mancuso gianni 637278

STUDIO AIR2015, SEMESTER 1, PHILIP BELESKYGIANNI MANCUS0 637278

Table of Contents

4 Introduction

5 Past Work

6 Preface

9 A1//Architecture as a Discourse

10 The Sydney Opera House

14 One Central Park Sydney

19 A2//Design Computation

20 Times Eureka Pavillion

24 Birds Nest Stadium

29 A3//Composition & Generation

30 Shanghai Tower

34 Louis Vutton Centre

38 A4// Learning Outcomes

39 A5// Conclusion

40 A6// Appendix/Algorithmic Sketches

44 References/Citations

FIGURE 1: COVERSHEET -

Oleg Soroko’s Parametric Bench

4 CONCEPTUALISATION CONCEPTUALISATION 5

My name is Gianni Mancuso. I’m a third year undergraduate student at the University Of Melbourne. I was born in Melbourne, and have lived here my entire life.

My interest in architecture is drawn from various areas of the profession - from the aesthetic to the highly technical construction aspect. I am fuelled by a desire to create built form that is evocative and creates an emotional response to its users - but also by a desire to create useful spaces that are efficient and creative in the way they foster human interaction.

I have previous experience in CAD software such as AutoCad, Revit and limited experience in Rhino. I have adequate knowledge of using programs such as InDesign and the Adobe Suite.

Parametric Modelling using Grasshopper is not something new to me - but it is something I have never done before. I am eager to explore the world of Rhino through Grasshopper. I am perhaps most interested in learning to develop large amounts of architectural possibilities with such ease. A massive interest of mine is to understand how a parametric form is feasible in terms of construction.

Introduction Past WorkMy past work includes Studio work from Studio Water, in which the brief was to examine, analyse and interpret the work of a master architect, and then design a building using their architectural principles.

I think this studiio taught me how to analyse other works of architecture and understand how they think and create spaces. Technically, I learnt a great amount about how to use software like Revit, and how to produce 3d imagery and models. `

“IF I was to realise new buildings, I should have to have new technique...”Frank Lloyd Wright

FIGURE 2: HEYDAR ALIYEV CENTREZAHA HADID

“Much of what we know of institutions, the distribution of power, social relations, cultural values, and everyday life is mediated by the built environment. Thus, to make architecture is to construct knowledge, to build vision. To make architecture is to map the world in some way, to intervene, to signify: it is a political act. Architecture, then, as discourse, discipline, and form, operates at the intersection of power, relations of production, culture, and representation and is instrumental to the construction of our identities and our differences, to shaping how we know the world.” 1

Dutton & Hurst Mann, 1996


Architecture has become much more than the simple concept of shelter - it has become an entity that embodies our culture, our values, our beliefs and our standards in a physical form.

The way we design in the present will change the way we live in the future - it will change our standards, our values, our patterns of behaviour and our culture. To build and form our environment around us is to dictate how we are going to live for years to come.

I think it is the responsibility of the architect leading a modern practice to understand this - and to recognise that the spaces and deeper functions of the built environment (cultural, political) are just as important as the aesthetic.

I think that modern architectural practices must understand that they are ‘map[ping] the world’1 - they are mapping the cultural values, the political values and the social values that are seen as important at present,. If architects can embody the values of our society in our built environment to a high quality then we will see true innovation.

An architect must contribute positively to society and become an agent for innovation and change,.

There is an opportunity for architects, as sculptors and designers of the built world to innovate - to produce more than a blueprint. Designers must look beyond the what and how and delve into the WHY.

Architecture can be defined as a method of sculpting the built environment to fulfill societal needs. It is vital to therefore ensure that as an architect you consider with utmost sincerity and importance the societal context you design within.

“In the past, design was about the form and function of things. These features, which were limited in space and time, could be delivered in a fixed form, such as a blueprint. In today’s ultranetworked world, it makes more sense to think of design as a process that continuously defines a system’s rules ratherthan its outcomes.”2

Thackara, 2005

A1//Architecture as a Discourse


The SydneyOpera House//SydneyJorn Utzen

FIGURE 3: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE


Jorn Utzen

The Sydney Opera House, designed by Swedish Architect Jorn Utzon embodies the innovation and creativity of modern architecture.

