ARCHITECTURE STUDIO AIR

YI FU (FRANK) JIN

2013, SEMESTER 1

..........................................................................................................................................

2

ARCHITECTURE STUDIO AIR

Name : Yi Fu (Frank) Jin

Student No: 542190

Year: 2013, Semester 1

Studio Group: 10 & 11

Tutors: Daniel & Adam

..........................................................................................................................................

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................01

Architecture as Discourse......................................

..........................................................................................................................................

4

EOI:CFI

INTRODUCTION

Hello, I’m Frank and like most of the other people in this course i’m majoring in Architecture. In the past i’ve only used computational design techniques when it was absolutely required in subjects such as Virtual environments. Personally computer techniques, for me personally were never a design tool but more of a way of enhancing my designs in the final presen-tations phase. For example i would use Photoshop and Illustrator to layout presentation of hand-drawn plans and sketches. I’ve always found hand drawing and physical model making to be more intuitive and natural: i could brainstorm multiple ideas with thumb-nail skecthes in quick succession and i liked to have models which i could interact with in tree dimensons. On the other hand, with com-putational techniques i find it to be a much slower process (mostly because of my lack of skills with the programs) and i often find that i need to know what i’m designing before hand which seems more restric-tve to me. However i’m looking froward to learning some new skills and techniques in this course.

..........................................................................................................................................

5

PART A. EOI I: CASE FOR INNOVATION

.........................................................................................................................................

6

EOI:CFI

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A.1. ARCHIECTURE AS DISCOURSE

As Richard Williams argues in Architecture and Visual

Culture, ‘architecture is the most public of Arts’ and therefore an inextricable part of daily life for anyone living in an urban society. 1

Buildings quite literally frame our lives; define our movements through a city and is ‘the princi-pal means by which the public realm is materially represented’, making the practice of enormous social importance.2

At the same time, Architecture is a unique practice in that the buildings are often designed for the public (In the case of public buildings) and thus, in a way, the people have a partial ownership over those buildings. After all, they are ones who ultimately end up using those spaces. However as the critic Walter Ben-jamin argues, most people tend to look at architecture in a ‘state of distraction’, as something to be viewed from the corner of your eye but not looked at in detail, as something to pass through to where you need to go.3

As a result, architecture has ironically become a difficult and exclusive area of visual culture for the average person; the very people of which the buildings 1 Williams, Richard, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Defi ni-tions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), p. 102. 2 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 102.3 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 103.

were designed for. I think this is especially relevant given that the purpose of the course is to de-sign the Wyndham City Western Gateway, not only because it’s a public space but also how to en-gage an audience that only views the structure ‘in a state of distrac-tion’.The aestheitc apsects of the structure (where we want people to appreciate the beauty of the structure) is in direct opposition to the function of the gateway (where we want people to pass through without obstruction). Would a visually striking gate-way ultimately distract the user? Or perhaps, in the worst case, even confuse them and congest the gateway, thereby compromis-ing the function for aesthetics? Or, on the other hand, if the de-sign of the gate is mut ed will the user even notice it? Or should the gateway be designed in a way to assume that the user is in constant motion? Will they get the symbolism? Do they care? Should they? In order to find the solutions to these problems we must first understand the role of Architecture in our society. In order to do this we must look at Architecture as a discourse.

ARCHITECTURE AS ART

One way of viewing architecture is as an art form. Thus an archi-tect can be seen as a special kind of artist, one who works in three dimensions in order to fill

and enclose space.4 In addition, as art historian and critic Niklaus Pevsner argues in An Outline of European Architecture, there is a distinction between mere build-ings and architecture. To Pevsner anything that ‘encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human be-ing to move in is a building’ such as a bicycle shed.5 The term Ar-chitecture, on the other hand, ‘applies to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal’ such as Lincoln Cathedral. A good architect, Pevsner propos-es, is a combination of a sculp-tor and a painter thus making the profession not only a synthesis of art forms but the most superior. 6 My problem with Pevsner’s view is that it limits the scope of the profession as it seems to imply that Architecture is purely about, for lack of a better phrase, mak-ing things look good. However I would argue that just because a bicycle shed is not as aes-thetically pleasing as a cathedral does not mean there was no design intent. As far as I’m con-cerned as long as the architect was conscious during the design process, any building no matter size, purpose or beauty is the result of design intent. After all, even the lack of an aesthetic could be considered as a type of aesthetic.

4 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 103. 5 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 103. 6 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 103.

