an international sporting arena (Populous, 2013). The design brief was for a new 50,000 seat stadium –in a space that was smaller than that occupied by the old 23,000 seat capacity stadium (Populous, 2013)

The site was constrained on all sides: by the existing field, houses with rights to light and views to the north and south which necessitated developing a methodology of design and construction that would minimize disruption (Populous, 2013). What I like about this approach is that overall the structure has a soft appearance/form and look well integrated rather than looking rigid and segregated. Plus being a structure designed on Grasshopper it shows the possibilities of what type of structures can be made on this software.

12

Source: http://populous.com/project/aviva-stadium/

Source: http://populous.com/project/aviva-stadium/

Figure 1.11

Figure 1.12

“Biomimicry allows wealth-creators of every kind to emulate natural forms in the own work, using ‘nature’ as a critical sourcebook. Happily, there’s no shortage of role models.” - Jonathan Porritt

13

The conceptual design style I have chosen is biomimicry. Semih & Ledita (2012) defines the inspiration of biomimicry as the forms of the natural environment which includes plant life, in a spider’s web, a piece of coral, a beehive, or in the structural development of animals. What I find appealing about this design style is that breadth of different possible inspirations that could be used for the design and solving structural issues in the major assignment. Looking at inspiration from natures can also help with finding solutions of systems, materials, processes, structures, efficiency and aesthetics and by going more in depth with how nature solves problems that we experience today and can help find solutions and inspirations (Semih & Ledita, 2012).

Mixing this design style with computation. Computation allows a visual representations of data to aid understanding and to inform design decisions that can be constantly evaluated and modified instead of building the whole thing at seeing how it all looks. This allows a more flexible workflow that allows allow what is learned to be fed back into the design. parameters can become far more informed than merely intuitive.Also since commands in software can be easily undone and duplicated, experimentation requires less constraints of detail and exploration so architects may turn to digital simulations with accuracy to reflect their design proposals.

A.4. Algorithmic Explorations

14

An example of a biomimicry style design that I like is the VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbit which has won numerous awards including John Taylor Herget Award, MS Thesis, MIT in May 2010 (SJET, 2013)

This design experiments with architectural paneling by exaggerating the depth of a vaulted surface, while making it convenient to assemble and fabricate (SJET, 2013). This is made possible by transforming complex curved vaults to flat strips, one that likens the assembly to that of simply rolling a strip of material which requires the need of digital design technology to assist with this process (SJET, 2013).

What I like about this design is the elaborate geometries that can be observed in this design which I would be very keen on learning to to design those shapes in a way they can be convieniently unfolded, printed and assembled.

The VoltaDome supports the use of innovative technology in architecture since the procedure of this design would most likely be too troublesome to assemble and fabricate without any assistance of digital technology.

I did attempt to reverse engineer this design but it did not go to plan due to an issue with the lines of the meshes on my version.

15

Source: http://www.sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.htmlFigure 1.13

Figure 1.14

I find this algorithmic exploration with Grasshopper the most interesting one so far. This model was originally part of the LMS tutorial but I decided to further play around with the nodes and got some interesting results. First of all I like the overall design which I believe could be useful for a biomimicry design due to its organic shapes which I find aesthetically appealing. The main alteration which I made after the online tutorial was that I converted all the lines to tubes. Even though I have a PC designed for computer gaming, the PC did struggle for a few seconds which was surprising as that rarely happens. This has intrigued me as to find out exactly how much my PC can handle if I continue to create more detailed and complex algorithms in the future and it is also encouragement to see what type of designs I can create which would just be complicated to draw/model without any computer assistance.

16

Figure 1.15

Figure 1.16

For the design approach I will focus more on the theory behind the design than just simply designing to meet the structure criteria. This is because for past designs I have been more focused on making a structure that fits just the functional criteria and neglecting the theory of the design. I also hope to make contributions to the group in finding uses of technology in both materials and software for innovative creations and expressions of the final design. Focusing on more on the theory and technological possibilities of the design is significant to help encourage and support the creation of a more original design rather than just simply meeting the criteria of the project and sticking to the basics cardboard, balsa wood and clear plastic sheets for the model. This can benefit the group since hopefully each group member would have had a different type of theory in mind, thus having more inputs of our different views of discourse in architecture and possible combinations of ideas for our common goal of a Biomimicry style design.

A.5. Conclusion

17

I feel that my familiarity with different theories of architecture has improved since before the semester has started, which then I felt that using theories to create an initial design for a project was my weak point out of all the different phases in a design project. With architectural computing I feel that it should be something to invest more time in learning since my interpretation is that architectural computing software are tools to help me further express my idea, but I must be able to properly understand the software to use it to its full potential.

In past projects I could have made more attempts to try to use more digital technology in design rather than just playing it safe and sticking with pencil and paper. When creating an initial design for past project I should have looked more into different types of theories to help create more original ideas than to just focus on a functional way to meet the criteria of the structure which ended up in unoriginal designs. For model making I would have used my new knowledge to venture outside of restricting myself to basic model making materials and instead try to find more innovative materials to help better express my design physically.

