graf joshua 587672 partb submission

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

Part B: Conceptual Design B.1 Research - Recursion

Alisa Andrasek - Bloom Aranda Lasch - The Evening Line

B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5B.6 B.7

References

4....

6....

8.... 10.... 12....14....18.... 18.... 19....20....22....24....26....28....40.... 46....70....78....80....81....

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 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

Image 1: Bloom

Image 2: Bloom

Image 3: Bloom

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

Image 1: Evening Line Image 2: Evening Line

28 29

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0PROCESS EXPLANATIONTo begin my exploration of recursion in Grasshopper, I focused on testing and pushing the limits of the L-system. In this experimentation process, I not only experimented with the parameters (which I discovered can create an almost infinite amount of arrangements in a recursive model, albeit certain patterns arising), but looked for new methods of

SPECIES 1

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 3

The first species is examples taken from the initial L-system definition. To reiterate the process, the logic relied upon repositioning 3 scaled versions of an initial line on a point at the end of this initial line and then applying a rotation to these new lines around that point. Both the length of the new line, and its rotation in XYZ could be altered.

Expanding on from the initial, species 2 uses the same process but introduces more lines as the initial. In these examples I have positioned 6 lines outwards from the central point, each of these lines independently acting as the starting line. Again, its parameters were line length and XYZ rotation.

In species 3 I introduced surfaces to the L system. In this logic, only 2 lines were replicated, but between these new lines and the old line a web-like surface was created, the web’s curve based upon an interpolated curve between the end points. Here, both the rotation and the line length were seperated for both lines, giving flexibility in the surface’s form.

SPECIES 4Continuing along the line of surfaces, instead of just creating surfaces between lines, I also tried applying/positioning forms directly onto the lines, using the base line-structures as references points. Initially I just tried using spheres, with the parameters being their radius and the line’s XYZ rotation, but I then also tried creating 2 point boxes between start and end points, resulting in some rather intriguing forms.

SPECIES 5In species 5, instead of repeating and positioning lines, I re-imagined it as repeating and positioning pipes. This added the variability of scaling both length and thickness with consecutive loops, whilst also adding to the three-dimensionality and tangibility of the forms. When I then also tried to apply the logic to a triangular extrusion, it resulted in a rather unexpected outcome.

SPECIES 6The final species furthered the application of changing the form of the initial object to repeat, with focus moving to cubes and spheres. I also incorporated an aspect of species 2, where I set the objects to be scaled and repositioned in 6 different directions. Here, whilst controlling the level scaling was an element, often the most interesting forms came with the extent of scaling, or toggling what was recorded.

application to develop greater diversity and potential. As a result, I went through 6 phases or ‘Species’ of L-system definitions and logic in exploring the L-system, each species developing on from an element of the previous and containing slightly altered parameters.

30 31

L-SYSTEMS MATRIX B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

ZX

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Length

Y

ZX Y

0 1

ZX

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Length

Y

0 1

Line 1

Length0 10

Line 2

Length0 10

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

S1S1

S2

S2

S3

S3

32 33

L-SYSTEMS MATRIX B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

2 POINT BOX

2 POINT BOXON TRIANGULAR

EXTRUSION

ZX Y

ZX

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Length

Y

0 1Radius

0 1

Line 1

Length0

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

0° 0° 0°

10

Line 2

Length0 10

Scale Factor 0 1

Loops0 10

S4

S4

S5

S5

S6

S6

34 35

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0SELECTION CRITERIATo analyse the results of this process then, a selection criteria had to be developed in order to determine some iterations of ‘best fit’. To inform this criteria, I looked towards the Air Design Brief to determine if any qualities of my iterations were in some way applicable to the brief and its site, with the hope that some of these qualities may spark further interest and potential to follow in the design process.

The brief, over the course of the semester, had been honed down to developing a project for the Food Forest, an initiative co-ordinated at CERES along Merri Creek. The Food Forest is planned to be a self-sustaining ecosystem that consistently

Permeabil ity - consideration of this trait focuses on the potential for movement within the structure as a result of the relationships between its various elements. Both potential high (fostering insect and water penetration) and low (controlling water catchment) permeabilities are considered, with the focus being on interesting potential.