The design - conceptually based on sails, was derived from Utzon’s passion for sailing and the connection between sailing and the bay4. It is an Australian icon.

The ambitious design of the Opera House is itself a contribution towards the field of architectural discourse. The cultural effect of the Opera House has been enormous - with the building becoming the icon for Australian architecture and an icon that brings Australia into global attention. It’s important to note how a building such as the Opera House can alter the fabric of a cityscape to such an extent. The key is the innovation in the process of design that has led to this.

Unorthodox methods such as those used by Utzon - methods involving a liberated approach to form - i.e. one not hindered by practicallity and supposed construction constraints - explain why the building is so important culturally and socially. Something so innovative and on such a scale will define the city - if not the country indefinitely.

The opera house projects the notion of Australia being a global identity - one that has the ability to use world leading architectural practices to complete innovative designs.

"It stands by itself as one of the indisputable masterpieces of human creativity, not only in the 20th century but in the history of humankind."3

ExPERT EVALUATION REPORT TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, 2007

The construction methods, in addition to the design methods are of vital importance in design futuring. A layperson - if not a professional, practicing architect will look at the Opera House in awe of the construction techniques (pre-cast concrete ribbed vaults) used. In this way the Opera House has brought a certain level of awareness of construction capabilities - from a world leading architect.

This built form expanded future possibilities in the way off its scale and its innovative and ambitious design and construction. Architectural discourse has traditionally been about style5 - however the Opera House was a design futuring exercise because it transcended that concept through its form and its cultural impact.

The built environment around the harbour has been completely revamped - as if the Opera House was an anchor point - stating that this is the cultural centre of Sydney. The site is still used in the same way but the experience has been multiplied - and will continue to multiply as this anchor point is re-inforced in the future. The theory used here is one of experimentation with different design processes. As a designer constrained in their ideation process, it would be difficult to imagine such as concept. The Opera House is the embodiment of ideation and fabrication - it shows innovation at both levels and the outcome is a cultural, global icon.

...Design futuring through bold

ideation and construction...

FIGURE: 5 THE UNIqUE CONSTRUCTION METHOD DERIVED FROM THE UNIqUE ARCHITECTURE

FIGURE 4: THE UNIqUE DESIGN OF THE OPERA HOUSE IN SECTION.

The SydneyOpera House//Sydney

FIGURE 6:THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. REMINISCENT OF FRANK GEHRY’S METHOD - CONCEPTUALISE AND UTILISE TECHNOLOGY TO IMPLEMENT THE DESIGN PROCESS


One Central Park // SydneyJean Nouvel, Patrick Bllanc & PTW Architects

FIGURE 7: ONE CENTRAL PARK SYDNEY

CONCEPTUALISATION 17

One Central Park is an innovative building and will contribute to the future of design and construction due to the bold proposition it makes: that we can live in a vertical, dense society and still ensure we retain greenery and nature in our society. It is an antithesis to the notion that a vertical city is associated with a lack of vegetation and nature. The sheer nature and ambition of this construction and design will ensure that One Central Park will influence skyscraper design for years to come.

Perhaps the most advanced technology present in this design is the unique Heliostat that is hanging off a cantilevered section of the taller tower. The Heliostat is a means of providing sunlight to the nearby parks7. Not only did the Heliostat require immense engineering input, it also required large amounts of calculations to account for wind load and structural load, i.e. compression, bending, tension. This project is radical in the sense that is has proposed and fulfilled something that is incredibly difficult. It has succesfully combined two supposed opposites - lush gardens and greenery and the cold, barren skyscraper.

One Central Park // SydneyJean Nouvel, Patrick Bllanc< PTW Architects

FIGURE 9: THE GREEN WALLS - BRINGING NEW GREEN LIFE INTO THE CITY ON A LARGE SCALE.

FIGURE 8: HOW THIS BUILDING FUTURES DESIGN THROUGH TECHNOLOGY: FEEDING THE CITY’S PARK BY DIRECTING SUNLIGHT.

“Landscape is architecture...Here we have created a continuity, so the façade extends the park into the sky”6

Jean Nouvel

The architect Jean Nouvel has integrated two opposites and created an amalgamation of idealogies in living and design. One Central Park will pose questions to city dwellers: how can we integrate this greenery into our built form on all levels? How can we introduce a new dimension to dense city architecture?