A.6. Learning Outcomes

18

• David Basulto, ‘Mercedes Benz museum/UN studio,’ in Arch Daily <http://www.archdaily. com/72802/mercedes-benz-museum-un-studio-photos-by-michael-schnell/> [accessed 31st March 2013]• Definition of “algorithm” in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil eds(1999) in The Mit Ency clopedia of Cognitive Science (London: The MIT Press) pp.11-12• Design Boom, ‘Hiroshi Nakamura & NAPL Optical glass house,’ in Design Boom <http:// www.designboom.com/architecture/hiroshi-nakamura-nap-optical-glass-house/> [accessed 8th February 2013]• Dezeen Magazine, ‘ICD/ITKE Research pavilion at the University of Stuttgart,’ in Dezeen Magazine < http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university- of-stuttgart/ > [accessed 16th March 2013]• Dezeen Magazine, ‘Queen Alia International Airport by Foster + Partners,’ in Dezeen Maga zine <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/22/queen-alia-international-airport-by-foster-part ners/ > [accessed 16th March 2013]• Design Playgrounds, ‘Lotus Dome,’ in Design Playgrounds: interactive & generative design <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/lotus-dome/> [accessed 8th March 2013]• Eryildiz Semih & Mezini Ledita, ‘Bioarchitecture -- Inspirations From Nature’, Gazi Univer- sity Journal of Science, 25, 1 (2012), pp.263-268• Kengo Kuma and Associates, ‘Water/Glass,’ in Kengo Kuma and Associates <http://kkaa.co.jp/ works/water-glass/> [accessed 8th March 2013]• Populous, ‘Utilising parametric design for site-responsive solution: Aviva stadium,’ in Popu- lous < http://populous.com/project/aviva-stadium/> [accessed 31st March 2013]• Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 116.• Robert F. Woodbury and Andrew L. Burrow, ‘Whither design space?’, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20, 2 (2006), pp. 63-82 • Robert Woodbury, (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) pp. 7-48• SJET, ‘voltaDom,’ in SJET <http://www.sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [accessed 30th March 2013]• Studio Roosegaarde, ‘Lotus,’ in Studio Roosegaarde <http://www.studioroosegaarde.net/proj ect/lotus/info/ > [accessed 8th March 2013]• UN Studio, ‘Mercedes-Benz Museum,’ in UN Studio <http://www.unstudio.com/projects/mer cedes-benz-museum> [accessed 31st March 2013]

A.7. References

19

20

21

“Any work of architecture which does not express serenity is a mistake.” - Luis Barragan

The design style for my group is biomimicry. Members of this are: John Ramos (392127), Kelvin Karel (629642) and Maria Ventosa (615901).

An inspiration for a biomimicry approach is the Seroussi Pavilion. I find this inspiring because of both of the process of how it is designed and how it looks. From online Grasshopper tutorial of this structure, it is made from a strong relation of components made in both Rhino and Grasshopper. For example the reference lines are drawn on Rhino which is then brought into Grasshopper for stems to be expanded from by creating growth points on which makes it possible for the overall structure to be very adaptable to new guidelines by referencing new lines made on Rhino and reapplying the Grasshopper algorithm. I like how this design is based on mathematical sequences to determine size and form of stems while the overall form is determined on the drawing of guidelines on Rhino.

So far the group members and I have decided to base our design around the theme of growth. Specifically we want to base our design around seeing Melbourne as being old and Wyndham City being new. From this we want to associate Melbourne with being old, urbanized and dense while Wyndham City being new, sprawling and not as urbanized as Melbourne. With these themes we intend to implement the association of growth and age with inspiration from trees. The Seroussi Pavilion relates to our assignment because the method used to create stems coming growing off a reference line can have some potential to create some interesting designs with the themes of growth and sprawl.

B.1. Design Focus

22

B.2. Case Study 1.0

23

Figure 2.1

24

The case study design selected was the VoltaDom. The design exploration is based around exploring what happens when using different geometries and cuts to the VoltaDom formula.

Excluding the third row, the first column is based around using an upwards triangle. This exploration looks at different horizontal and vertical cuts. From this exploration the cones were cut in half vertically and also simultaneously cutting horizontally from the top and bottom.The second column flips the cones upside-down. Unlike the first column, this exploration also looks at solving the issues of the cones colliding by using the Voronoi component to cut out colliding parts of the cones.The third column replaces the cone components with spheres. Unfortunately the spheres were made with an excessive amount of lines which makes it look solid black from a distance. On row three I explored different populations and seeds inside the boundaries for the spheres which did cause lag issues on the computer, possibly because of all the lines on each sphere. Horizontal cuts were also made to sphere which create cup shaped objects which could create interesting exterior layers when put upside-down and could have lighting in the hollow parts.The fourth column explores using cylinders in the VoltaDom algorithm. This column focuses more of horizontal cuts from the top, bottom and middle of the cylinders.

The selection criteria for this matrix were mainly focused on testing what happens when applying different types of shapes to the VoltaDom formula. In addition to this, different types of cuts to deform the shapes and the Voronoi components were used to experiment with deforming the shapes. What I was trying to achieve was to modify the basic 3D shapes provided on Grasshopper and to solve issues such as preventing the cones from overlapping over each other.

The main issue that occurred from this exploration was the excessive amount of lines created on the spheres even when trying to simplify the shapes. The excessive lines in the upside-down cones also caused some cones to be chipped when baking due to the excessive lines issue.

25

Figure 2.2

A second reverse engineering exploration was made on the Seroussi Pavilion.

The first column explores different pipe lengths. This exploration was useful in helping to find an appropriate proportion of the pipes to reference lines where they could be stretched out long enough to give a lightweight appearance without looking too clustered.The second column explores different reference curves for the Seroussi Pavilion Grasshopper formula to be applied to. This exploration helps show how flexible the Grasshopper algorithm is to reapplying to new reference curves which has been previously mentioned.The third column explores different densities of the pipes. As with the first column, this was done to find a good proportion between the amount of pipes and space available on the reference curves.The fourth column explored different steepness of pipe arches. This experiments with both positive and negative heights. This felt necessary since it is a 3D model its appearance from angles other than top view would need to be considered. Also height was considered to give an idea of what the structure could be used for.

The selection criteria for this exploration were determined around the relation between Rhino and the Grasshopper plugin. For example two columns were based around finding different ratios between the Rhino curves and the pipe lengths and densities created on Grasshopper. To test the adaptability for this algorithm, a column explored what happens when applying the algorithm to different curves created on Rhino.

This exploration was seen as more successful than the VoltaDom mainly because there were not severe technical issues which arose and more than one component played a part in the differences between some of the creations.

