1

2

C O N T E N T S

P A R TA

P A R TB

8-910-11 12-1718-19

2021

22-23

4-5

A 1.01 A 1.02A2A3A4A5A6

IT’S ME

P A R TC

3

4

IT’S ME

5

I believe it is my family’s fault for my love of ar-chitecture- for the better or for the worse. I can spe-cifically remember my father acting as come sort of architectural tour guide when we visited the iconic buildings that shaped Hong Kong’s skyline. And since then, I have been keen on building and design, except for 2005 when I wanted to be a cat.

Architecture to me is a physical statement of one’s own flare. Whether it is a small house, or a famed sky-scraper, they are all testament to an architects’ sense of beauty and dimension. On a selfish note, I want to become an architect so that my flare and my percep-tions of beauty can be built so that everyone else can see and understand my mind- I suppose that is the ma-jor reason why I like architecture so much.

As I am sure I am able to produce designs by hand, this new journey of digital design, however, leads me into a realm of apprehensiveness and curiosity.

Let us see how I would fare.

6

7A

8

9

A 1 . 0 1

A leap away from convention-al modernist architecture in the early 20th century was that of Antoni Gaudi’s works. Whilst others designed by style and perhaps geometry; Gaudi’s works were at times, concentrated on math-ematics. Although the method of sus-pending chains was not his invention, it was his execution of the elaborate sys-tems of hanging chains in order to de-termine the correct and elegant curves and angles of his works (fig.2), which bore his name into the realm of haute architecture.

The practice of catenary was a well- established method for mathema-ticians and physicists as a way of

determining the parabolic arc in order to determine angles of stress and com-pression. In Gaudi’s case, he applied this method into his architecture (fig. 3, fig. 4). His catenary models were both mod-els of design, but also a mathematical blackboard that which enabled to him to refine, perfect, rid errors and construct; physically 1. This was a huge break-through, as the construction of large arches and domes were conventional-ly designed from ground-up. However Gaudi’s employ of such system allowed him to analyse the stress and tension points of his buildings-to-be in a top-to-ground manner, which not only al-lowed for mathematical testing, but also gave birth to something entirely new.

fig.1

fig.2 fig.3 fig.4

10

The ICD/ ITKE Pavilion (fig. 7) is a breakthrough not only in digital design, but also in the production of the installation. In our contemporary fascination (although I am sure it will last) of parametric digital design, the pavilion was a project that was pure-ly designed computationally 2. Not to reveal an unknown revelation in the design industry, the pavilion was pure-ly a testament to the current mode of technology in computational de-sign, which the University considered

it suitable as a piece that showed off the possibility of biomimetic design and computational technology. However, apart from the design element of this project, the creation of the pavilion it-self, primarily made up of winding and weaving carbon fibre and fibreglass fil-aments into a fabric-like surface (fig.5), was completely executed by robots (fig.6). This further proves the accessi-bility and flexibility of digital design in both the design process and in produc-tion.

A 1 . 0 2

fig.5 fig.6

fig.7

11

12

A 2fig.8 fig.9

In many ways, computation-al design is on one hand a blessing to the imaginative, but also a lie to the unnoticing eye. In the contemporary climate of computational design, it is often heralded for its endless possibil-ities, flexibility, and approachability, and without a doubt, digital design in the 21st century has been able to chal-lenge the way one designs anything. However, the debate is suspended over the use of computational design- whether it is to be a tool to the imagi-native, or a brain for the interested; as both these concepts are not akin.

