| A I R |A R C H I T E C T U R E S T U D I O

H A N S L I U | 5 8 6 9 5 1

A B P L 3 0 0 4 8

zn+1 = zn2 + c

I claim that many patterns of Nature are so irregular and fragmented, that, compared with Euclid — a term used in this work to denote all of standard geometry — Nature exhibits not simply a higher degree but an altogether different level of complexity ... The existence of these patterns challenges us to study these forms that Euclid leaves aside as being “formless,” to investigate the morphology of the “amorphous.”

—Benoît Mandelbrot1

About Me

A.Ø1 | Design Futuring Hy-Fi - The Living New York Cardboard Cathedral - Shigeru Ban Architects

A.Ø2 | Design Computation Messe Basel New Hall - Herzog & de Meuron Copenhagen Elephant House - Foster & Partners

A.Ø3 | Composition/Generation Swarm Urbanism - Kokkugia Voromuro - NADAAA

A.Ø4 | Conclusion

A.Ø5 | Learning Outcomes

A.Ø6 | Appendix Algorithmic Sketches References Image Credits

— 4

— 9— 10— 12

— 14— 16— 18

— 20— 22— 24

— 26

— 27

— 28— 31— 32

Table of Contents

4—

About Me

I’m Hans, and what you probably wouldn’t expect is that I’m nowhere near narcissistic enough to think that writing about myself would be easy.

I will be 21 by the time you read this, and I study architecture. My knowledge, understanding and familiarity with digital design tools is entirely based on how much I’ve used them. They are picked up quickly, effectively used and then just as quickly forgotten.

As a lover of the obsolete (think records, film cameras and fountain pens), any new design paradigm is approached with a bit of resistance — a resistance made entirely too easy with such visual monstrosities as, say, Peace Pavilion by Atelier Zündel Cristea. However, the adoption of new technology is an inherent part of design, of any kind, to further the boundaries available to us in order to positively move forward. Digital design and its ubiquity isn’t merely an excuse or a justification for a new aesthetic, but a chance to increase the flexibility of the built environment to effectively respond to a rapidly shifting social one.

Will I need assistance to avoid tokenistic approaches to design still firmly rooted in skeuomorphism?

Maybe. Yes. No.

I’m a massive dick. I blame myself.

—5FIG 1 | YOU NEVER SAW THIS PHOTO

6—

Part A | ConceptualisationA.Ø1 | Design FuturingA.Ø2 | Design ComputationA.Ø3 | Composition/GenerationA.Ø4 | ConclusionA.Ø5 | Learning OutcomesA.Ø6 | Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

The value, and especially the legitimisation of design will be, in the future, measured more in terms of how it can enable us to survive and I don’t think this is an exaggeration to survive on this planet.

—Dieter Rams2

—9

A.Ø1 | Design FuturingIt is difficult not to take a defeatist look at humanity’s future existence on planet earth. An excellent time to take a good hard look at how a forced change in environmental paradigm may affect us would be a time when sensationalist headlines are backed by fact. ‘Design Futuring’3 is a term and contention by Tony Fry that suggests that the ever evolving discourse of design practice, not only within the confines of architecture, should envelop and develop the greater social context, spreading ‘design intelligence’ as a means of, at a greater scale, increasing humans’ ability to intuit ‘sustainable’ solutions to problems.

Fry does not include nor claim to have a solution that implements ‘design futuring’ in its entirety successfully within society. It may well be an impossible pipe dream, or be implemented over a moot time-frame, but the introduction of designers and their associated skill-sets could very well play a large part in how we react to the last tree felled on Christmas Island.

10—

Hy-Fi is a winning installation by The Living (headed by David Benjamin4) in the annual Young Architects Program, held by MoMA PS1.5

The core of Hy-Fi revolves around it’s material construction, namely a brand new organic process that involves no augmented input of energy, producing a brick that has the required structural strength, but will be 100% compostable.6 Aside from the obvious environmental benefits from a primary material based on discarded corn stalks, Hy-Fi represents a huge shift in the possibility of bio-factories, having Mycelium fuse with the stalks to essentially ‘grow’ bricks, ‘changing the way people build’.7

The geometry of the building involves torsionally sculpting three cylinders into each other. However, while interesting, the process required to successfully construct such a building is far more important. An algorithm was produced that would best represent the geometry with the available brick sizes, taking into account the limitations of this new material, with such parameters as the largest possible size of brick, the possible shapes of the brick and its inherent strength. The result is (successfully) one of a neue-masonry structure that in a way defies the traditional forms associated with brick construction.