The interesting thing is that the building itself, due to its heliostat and reflective capabilities - it can literally feed the natural environment around it due to the purposeful direction of sunlight. This is a design futuring proposition - to create buildings that will live off, and feed the environment around them.

This proposition could lead to the notion of buildings feeding off each others reflective capabilities. Why not utilise the sunlight reflected off of the large glass clad structures lining our city streets?

“The plants will live as long as the residents want them to..”8

Matthew Dodds, PTW Architects

FIGURE 10: THE BUILDING FROM STREET LEVEL

“CAD might conspire against creative thought […]” by encouraging“fake” creativity.9Lawson (1999)

Design Computation is a mathematic, algorithmic approach to design. It involves setting parameters, within which our design is formulated - and any alteration of those parameters - be it slight or very large - will change the design. Design is reduced to a set of dependant relationships that can create an ability to produce thousands of different design possibilities.

The idea of computing being implemented in design will have a wide range of possible outcomes. An interesting point is made when we consider how much of the our creativity is producing a design output - and how much belongs to the CAD, or design computation software we are using. It could lead to ‘designers’ producing forms and structures with no valid intent - but rather produced because it is easy to do so. It will require a balance between creative input to develop design through CAD and the use of computation - to ensure that we do not sacrifice the intent of design - which is often to meet a brief that has varying levels of intuitive/creative/logical input.

The notion that design computation is still a ‘tool’ and remote from the design practice is in essence true. Firms often do not have the time or capital required to train employees to utilise design computation to its fullest extent. There are also constraints on the client side - with many clients seeking to lower costs through quick results and easily resolved designs. However this concept can be quite different as the scales of practices change. For example if a masters student from the University Of Melbourne with a high level of knowledge ran their own practice with design computation as their main ideation/design generation method - then perhaps it is feasible. On a larger scale for a firm employing 100 people, it would be difficult to run jobs using such techniques if most employees across the board do not have the skill base.

Design using parametric/associative/dependent relationships between modelled 3d components is already prevalent and the industry standard, i.e. Revit. However in the future if the workforce is up-skilled through advanced computational education than perhaps it will become more feasible.

“It is possible to claim that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that

are supposed to free their imagination.”11


A2//Design Computation

“Design computation is still only seen by many as ‘just a tool’ and remote from the real business of creative design [...]”.10

Frazer (2006)


Times Eureka Pavillion//Kew Gardens

NEX Architecture//

Marcus Barnett

FIGURE 11: TIMES EUREKA PAVILLION ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT


FIGURE 12: THE CELLULAR PLANT STRUCTURE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE PAVILLION.

Times Eureka Pavillion//Kew Gardens

NEX Architecture//

Marcus Barnett

FIGURE 14: THE DESIGN PROCESS OUTLINED - HOW COMPUTATION CAN PANEL GEOMETRY.

The Times Eureka Pavillion is a small scale example of how computational design can allow for advanced ideation and creation of forms that exhibit physical properties of natural forms.

The Pavillion itself is a rectangular prism that is split up into sections and substructures that are derived from plants. This was achieved using parametric calculations to apply patterns and panels to a simple rectangular form. Not only does this allow for bio-mimicry on a larger and more efficient scale, but it allows for an easier construction/production method due to the ease of splicing, splitting and cutting surfaces into easily produced segments.

The nature of such design is evidence that computers, defined by Kalay as ‘superb analytical engines’12 that never tire, can process and apply what we, the creative engines input, and generate an intuitive and creative outcome. The Pavillion is an example of this - albeit on a small scale.

The computational design process combines the intuitive and creative aspects of the human brain with the powerful processing, logic and raw analytical power to produce a positive outcome that has solved the design ‘problem’ at hand.

The image below outlines a similar process - with the intuitive/creative component left out. However architects NEX architecture articulate this process in an elegant manner - stating that the pavillion ‘extended on the design of the garden by analysing the cellular structure of the plants’13.

This is a vitally important component of the design process and must not be left out at expense of the ability to generate thousands of forms and ideas at the click of a button., A design can be formed through computational methods yet it doesn’t guarantee that it will possess the substance and intuitive characteristics only gained through human idea generation and creativity.