The goal of this exploration was to explore and get more in-depth with the Seroussi Pavilion algorithm from the Grasshopper tutorial. This exploration was based on testing the algorithms adaptability by reapplying the same Grasshopper formula to different curves and toggling different components which affect the overall appearance of the design.

This could benefit the group if they wanted to create a structure with a lightweight skeletal frame which could be continually changed from factors such as different choice in overall form and taking more external influences into consideration such as boundaries and elevations which would require the design to be modified.

26

B.3. Case Study 2.0

27

Figure 2.3

I feel that my familiarity with different theories of architecture has improved since before the semester has started, which then I felt that using theories to create an initial design for a project was my weak point out of all the different phases in a design project. With architectural computing I feel that it should be something to invest more time in learning since my interpretation is that architectural computing software are tools to help me further express my idea, but I must be able to properly understand the software to use it to its full potential.

In past projects I could have made more attempts to try to use more digital technology in design rather than just playing it safe and sticking with pencil and paper. When creating an initial design for past project I should have looked more into different types of theories to help create more original ideas than to just focus on a functional way to meet the criteria of the structure which ended up in unoriginal designs. For model making I would have used my new knowledge to venture outside of restricting myself to basic model making materials and instead try to find more innovative materials to help better express my design physically.

28

B.4. Technique Development

29

The Oriente Station in Lisbon, Portugal was built in 1998 for the World Expo by Santiago Calatrava and its primary function is a train station both above ground and underground but it also serves as a place of convergence for underground taxis, buses and shops (Buczynski, 2012). The issue with being such a frequently used structure is that it needs to be designed in a way to not make the users feel cramped; this was done by making the structure from a light metal skeleton and covered with glass to allow in natural light during the day and interior lights to produce a glow at night (GoLisbon, 2013). According the Calatrava, the goal of this design was to help link previously unconnected neighbourhoods and to develop a strong sense of community to the area (Buczynski, 2012).

This was seen as an appropriate precedent because it could benefit the progress of our design idea in several different ways. First of all, from the primary function of being a transport hub, a good idea that could be used for the design proposal could be to create a rest stop along the freeway. This could be as basic as just creating space for car parking or space that could allow further expansion of a small shopping area. This idea reminds me of the small service station and fast-food stop near the West gate bridge when leaving and entering Melbourne from the bridge. There’s also the consideration of how our design would have an effect on the local community and how would it benefit them. The third consideration is more a personal one, in previous semesters when doing a design subject, I tend to favour more solid and monolithic type designs with heavy materials such as concrete. Going on the other end of the spectrum and creating a lightweight structure of primarily a steel skeleton and glass would be an interesting change of creating a design.

Source - http://inhabitat.com/santiago-calatravas-gorgeous-oriente-station-is-topped-with-a-leaf-like-canopy-that-looks-lighter-than-air/

Source - http://www.golisbon.com/sight-seeing/orien-te-station.html

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

30

The second precedent is the DAL Canopy, created by Digital Architecture Lab (DAL) in Changsha Hunan, China in 2011 as collaboration with Gehry Technologies and Free sky Interior Design & Decoration (ArchDaily, 2011). The primary function of the structure is a canopy which is to provide shade but what’s interesting about this design is that behind the panels is a steel cable mesh as a support structure between the panels and the primary frame (DesignBoom, 2011). With this flexibility from the mesh the canopy could be bent into more organic shapes rather than a rigid L shape.

What I like about this design is its form and geometry. The curve from the canopies from each of the ends as they curve inwards reminds me of a bird’s wing and the stretched polygons looks like feathers. Another interesting thing about the surface of this structure is the geometry. The panels appear to be the same but stretched or squished depending how far they are away from the centre. This reminds me of a demonstration done a few studios ago which had a grid of circles that changed scales from a reference point which seems like an interesting idea I would like to look more into. A third interesting factor is how the design functions as a whole. It seems that the main structural components are built around the form of the geometry instead of creating a structure with a skin layered over it. Since this design is made from a 2D layer and in the group I will be focusing more on the skin of the structure, I will based more Grasshopper explorations around this design than the Oriente Station which has a more opposite approach of creating the structural skeleton and layering it.

Source - http://zhan.renren.com/01100101?gid=3602888498037606312&checked=true

Source - http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/im-ages_2/2011/jenny/dal/dal02.jpg

Figure 2.6

Figure 2.7

31

Figure 2.8

The design exploration was further developed to become more relevant from the group finding our own precedent to reverse engineer.The first column explored using a variety of components such as Cull pattern, Divide surface and Voronoi to create feather-like inspired panels which could be used to layer on top of the structure of our design skeleton.The second column was more focused on creating more ordered geometries. This was done because it gave me a better feeling on control over the design. Also, unlike the first column, the lines from these panels were converted into pipes. This approach over using solid panels could be beneficial if allowing in natural light was a priority of the design later on.The third column was more focused on integrating the surface design with the 3D structure created by creating a pattern on top of a 3D form created by other group members. This created some more interesting shapes since the previous two columns were made on a 2D plane without taking the 3D structure into consideration. A problem with this was converting these shapes into a form that could be easily printed and assembled.The fourth column goes back to creating a 2D pattern. These explorations focused more on layering and repetition to create a variety of 2D panels which could be layered over the skeleton of the 3D structure.

These designs were successful because I was able to create a variety of Grasshopper geometries either from scratch in 2D or using the 3D model from the group as a reference.The intent of this exploration was to create original geometries made for the group assignment initial model. I was most satisfied with the patterns created from the 4th exploration column because it was used with several different components in such as layering a hexagon grid with polygons inside each of the hexagons. These polygons were then scaled using the distancing component.

Included with this matrix are furhter explorations created by myself and members of the group on the next page.

32

33

Figure 2.9

34

Figure 2.9

B.5. Technique Prototype

35

This design created by Maria Ventosa was the reference for some of my panel designs made for a curved surface. There were a few difficulties with this model which included how it would be printed and assembled plus how it would fit in our design. This could be seen as more of a practice of trying to integrate a panel to this shape and to record any difficulties which would be useful for future progress of creating a structure which a panel to be integrated with.