Detail - again concerning context, natural elements can almost always been seen to be organised assortments of smaller elements (like leaves and twigs). To be relevant to space then, the iteration will be assessed for its degree of detail and accumulation of forms. Recursion is inherently suited to these configurations so understandable or beautiful forms will be favoured.

Material ity - more aptly thought of as ‘potential materiality’, this trait conjectures on what materials would be used to begin to contemplate the structure. Particularly as the Food Forest is a place of food production and sustainability, careful considerations of materials is important to their feasibility.

Integration - here the consideration is given to how an iteration’s form could be combined with other elements of the Food Forest. Again, thinking about this structure in context, a forest intimately weaves its elements together, with everything discarding selfishness and working with the system to enhance it. As such, so too should the iteration comply with this logic.

produces fruit, vegetables, and other organic produce, much like a real-life forest, to set itself up as an example for sustainable food growing. As such, a large range of structures needed in setting up the forest exist, each being able to be enhanced through the parametric model. Some of these needs include water catchment, bee inhabitance, sacraficial growing lattices, seating and shading, and so on.

Thus, to initially engage with the link between these needs of the Food Forest and potential form, I decided on the following 4 traits to focus my selection criteria on:

In using these factors as my selection criteria, I was intending to further my scope on application of recursive forms for the Food Forest. I decided then that the examples I highlighted did not have

to balance all of the criteria factors, but instead could be strong examples of each so as to imagine ways in which more successful iterations could be combined to compliment eachother.

complex sort of detail, as the smaller elements work to abstract the form of the larger elements, creating a sort of visual interest.

I think it important to re-iterate for this iteration that the emphasis is really on the proportion of elements rather than its form. This specfic relationship between scaled elements alludes to its potential for integrating objects and materials of differing characters and sizes into a cohesive structure. The form is very adjustable around this set of proportions.

In this iteration the variations in scaled elements most importantly reflect well the various factors of the criteria. The differing levels of scale offer potential for a materiality integration response, with differ layers of scale correlating to a different material or point of connection to another element of the forest. Larger elements, for example, could act as structural elements and smaller elements could be attachment points for vines or vegetables as they grow. It also has potential to be intergrated with a mesh or tarp-like covering to foster mesh growth or contain growth. It also complies with a

36 37

This example is a fantastic example of integration potential because it depicts a scenario where elements, in this case spheres, can be dispersed via a connected structure. Application of this could include adhering pots or containers at the points represented by spheres to create a structure that effectively distributes plants (both for space means or layering specific plants for sunlight needs) whilst maintaining access to rain water, for example. This also resonates with ideas of permeability, with the structure allowing for the catching of particles,

Permeability and materiality based upon this iteration’s form and surfaces are the key aspects to this iteration being highlighted. The form created here proposes a very directional permeability, whereby objects caught or grown on the structure would tend to follow the pathways through its structure. This role would then be very respondant to its materiality, as a smoother continous surface could be used to promote things like water catchment, while a mesh-like material could serve

such as water or dirt, with a high percentage but interspersed through out the structure. The spread points in a dispersed yet dense way would also suggest a permeability and accessibility for bees to engage with the structure if the example of plants were used again at those points.

The advantage of this iteration over the other similar ones in species 4, is that the connecting rods being of quite constrasting sizes lends to its potential for covering area effectively.

as the base for lentil growth. Integration potential also lies within the iteration, the tweaking of its permeability potenitally being able to cater for both catchment and funneling of water and gentle watering of an underlying vegetable bed.

Also, from a materiality perspective, the fluid tendencies of this form could promote an efficiency of material use or strength through its regularity.

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0SELECTION CRITERIA

38 39

Above all in this iteration, its key reason for being highlighted is the way it creates detail. The whole form is consisted of tiny little boxes that themselves draw in attention and give an appreciation of the structure’s building blocks. More impressively though, these simple little blocks in their overall composition create very subtle patterns across the form’s surface, a pattern that repeats in scale according to the recursive definition. This subtle complexity is a quality of the form that makes it that much more interesting as an object to observe and engage with. If these qualities could be

combined to give surfaces an extra element of depth to their form, it could create structures that feel much more relevant and native to the composition of a forest, and further the desire for human interaction in the space.