Herein lies the danger of computational design - as Kalay states that computers are ‘totally incapable of making up new instructions: they lack creative abilities or intuition’14.

For example a computer can’t look at a brief and interpret it creatively - only logically. If a brief was shown to an architect such as Norman Foster to design a house that was eco-friendly - and the same brief parameters input into a computer; the results would be worlds apart . Thus the balance lies in communication between the two; human intuition and computational logical/rationality. We can input ideas and parameters into a computer - such as a cellular structure of a plant, and allow the computer to panel it efficiently, and quickly over any surface or form. Only we must justify every decision we make along the way - and not allow the technology to control our design.

FIGURE 13: A DIAGRAM OF THE COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN PROCESS(GIANNI MANCUSO)

INTUITIVE/CREATIVE INPUT

ANALYTICAL/LOGICAL PROCESSING

THE ENGINE

‘

RESULT

INTUITIVE

CREATIVE

LOGICAL

REPEATED

ITERATIONS


Birds Nest Stadium//Beijing, ChinaHerzog & De Meuron

FIGURE 15: BIRDS NEST STADIUM


Birds Nest Stadium//BeijingHerzog & De Meuron

FIGURE 16: THE FACADE STRUCTURE OF THE STADIUM. AN ExAMPLE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THE COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN PROCESS CAN ExPLORE.

FIGURE 17: COMPUTATIONAL METHODS CAN INTERPRET NATURAL FORMS LITERALLY OR AESTHETICALLY WITH MUCH GREATER ACCURACY AND DETAIL.

FIGURE 18: THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT

The Birds Nest Stadium is an example of computational design on a much larger scale. Again, Architects Herzog & De Meuron have utilised computational design to optimise and generate a form loosely based on cultural values of the Chinese.

The skin of the stadium is a perfect example of parametric architecture - an architectural style that is based on associations and dependant relationships between its internal components. In analysing this type of ‘digital design thinking’15, we come to understand that forms can be changed and altered at an instant and a complete project (supposedly) can be produced click after click. For example if Herzog & De Meuron disliked the direction of the ‘twig’ members forming the nest, or the overall curvature of the nest - they could tweak it with ease and produce options optimised to their liking. This is the nature of the new age of digital design thinking.

The process of design in this particular project emphasises both the capabilities of human design and the capabilities of computational design. Only it is the human aspect that has taken a step back in terms of ‘doing the hard yards’ - instead it is the computer. For example generation of the external skin, optimised so it is semi- self-supporting, and easily fabricated, organised and transported on-site, would be an incredibly time consuming exercise. The power of computational design would not remove this excess time, but it would remedy it to an extent.

The key in parametric architecture and computational design is having a high degree of ‘generative variability’16 and combining this with a solid design intent founded on research, intuition and creativity. It also encompasses the responsibility of ensuring complicated designs, such as the birds nest stadium are optimised structurally.

The importance of design intent and recognition of a solid foundation of thought and research is incredibly important in undertaking computational design projects such as the Bird’s Nest Stadium. It is easy to take advantage of the huge degree of variability intrinsically associated with such design - but to ensure it has reason and foundation that is thorough and convincing is vital.

The Bird’s Nest Stadium’s form and shape and design ideologies are what distinguishes it as a part of the built environment - not the fact that it is a result of a computational process.

The underlying concept is that the capabilities of computational design must combine together with human intuition and creativity to form an architectural contribution to the built environment with solid and thorough design intent.

“The designer is setting the rules and parameters, with the computer doing the iterations. This gives designers more flexibility to explore designs, and we can make changes faster.”17

Ho Kao (2013)

“In any project, there are a million possibilities,”18 MATTHEW PIERCE, 2013

The nature of introducing new technology into areas such as design is intrinsically associated with an influx of new ideas, methods, and design processes. The way in which we can generate a form for a simple house can be done with incredible ease - and we can construct virtual models of incredibly complex structures and change it rapidly. We as the designers ‘set the rules and parameters’ and allow technology to produce the ‘iteration’. We are ‘outsourcing’ part of the labour process to the computer, which as previously mentioned has much more powerful analytical power - and it doesn’t get bored.

As a directing architect at Gensler Architects, Hao Kao outlines that this ability to produce rapidly will enable faster changes and provide more flexibilty19. This will remove the stigma associated with starting over again - and allow architects to feel free to abandon ideas in favour of what they feel is a better design. A better more flexible design generation process is thus created - and with that a more reliable, well designed end product.