The former, where computational de-sign is merely a tool to aesthetically en-hance a piece of architecture, or where computational technology has been applied to realise of predetermined human conceptualised form (fig. 10), has been a popular choice with many Contemporary architects. Famous archi-tect Zaha Hadid, is a prominent individ-ual who has been able to convey many of her ideas of design through compu-tational devices. And surprisingly, many of her designs are actually executed and built (fig.9), proving that computational aided design is not only a novel invention, but also applicable to the ‘real’ world. Furthermore, Herzog and de Meuron, also applies parametrically designed

13

fig.10

algorithms, it has two particular effects. Firstly, without any analysis, computers are able to navigate complex sums and figures in striking speed and precision. When design is to be based entirely on al-gorithms, it may create some of the most complex and sophisticated designs that humans are not only unable to imagine in the first place, but would take a im-measurable amount of time if they were able to come define such complex algo-rithm in the first place. Many firms such as Digital Grotesque have been success-ful in creating sophisticated shapes and forms (fig. 8), which are entirely created by a series of algorithms. These forms are not only complex, but in many ways,

facades to enhance the design of their structures (fig. 13, fig.14).

However, as pointed out, the issue is dis-puted whether architects are to design buildings which only uses computation-al design as a tool/ carrier to convey their ideas in a workable manner; or whether the designer is to rely on com-putational software to develop a design that is entirely based on computation-al algorithms. The debate is trying to weigh up the true prospect of computa-tional design, whether it is to be a tool, or to be the mastermind.

Alternatively, when computational de-sign is the based predominantly on

14

15fig.11

confusingly beautiful. However, in many cases, due to the sheer complexity of these forms, the concept of algorithmic based design is a concept that is hard to grasp and undesirable, thus putting the efforts of ‘pure’ algorithmic design in a level of research, experimentation, and as pure example, but not applicable as a desirable architectural system.

A chord is needed to be struck between these very different, very distinct, and very theoretical concepts of design, whether the real mastermind of design is to be computational technology, or the human brain.

Fortunately, the idea of applying compu-tational design is not ‘one or the other’, both can be able to complement each other. This middle ground is achieved by mixing the best of both fields, thus rede-fining the design industry in the manner of its algorithmic precision, accuracy, responsiveness, reliability (keeping re-cord of every movement), yet allowing the designer to have full control over the direction of the entire design.

As a loose example, computational de-sign is able to help set limitations of cer-tain elements concerning architecture (e.g., space constraints, stress levels, restrictions, etc.), whilst working with n the boundaries of the designer in the

fig.12

16

This system allows computational de-sign to flow freely according the design-ers’ will, where the initial shape maybe conceptualised by the said designer, but progressive alterations into forming a piece of architecture to be executed by algorithms which may also be predeter-mined by the designer. A related exam-ple would include MAD architect’s Abso-lute Towers (fig. 11) and Oleg Soroko’s Parametric Bench (Fig. 13) 4, where the concept is carried out, resulting in a sculptural piece of design.

most flexible and complementary man-ner. Further more, concepts such as Su-performula, enables designers, and in many cases, architects, to parametrical-ly designs forms that navigates around generated algorithms (following equa-tions, parabolic functions, vectors, trig-onometry, etc.).

This process is achieved by firstly gen-erating a 2D form that is based on a su-performula to certain algorithmic pa-rameters determined by the designer. Then in increments, the formula chang-es slightly as it produces the next form, until a whole series of forms that that differs from the previous is produced progressively (Fig. 12) 3.

fig.13

17

18

A 3sponsive to the potential of parametric design in regards to its ability to gener-ate according to algorithmic limitations.

Contemporarily, computational design is limited to the ambitious and academ-ic. As cited in A1.02, pure computational design is usually still in its infancy of be-ing recognized as a viable, aesthetically acceptable method of design, thus, when concerning the industry, it is viewed as rather apprehensive and too complex for appreciation, and currently is usual-ly seen as research installations. How-ever, this is not to suggest that the am-bitious and the academic are useless, in fact firms such as Digital Grotesque have tried to “create an architecture that de-fies classification and reductionism” in order to “create a form that appears at once synthetic and organic”. This is tes-tament that, although not sought after in the professional field, is nonetheless established as an art form/ design itself that many may find appealing (fig.12).