The form too can be further extrapolated to imagine permeability uses, by deleting blocks to create interesting ways in which water or bees could eneter into the form, as could materiality enhance the pattern’s effects via things transparency.

This is one of the few iterations that really has something to contribute to all the selection factors in an interesting way. Permeability is possible in interesting ways in this configuration of boxes if the spaces created between the boxes are considered and used as paths through the form. So too can ‘pathways’ be formed if intersecting boxes are joined and allowed to be continous. The varying pathways lead to potential for encouraging different process in each path. This can be added to with materiality, with differing levels of

transparency, surface roughness, or perforation affecting how these processes could take place. This could also be used to enhance integration by linking or connecting the services of these various processes with other elements of the forest. Finally, detail is also apparent in its form with the complex arrangements of differently shaped and scaled boxes mismatching to create a shape. If combined again with materiality, these strange interactions could be emphasised to further interest in its form.

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0SELECTION CRITERIA

40 41

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0ARCHITECTURAL SPECULATIONHaving completed this initial exploration of recursive L-system logic in grasshopper, it is possible to begin to see how these techniques could be applied to assist the architectural process and imagine architectural form.

On a small scale, like discussed above for the Food Forest installation, the application of L-systems give rise to the possibility of changing levels of tangibility in a construction as the differing scales of elements can evoke differing responses. For example, in the first of my highlighted iterations the presence of different scales of tubes could respond to specific purposes (such as structural for large, vine lattice for small), creating a structure that can scale to facilitate multiple functions. This tangibility is also created through this application of complexity of scale, with various perspectives or interactions only being available from specific positions (e.g. an overall form can be appreciated from afar, but smaller elements must be conceived from closer inspection). The L-system logic as form finding is also quite useful on the small scale particularly, because the relatively low load requirements of structure at this scale allow L-system forms to be translated in a very literal way.

When projected onto a larger scale of construction however, an obvious constraint of L-system application is the appropriation of structural stability into its form, particularly when the forms become very dense and complex and more difficult to conceive. It is not feasible, for example, for a building to be held up by the thin little tendrils that may evolve from a centrally contrived definition, like those visibile in my above species 2. This does not limit its application however. Instead, the particularly relevent use of L-system form finding, is just that, application as a form finding technique. Often the L-system seems to create redundently impossible forms and scales, but these impossible elements can be replaced with relevant structure, forms, or products to make the space useable and real. This allows the L-system forms to maintain their pattern and logic in production, creating a potentially greater intrigue and interest when present in a space without resorting to L-systems as just a superficial aesthetic decoration. For example, an archway or atrium that bases its structure and form around the initial simpler lines, and then makes the sections of very complex linework lighting products, or surface details.

Over archingly however, the major concern when trying to speculate about incorporating or using L-systems in a design, or indeed any recursive geometry, is how to deal with the complexity generated from this model of form making. Often, the most interesting or potent aspects of a form derived from recursion are the unexpected patterns and deeply detailed qualities that arise from the process. So too can less intense versions of L-systems be used to great effect, such as the tree-like columns used in the Stuttgart Airport, but often it is those projects that properly capture the extent of complexity possible in recursion, like the Digital Grotesque works by Micheal Hansmeyer, that really stand out.

Image 1: Stuttgart Airport

Image 2: Digital Grotesque

42 43

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS - Micheal HansmeyerThe project ‘Subdivided Columns’ by Micheal Hansmeyer is a lucrative example of both recursion possibility and modern fabrication techniques. The project takes an initial form of a doric column and applies a looping subdivision algorithm to the surface, resulting in a series of super detailed columns with over 16 million facted faces. The algorithm is able to have its parameters easily adjusted, allowing for almost infinite permutations from just a very basic process. Throughout all of these permutations each is unique, yet they all maintain a coherency and consistency allowing them to be identified as part of the same process. As such, this process sets out to examine how subdivision can be used to embellish the tradition column with elaborate systems of ornamentation. Above this though, in performing this exercise the goal is “not the design of an object, but the design of a process to generate objects”.