7

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The problem of the Architecture-as-art argument is that em-phasizing the visual aspect of architecture above all else, the other components of the practice may be compromised. A painting is produced for aesthetic appeal; its only purpose is to be viewed, analyzed and studied by people. A building, on the other hand must also serve a function: if it’s a bicycle shed it must be able to store bicycles. Furthermore as Williams argues that architec-ture as a practice ‘involves much more than the material produc-tion of an individual’. Therefore as architecture has a unique position in the public realm, it should be considered ‘compro-mised art, if it is art at all.’ Archi-tects are beholden to the client ‘who determines the function of the project, its specification, its location and above all, its cost; the architect works within these parameters.’ 1 It is these limita-tions that ground architecture in the real world and compromises architecture as purely art. Thus, it is the aspects of architecture which Pevsner would argue 1 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 107.

makes the profession the most superior art form of all that distin-guishes architecture from being merely art. Architecture in its final form must fulfill the needs set by the client, which could be, but is not always an aesthetic function. If a bicycle shed can’t store bi-cycles than it is a failure no mat-ter how good it looks. If we try to apply the doctrine of ‘architecture as art’ onto the gateway project obvious problems arise. Sure, the gate serves an aesthetic purpose as a first impression for Wynd-ham City but at the same time it must function as a gate. Neither aspect should be compromised in favor of the other.

ARCHITECTURE AS SIGN

Another way of viewing archi-tecture is as a representation of symbols. This view was cham-pioned by the likes of Roland Barthes who argued that the meaning of any object of analy-sis including architecture ‘was dependent on its relation with other things around it at the time and on what the beholder

brought to it’ 2 Therefore the meaning of architecture was not static but ever changing and also open to interpretation not only by architects but by anyone. Barthes gives the example of the Eiffel Tower as being able to mean a ‘rocket, stem, derrick, phallus, lightning rod or insect’ simultaneously. 3 This view of architecture certainly removes the veil of exclusivity surrounding architecture as a niche practice knowable only to the educated few. By making the meaning of architecture democratic it al-lows a far larger group people to be a part of the discourse. This approach, in a way, better suits the realities of the practice. After all, when an architect designs a large public building such as a museum he is not designing it for other architects but the people that will end up visiting it. This also touches upon the nature of ownership in architecture, as ‘the most public of arts’ in the sense that when a building (especially a public building) is opened to

2 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 109. 3 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 109.

8

EOI:CFI...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A.1. ARCHIECTURE AS DISCOURSE

the public, ownership is in part transferred to them. In a sense, all buildings (all architecture) are owned by the public even the pri-vate buildings: not legal owner-ship but ownership in the sense

that even the façade of a private building is an inextricable part of the cityscape able to be inter-preted and judged by anyone who looks. And why shouldn’t meaning in architecture be open to all? One of aforementioned barriers of architecture as a visual culture is the exclusivity, the democratization of archi-tecture solves that problem. As the designers of the Wyndham City Western Gateway (a public structure) wouldn’t we want as many people to engage with it as possible?

Whilst making architecture open to all gives the practice a wider audience, at the same, doesn’t it compromise or hinder the intent of the designer? If you design a building and the audience is unable to interpret its meaning, instead choosing to ascribe their own interpretation, doesn’t that mean the designer has failed? Take for instance, the example of Federation Square: the main square is paved with ochre-coloured sandstone blocks from Western Australia which is

9

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

meant to invoke images of the Outback. 1 Now how many people are going to get that? And if they don’t, is it a failure on the part of the architect to communicate their ideas clearly? Or does it even matter what the original design intent was? Now that the building is open to the public it could be argued that the users are free to interpret the paving on Fed-eration Square however they like. My issue with this is that it almost devalues the role of the architect and of meanings in architecture. Now I am cer-tainly not proposing that having meaning in architecture is a waste of time, as the symbolism was probably necessary to the process of arriving at the final design but it seems to me that role of symbols might be less important than I thought.

Furthermore, with the advent of the democratization of mean-ings architecture, there is the risk of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Take, for example Las Vegas filled with crude signs and symbols of pyr-amids and castles, the design of the city is meant to attract the largest possible audience but by relying on clichés, the city has nothing innovative to add to the discourse of architecture, it is creatively stagnant. 2I think that the idea of exclusivity is an inex-tricable part of architecture but at the same time there should be room for multiple readings of

1 MINISTER FOR MAJOR PROJECTS Media Release. www.legislation.vic.gov.au. 18 October 2002. Retrieved 16 March

2008. 2 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 111.

architecture. But in order for the practice to advance there needs to be new and challenging ideas which might alienate some but I guess that’s the cost of prog-ress. Thus in order to create an architecture that is is bold and can contribute to the discourse of architecture through the Gateway project it is necessary to design something that might not to be easily interpreted by everyone.