This design was also created by Maria Ventosa as an improvement to the previous exploration which was a 3D surface instead of a curved 2D surface. This allowed me to create more 3D pannels and started to take more into consideration of how the panels would fit the model instead of creating a blanket 2D surface to place over the structure.Due to complication with this model we decided not to print it and instead look for other option of creating a structure which would have how to it can be printed and assembled more in mind.

Created by Maria Ventosa

Created by Maria Ventosa

Figure 2.10

Figure 2.11

36

Another clay model made by John Ramos was made which takes natural light into more consid-eration by creating a main hole on the top. As the previous model, the pattern would be applied over the top of the structure.Also section were cut into the model to indicate how it would be assembled as more consideration was taken into how the structure would be printed and assembled. The idea to print this was to cre-ate a waffle grid with slots on a thick surface which could be efficiently assembled and then to place the skin over.

This 3D model created by John Ramos was a more simple form for of our structure which was much more convenient to apply a skin over. The idea was to create and apply a 2D pattern over this model. It would be assembled by first creating the skel-eton of the structure followed by integrating the pattern to it.

Modeling clay was used so we could deform and physically experiment with the structure of the model to get more ideas.The model holds its form from the three legs it has in which it bends all the way up to the top of the model.

Created by John Ramos

Created by John Ramos

Figure 2.12

Figure 2.13

37

This print out of one of my geometry explorations was assembled by Maria Ventosa. This was an alternative option to integrating the surface and structure of the model by basing the model on the design of the panels rather than doing the opposite. This was assembled by creating thin strips which the polygon pattern was placed on.This model required sticky tap to be steady on a surface and held its form by the top which overlaps each on the strips.We chose to use thin materials only because we wanted to create a structure with a more lightweight aesthetic.

This panel was designed by Kelvin Karel using a Voronoi pattern. Like the previous model, this one had a thin surface and had to be sticky taped to hold steady on a surface. In this design though, shadows were taken more into consideration. The use of card paper allowed the structure to be sturdy enough to stand up yet flexible enough for the group to change its form to see how it would affect its shadows.Kelvin’s design is inspiring to further explore with using the Voronoi component with creating a pattern for the structure.

Created by Kelvin Karel

Geometry designed by Malcolm KennettStructure designed by Maria Ventosa

Figure 2.14

Figure 2.15

38

This pattern was based off a previous exploration in one of my model matrices. This pattern was made by dividing a polygon into small polygons, then cutting out the center polygon out and lightly cutting lines for the other polygons. This helped define its shape and made some interesting light reflections on its surface when curved. Also due to there being more solid surface than holes as opposed to Kelvins’ version, the shadow patterns seemed much more defined. Card paper was also used for this model due to several reasons such as it was thick enough for polygon shapes to be cut into the surface without cutting through it and yet still be light enough to folded into a tunnel with-out the material breaking.

This pattern was the one the group chose to integrate with the structure. This skin as previously mentioned was made by layering to surfaces on top of each other. The bottom layer of a hexagon grid which created the frame for the structure a provide references for the placement of the top layer polygons which was variously scaled with the distancing component to create the holes in the surface.When integrating with the structure each of the hexagons were cut out and to be placed in the center of each gap on the waffle grid, so it connects from the ends of the hexagon to efficiently use the openings and steadily be held in place.Card paper was used for the same reason as the previous model when experimenting with its shadow patterns.

Figure 2.16

Figure 2.17

Figure 2.18

B.6. Technique Proposal

39

The idea behind the creation of the geometry was the breakdown the complex form of a bird’s wing into simple shapes repeated across the structure in different scales. This is to reflect the repetition and scale of different feathers on the wing of a bird.

Technical achievements we made in the creation of our design for the structure was made in a grid which could be efficiently assembled by connecting each of the pieces in their assigned slots. Using the distance component with a reference point in Grasshopper for the skin of the structure helped made the scaling of the inner polygons enabled a smoother transition between scales in terms of size and also made the variation controllable by assigning a maximum polygon size. This design was innovative because how to approached the task of creating a tunnel to place on a freeway. Rather than making a tunnel enclosed and blocking out the external environment, we decided to create a tunnel which would be spacious and allowing in lots of natural light. This idea is bringing influences of the external environment into what is usually an enclosed space. To further expand on this idea, the holes on the design would have translucent glass to create a glow when viewed from the outside from vehicles driving through it at night.

Figure 2.19

40

If the Wyndham City’s competition jury was to choose this idea for a project proposal, the idea for this design is to create something distinguishable and iconic to associate Wyndham, which could make the city better known. If the site was to become a more iconic area this could give opportunity for the area to further develop since it also located on a freeway which already has lots of people passing through.

From our previous explorations we have felt this structure was the most ordered. One thing we were cautious was about knowing when we are inspired by a precedent and when we are just copying it. So we tried to not be too literal with our precedents. The skin pattern and structure of our model captures the essence of what we aimed to make, a biomimicry inspired design that rhythmic composition through the repetition of simple geometries which change in scale. This was a breakdown of the pattern feathers on a bird’s wing which is a repetition of the same shape but is in different sizes. For this design we tried to be more abstract than literal to try to create something more original from this idea.A drawback is that the initial model is very small. If a 1:50 model was to be made, structural issues such as how it would support itself may occur. We as a group will have to further consider the structural properties of our design proposal and take that into consideration when further developing our design.

Figure 2.20

B.7. Algorithmic Sketches

41

The first algorithmic sketch was based off the VoltaDom reverse engineering, after creating a rectangle curve in Rhino the Pop2D node is used to create a population of reference point inside the rectangle. Order is brought to these reference points by using distance set of controlling the spacing between the reference points. Reference is also made to the range of influence each point will have before creating sphere from these points. Cuts are made into the spheres with the Domain2 node for making meshes to only partially cover the sphere. The cup shape made from this exploration is made by modifying cuts made in the V direction. After this process the spheres can process to the Mesh Berp component which allows it to be baked with the cuts from Domain2 in it. This process can continue to splitting the berps into individual spheres.