The column was then fabricated 2.7 metres high, out of 1mm layers of laser cut paper. To do this, the digital model was intersected at 1mm intervals all the way up the model, the cross sections then trimmed of any interior holes or intersecting surfaces, and the outside shape joined into a continuous polyline. Then, to reduce weight and provide a manner for exactly stacking these slices, interior offsets were introduced before exporting and being cut on the laser cutter. The total construction took 4 people and 300 hours of labour to produce, all for just one column that should but a few minutes to produce in digital space. The result however, is a very impressively detailed object that maintains much of the facets and curvatures from the digital model and is even able to support a surprisingly large amount of load.

http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns1.jpg

Image 1: Subdivided Columns



44 45

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS - Micheal HansmeyerWhat is interesting about the columns is both the extent to which the excruciating detail exists, but also the process that derives it almost infinitely. Realistically with this process the only thing limiting it from looping continuously is the computational capacity of the computer running it, which is without a doubt one of the main concerns when producing work like this. Now, the project tends to explore the potential of designing objects from the confines of an algorithm, which in itself is a very compelling idea. In basic terms this notion means that the effort in design can be put into creating systems that are easily adapted and updated as trends and needs change, which then go on to physically draw out the form of the object

required. Where this idea is currently falling short is the translation from this digital state to tangible form. As demonstarted by the process above, currently this translation is intensely labourious and not without its imperfections. The use of 1mm paper really brings up the resolution at the scale produced to maintain much of the digital froms characteristics, but the resolution is still very much apparent. 3D printers are still not at the stage to bring this resolution down either, and to manually produce this from intructions seems otherwise impossible and ineffective either way. As such, the realistic potential lies in develop methods to further the ease of this translation from complex form into physcial form.

http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/fabricated_columns5.jpghttp://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns3.jpg

Image 1: Subdivided Columns Image 2: Subdivided Columns

46 47

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0REVERSE ENGINEERINGThe initial problem with reverse engineering this project is that it was not done so in grasshopper. Instead it was written in code, like python, which in the realm of this is benefitial as it only has to render the final iteration, unlike the step by step process employed by Grasshopper and Anenome. The project too, is essentially a series of permutations of the doric column created through affecting parameters of the algorithm, which doesn’t give me a form to strive for in recreation. Instead I attempted to recreate a subdivision algorithm to develop a similar level of complexity on a surface.

As such, to test this I decided on developing a basic triangular pyramid instead of the doric column. The reasoning for this was in order to begin to comtemplate the surface in grasshopper, the surface of the column would have to had been simplified into a basic form of triangles anyway, so to make the computational process easier and to be able to further test the extents of the algorithm (without it crashing) I substituted it for the pyramid in the reverse engineering stage.

48 49

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0CASE STUDY CREATION PROCESS

The final method of attempting to recreate the Hansmeyer algorithm came back down to a very simple logic. In essense, to begin, a basic triangular surface is taken (1) and subvided into a number of sections (2), in this case three. This is most easily done by dividing to a point, which is very easily controlled by obtaining the midpoint of the surface. This point is then moved outward from the surface (3), with the subdivided section moving up with it to create a new set of surfaces. It is this movement or ‘folding’ as Hansmeyer refers to it that is the key to making this subdivision algorithm work. Without the movement, the surface can be infinitely subdivided but it will maintain its form. The folds are what allow the form to morph and develop. After this, the process is repeated on the new surface (4), completing the loop.

Applying this logic in grasshopper took alot of trial and error, particularly in finding the right component or method to perform the task I wanted.

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

Things like 2 surface normals being provided when trying to find a face normal vector to move out on were confusing, and required a developed understanding of the how the program dealth with parameters was important.

Another problem I encountered was being able to construct an algorithm that was able to loop without breaking. It required me to realise that in a loop you are applying exactly the same definition over and over, meaning that if the output of the initial algorithm is unable to then be understood by the algorithm when re-inserted at the beginning, it will break. An easy example is that if an algorithm is set up to deal with an initial square, but the re-inserted out put is a triangle, the parameters will not be fulfilled properly by the triangle and it could crash the algorithm. Sometimes this leads to weird and wonderful outbursts of confused and extreme geometry, but all of it I found to be unintelligible.