ARCHITECTURE AS URBAN EXPERIENCE:

Yet another way to view archi-tecture is as an urban experi-ence. This view considers the psychological effects that buildings have. As Henri Lefe-bvre argues in The Production of Space that ‘urban space is not so much an architectural production as a social one; architects, he writes, produce little more than facades, which can be inhabited in an infinity of ways according to their social context.’ 3 Thus a building is not finished at the end of the design process rather it is something that is constantly changing when it is released to its real world context. This then raises the question of how much of a relationship does the architect have with his building after it is ‘completed’, so to speak. Obviously after the building is opened to the public there could be countless variables that could affect the building: you could assume how people might use the space but you can never be sure. It’s an aspect of architecture which I’ve never re-

3 Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, p. 115.

ally thought about: the fact that the existence of a building is not contained from drawing to con-struction but also what happens after. Once a building is com-pleted it becomes less about the architect and the building but the relationship between the users and architecture. And as the designers of Wyndham City Western Gateway Project how do we go about trying to predict what the users might experi-ence? Atmosphere is such a nebulous and subjective con-cept, as everyone has their own preconceptions and experienc-es; you never know how some-one will react. No matter how much research you do on the users or the context, in the end you could only speculate, thus a certain aspect of the building is not revealed to the architect until the building is ‘finished’ but by this time isn’t the architect’s job is also finished?

As Williams argues architecture can be evaluated by its contribu-tion to discourse: the depositry of knowledge for all architects. In order to evolve the discourse and the practice as a whole we must bring new and challenging ideas. Just as discourse sur-rounding architecture evolved from purely about aesthetics to more sophisticated ideas about architecture as symbols and an experience. By explor-ing the Gateway project through parametic design methods as opposed to traditional methods so too are we contributing to the advancement of discourse in architecture.

10

EOI:CFI

A.1. ARCHIECTURE AS DISCOURSE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

11

FAVOURITE PROJECTS:CHURCH ON WATER - TADAO ANDOTadao Ando’s Church on Water is representative of the ways in which he has contributed to the discourse of Architecture through his use of light, nature and simplicity. As a student of the works of Masters like Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright, the modernist influences in the Church on Water are clearly represented through the simplicity and clarity of form of the building: the form can be broken down into simple geometries such as squares and rectangles.1 Further modernist influences include the elimination of unnecessary ornamen-tation (Indeed, Ando does not even have blinds or any kind of shading on his windows) and the concept of ‘Truth to materials’ where the nature and appear-ance of materials (in this case concrete) are not hidden but visible. 2

Whilst Ando’s architecture embody many modernist elements ,at the same time his architecture can be seen as a reaction against modernist architecture. One of reasons why modernist architecture was such a radical departure from the architecture of the 19th century was the attempt to create a ‘universal language’ for architecture through the use of simple geometries and the abandonment of traditional (cultural) architectural elements. One of the consequences and criti-cisms of the modernist approach is a sense of placelessness and a lack of iden-tity.3 Ando’s answer to these problems is to adapt his buildings to their context in order to establishing a sense of place and identity. In the case of the Church on Water, the structure is built into the slope of the hill rather than excavating the site.4 In addition, the building is positioned so that the surrounding vegetation is not disturbed. Thus in the discourse of the relationship between nature and ar-chitecture, Ando demonstrates the beauty of buildings conforming to the natural environment rather than the way around.

Driven by a deep sense of spirituality, Ando is set apart from his counterparts through his use of nature. To Ando, buidlings act as ‘containers’ for nature. 5Rather than using the building as a shield against the elements, Ando fully em-braces nature with the large a window opening toward the lake framing breath-taking views. In addition, the glass box at the top of the sturcture functions as a ‘container of light’ which allows sunlight to flood into the church. 6

Furthermore, unlike other churches, the cross stands outside the chapel , so that it can be lit by the setting sun instilling a sense of spirituality. Yet another Ando theme embodied through the Church on Water is the idea of transience: the framed view of the lake ‘captures’ the landscape which is constantly chang-ing from snow in winter to falling leaves in autumn. Thus visitors to the chapel can ‘sense the presence of nature and sacntiy’ and move closer towards ‘the realm of the sacred.’ 7