Figure 2.21

Figure 2.22

42

The second algorithmic sketch was created by myself from scratch. This algorithm was started by connecting a point node to a hexagon grid which the length and width of the surface can be modified. After an appropriate panel size was made it was then transferred into the offset node which split into two different directions, one for the outer hexagon grid and the other for the inner polygon grid. For the inner polygon grid to be made, reference points for the centre of each of the hexagons were required. The points node was linked to the polygon grid to give the grid its size and the other nodes set for the distancing and scaling components. The variations of scale in the polygons were made from a reference point. A minimum is made to keep the geometries in a shape which can be printed and assembled. After all the coordinates are set these are all inputted into a polygon grid to form the inner polygons on the surface. Both the inner and outer curves are then converted into a surface and merged into one surface.

Figure 2.23

Figure 2.24

B.8. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

43

Research over the semester has substantially improved my knowledge in relation between computation and architectural design. From early research of the advantages of modern digital technology and material from and how they can be an advantages in architectural design from observing precedents. Further theoretical research was aimed towards the possibilities that could be created with computation which would have been too complex for a human to create un-aided by technology. Research was then further specified to apply to me more by looking at more theoretical aspect such as learning about the advantages computation can have to a workflow such as being able to duplicate and transfer files for more exploration in comparison to a physical workspace.

After the non-teaching period research was lead specifically to the group assignment which was learning of different sub-categories of computational architecture which previously I didn’t know much about different. From choosing biomimicry the research started to be less theoretical and more practical when I started to reverse engineer previous work to get a better understanding of different Grasshopper components which led me to be more confident with creating my own algorithm from scratch. The design approach phase has been more about applying knowledge from the case for innovation phase and to further expand my knowledge of using Grasshopper.

In relation with the practical aspect of my learning experience so far this semester. I feel much more confident with parametric modelling in comparison with my experience at the start of the semester, which I was unfamiliar with using Grasshopper and haven’t used Rhino since semester 1 in 2011. At the beginning of the semester the idea of using nodes to design seemed daunting. As I became more familiar with different components of Grasshopper I began to rely less on creating different outcomes from just adding, removing and modifying sliders to further expanding outside of online learning materials to create more unique designs.

44

From the non-teaching period the reverse engineering explorations provided more insight into the different components available of Grasshopper and their impact they can have on an algorithm. The reverse engineering explorations greatly improved my understanding of Grasshopper components to learn there different effects of removing and adding components plus also different reactions from modifying components and inputs. From this experience I was eventually more confident with creating my own algorithm from scratch instead of referring to a demonstration movie to modify. Although the proposal model does require a lot work and elaboration, being able to create an algorithm from scratch which the group approved and used for the model considering my initial lack of experience with this software. From here I hope to further improve my parametric modelling skills by getting more involves with the structural aspect of the proposed design instead of just focusing on the skin of the design. I also hope to learn more about the Kangaroo plugin. So far attempts using this plugin have been unsuccessful with creating any models worth documenting. Getting more familiar with Kangaroo could lead to making bigger contribution to the structural aspect of the design.

From feedback received from the panel in the previous presentation the group and I have taken into account on advice on how we can further develop our design. Main things we need to elaborate on how to create a stronger relation between our diesng and the design theory of biomimicry. Other criticism was that we need to be more innovative with our design. From concerns of being too literal or too similar to a precedent, we ended up with a design that was too not clear enough of its inspiration.For the structure we should change the waffle grid with something more innovative. For the skin of the structure we should go from organized grids and back to more expressive Voronoi based geometries. From the use of more random and expressive forms we could look at how much we could deform our structure while still making it realistic enough to print and assemble to help innovate our overall design.

Relating to how to make the design a more interactive experience, we could elaborate more on our exploration of natural light with experimenting with how light may react with different materials. Also how artificial light (e.g. from vehicles) would react with the structure. This would most likely lead to take more into consideration of how individual would experience interacting with the structure. Most of all I feel for the design to further progress and develop there needs to be more integration of theories with our design. Also to be more literal with our design inspiration so people reviewing our design would be able to get an idea of the idea behind the design just from an initial impression.

• ArchDaily, ‘DAL Canopy Design / Digital Architectural Lab,’ in ArchDaily <http://www.archdaily. com/165298/dal-canopy-design-digital-architectural-lab/> [accsessed 16th April 2013]• Beth Buczynsjy, ‘Santiago Calatrava’a gorgeous Oriente station toppied with a leaf-like canopy that looks lighter than air,’ in Inhabitat <http://inhabitat.com/santiago-calatravas-gorgeous- oriente-station-is-topped-with-a-leaf-like-canopy-that-looks-lighter-than-air/ > [accsessed 16th April 2013]• Designboom, ‘Digital architecture labrotory: aggregated proposity,’ in Designboom <http:// www.designboom.com/architecture/digital-architecture-laboratory-aggregated-porosity/> [accsessed 16th April 2013]• GoLisbon, ‘Oriente station: A stunning modern station,’ in GoLisbon <http://www.golisbon. com/sight-seeing/oriente-station.html> [accsessed 16th April 2013]

B.9. References

45

46

47

“Modern architecture does not mean the use of immature new materials; the main thing is to refine materials in a more human direction.” - Alvar Aalto

C.1. Gateway Project: Design Concept

48

From the feedback given during the mid-semester presentation, our new design approach will implement several different influences, including creating a new structural system that is not a waffle grid; instead we will try to create a form relevant to our design intention. We also intend to create a more organic form by deforming our structure to make it more asymmetrical. Our panel design will also be improved by recreating a design which would be more influence shadow patterns created by natural lighting, which can be achieved by further exploring different panels we can create through the voronoi node.With these improvements to our design we hope to create a structure which would create a welcoming effect to people driving towards the western suburbs of Melbourne which would interact with its surrounding environment. This would be an advantage to the city of Wyndham for several different reasons. The advantage to the Wyndham is that it complies with their 2012-2016 economic growth strategy by improving the amenity of the city through the improvement of presentation standards and creating new and compelling cultural experiences (Wyndham City Council, 2013). Specifically we will try to do this by designing a structure that would be a distinguishable landmark to the local area to Wyndham to people driving past the site which is relevant to the context of the area.