50 51

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0REVERSE ENGINEERING RESULTS

Having developed the recursive algorithm on the base triangle, I then applied it to the simplified version of the doric column to provide a grounds for comparison. To make the column I had to first split the column up into a number of sections. This was because when the definition, with even just one loop, was applied to the whole column at once it Wwould cause my computer to run out of memory and abandon the process. As such, breaking it down into a bunch of smaller sections allowed me to amp

up the the algorithm to run 3 loops across the whole form to begin to see how the recursion began to affect the surface. You can see in the close up that even 3 loops begins to develop a surface that is very complex, where shapes visibly beginning to intersect, the scale drops rapidly, and the form slowly acquires additonal mass. It is also possible to see how the column maintains some of its qualities, such as the basic head and base, and the long lines of the column shaft.

52 53

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0PRECEDENT COMPARISONWhen compared to some of the original Hansmeyer permutations, its first very obvious that the outcome of my algorithm is distinctly different, potentially not even the same. However, on closer inspection there are certain qualities between them that is comparable. The first is a their levels of complexity on the surface. In his algorithms Hansmeyer loops the definition up to 16 times, so inevitably they are smaller and more intricate. Having said that, in the comparison image of the surface close ups, it is possible to see that even with 3 loops a very complicated layering of forms is beginning to take place with the re-created definition. Another is the way they begin to distort the surface. The image comparing the capitals of the columns shows how in both models the inital form is recognisable but still in some way new and alien. I imagine that with

more experimentation with the definition, greater variations in how the defintion can affect the form is possible as well. A very distinct difference between the two projects though, is the differentiation in pattern. The image to the left comparing the shafts of the column clearly shows that whilst my definition produces a rather predictable assortment of forms along the surface, the Hansmeyer algorithms depict a greater differentiation of this pattern and form. This may be due to the greater flexibility that coding provides to the forms, but is also likely to be due to the limited way in which my algorithm creates new forms. Having said this though, generally I feel the algorithm works to an extent that it can create, at least in a similar fashion, a highly complex surface that evokes some senses of wanting to look closer.




54 55

DESIGN EXPERIMENTATION: PROCESS EXPLANATIONIn developing this process then, more so than the previous technique, I took a very methodical approach to breaking down the algorithm and identifying how different elements of the process informed the resulting outcomes, as set out below.

To begin with, I recorded in iterations the development of the base definition on the basic pyramid as loops were incrementally increased. In doing so, it was possible to notice how certain concentration points developed on the surfaces, where the surfaces began to increase in number and decrease in size. These points seemed to be controlled by where the initial definition set the point to extrude to for the subsequent triangles. With the central starting point they were symmetrically distributed, whilst skewed starting points also skewed these focal points.

The next parameter tested was the distance the extrusion point was set to move. This was set as a distance relative to the edge length of the previous triangle, from 0 to 1. The result was an increasingly intersecting and large evolution of form, forms that seemed to lack any form of coherence. Applied to to symmetrical array mainatined some form of regularity and recognizable shape, but the asymmetrical resulted in an almost nonsense outcome.

B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

I then began recording the effects of reversing the direction of the normal, and extending the creation of surfaces internally. This resulted in some very interesting and distorted hollow forms, that often seemed unable to create surfaces. I also tried in this species to alternate the direction of the normal on consecutive loops, with the outcome expressing some very intricate yet intersecting forms of some interesting value. This method seemed again to work less well the larger the relative move lengths became, often forming sections of overlapping similar shapes.

In species 4 I then considered what would happen if the relative move lengths were alternated in a sort of double loop. The process created a rather prominent spiraling effect around the shape. This coupled with changing tangent directions and altered extrusion directions, began to create some interesting results. This logic was also then extrapolated to alternate which effects (i.e. tangent direction, relative length, starting point) were used with each successive loop.

SPECIES 1

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 3

SPECIES 4

56 57

SUBDIVISION MATRIX 1 B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 1 SPECIES 2

58 59


SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4

60 61

DESIGN EXPERIMENTATION: PROCESS EXPLANATIONHaving initally broken down the algorithm and exploiting the existing elements of it, I then began applying this process to other forms to explore whether other effects or patterns could be found from different configurations of triangles.