FIG 2 | MYCELIUM STRUCTURE

—11

A.Ø1 | Design FuturingHy-Fi - The Living New York

As the winning entry into MoMA PS1’s Young Architects Program, it will also form an integral part of the 2014 Warm Up summer music festival held by MoMA PS1 meaning its exposure is broadened. This actually furthers Fry’s ideas of design discourse seeping into the collective consciousness of wider society, forming an excellent implementation of the collective ‘design intelligence’ that Fry postulates, and perhaps a slight departure from the ‘autopoietic’ nature of the architecture community.

FIG. 3 | HY-FI TOWER

FIG 4 | HY-FI AS PART OF WARM UP

12—

A.Ø1 | Design Futuring

Shigeru Ban, the Pritzker Prize’s latest laureate,8 is well-known and celebrated for his low-cost humanitarian work.

The Cardboard Cathedral was a reaction to a 6.3 scale earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand.9 Originally intended as a temporary structure to functionally replace the largest building casualty of the earthquake, the Christchurch Catholic Cathedral, it has become a mainstay of the Anglican Parish.

The work is decidedly anti-fashion and while not the first of Ban’s cardboard tube ‘emergency shelter’ structures, it is still considered revolutionary in its implementation as well as its use over this scale (the cathedral has a capacity of 700 people) and is Ban’s first civic work.10

Treated with waterproofing and fire-retardants, ninety-eight equally sized cardboard tubes form the building’s characteristic A-frame shape, but contextually, it is important to note that these cardboard elements harken back to Ban’s Japanese heritage and the traditional use of bamboo, which has clearly informed the structure here.

In this author’s opinion, the aim of Fry’s ‘Design Futuring’ is one of the preservation of human life. With this, the notion of ‘futuring’ can be found here as nothing moves towards this aim

than providing basic (Kamenetzky) human needs, in this case both a body need (in the form of shelter) but more so a social one (in the form of a meeting place for participation).

Ban and his work is delightfully refreshing in this world of increasingly commodotized ‘starchitects’, producing low-impact work for high-impact contextual situations. Ban’s global reputation is irrelevant here, but the distinctly humble work that combines the cultures of two ‘ring of fire’ nations is of most importance.

Cardboard Cathedral - Shigeru Ban Architects

Cardboard Cathedral - Shigeru Ban Architects

—13

FIG 5 | BAN’S SKETCHES FIG 6 | INTERIOR OF MODEL

14—

A.Ø2 | DesignComputationComputers are inherently stupid.10 This is said in the traditional sense when compared with human cognitive behaviour. Computers take certain human input (in a form that we humans need to make a concession for) to calculate an output, entirely in the form of booleans: a binary processing structure based on two possible outcomes: True or False.

1’s and 0’s

Nothing more...

—15

Computation originated with the very mechanical and very expensive (also very fail-y, which was sad...) Difference Engine by Charles Babbage.

Computation in design involves the use of the computers which organise a flow of input data through human-generated instructions (or algorithms) which is then computed to form quantitative output, usually in the form of virtual geometry. There is a design shift here away from form defining, towards form finding, stemming from the inherent selection of numerous design iterations.

It can be somewhat easy for the forms to be ultimately produced by these parametric processes to be clichéd and rather defined by the digital tools, therefore concessions must be made to realise design intent, rather than mere use of the design tool.

Computerisation involves the inherently inflexible entrance of data into a computer for representation or documentation. It is a progression from physically draw or created documents, only in virtual form, with all the advantages that come with that. There is an increase in speed with the creation of drawings and documentation, they are inherently more robust, and with the internet, for easier to transfer globally.

As above, computerisation is a natural progression of the architectural design processes of the past. Frank Gehry does not know how to use a computer.11 Computers are probably the most prevalent tool in architecture today. While it may not change the architectural design (it didn’t), it is an augmentation of traditional architectural practice that allows much more synthesis between the multitude of disciplines within architecture, allowing more streamlined communication between designers, consultants and contractors.

Computerisation has been an evolution more within the confines of architectural communication, rather than architectural form and output.