49

My proposal to the group was focused on designing a structure that would relate to biomimicry and the site context more.This was done by creating a design which would be inspired by a local species of bird, the brolga which is listed under Victoria’s Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act and is considered vulnerable; it is also listed internationally in the International Union for Conservation of Nature of threatened bird species (Melbourne water, 2012).This was seen as a suitable idea since we would be creating a design which is related to the site instead of being too broad with our ideas. This design idea was not adopted by the group for further development and instead we created a design more influenced by geometry than biomimicry.

The group decided to create a design that was more influenced by geometry as a primary source of inspiration and biomimicry as a secondary influence.

Similar to my proposed idea, this concept was also made to have a stronger context with the site. This was done by choosing another local species native to Wyndham which was the Dingy Swallowtail butterfly (Wyndham City Council, 2013). We decided to create a geometrical pattern influenced from the pattern on the wings of the butterfly. From this idea we moved more away from previous vague biomimicry concepts to more a specific geometrical patterns influenced by biomimicry.

The patterns thar we wanted to create for the panels would be made from the voronoi node in grasshopper.

Source: http://birdlife.org.au/images/uploads/blog_images/MAGportraitKB.jpg

Source: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5062/5593813170_4d679649b6_z.jpg

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

50

For the new design approach I have tried a different approach to designing a pattern system. Instead of creating a pattern on a 2D surface, I tried to make a design on a curved 3D form. This was done so when a panel was designed it would be properly integrated with the structure form.Specifically, the reason why the surface was designed like this was because we wanted to create a more lightweight design. The reason behind this was to capture the intention of our design which is associated with wind and flight, concepts we originally thought of when thinking how we could associate our design with the freeway, which is typically associated with wind and speed. This outcome was designed by taking advice to experiment more with the voronoi node to create a more expressive pattern than sticking to more rigid forms.

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

51

In another exploration I tried to focus more on the creation of a structure than just focusing on patterns. For this exploration the idea was to create a butterfly wing and deform it. The wing was deformed in a way to allows views of the landscape through the pattern holes on the left hand side through its steep arch. While on the right hand side there is a gentler slope to allow more sunlight into it, which would create shadow patterns. The hole for views and shadow patterns were creating by experimenting with the image sampler node to use the precedent picture of the dingy swallowtail butterfly to be more literal with the design. The form was also built around the consideration of how it will interact with the environment, the main aspects being views and natural lighting patterns.

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

C.2. Gateway Project: Tectonic Elements

52

Our first sketch model was focused on how each of the panels would connect. During this process we were exploring different types of panels we could use for our design. At this time the main selection criteria was based on the type of shadows a panel concept could produce and if it was realistic to fabricate.We also began to narrow down what our primary material would be for our final concept. Translucent glass was proposed to cover the hollow parts of the panels for a glowing effect at night as cars drove through, but there may be issues with moisture wearing out the glass. Concrete seemed inappropriate for a design objective of a lightweight structure. Steel was seen as the most appropriate choice for a lightweight design.

An idea I proposed on how we could assemble the model if it was made from metal was by brazing the panels together with a soldering iron.Brazing is a technique to fuse metal parts together by melting a weaker metal in between the components to create neat and even joints unlike wielding which would often create irregular surfaces and would also probably not be appropriate for such small panels (Quality Steel Treating, 2012). This could be achieved by using brazing alloy strips to put in between the metal components as seen in figure 3.8. The reason why this idea wasn’t further developed was because this technique would require a soldering iron which no one in the group had experience with, which would mean there would have to be time investing in getting familiar with the tool. There was a financial investment in buying tools and to fabricate the whole model out of metal. Thirdly the process is permanent, if we made a mistake during fabrication we would have to start again with a new model.

Figure 3.7

Figure 3.8

53

Unlike the model we made for the mid-semester presentation, we took more consideration into how the structure will be built on a 1:1 scale and if it would be self-supporting. As opposed to the idea of brazing metal components together, this sketch model only required cardboard, coloured paper, nuts and bolts which were a much cheaper and simpler approach.

After solving the structural issues and choice of primary materials for our new design, we then began to look at how we would fabricate our final model. Our goal for successful fabrication was to create a model making process we were all familiar with, which would be in a simple and efficient method. Also in financial terms to select a material for the fabrication process which was sturdy enough to be self-supporting yet affordable.

When then decided to pick which specific type of metal to use. Aluminum was first proposed but it was too weak. Zalmag changed into an undesirable colour from weathering. Although there was no budget, using stainless steel would have been financially unrealistic. Structural steel was a cheaper and better alternative for structural support, but lacked any aesthetic value. Cladding structural steel with rusted steel had a desirable colour yet this could cause future structural issues. Eventually we chose brass cladding on structural steel which solved our structural and aesthetical issues for the primary material of our design. Brass was chosen since it would help the structure blend in with the surrounding environment.

CAD Drawings by Kelvin Karel

Figure 3.9

Figure 3.10

54

CAD Drawings by Kelvin KarelFigure 3.11

55

To get more of an idea on what type of materials would be most appropriate for our design if it was to be made in 1:1 scale; we researched some precedents which were designs primarily focused on building materials for their designs.

The Brugge Pavilion by Toyo Ito in 2000 can relate to our design by the use of steel to create lightweight geometries (Zeballos, 2012). Also the light patterns it creates through its hexagon shapes. The structure also interacts with its environment by how it reflects with the surrounding water.