Although computational technology has been accepted in the wider design in-dustry and has been widely applied to constructed forms, script writing has a story of its own. Software designers have loosely applied basic and funda-mental applications for the user to flexi-bly adapt algorithms to their own design approach. However, since computation-al design is gaining popularity due to its responsiveness in problem solving and adaptability, computational technology

As suggested by Oxman, the con-trast of traditional design practices (that of pen to paper) and that of computa-tional digital design is the contestation of ‘formation preceding form’. This basic theory is more in line of those of compu-tational aided design, where the forma-tion of the design principle, that of com-puter generated/ aided algorithms and mathematics, would become the basis of the design. Adversely, in traditional pen-to-paper design, the form precedes formation in the way that an architect or designer realises a form, before solving the problem of how to execute the de-sired design.

In regards to ‘the industry’, the contem-porary climate for computational design is strong in architecture, but limited to a tool in enhancing design, thus only playing second fiddle. Renowned firms such as Fosters + Partners and Herzog and de Meuron are well known for their use of computational design in many of their architecture. However, for Foster, computational design is limited to aid-ing structural purposes of the general design; as for Herzog and de Meuron, the use if computational design is usu-ally nothing more than as a decoration on facades of their design, as could be seen in their De Young Museum (fig.13, 14). Furthermore, as suggested earlier, architects such as Zaha Hadid seems to place form/ parametric aesthetics be-fore and over functionality 5, thus ren-dering her approach seemingly unre-

19

is being tested in more and more dif-ferent realms and types of design. This leads to designers having to write algo-rithmic scripts of their own to fulfill their set requirements for whatever task they are to accomplish. This suggests that, although computational technology is ‘up to date’, it is obviously unable to ca-ter for every designer/ architect in the world, thus allowing designers the flex-ibility in writing their own algorithmic scripts in order to fulfill their require-ments, is another example of the flexi-bility, adaptability and user-friendliness of computational technology.

fig.15fig.14

20

A 4 So, the debate stands fast: wheth-er computational design is a mere tool, or is it to become the ‘leader’ of design? ¿Por que no los dos? In the course of research and discovery, I came to the conclusion that the cooperation of both extremes of the spectrum in regards to the prospects to computational design would be most appropriate for address-ing the brief. Through parts A1, A2, and A3, I have become keenly interested by the process of replicating and alterna-tion in the approach of the superfor-mula. From my research, I believe that superformula based structures are nat-ural, striking, and expansive, making the whole approach deeply interesting and flexible to suit my own likings. Further-more, its simplistic nature that is gov-erned by algorithms proves logical and acceptable.

Personally I believe this is especially in-novative in the way that it bridges over the contentions of the debate. On one hand, it is able to respond to the design of the architect (in other words, it is able to retain a ‘human’ touch to the design, thus eliminating alienation and discom-fort); on the other, it is able to introduce the mathematical precision, flexibility, sustainability, and logic into parametric design, thus addressing the problems in the ‘smartest’ way possible, eliminating the occasional and overlooked possibili-ties humans tend to make.

As can be seen in the examples provid-ed, designs that are made when combin-ing the human designed principles then expanded and developed by logical and precise computational technology, can result in striking, practical and ‘useable’ pieces of architecture. In reference to the beneficiaries of this new technique of design, the groups that may gain from this practice includes architects, design-ers, landscape architects and engineers. Subsidiary beneficiaries may include the occupants of architecture (being able to use space that may be mathematically and scientifically designed to meet safe-ty and comfort standards).

In analysis, the list of direct and indirect beneficiaries of computational technol-ogy is in fact rather limited, simply due to the small impact, both positively and negatively, on society as a whole. Cer-tainly, with the advancement of compu-tational technology in the foreseeable fu-ture, it may give rise for other industries (perhaps in production, or software de-veloping) or even create industries that will benefit for servicing computational design. However, currently, as these said beneficiaries are yet to mature or to ex-ist, it is therefore difficult to comment on the effects of computational design as if it were a huge revelation to realms beyond that of design.