Computation Computerisation

A set of quantities expressed as an explicit function of a number of parameters

—Daniel Davis11

Drawings are not innocent: they protect and foreground a range of biases and conceits, and patrol and occasionally transgress ethical, political, and representational terrains.

—Perry Kulper12

101000101110101100100001000110101101010101010101010101000101010101010100101010101010000101111010010110

16—

A.Ø2 | Design Computation

Herzog & de Meuron has been at the forefront of utilising creative scripting in order to realise their increasingly vexing façade structures using available techniques and materials. Computation was also at the core of the realisation of the Tate Modern extension façade, involving algorithms to best approximate the twisted geometric form of the wing with a newly constructed compound brick.

The New Hall for Messe Basel, the largest exhibition site in Switzerland, consists of two stacked forms, both of whose exterior forms have been rotated along the same axis, vertically juxtaposing two continuously undulating hyperbolic faces. This façade would present a surface that pointed to the street as well as the sky.

A key characteristic in Herzog & de Meuron’s work is their ‘strongly conceptual’ approach to design, which can sometimes leave a large project driven by a strong, singular design premise (Erik Spiekermann said that ‘if a group discussion had a colour, it would be beige.’15). The digital tools employed by the firm, therefore, have a distinctly pragmatic integration with the rest of the design studio; they more or less form the communicative gap between the conceptual world of the designer and the rather more pragmatic one of construction. Herzog & de Meuron do not have a 3D printer within

Messe Basel New Hall - Herzog & de Meuron//More About Computational Integration Than Anything//14

FIG 7 | NOTE THE TWISTING GEOMETRY

—17

their arsenal of digital fabrication machinery resulting in a modelling and testing approach that anticipates full-scale construction that is ‘not only buildable, but meaningfully buildable’.

Herzog & de Meuron’s Digital Technology Group (DTG) is one who’s leader, Kai Strehlke, adamantly insists that computational tools produce an outcome in which ‘performance is the only consideration’. As Peters notes the shift in architects designing forms to designing software, Herzog & de Meuron have created their own tools verify, say, the environmental performance of the building.

It’s implementation within the Messe Basel New Hall façade is one that takes a very simple conceptual idea, but utilises computational tools in an entirely pragmatic way, to calculate ideal glazing conditions within a multitude of environmental parameters as well as realise a constructable output of CNC milled surfaces to approximate doubly curved geometry.

This integration and theory of computational implementation in architectural practice does give a really clear example of the pragmatic possibilities of the pragmatisation of building tectonics while still remaining true to a strong initial design intent.

FIG 8 | NOTE VARIABLE OPENING SIZES

18—

A.Ø2 | Design Computation

The Elephant House came out of a need for a new enclosure to provide a ‘stimulating environment’ for what are perhaps the most popular attraction at the Copenhagen Zoo, as well as providing a ‘visual relationship’ with the rest of the zoo.

Like the aforementioned Messe Basel New Hall, computational processes were used as an augmentation of traditional compositional design practise, all stemming from Sir Norman Foster’s initial sketch of twin canopies encompassing a mostly dug-in site. These canopies were then realised via the extensive use of digital sketch models (a logical step from physical sketch models), which came to a torus as the most suitable Euclidean mathematical model.

Foster and Partners then developed a ‘parametric system’ in which the most efficient arrangement of structural members and glazing were calculated according to preconceived information as parameters, fairly standard practice within generative design, and arguably a hallmark of Foster’s work.

Perhaps the most interesting concept explored here is the ‘Geometric Method Statement’ involving, rather than solid (figuratively) digital files with their respective file types, fabricators are able to follow a series of algorithmic instructions within their software of choice to exactly recreate Foster’s original form.

This in a way partially counters Juhani Pallasmaa’s argument that computation design creates architects who are far removed from the tectonics on construction and the physicality of buildings. The ‘Geometric Method Statement’

actually allows the fabricator a deeper understanding of the underlying geometric development processes and its complexities, added with the advantage of working with one’s native software, avoiding inevitable software translation errors.

The use of computational techniques here serves as an augmentation of the numerical processing ability of designers and allows them to solve problems in an entirely faster way, also allowing the creation of more organic forms. While one may argue that the organic forms have been very much achieved in the past, they have always inherently been based on very rigid ‘model’ mathematical models (the catenary arch is based on nodal vector geometry’s reaction to gravitational force), whereas the computer’s implementation of more physical parameters than would be viable by hand, allows a designer much more freedom.