A second source of material inspiration was the Fraunhofer Institute in Darmstadt which was built in 2010 (Burklein, 2012). What is interesting about this design is that it was a collaboration project between JSWD Architects and KME, a construction materials manufacturer (Burklein, 2012). The primary material used for the facade was TECU Brass which is able to change colour under different conditions of light and temperature (KME, 2012).

Source: http://www.livegreenblog.com/materials/transfer-zentrum-adaptronik-of-the-fraunhofer-institut-in-darmstadt-

germany-7791/

Source: http://architecturalmoleskine.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/toyo-ito-bruges-pavilion.html

Figure 3.12

Figure 3.13

C.3. Gateway Project: Final Model

56

Figure 3.14

Figure 3.15

57

When our digital model was complete we then began preparing for the fabrication phase of the project. To do this we needed to unfold the structure into a flat surface for laser cutting. I was given the task of unfolding each of the panels on the left side of the structure. Each row had 13 rectangular panels which had to be flattened and separated into triangular shapes which had to be organized from the bottom to the top. This task was primarily done through the unfolding command of Rhino which had to be done to each individual panel.

When a panel was unfolded it had to be nested and prepared to be fabrication. For this process, when each panel was flattened and separated they were given a number and duplicated twice. The reason for duplicating the panels was to give the model the correct thickness when being fabricated by stacking the copies on top of each other. This was an alternative to 3D printing each of the panels because 3D printing would have just been too expensive for the number of panels we need to print. So we decided to use laser cutting instead. During this process, the left side of the structure contained over 140 panels, which had to be split into two and then duplicated twice to be sent off for fabrication.This same nesting process was used for the right side of the structure and was fabricated all together.

Figure 3.16

Figure 3.17

58

After the panels had been fabricated, it was time to assemble the components and construct the model.First, each of the components needed to be glued and stacked for correct thickness. Then, as shown in the photo, each of the panel halves were organized by a code which we wrote on each component. The code was to identify which side the component is on, which order was it in from the bottom to the top and if it was for the left or right side of the panel. For example if half of a panel had M13L on it, that meant the panel was for the left side the model (M meaning I unfolded it), it was for the 13th panel which would be on the far right of the 1st row on the bottom and L means it is the left side of the panel component.This was a very simple and straightforward solution to organizing over 200 panels for the whole structure for assembly. A shortcoming to this method was how time consuming it was to organize and assemble so many panels.

After all the components were assembled, they were all counted and organized in their specific order. This was done by checking over a chart of where each panel should be, to make sure we didn’t lose any panels. After that the panels were spread in correct form. These panels were then given to the group members who were working with the structural frame of the model to join together in a form that shapes around the curves of the structure.

Photograph by John RamosFigure 3.18

Figure 3.19

Figure 3.20 Figure 3.21

59

Figure 3.22

Figure 3.23

60

Figure 3.24

61

Photograph by John Ramos

Figure 3.25

Figure 3.26

62

Figure 3.27

63

Figure 3.28

64

Movie recorded by Kelvin KarelFigure 3.29

65

Rendering by Maria VentosaFigure 3.30

66

Site map by Kelvin Karel

65

Figure 3.31

C.4. Algorithmic Sketches

67

The algorithm for our final design was broken down into groups.The first set of the groups dealt with the formation of the patterns for the panel system.The purple sub-group controlled the design of the panels themselves. While the light blue sub-group controlled the grid system to be laid over the structure. This grid was made to control how many rows of panels would be on each side of the structure and how many panels will be placed in each of these rows. The third sub-group, which is light pink, controls the thickness of the structure surface. By structure surface I mean only the panel components, the I-beams are not influenced by this sub-section.

The other set of groups, being pink, blue and black, were made to create the structural form of the design.The I-beams for the structure were made in Rhino but without using the Grasshopper plugin.

Figure 3.32

Figure 3.33

66

C.5. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

68

From the final presentation of our design proposal, the main needs we tried to fulfill through our design was to address the Wyndham 2012-2016 economic growth strategy by helping enhance the image of the city which is going through a rapid population and economic growth. The design will also be a visual signage to people driving through the site to make Wyndham a more distinguishable location.The form and patterning of the structure were inspired by precedents researched over the semester. The precedents help inspire ideas for material use and lighting behavior to help make the design an interactive experience. This was achieved by creating a panel design to create a variety of shadow patterns throughout the day and a structural form to replicate flight which can also be interoperated as growth. These factors were inspired by the dingy swallowtail buttery which is a native species to the site, which gives the design context to the site rather than just creating an irrelevant pattern system. The idea behind using brass cladding on steel was because the colour of brass which will help the structure blend in with the environment while the steel makes the structure self-supporting. The large I-beams of the structure were chosen due to the flexible nature of steel to mold in the shape of our design. The whole system is joined together by a combination of bolts and wielding to hold together at 1:1 scale.

Our design is appropriate for the city of Wyndham because of its strong context with the surrounding environment. The design of the panels is made from geometrical forms which were influenced by a local species of butterfly. This panel design interacts with the local environment by the shadow patterns that it cast throughout the day. The design of the structural system goes back to inspiration from the dingy swallowtail butterfly taking flight. This structure is design through innovation through the utilization of computational technology used in the design process.The focus on computational design technology for our proposal is innovative because it moves away from the workflow of a more traditional design workspace of pencil and paper, and towards a workflow made almost entirely through digital design workspace. The advantage of this approach to our design is that we were able to create geometrical patterns which would have been far too complex to draft with pencil and paper. Even the use of laser cutting for fabrication was innovative through technology since our design would have been far too complex to accurately fabricate entirely by hand.

69

Overall the feedback given in comparison to the mid-semester presentation was positive. Our improvements to the design approach from the previous presentation were recognized from our design response to the criticism previously received. The effort made into the fabrication of our model was acknowledged and it was commented that the creation of the panels for our structure was designed in the way Grasshopper was made for, to create a pattern system which would have been far too tedious to create on Rhino alone.