To make a simple transition to considering other shapes, I took a regular cylinder and triangulated it and then applied the algorithm. This process uncovered how much the initial grid of surfaces that is being affected (in this case the triangles) controls the resulting pattern.

Incorporating this knowledge of pattern refrained by form, I applied the different iterations to an undulating, column like surface in an attempt see how differing sized elements related to eachother. Having completed this excercise, I noticed that applying these iterations to different surfaces did not really explore the extents of the algorithm, it instead examined properties of that individual form. Having said this, the excercise did highlight how having different sized elements and closely aligned starting surfaces have a big impact on how the surfaces will interact or intersect.


In species 7 then, I decided to incorporate an additional section to my algorithm to encourage the points from the original shapes to shift and move. This species was a large exploration as I tried moving these points in relation to single, then multiple attarctor attractor points, on the range of surfaces I had been using, and with the different iterations. Many of these iterations provided unexpected and unintelligible results, but this system seemed often to create very different outcomes than the original.

SPECIES 5

SPECIES 6

SPECIES 7

62 63


SPECIES 5 SPECIES 6

64 65


SPECIES 7

66 67

POST-CRIT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

After presenting some of my developed ideas to the crit-panel in class, a number of suggestions were made that I have decided to develop further on here to be included in leading up to a design proposal. Of the few points made, the major point regarding the development stage of design was the potential for furthering the application of the subdivision beyond basic triangles, and developing them into more complex geometries

Extending the algorithm beyond the realm of basic triangles into more complex geometries was something that slipped my mind, potentially because the forms created were already so complex. After consideration, I decided that my effort should not be put into developing more complex initial surfaces, because the nature of Anenome and grasshopper in general require the same time of geometry to be re-inserted into the loop in order for the algorithm to run successively, that is, if an initial flat surface is inserted and an algorithm run that distorts form according to factors such as surface normal, when re-entered into the loop these surface normals may become impossible to calculate and cause surfaces to fail. So, without resorting to coding complex, sticking to planar triangles seemed the most logical.

However, it did make me realise there were other ways in which forms could be subdivided and affected in final iterations to enhance the design beyond these ideas in the current algorithm. These included adding curved lines instead of just straight ones, and changing the way in which the surface subdivided and folded. As such, I trialled a few iterations of this system to add to my scope of understanding.


68 69

SELECTION CRITERIA B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENTWhen considering these interations in the concourse of the selection criteria, the parameters I feel should be the same. These initially identified qualities of Permeability, Integration, Materiality, and Detail all still apply to the site and so should still apply to the surface manipulation I have been exploring.

However, I don’t feel as though the selection criteria should be applied in the same way to these iterations as I did the previous. This is because the process is inherently not creating form but altering a surface. By this I mean, the previous iterations created and explored different forms and ways of relating shapes. As seen with the Hansmeyer development, this is a process that is applied to a form or surface, that alters it to try and achieve greater effect. As such, it is naturally addressing

them all, being easily altered for permeability, itself a form of integration, unrestrained by its material potential, and intricately detailed.

Instead, this process should be considered in relation to constructibility and design purpose. With this in mind, to address constructibility some of the simpler forms at lower loop levels would be easier to consider. However, when design purpose is taken into consideration as well, there is the potential that changing levels of complexity (and presumedly linked to looping) would be relevant to effectiving achieving the purpose desired for said surface, and so deciding directly on iterations does not seem productive in proposing ideas for what will ultimately be a group project. However, if to conjecture on potential purposes, the following iterations could be applicable.

As a quite undistorted outcome of the algorithm, its symmetry would aid greatly to constructibility. It would also lend itself to being easily manipulated for permeability considerations, as a single face could be removed form the loop and it would evenly spread across the surface for consistancy. This could lend itself well to having varying levels of shading, or controlling sunlight into a space for people or plants.

This negative normal iteration is interesting for its integration potential as it begins to create a cavity on the structure. This bulge could be taken advnatage of to account for plants or plant growth, give extra room to an otherwise tight space, or reflect a certain aspect of the site. This example has not controlled its intersecting faces particularly well, but tweaking could be done to make the shape possible.