Copenhagen Elephant House - Foster & Partners16

FIG 9 | ELEPHANT HOUSE ENCLOSURE

FIG 11 | PARAMETRIC PRAGMATISATIONFIG 10 | FOSTER’S INITIAL (CONCEPTUAL) SKETCHES

20—

A.Ø3 | Composition/GenerationThe great Modernist architects’ deft control of formal composition is widely celebrated, analysed and published. Frank Lloyd Wright masterfully created spaces full of programmatic fluidity and poetry, utilising such arrangements as we might now know as the ‘pin-wheel plan’, and the implied spacial symmetry found in many of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s work adorns many architectural textbook covers.

The ‘hand of God’ approach to the formal composition of architecture and its slow recede away from contemporary architectural discourse parallels the increased discussion and adoption of generative design tools. The ubiquity of computational representation has increased the use of digital design tools, and with that, their availability, leading some to call this new paradigm a contemporary ‘style’.

It is hard to say whether or not the advent of the computer is the sole contributor to this new aesthetic (for generative mathematics has been around for decades), but it is important to note that the majority of built architecture, arguably the most relevant architectural output for society, falls outside of this collective circlejerk of parametric and generative architectural theory.

FIG 12 | BRICK VILLA - THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK, I PROMISE

22—

A.Ø3 | Composition/GenerationSwarm Urbanism - Kokkugia17

FIG 13 | SWARM URBANISM

—23

This project (and this sort of project) is one that has a design approach I believe will last long after the discussions on parametric ‘style’ has blown over and is a truly pragmatic, responsive way of using generative computation tools to design ‘smart’ environments.

Swarm Urbanism is a speculative design project that uses concepts of emergence and swarm behaviour in order to re-visualise and rethink the process of developing Melbourne’s Docklands region. There is a move away from the traditional ‘problem solving’ approach to urban planning but instead a pre-programmed set of criteria inherent within the individual autonomous agents who then self-organise. This is an inherently more flexible design approach, with the input of (by the very nature of human interactions) quickly mutating datasets to produce just as quickly, a new, reactive result.

Kokkugia’s implementation of non-generic agents is also furthers this, as instead of merely being a simulation of swarming agent behaviour in an endeavour to design around it, the system’s agent ecology allows a ‘collective intelligence’ to create its own environment, agents somewhat reminiscent of the ‘design intelligence Fry postulated would solve humanity’s problems.

FIG 14 | TIMED ITERATIVE OUTPUT

FIG 15 | TIMED ITERATIVE OUTPUT

24—

Voromuro is a geometric art installation designed by NADAAA, built in Boston, Massachusetts. It takes the form of an undulating piece that fills the room and encourages the exploration of the bounding exhibition space as well as the ‘envelope’ found within Voromuro via suggested movement paths within it.

NADAAA chose to diagrammatically implement Voronoi cells into this installation because of its ‘ability to establish a key reciprocity between is parametric and structural qualities’. This also lends itself to the dialogue that is apparent within the form of the individual cells and their structural responsibilities. For example, the polygonal cells act like structural keystones, while more rounded, circular members act as columns.

From the construction details, Voromuro is entirely made up of 2.5D developable surfaces,

which indicates that the algorithmic design process took into account the constructibility and nature of the resultant output’s Euclidean curvature.

It is perhaps interesting to note that this is a work of installation art, which some might argue is the ‘cheat’s’ response to art (did photography kill the painting?), somewhat further blurring the line between the architecture/art dichotomy. This argument is rife within contemporary discourse, but it is perhaps more pertinent to decide how best to personally approach generative design.

A.Ø3 | Composition/GenerationVoromuro - NADAAA18

FIG 16 | CELLULAR VARIATION

—25

Voromuro - NADAAA18

FIG 17 | VOROMURO - NOTE INVITING GEOMETRYFIG 18 | VOROMURO

26—

A.Ø4 | ConclusionPatrik Schumacher’s a bit of a //insert anything you’d like//

Part A introduced a large set of often opposing viewpoints on one of the most contentious developments within architectural discourse. Suddenly the art versus architecture argument has reached its fin de siècle and been replaced by the digital, very much in the same way ‘analogue’ architecture has.

Evolution is inevitable.