21

A 5 Throughout these several weeks of research, discovery and further ex-ploration into the topic of computa-tional design, I have been able to take a fresh perspective to the possibilities of computati0onal design. Originally, be-ing very sceptical and apprehensive on the potential of computational design, I considered it to be a mere tool as to con-veying the more interesting design of some individuals. However, through re-search and a huge learning curve, I have come to the conclusion that, although my original pretentions remain, I have also been able to understand the bene-fits of computational design in its abili-ty to navigate around parameters in the fastest and most logical way. Although it has the be said that I believe in the true value of human design in architecture, as opposed to forms built completely by set computational algorithms, I have learnt that, it is possible to incorporate the qualities of computational design in order to enhance side by side to conven-tional, desirable, pleasing, feasible, and functional pieces of architecture.

22

A 6

Following Week 2 exercise, the ‘basket’ I became more adventurous in ap-plying it to the twisting form that I had made for the previous week. The twisting effect is especially interesting. In making the latticed form, I recognised the shape and structure of the form to be remarkably similar to those of the Guangzhou TV tower, and Zaha Hadid’s proposed hotel design in Macau. Furthermore, I applied the exercise to a more simple shape with more lines to create a three-way weave of pipes. The outcome reminded me of Norman Foster’s British Museum Canopy, and the lattice shell design for the French Pavilion for the Shanghai Expo in 2010.

23

24

S O U R C E SIMAGES

http://www.danieldavis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/tragwerkslehre082_Page_3.jpeg

http://cooksipgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Gaudi-La-Pedrera-Hanging-Chains.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Sagra-da_Familia_01.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Sagra-da_Familia_nave_roof_detail.jpg

http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2013/03/dezeen_Research-Pavilion-by-ICD-and-ITKE_6.jpg

http://www.evolo.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Stutt-gart-ICD-ITKE-research-pavilion-04.jpg

http://fabricatedrealities.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/5136a95ab3fc4bf0a800022e_icd-itke-re-search-pavilion-university-of-stuttgart-faculty-of-architec-ture-and-urban-planning_icd-itke_rp12_image1011.jpg

http://designplaygrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/digital-grotesque03.jpg

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/51e4638eea-b8ea7840000000/the-otherworldly-architecture-of-zaha-hadid.jpg

http://buildipedia.com/images/masterformat/Channels/In_Stu-dio/2011.09.13_edifici_torre_espiral/sketches_zaha_hadid_archi-tects/edifici_sketch_03.jpg

http://www.peruarki.com/wp-content/uploads/importa-dos/369/peruarki3.jpg

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

25

http://internet.henn.com/sites/default/files/styles/detail_land-scape/public/research/superformula-tower/images/cc.henn.studyimagessuperformulatower1.jpg?itok=GlySuJUm

http://www.iam-architect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/IA-vgre-1.jpg

http://www.caad.arch.ethz.ch/blog/wp-content/up-loads/2013/09/installation4.jpg

http://piecedwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/080324-san-francisco-114.jpg

http://zenandtheartoftravel.com/wp-content/up-loads/2012/05/DSC_0104.jpg

http://eliinbar.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1233_zaha_sketch-8-edit.jpg

http://www.peruarki.com/wp-content/uploads/importa-dos/369/peruarki3.jpg

http://piecedwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/080324-san-francisco-114.jpg

http://zenandtheartoftravel.com/wp-content/up-loads/2012/05/DSC_0104.jpg

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

26

REFERENCES“Gaudi: La Sagrada Familia Museum”, Adagio journal, last ac-cessed 20th August 2014 at http://adagiojournal.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/gaudis-hanging-chain-models/

“ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion”, Institute for Computational De-sign, last accessed 18th August 2014 at http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=7653

“Superformula Tower”, HENN, last accessed 19th August 2014 at http://www.henn.com/en/research/superformula-tower

“Parametric Bench”, Archello, last accessed 19th August 2014 at http://www.archello.com/en/product/parametric-bench

“‘Aggressive and banal’- Zaha Hadid’s Serpentine Sackler Gal-lery”, bdonline.co.uk, last accessed at 20th August 2014, http://www.bdonline.co.uk/aggressive-and-banal-zaha-hadids-serpen-tine-sackler-gallery/5061185.article

1

2

3

4

5

27

28

29

30