Architectural form generation and composition generation is ultimately an exercise in vain if it is not actually practical in the physical world. A built form in the modern age has to responsibly designed and constructed - and through using computation and parametric software this can be achieved.

Parametric capabilities extend to analysing how a building performs; and as a result a designer can sit down and generate a form and then analyse how it can be built, how much energy it can use, or how much light and ventilation it receives. The calculations are associative and are renewed every time the forms changes - even if the form is altered by 100mm.

This in itself is a powerful tool for designers - well beyond the capabilities of a registered body implementing industry standards. It is also important to note that this tool can be applied to anything, whether it be a three room house or an airport. The ability to optimise will lead to architecturally aesthetic built form, which is responsible in its construction and in its function. This is the key to future design.


A3//Composition/Generation

“And while such technology is useful for formally complex buildings, even simpler forms

should benefit from it”20

GATTEGNO & KELLY, 2013

FIGURE 19: GENSLER’S SHANGHAI TOWER


Shanghai Tower//ShanghaiGensler Architects

The Shanghai Tower is an example of modern computational design. Designed by Gensler Architects, it was designed and then optimised using Grasshopper to ensure that it was responding to the wind loading correctly.

In addition Gensler Architects state that ‘Sustainable design was at the core’ of the towers development21. Gensler, in their publication about the tower, provide large amounts of information and details about the extent to which sustainable design has been achieved.

These type of calculations can easily be produced with the right skill set and knowledge using computational design software and parametric software. In addition as the facade was tweaked and the shape oriented, the calculations and outputs would be altered - due the parametric, associative process.

The facade of the building, which is a separate curtain wall to the inner curtain wall was generated through use of computational design methods22. Computational design and parametricism, while being able to calculate performance and structural integrity against certain loads - can also be an incredibly powerful, and practical tool for designing façades,. The non structural emphasis is important (while a facade may need to be self-supporting it doesn’t necessarily need to support the structure itself), and because of this designers can use these techniques to generate façades with varied geometry and curvatures.

It is also interesting to note that from a mathematical perspective - and a scripting perspective - a facade can be reduced to an algorithm23. An algorithm according to Wilson & Keil (1999) is a recipe, a method or a technique for doing something24. Therefore the facade of the Shanghai Tower has a recipe - one that has been tweaked over and over to ensure it meets not only performance requirement of the sustainable design intent - but the aesthetic qualities of the architectural design intent.

FIGURE 21:THE FIGURE TO THE RIGHT DEMONSTRATES THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT PROVES THAT COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN HAS A DEFINITE PLACE IN MODERN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE.

FIGURE 20: THE FACADE OF THE TOWER - AN ExAMPLE OF HOW COMPUTATION CAN OPTIMISE A DESIGN CONCEPT BOTH AESTHETICALLY BUT ALSO PERFORMANCE WISE.


Shanghai Tower//ShanghaiGensler Architects

FIGURE 22: LOUIS VUTTON CENTRE FOR CREATIVITY


Lousi Vutton Centre//ParisFrank Gehry

FIGURE 23: AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE DRAMATIC FORMS CREATED AND OPTIMISED THROUGH COMPUTATION

FIGURE 25: THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SKIN AND THE

STRUCTURE OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING.

The Louis Vutton centre for creativity in Paris, France is an example of the bold creativity aligned not only with architect Frank Gehry, but an example of the capabilities of parametric and computational design. Buildings such as this emphasise how in the new age of architectural computation, architects are ‘developing digital tools which create opportunities in the design process, fabrication and construction”25.

The actual skin, or facade of the building, representing clouds is a separate physical component to the building. Together with the structure of the building, it forms a whole. Frank Gehry’s work quite often makes use of computational form generation - however it is important to note that there is always a design intent before entering into computation.

The computational aspect of this project not only include the structure of the facade, but other factors easily measured; such as energy consumption and light penetration. When undertaking such complex designs using computerisation it can be incredibly useful to utilise computation to tweak the building to ensure it performs to industry standards - or even well above industry standards - like the Shanghai Tower.