When looking back from the beginning of the semester, my skills and experience with computational architecture have significantly developed over time. In comparison with previous design studios there was a substantial change to workflow for this subject. Using computation in architectural design has made work much more portable. In previous design studio if I wanted to bring work from home to university I would have to carry along all my draft work and concept sketches. With a more computation focused workflow all I need to bring is USB memory stick with all my work or even just download it from an internet storage service such as Google Docs or DropBox. A computation focused design project also allows for greater exploration of designs since I can just simply duplicate the file the design is based off a modify it; if the attempt turns out to be unsuccessful I will still have the original file. If this was done with a paper and pencil workflow it would take time to trace or redraw all of or part of the original design to be copied, which makes the exploration phase of a design project longer. From the trends noticed by the precedents which have been researched throughout the semester, it shows computational architecture as being a more efficient workflow process. From this impression, I see computation workflow trends in architecture as a major influence rather than just a secondary skill to learn.

Trouble I experienced with a computational based workflow was that at times I felt my ability to design was limited by my knowledge of Grasshopper. An example of this was when I was creating panel patterns in Part C. I had some ideas drawn on paper but I found difficulty in being able to express these ideas in Grasshopper. As a consequence this required time into researching online the correct algorithm to express my design.I feel that my weakness of the course of the project was with the creation of a structural system of our design. This can be improved by getting more out of my comfort zone of sticking with what I am familiar with and trying to explore with the different tools and plugins of Grasshopper to expand my breadth of experience with the software.

70

I believed that over the course of this semester I have developed several different skills which are useful to architectural design. From Part A I learned more about design theory, getting familiar with the difference between a traditional and computational focused workspaces and being introduced to the Grasshopper plugin of Rhino. Also since this phase was more focused on research and theory, I began so get a more clear idea of the possibilities and advantage of computational design by analyzing award winning designs that were made through computational technology.As I progressed to Part B, I began to focus more on Grasshopper and was eventually able to create an original design rather than just following tutorials step by step. This greatly improved my ability to create algorithms. From this I began to express my ideas through computational design and started to expand more beyond the material provided for the subject.During Part C there were some modifications required for our project which gave us a shorter time span to create an original design. After this I got to gained experience in being able to transfer a digital model into a physical model which required nesting panels which I have done in Virtual Environments but it was with a more basic model back then. Since Virtual Environments back in 2011, I have made models by hand, whereas in this project we used laser cutting. During Part C there was a greater demand for a more complex model to be created and I began to look at other methods of fabrication for our scale model which I would consider for future design projects.

From this subject I feel that I have developed a variety of skills. First of all I feel that my knowledge of design theory which would benefit my ability to create appropriate design for case studies in the future. Also my familiarity with a computational workflow which will benefit future efficiency of planning out design projects.The more practical skills I learnt was further developing my skills with Rhino by learning how to use the Grasshopper plugin. Having no previous experience with Grasshopper there was time pressure to learn as much as I can while progressing through the project. During the later phase of the major project I also got a bit more familiar with using photoshop to touch up on the model photos. This also helped me improve my presentation skills for design proposals, something I have been negatively criticized for in previous design studios. Other skills I have developed were my familiarity with printing methods. Although it wasn’t used for fabrication, seeing groups in other studios who used 3D printing technology for their designs was something that has sparked my interest and I would look more into how this technology impacts the architecture industry.

71

Doing a design project as a group was an interesting experience. My previous experience with group assignments were mainly from breadth subjects which were management and marketing type subjects. With those subjects, the assignments were generally linear in which they were based only on the current content we were learning, narrowing the direction on how we approach an assignment. This also makes members of the group on the same level as each other since it’s all based on what is new content to us. Whereas in an architectural design subject, being a creative project, allows many different directions to approach the assignment. This makes the project much more flexible to express our interpretation of a solution, but on the other hand can cause conflict on how the design should be done such as aesthetic features. The group design project also allowed group members to use background skills, such as some of the group members having previous experience with 3d Max which was useful for rendering our design. Overall the experience of working with a group for a design project was a valuable experience with different workflow methods in comparison with more rigid report writing type assignments which I previously experienced in breadth subjects.

72

“Architecture is a social act and the material theater of human activity” - Spiro Kostof

C.6. References

73

• Carlos Zeballos, ‘Toyo Ito; Bruges Pavilion,’ in My architectural Moleskine <http://architectur almoleskine.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/toyo-ito-bruges-pavilion.html> [accessed 11th May 2013]• Christiane Burklein, ‘Transferzentrum Adaptronik of the Fraunhofer Institut in Darmstadt, Germany,’ in LiveGreen <http://www.livegreenblog.com/materials/transferzentrum-adaptron ik-of-the-fraunhofer-institut-in-darmstadt-germany-7791/> [accessed 11th May 2013]• KME: The Evolution of copper, ‘TECU® Brass,’ in KME <http://www.kme.com/en/tecubrass> [accessed 11th May 2013]• Melbourne water, ‘Bird species at Western treatment plant,’ in Melbourne water <http:// http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/get_involved/activities_by_the_water/bird watching/bird_species_at_western_treatment_plant.asp?bhcp=1> [accessed 4th May 2013]• Quality Steel Treating, ‘Why braze?,’ in Quality Steel Treating <hhttp://www.qualitysteeltreat ing.com/brazing/whybraze.asp> [accessed 6th May 2013]• Wyndham City Council, ‘Economic development strategy,’ in Wyndham City <http://www. wyndham.vic.gov.au/var/files/uploads/pdfs/5056957a6bcba.pdf> [accessed 5th May 2013]• Wyndham City Council, ‘Fauna in Wyndham,’ in Wyndham City <http://www.wyndham.vic. gov.au/environment/landbiodiversity/florafauna/fauna> [accessed 4th May 2013]

74