1 Ando, Tadao, ‘Chapel on the Water’, in Th e Yale Studio and Current Works, 1989, p. 87.2 Ando, ‘Learning from the Modern Movement’, p. 13-15

3 Ando, ‘Learning from the Modern Movement’, p. 13-15 4 Ando, ‘Chapel on the Water’, p. 87

5 Ando, ‘Chapel on the Water’, p. 876 Ando, ‘Chapel on the Water’, p. 877 Ando, ‘Chapel on the Water’, p. 88

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

12

EOI:CFI

A.1. ARCHIECTURE AS DISCOURSE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

13

FAVOURITE PROJECTS:CCTV HEADQUARTERS - REM KOOLHAAS AND OLE SCHEERENWhat makes the CCTV Headquarters designed by Rem Kool-haas and Ole Scheeren an important building is not really in the way it looks but in the way it subverts your expectations of what skyscrapers can be.1 By joining two towers with a horizontal structure It directly challenges the established way of designing skyscrapers which has remained the same ever since they were first built. Skyscrapers were conceived with the notion that space is at a premium for highly urbanised and densely populated ar-eas therefore by building upwards valuable space is conserved. However, ever since the conception of skyscapers they have always built up, the CCTV building advances the idea of con-serving space by building sideways and snatching up as much space as possible. Built in the centre of Beijing, one of the most populated cities in the world, the Headquarters is well suited to its context.2 Its almost like something from science fiction but its not hard to imagine a city built upon another city using this technique. The idea seems outlandish but so were the ideas of a Domed Manhattan by Richard Buckminister Fuller or the Walk-ing City by Peter Cook.3 Whilst those ideas were never realised in their original forms, concepts such as the ‘domed city’ came to inspire real projects such as the Orbos Art and City Museum by MAD Architects .4 In order for architecture as a discourse to evolve there needs to be new and challenging ideas: the radical departure of the CCTV Headquarters from the traditional notions of what skyscrapers should be, is one such idea.

1 ArchDaily, ‘CCTV Headquarters/ OMA’, Last visited: 04/04/13http://www.archdaily.com/236175/cctv-headquarters-oma/ 2 ArchDaily, ‘CCTV Headquarters/ OMA’ 3 Roudavski, Stanislav, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 01 - Architec-ture as Discourse’, pp. 3,15.4 Roudavski, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 01 - Architecture as Dis-course’, p. 6.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

14

EOI:CFIA.2. COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................One of the most heated topics in architectural discourse is the role of computers in the design process. In architecture practice there are two ways of utilizing computers in design: comput-erization and computation. Computerization is the process of enhancing a design that has already been established with digital programs. Computers were used to photocopy and share drawings and three-dimensional programs were only used to visualize pre-defined designs. 1

In contrast, computation is where digital pro-grams are used as the method to generate the design from the very beginning of the process. 2Computerization is by far the dominant type of computer usage in the practice as it relies on the generation of ideas through traditional paper and model making techniques, which is then translated to a digital format. As John H. Frazer argues ‘‘design computation is still only seen by many as ‘just a tool’ and remote from the real business of creative design’’3

This perception is the result of computation be-ing a relatively new method of design. However, there are many advantages of computation design which can make it far more efficient than traditional paper-based design techniques. Human have both the ability of rational and creative thought, whilst computers excel with the rational processes but lack any creative in-tuition. 4Thus by combining the creative intuition of humans and the rational ability of computers through computation at the inception of a proj-ect, we can have a much more efficient design process. Therefore, computation allows the architect to be much more precise without sac-rificing creativity. Furthermore, a traditional pa-per based design process is constrained by the types of representation available in the meat space. Ergo, a paper-based design process has to work with orthogonal projections (Plans, elevations and sections) which are convenient when working with rectilinear designs but it is much more difficult to create designs based

1 Roudavski, Stanislav, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 02 - Introduc-

tion to Computation’, p.7. 2 Roudavski, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 02 - Introduction to Com-

putation’, p.7 3 Frazer, John H. (2006). ‘Th e Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization’, in GameSetAndMatch II: Th e Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. by Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers), pp. 208-2124 Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp

on natural elements such as water.5 Hence, it could be said that computation allows the archi-tect to be more creative because it is capable of representing, not just rectilinear forms, but far more complex geometries with ease.