To the right is Frank Gehry’s original concept for the Centre’s design. It is a highly abstract sketch very open to the viewers interpretation. When this sketch and design intent was input into a computer, modelled at a rough level, the designers would have able to see new options, new designs which they couldn’t have seen before. Computation can take our notion of ‘abstract’ and produce a thousand more iterations that are even more abstract. The point is that computation can take design to a ‘higher intellect’ than that of the designer26. This is not only in terms of generation of forms and compositions but also in terms of performance on various levels. Computation enables us as designers to step back and utilise the computers analytical power to pump out information and iterations at a high speed.

FIGURE 24: THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. IT OUTLINES THE ABILITY OF COMPUTATION TO LIBERATE AN ARCHITECT AND ALLOW THEM TO GENERATE MORE COMPLEx FORMS.

The introduction of such methods will have large ramifications on the industry. The notion that architects have gone from using software, to creating software27 is something that has occurred with the inception of architectural scripting programs. This ensures that architects can create their own parameters within their design instead of working within the parameters of software. The results of such architectural design can be seen in completed projects by world-leading practices led by architects such as Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid.


Lousi Vutton Centre//ParisFrank Gehry

A4// Learning Outcomes

A5// Conclusion


The research based approach to Assignment A is an integral component of creating a thorough design intent. In the case of parametric design it is vital that you as a designer understand the capabilities of computation in design. I think from the first three weeks we have come to understand that there must be a balance between having clear intuitive input into your design - i.e. drawing from real life ideas and systems, and generating multiple forms through the easy, quick ability to generate forms and compositions in computations.

I think that discussing architecture as a discourse was an interesting way to begin the subject. It helped in outlining the political and cultural way in which architecture is becoming framed in today’s society. Architecture is now becoming a practice in which responsible design - politically, culturally and environmentally is vital to a successful design. This encompasses all scales - from energy efficiency to the net societal gain/loss of a design.

The introduction of computation into architecture has led to a new aspect of design. It allows us to step back and be more intuitive, creative and solidify our design intent - while a computer creates iterations through our inputs.

I will input a lot of these learning outcomes into the next phase of the studio - specifically my new-found belief that while computational design has endless compositional possibilities - there must be solid, thorough reasoning to every curve, every line or every opening. I want my design to have different layers of meaning, different layers of intuition and creativity - represented through computational means. I don’t want to be caught up in an ability to generate forms - I want to make informed decisions for my design and once I have solidified design intent (and design ideals) - then experiment with compositional generation framed by my intent.

The first assignment has taught me the difference between computation and computerisation. I think it has also taught me that computation must have design intent driven by human intuitiveness and creativity which is then input into a computer to produce iterations aligned (at least hopefully aligned) with your design intent.

I have come to understand that computation not only hastens the design process - but alters it. It adds in a more enhanced process of continual iteration on a larger scale. It can also enhance our ability as designers to create more complex built forms - architecturally but also performance wise and structurally.

I have built upon my knowledge of parametric design as an associative and dependent design technique. I think that the future of design - from what I have learnt in section A - is centered around computation and parametricism. The benefits of it in terms of responsible design on various levels are vast.


A6// Appendix

The task in week 1 was to create a definition in Grasshopper of 8 points, 2 polylines and a loft - that formed a simple extruded shape. The key was to alter the positions of the point coordinates placed through Grasshopper - and thus generate different forms from the 8 points.

This task was a small, rudimentary snapshot of how definitions through Grasshopper can generate a huge amount of design possibilities. It showed how design computation can help in the process of ideation - as it allows the creation of multiple design possibilities which would have been incredibly difficult to create with different methods.

It also opens up the possibilities of random design mistakes - as you can so easily make an error in your definition or change a value that generates a form that you would have never thought of or aimed for.

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

A simple manipulation of three sets of coordinates.

A more complex structure. points dragged into the inverse of their original position to create an hourglass figure.

A form generated through altering one slider’s max value to a higher amount than the others.

The main algorithmic sketch for A1L: Design Futuring is a combination of two definitions. The base shapes were generated through the duplication of a single definition - and then the alteration of the second definition to produce a second shape,.

The shapes were merged and formed a hybrid. The final form was produced by baking only necessary surfaces into Rhino.