This example of the post application of a curved line in the algorithm is particularly interesting for the extra detail is proposes for the surface. In some ways the strict, planar rigidity of the algorithm does not as naturally reflect way the environment it will be within, but with the added curved element there is a subtle hint at how this surface would better fit into its context.

70 71

PROTOTYPING PROCESS B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPESThe time had now come to begin exploring how this form could be constructed, and to do this I turned to using a CNC router to cut portions of the form into sheets of polypropolene. Initially I did consider trying to recreate my prototpes in a similar manner to Hansmeyer, by slicing my form into layers and cutting them out to form a rather solid whole. For hansmeyer this worked because he was needing to construct a column which needs to be strong and solid to support itself. Hansmeyer too had the time and resources to complete such an arduous task. I however, did not have the same time or resources, and more importantly I was considering the form in the light of a surface to be applied to our final form so cutting and piecing objects together to ultimately create a light and stable surface seemed a more viable pathway.

Initially I cut a small portion of the basic symmetrical form to investigate how the CNC router would deal with cutting very tight and small faces, and also to investigate how well the material responded to folding. The cut was done with a very thin engraving bit to try and minimize the loss of surface area. When cut, the polypropolene ripped up quite alot, although it was possible to clean it up afterwards. As visible to the right, the most intense parts of the face were the corner bits, where alot of the recursion originated. In some of the very close

parts it lost some surface but overall it seemed to cut fairly well. What was difficult however was some of the folding after it had been cut. For simplicity I just cut the form on one side. The polypropolene responded quite well to folding with the incision, but was rather resistant to it when folding against it. To achieve a fold that stayed and also went all the way back down to its tip I often had to result to scoring the plastic. This would help address the folding issue, but was inconsistent as the plastic was quite hard to cut.

72 73

PROTOTYPING PROCESS B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPESIn response to the difficult folding I decided to try a different cutting method and also to try and assemble a whole face. This time around I partially scored the cut, to replicate what I had been doing by hand but to a greater level of precision. I also tried using a different engraving bit that was a bit wider, with the hope that some added extra angle would help it fold nicely. Doing this had both good and bad outcomes.

The good was that the polypropolene folded really well this time around. Having the dual directionality for folding was also very useful when glueing it together because the complexity of the shapes means it was something unintuitive as to which direction the fold needed to be. In addition, the polypropolene responded surprisingly well to hot glue, sticking very well to itself without the need for tabs.

74 75

The bad was, firstly, the method of bridging that I used to make the incisions insisted on cutting unintentional holes at the end of all the lines. Second, this new drill bit did not fix the problem of the plastic being ripped up, leaving the edges rather ragged.

Overall however, the prototyped proved that a surface of that complexity could be constructed as a surface which gave the algorithmic model greater legitimacy as an idea.

PROTOTYPING PROCESS B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

76 77

PROTOTYPING PROCESS: MATERIALITY B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

Being a project to be sited at CERES however, the project required a greater engagment with thinking about the materials used. Firstly, as the Food Forest is to be a site for growing food the materials would require to be non-toxic as to not poison the produce. Secondly, with CERES being a symbol of sustainable development so too should the materials be sustainably sourced to contribut to this image. As such, I decided to play with timber veneers to see if they could potentially be used to produce a surface as a more sustainable option to plastic.

To do this I stripped a plank of wood down to a roughly 1.5mm strip to test its properties. The wood when scored could bend, but only in the direction of the score and only in the direction of the grain. If attempted to be bent in the opposite way to the score or against the grain the piece would just snap. In relation to our form, it meant that potentially the form could be constructed out of lots of individually cut triangles that could be then cut together, although this process seems overly tedious and potentially rather unprecise. The one directional fold however did give a scope for breaking down the form into a series of two connected triangles, which would involve having less points for adhesive and potentially a greater level of accuracy in construction.

78 79

DESIGN APPLICATION PROPOSAL B.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

After thorough engagement with the algorithm and consideration of the iterations, I propose an integratable surface that could be used with various applications within the scope of the group CERES food forest project. The form itself is not specfically set, but would generally represent a complex series of connecting surfaces. In doing so, the idea holds the additional advantage of being adapted to the site and purpose specfically.