Realisation of abstract forms seemed the most direct approach to the implementation of digital tools, allowing the constructibility of impossibly complex geometry possible, but then approach too, would evolve. The conception of forms *ad infinitum* was suddenly possible and paired with the aforementioned pragmatisation of construction, built architecture suddenly developed a new aesthetic. I believe that computational design within contemporary architectural discourse is one whose output can very easily fall into the clichéd, producing a specific aesthetic or ‘style’ that is perhaps best avoided if not for lack of strong conceptual intent, then visual variation and interest. However, formal intent does not have to mean idea conception through traditional *parti*-based architectural process, but merely as an active means away from parametric arbitrariness. This stance poses no new innovation, but is a personal exercise

in design reductionism; to more formally utilise a paradigm shifting set of tools, rather than allow the tools become an excuse away from formalism. In any case, is true innovation possible in an increasing connected world? Was the previous question entirely too clichéd? Isn’t everything iterative?

I guess a complete and utter disregard for aesthetic considerations actually pronounces the ‘form-finding’ nature of much generative design completely moot, and also somewhat incorrect given LAGI’s requirement of ‘sculptural’ forms. However, it isn’t hard to prioritise the physical and/or technical requirements of the LAGI brief.

‘Architecture begins with an idea’19 they say. I like to think that computers, while taking away our ability to, say, actually have any friends, has left the core of architecture intact.

—27

A.Ø5 | Learning OutcomesSo as to make sure I’m not useless...

‘OMG this look(sic) awesome!’

The above is probably the most common (if not the best) justification I had for architectural design. However within these few weeks, I have developed an understanding that architecture is so much more than, well, a fine arts course.

Contentiousness is not a new concept for me, but current architectural discourse offers a really unhindered look into the deeper-reaching facets of architecture and forces an inward look at my personal design processes. This understanding of digital processes should in turn allow an understanding of past architectural precedents, and while ‘improvement’ can very much be subjective, application of performative criteria can very easily allow relevant modifications.

Rhino and Grasshopper are tremendously powerful, also somewhat owing to what can only be described as a small army of 3rd party developers. Working with both of these tools is distinctively fun, giving the same interface and sense limitless possibility as working with LEGO (Be careful, Hans! You’ll create shitty clichés by merely playing!). But I believe this accessibility has everything to do with digital tools’ ubiquity.

This new understanding of architecture, especially in its current state, will hopefully produce work that is more architecturally meaningful. Intent and process are everything.

...But I’m not stupid enough to think that the result doesn’t matter.

28—

A.Ø6 | Algorithmic SketchbookThings hereafter are in here because they are interesting, took a long time for my rubbish computer to process so I felt them worthy of placement here, or they just, to my eye at least, look pretty.

Otherwise they’re in here because I said so.

Elementary, really...

—29

From top to bottom, these three sketches based on the same Grasshopper Python Script, but I have inserted parameters or made restrictions in directionality.

1 | The original Walker, created using points with inherently random values assigned with relationship with time. Note the three-axis movement.

2 | Loosely based on musical waveforms, the Python Script was altered to restrict movement in the y-axis, with logical results as seen here.

3 | A box-based approximation of the 2nd form created using OcTree. A very rudimentary rationalisation of the Walker tube form.

Iterative Experimentation With Singular Source Code

30—

Gratuitous Sculptures

—31

A.Ø1/2/3 | ReferencesIn order of use~

1 | Benoît Mandelbrot, ‘Review of “The Fractal Geometry of Nature”’, The American Mathematical Monthly, 91 (1984), 594.

2 | Dieter Rams, Objectified, dir. by Gary Hustwit (Swiss Dots, 2009).

3 | Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (United Kingdom: Berg Publishers, 2008), p. 1 - 16.

4 | The Living New York, Hy-Fi, <http://thelivingnewyork.com/hy-fi.htm> [accessed 19 August 2014]

5 | MoMA PS1, Hy-Fi by The Living, <http://momaps1.org/yap/view/17> [accessed 19 August 2014]

6 | Interview with David Benjamin, <http://archinect.com/news/article/103170947/interview-with-david-benjamin-creator-of-moma-ps1-s-hy-fi-mushroom-tower> [accessed 19 August 2014]

7 | Architect Named to Transform Courtyard at MoMA PS1, <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/architect-named-to-transform-courtyard-at-moma-ps1/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0> [accessed 19 August 2014]

8 | Jury Citation: Shigeru Ban, <http://www.pritzkerprize.com/2014/jury-citation> [accessed 19 August 2014]

9 | Shigeru Ban Architects, Cardboard Cathedral, <http://www.shigerubanarchitects.com/works/2013_cardboard-cathedral/index.html> [accessed 19 August 2014]

10 | Alan Turing said so.