OPTION 4: Combining Definitions

The main learning outcome for this sketch task was how Grasshopper acts as a parasite on Rhino. We create definitions and then data is input into Rhino to form the geometry. The associative/dependent relationship is a result of the parasitic nature of Grasshopper - inputs and values change easily and the geometry is not formed in Rhino until we ‘bake’ it.

In relation to my sketches - perhaps it would be better to create two definitions of geometry and then use Grasshopper to remove the intersecting geometry.

Learning Outcomes:

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES


This weeks algorithmic sketches covered making a definition that had a lot more variables than the previous one. The concept was to create a forest of ‘tubes’ on a landscape. The process involved commands such as Loft, Cap, and various others such as Multiply,, Circle, and ListLength. The core concept was splitting the groups of points to allow for varied and random heights.

The key was to also experiment with different variables by making them random. The X,Y coordinates, XY Vectors, Radius, and point distribution were the factors that we could alter.

This produced random ‘forests’ that all looked different.

OPTION 1

Option 1 is the first step in the sketch task - it is the base sketch with only varied heights.

OPTION 2

Option 2 is a variation of not only heights but also radius of the tubes.

OPTION 3

Option 3 is a randomisation of the vector XY positions - thus the tubes are projection towards the randomised positions of the vector.

OPTION 4

Option 4 is the randomisation of height, radius and vectors. I increased the point distribution along the lofted curve surface - and the result was a lot more randomisation.

Random Sketch:

The sketch to the right is a Varanoi3d command - where I created a shape in Rhino and then distributed random points within it in Grasshopper, and divided it into polysurfaces . I then baked it and deleted surfaces to create holes.

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES


ReferencesIMAGES:

FIGURE 1: Oleg Soroko, “Parametric Bench”, Last Modified 15/07/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://www.archello.com/en/product/parametric-bench

FIGURE 2: Heydar Aliyev Centre, “Heydar Aliyev Centre” Last Modified 11/03/2014, Accessed 13/04/2015 http://www.heydaraliyevcenter.az/

FIGURE 3: Hpeterswald, “Sydney Opera House at Sunset”, Last Modified 14/04/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House#/media/File:Sydney_Opera_House_at_Sunset.jpg

FIGURE 4: Architect Magazine, “Sydney Opera House Renovation”, Last modified 14/06/2013, Accessed 13/04/2015, http://www.architectmagazine.com/Images/406653201_ SydneyOperaHouseUtzonRenovation_01_tcm20-2077281.jpg?width=600&404=404.png

FIGURE 5: Architectural Review, “Sydney Opera House Under Construction”, Taken 1966, Accessed 13/03/2015, https://serendipityproject.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sydneyopera-house-under-construction-from-architectural-review-march-1966.jpg

FIGURE 6: Jorn Utzen, “Sydney Opera House Concept”, Last modified 14/03/2014, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://2. bp.blogspot.com/-1vOllUfmU3M/T8Cx3RR_CSI/AAAAAAAAAf0/nEoBL4HBeKc/s1600/Red+Book+sketch+1958.png

FIGURE 7: Murray Fredericks, “One Central Park Sydney”, Last modified 15/11/2014, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://www.thegeneralist.com/places/jean-nouvels-giant-mirrors-and-vertical-gardens/

FIGURE 8: CPSdney, “One Central Park Heliostat”, Last Modified 15/09/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bG1HmvnFpPQ/maxresdefault.jpg

FIGURE 9: Murray Fredericks, “Central Park Sydney Facade”, Last modified 14/03/2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/54245770c07a80548f00007f_one-central-park-jean-nouvel-patrick-blanc_ajn_ptw_sydney_ocp_murrayfredericks_facadedetail-530x842.jpg

FIGURE 10: CPP, “One Central Park Sydney”, Last Modified 15/11/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// www.cppwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1Central_building_Broadway_Sydney-1.jpg

FIGURE 11: Nex Architecture, “Times Eureka Pavillion”, Last Modified, 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.nex-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/G2V5123_flattened_edit-web.jpg

FIGURE 12: Nex Architecture, “The Times Eureka Pavillion”, Last Modified 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.bustler.net/images/news/the_times_eureka_pavilion-nex_and_marcus_barnett_08.jpg

FIGURE 13: Gianni Mancuso, “Diagram of Computational Design Process”, Last Modified 15/03/2015