Furthermore, computation allows design to begin even before the brief is created. Briefs act as the blueprint for your design from the client. However, they can also limit your creativity, as the client is not an architect. Hence, the brief will be driven by something that already exists, such as established building types and common materials.6 Computation allows the architect to work in conjunction with the client to create a brief that is more in tune what the context of the site might require or what contemporary meth-ods of manufacturing can offer. This is almost a reversal of the traditional design process where designing usually begins after instructions are given by the client through the brief.

Frank Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall, is demonstrative of how unconventional and complex forms can still be achieved through computerization. Built in 2003, and capable of seating 2,265 people, the form of the Los An-geles based concert hall is based on the sails boats. 7This building is an exemplar of the com-puterization method of design as Gehry gener-ated the design through hand-drawn sketches and physical models which were then digitized.8 The complex form of the building consisting of warped curves would probably have been im-possible without the aid of computers but at the same time Gehry used traditional paper-based methods to generate his ideas, and it certainly doesn’t seem like his creativity was somehow limited because of it. That being said, Gehry is after all a master so he might be the exception rather than the rule. I think that for most archi-tects it would be easier to create complex forms like that of Gehry’s work through computation.

5 Roudavski, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 02 - Introduction to Com-putation’, p.2 6 Roudavski, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 02 - Introduction to Computation’, p.27 Wikiaquitectura, ‘Walt Disney Concert Hall’, http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hallm, Last visited: 04/04/13.

8 Arcspace, ‘Walt Disney Concert Hall’, http://www.arcspace.com/features/gehry-partners-llp/walt-disney-concert-hall/, Last

visited 04/04/13

15

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................PRECENDENTS: WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL - FRANK GEHRY

16

EOI:CFI

A.2. COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................There is, however one major barrier to using computation as a design method and that is the knowledge required to use the programs. In that case then it could be argued ‘that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that are supposed to free their imagina-tion.’ 1But I think the benefits of having a more efficient design process is worth the effort of learning the software.

There is also what could be considered as ethical quandaries posed by com-putation as a method of design. For ex-ample, Bryan Lawson argues that ‘CAD might conspire against creative thought […]’ by encouraging ‘fake’ creativity. 2

Consider Greg Lynn’s installation Blobwall where a pre-packaged compu-tational technique was used to establish a particular geometry (metaball) which was then replicated and assembled into an architecture structure. 3The compu-1 Terzidis, Kostas (2009). ‘Algorithmns for Visual Design Using the Porcessing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx2 Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘‘Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity us-ing Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Her-man Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conferenceon Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy 9New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179 3 Arcspace, ‘Blobwall Pavilion’

tational technique that was employed is fully pre-defined; and Greg Lynn had no participation in the computational definition of the metaball. Opponents of computation such as Lawson would ar-gue that the computer did all the work, and therefore the Blobwall is the result of ‘fake’ creativity. However, whilst Lynn did not define the form of the metaballs, he employed the technique, produced the geometry, decided on the colour scheme, established the materiality, the assembly sequence and finally as-sembled the components into a the final form of the structure. Hence, placed in this context, the metaballs are no dif-ferent than a clay brick used by another architect. And wouldn’t it be obscene to accuse an architect of ‘fake’ creativity because he did not define the form of the clay bricks he used to build a wall?

Furthermore, Greg Lynn’s Blob Wall demonstrates how the mode of produc-tion is changing in the industry as all the metaballs are manufactured using ro-botics. Therefore, as robotic manufactur-ing becomes more prevalent, architects who use computation design will no longer be constrained by the traditional mode of production of materials.

17

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................PRECENDENTS: BLOBWALL - GREG LYNN

18

EOI:CFI

A.3. PARAMETRIC MODELLING...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

As with any method of design, parametric modelling has some great ad-vantages but also disadvantages. Firstly, as a new method of creative ex-ploration, Parametric design allows for new ways of thinking and designing that are not constrained by the limitation of paper-based (orthogonal) rep-resentation techniques. Thus parametric design allows for more complex geometries that goes beyond mere rectilinear forms. Secondly, designs can easily be manipulated by changing the parameters of algorithmns. 1In contrast to sketching, parameters can to set so that only geometries that are viable in the real world are produced.2 Furthermore, parametric design allows the designer to create multiple three dimensional models in quick succession with the click of a mouse, thus making the design process much more efficient. 3Finally, with a visual interface, programs such as Grasshopper removes some of the layers of abstraction in learning how to program.