Example applications of surface for purpose include shading (with varying levels of permeability available), enclosure (such as for fungi or pot-plants), and decoration. To the right is an imagined application where the surface here is a hung

element of a larger integrated system for plant growing, with the surface here acting as a shading/light flitering element to mediate the amount of sunlight being received by a specific plant.

The surface is not intended to be specific to one area, it can instead be changed via the algorithm to provide form and position specific iterations to make the overall project more cohesive, whilst also itself providing purposeful functions. The way it too creates interest through detail intends to promote human interaction with the project both in the sense that it can be visually interest to examine and be relevant to the projects use.

80 81

REFERENCESHaving completed the subject so far, I feel a vast amount of information has become a lot clearer to me, at least in terms of digital architecture. The process of engaging with case studies and actually taking the time to understand how complex forms are being designed and constructed has been in a way humbling, partly in the way in which I can now see various logics in digital forms but also with through a sense of respect for the boundaries that have been addressed and stretched by these precedents. My main case study for example, the Michael Hansmeyer ‘Subdivided Columns’ is one I am constantly in awe of for the complexity that he is able to achieve and for stepping back into the realm of detail of which the modern era seems to have forgotten.

In terms of the Learning objectives I can see myself having come at least a little further in the way of meeting each of them. I feel my approach for tackling the brief, which we have been gathering slowly from CERES, has been appropriate in not limiting myself to things that may not eventuate to be possible but whilst still offering something worthwhile. My ability for generating varieties in design possibilities has definitely improved, particularly as my familiarity with grasshopper develops and my understanding of parameters and computing possibilities increases. I feel this is visible in my generous variations in both B.2 and B.4. Grasshopper has been a great way too in improving my skills in 3D media, with the way we have been engaging with recursion making be more aware of the role of scale and repetition.

This course definitely has made me more actively consider how form and architecture can be involved in space, and connecting those potentials with digital technology. In a similar sense I am also becoming more aware of how developing fabrication techniques are slowly bridging the gap between digital and physical potentials in form. I think particularly making some of my initial prototypes has fostered this knowledge as seeing an object of immense complexity on the screen

being broken down and turned into a real life object has unlimited my experience in this field. This is also relevant to precedent study, as understanding the process they take to creating their forms informs me as well.

It has also been really useful to have the crit-sessions before the due date, as the panels provided really useful outside-perspective feedback to help keep my project and line of thought on the right track. The major points of consideration that I gathered from my crit-panel were the following, and I hope that my consideration of them comes across in my journal somehow:- Furthering the application of the subdivision beyond basic triangles, and developing them into more complex geometries- A greater consideration of how the developed surface could cause or promote interaction with the structure- Developing reasons or connections (to either site or purpose) that determine how or which techniques (and to what extent) are applied- Focusing more attention towards the joints of the resulting structures, and how it may attach to other forms, and even itself

So far the course and project has been very enlightening and enjoyable, and I hope that the final stage continues to uncover more of this insight.

B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMESPg 24 - Image 1: http://designplaygrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/BLOOM_02.jpgPg 24 - Image 2: http://www.bloom-thegame.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/THE-GAME3-750x500.jpgPg 24 - Image 3: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5KmCm5Rt-hYHIPtPtPANhcl57crmQx6q2m9whagyj806Q8w2k1QPg 26 - Image 1: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRevf57g6EWFuHLFg3VF-Af7VTIJaptG0dLFv8QqDJ-MswhTJt7xwPg 26 - Image 2: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3305/3481330268_d12b8bd758_b.jpgPg 41 - Image 1: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/pp_cc/2005/07_jul/sc_upload_file_sosep200502_10_072dpi_1280927.jpgPg 41 - Image 2: http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/digital-grotesque-michael-hansmeyer-benjamin-dillenburger-designboom001.jpgPg 42 - Image 1: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns1.jpg Pg 43 - Image 2: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns4.jpgPg 43 - Image 3: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns5.jpgPg 44 - Image 1: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/columns3.jpgPg 45 - Image 2: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/images/columns/fabricated_columns5.jpg

graf joshua 587672 partb submission

Documents