11 | Daniel Davis, A History of Parametric, <http://www.danieldavis.com/a-history-of-parametric/> [accessed 21 August 2014]

12 | Sketches of Frank Gehry, dir. by Sydney Pollack (Sony Pictures Classics, 2006).

13 | Perry Kulper, The Draftery, <http://www.archdaily.com/512682/the-draftery-dispelling-the-belief-that-architectural-drawing-is-dead/> [accessed 19 August 2014]

14 | Brady Peters, ‘Realising the Architectural Idea: Computational Design at Herzog & De Meuron’, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 56-61.

15 | Erik Spiekermann, The Geometry of Type (United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson, 2013), p. 6.

16 | Foster & Partners, Copenhagen Elephant House, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/media/940593/Foster_plus_Partners_RD_Paper_Copenhagen_Elephant_House.pdf> [accessed 21 August 2014]

17 | Kokkugia, Swarm Urbanism, <http://www.kokkugia.com/swarm-urbanism> [accessed 19 August 2014]

18 | NADAAA, Voromuro, <http://www.nadaaa.com/#/projects/voromuro/> [accessed 19 August]

19 | Matthew Frederick, 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School (America: MIT Press, 2007) p. 14.

—32

Merci!A.Ø1/2/3 | Image Credits

Figure 1 | Shahn Griffin, ‘Fucking About’, photograph (2013)

Figure 2 | Bob Blaylock, ‘Mycelium Mold’, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycelium#mediaviewer/File:20100815_1818_Mold.jpg>[accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 3 | The Living New York, ‘Hy-fi’, < http://thelivingnewyork.com/The-Living-Hy-Fi-01_V2c.jpg>[accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 4 | The Living New York, ‘Hy-Fi’, <http://thelivingnewyork.com/The-Living-Hy-Fi-02_V2d.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 5 | ‘Cardboard Cathedral Sketches’, <http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/lauren/cardboard%20cathedral/cc03.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 6 | ‘Cardboard Cathedral Model’, <http://www.designmiami.com/designlog/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3740.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 7 | ‘Messe Basel New Hall’, <http://s3.amazonaws.com/europaconcorsi/project_images/3882687/H_dM_Messe_Hall_Basel_%C2%A9Hufton_Crow_004_full.jpg> [accessed 22 August 2014]

Figure 8 | ‘Messe Basel New Hall’, <http://s3.amazonaws.com/europaconcorsi/project_images/3882742/H_dM_Messe_Hall_Basel_%C2%A9Hufton_Crow_030_full.jpg> [accessed 22 August 2014]

Figure 9 | ‘Elephant House’, <http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/copenhagen/elephant_house_foster100608_nigelyoung_03.jpg> [accessed 21 August 2014]

Figure 10 | Norman Foster, ‘Sketch’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/media/940593/Foster_plus_Partners_RD_Paper_Copenhagen_Elephant_House.pdf> [accessed 21 August 2014]

Figure 11 | Foster & Partners, ‘Parametric System’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/media/940593/Foster_plus_Partners_RD_Paper_Copenhagen_Elephant_House.pdf> [accessed 21 August 2014]

Figure 12 | ‘Brick Villa’, <http://places.designobserver.com/media/images/heymann-folk-art-2-zoom.jpg> [accessed 22 August 2014]

Figure 13 | Kokkugia, ‘Swarm Urbanism 02’, <http://payload3.cargocollective.com/1/2/68467/2360130/02.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 14 | Kokkugia, ‘Swarm Urbanism 04’, <http://payload3.cargocollective.com/1/2/68467/2360130/04.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 15 | Kokkugia, ‘Swarm Urbanism 05’, <http://payload3.cargocollective.com/1/2/68467/2360130/04.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 16 | NADAAA, ‘Voromuro_9’, <http://www.nadaaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voromuro_9.png> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 17 | NADAAA, ‘Voromuro_10’, <http://www.nadaaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voromuro_11.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]

Figure 18 | NADAAA, ‘Voromuro_11’, <http://www.nadaaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voromuro_10.jpg> [accessed 19 August 2014]