FIGURE 14: Nex Architecture, “Design Process”, Last Modified 11/06/2012, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// www.bustler.net/images/news2/the_times_eureka_pavilion-nex_and_marcus_barnett_06.jpg`

FIGURE 15: University Of Southern California, Taken 16/8/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// arch-pubs.usc.edu/malaysia/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/IMG_2638_39_40.jpg

FIGURE 16: Homesthetics, “Chinese National Stadium in Beijing”, Last Modified 1/10/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://cdn.homesthetics.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Chinese-National- Stadium-in-Beijing-%E2%80%93-The-Bird%E2%80%99s-Nest-Stadium-homesthetics-8.jpg

FIGURE 17: New England Narrow Road, “Birds Nest”, Last Modified 11/03/2011, Accessed 14/03/2015, https://newenglandsnarrowroad.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/birds-nest-8x10-photo-poster.jpg

FIGURE 18: Amazon, “Beijing China, Birds Nest”, Last Modified, 20/11/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// s3.amazonaws.com/everystockphoto/fspid20/11/13/43/8/beijing-china-birds-1113438-o.jpg

FIGURE 19: IdeasGN, “Shanghai Tower Gensler”, Last Modified 20/5/2013, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.ideasgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shanghai-Tower-Gensler-001.jpg

FIGURE 20: Andrew&AnnMarie, “Shanghai Tower”, Last Modified 1/7/2014, Accessed 14/03/2015, http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Tower#/media/File:Shanghai_Tower_July_2014_-_1.jpg

FIGURE 21: Gensler Architects, “Building Section”, Last Modified 22/12/2010, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Shanghai_Tower_12_22_2010.pdf

FIGURE 22: The Guardian, “Louis Vutton Center”, Last Modified 17/10/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://static. guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/17/1413542021824/France---Louis-Vuitton-Fo-014.jpg

FIGURE 23: CanardPC, “Louis Vutton Center For Creativity”, Last Modified 10/11/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://tof.canardpc.com/view/9c4b2ff2-835d-4613-a090-e86b2fb2cbd5.jpg

FIGURE 24: Frank Gehry, “Louis Vutton Concept Sketch”, Unknown, Accessed 15/03/2015, http://www.fondationlouisvuitton.fr/content/flvinternet/en/l-edifice/_jcr_content/content/columncontrol_ e160/rightG484/gallerysinglethumbna.flvcrop.980.5000.jpeg

FIGURE 25: AAS Architecture, “Foundation Louis Vutton”, Last Modified 12/11/2014, Accessed 15/03/2015, http:// aasarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/Fondation-Louis-Vuitton-pour-la-creation-by-Frank-Gehry-12.jpg


CITATIONS:[1] Dutton, Thomas A. and Lian Hurst Mann, eds (1996). Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), p. 1

[2] Thackara, John (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), p. 224

[3] [4] Sydney Opera House , (2015), History Of The Sydney Opera House, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 13/03/2015, http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about/house_history_landing.aspx

[5] Leach, Neil, ed., (1997). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge), p. xiii

[6] Nouvel, Jean, (2015), The Birth Of One Central Park, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.centralparksydney.com/live/one-central-park/architecture-and-design

[7] [8] De Manincor, John, (2015), One Central Park Sydney, Last Modified 2015, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://architectureau.com/articles/one-central-park/

[9] Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179

[10] Frazer, John H. (2006). ‘The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization’, in GameSetAndMatch II: The Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. by Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers), pp. 208-212

[11] Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx

[12] Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 5

[13] Nex Architecture (2011), Times Eureka Pavillion, Last Modified 2011, Accessed 14/03/2015

[14] Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 6

[15] [16] Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 3-4

[17] [18] [19] [20] Areif, Alison, (2013), New Forms That Function Better, Modified 31/7/2013, Accessed 14/02/2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/

[21] Gensler Architects, (2010), Shanghai Tower Design Update, Last Modified 2010, Accessed 14/03/2015, http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Shanghai_Tower_12_22_2010.pdf

[22] Areif, Alison, (2013), New Forms That Function Better, Modified 31/7/2013, Accessed 14/02/2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/review/517596/new-forms-that-function-better/

[23] [24] Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12

[25] [26] [27] Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15

48 CONCEPTUALISATION

mancuso gianni 637278

Documents