On the other hand, some layers of abstraction still remain thus making parametric not accessible to everyone without the proper training. As Rob-ert Woodbury argues with parametric design ‘one must work in a domain of textual instructions’ and as ‘algorithmic thinking differs from almost all other forms of thought’, the ‘sheer distance between representations famil-iar to designers and those needed for algorithms exacerbates the gap’4

Finally, as the algorithmns employed during the design process becomes increasing complex it can be difficult percieve changes or mistakes. Fur-thermore, it can be hard to communicate with others about your design due to the knowledge required in programming.

1 Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) 2 Davis, Daniel, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 03 - Parametric Modeling’, 3 Davis, Daniel, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 03 - Parametric Modeling’, 4 Woodbury, Robert (2010). Elements of Parametric Design (London: Routledge) p.29

19

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

With the advent of rapid prototyping through 3D printers and robotics which produce objects with complex geometries, architects have to oppurtunity to rapidly realise their prototypes directly from CAD three-dimensional models.1 One such project that was realised through the concept of rapid prototyping was the Aura installation designed by Zaha Hadid.2 The structure was constructed of successive layers of hard polyurethane alternated with fibreglass but due to the transportation restrictions it was neccessary to construct of the object in several parts. 3Thus the object had to be reduced to simple parts through a three-dimensional CAD software by subdivi-sion, splitting up, development and flattening of surfaces and volumns, something that would be impossible with traditional techniques.4

1 Tedeschi, Arturo, ‘Chapter 10: Fabrication’, in Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. p.188-92 Tedeschi, Arturo, ‘Chapter 10: Fabrication’, in Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. p.189 3 Tedeschi, Arturo, ‘Chapter 10: Fabrication’, in Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. p.190 4 Tedeschi, Arturo, ‘Chapter 10: Fabrication’, in Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. p.190

PRECENDENTS: AURA - ZAHA HADID

20

EOI:CFI

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATION

21

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CONCLUSION:

In a way, this subject encapsulates the current discourse on Archi-tecture in a microcosm. Just as we as students of architecture are departing from traditional methods of design we have been used to in favor of exploring new design avenues through parametric mod-eling so too are the old pedagogy and methods of the profession being challenged by new digital technologies. Therefore, in order to hopefully contribute to the current discourse in architecture and add something to the pool of knowlegde i have decided that parametric design is the best approach for the Wyndham City Western Gateway Project.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Before this course, i have always thought that digital techniques of designing architecture was not as intuitive as the traditional methods. To me, using pen and paper have always felt faster, easier and more natural. The computer was only something that i used to enhance my established designs. However, over the past few weeks, i have come to appreciate parametric design. Whilst i can’t claim that parametric design has grown to be more intuitive than traditional techniques , i can admit that i was surprised by how fast you can create multiple models in Grasshopper and how i could create complex geometries which i would have never taught of through pen and paper techniques alone.

22

EOI:CFI

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ArchDaily, ‘CCTV Headquarters/ OMA’, Last visited: 04/04/13http://www.archdaily.com/236175/cctv-headquarters-oma/

Arcspace, ‘Blobwall Pavilion’

Arcspace, ‘Walt Disney Concert Hall’, http://www.arcspace.com/features/gehry-partners-llp/walt-disney-concert-hall/, Last visited 04/04/13

Ando, Tadao, ‘Chapel on the Water’, in The Yale Studio and Current Works, 1989, p. 87.

Ando, Tadao, ‘Learning from the Modern Movement’, in The Yale Studio and Current Works, 1989 p. 13-15

Davis, Daniel, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 03 - Parametric Modeling’,

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 Publish-ers), pp. 208-212

MINISTER FOR MAJOR PROJECTS Media Release. www.legislation.vic.gov.au. 18 October 2002. Retrieved 16 March 2008.

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

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp

Richard Williams, 'Architecture and Visual Culture', in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Con-cepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 116.

Roudavski, Stanislav, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 01 - Architecture as Discourse’, pp. 3,6,15.

Roudavski, ‘Studio Air 2013 - Lecture 02 - Introduction to Computation’, p.2, 7

Tedeschi, Arturo, ‘Chapter 10: Fabrication’, in Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. p.188-190

Terzidis, Kostas (2009). ‘Algorithmns for Visual Design Using the Porcessing Language (Indianapo-lis, IN: Wiley), p. xx

Williams, Richard, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Con-cepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), p. 102-7.

Wikiaquitectura, ‘Walt Disney Concert Hall’, http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hallm, Last visited: 04/04/13.

REFERENCES:

23

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

24

EOI:CFI

25