AIrArchitecturedesign Studio

Jonathon Belotti (539430)Semester 1 2013

ContentsArchitecture as Discourse

The signs of a Building - Building as ideasw/ Coop Himmelb(l)au & Bjarke Ingells Group

Computerisation & Computationw/ MAD Office & Aranda\Lasch Architecture

Parametric ModellingCoding, Programming and Parameters

w/ Aranda\Lasch ArchitectureAgorithmic Exploration

Conclusion and Learning Outcomes

1

11

21

3341

Architecture as a discourse

the signs of a building - buildng as ideas

I am trying to become a good architect. The younger me practiced drawing the houses of his dreams, massive, sprawling and neo-classical; this was good, beautiful architecture. I still admire Palladio’s villas, however further experiences of architec-ture, its discourse and programs like Au-toCAD and Rhino have and will continue to I think, hold not the pen, but the com-puter as a central tenet of a new emerg-ing Architectural philosophy and theory.

Architecture as a discourse is a subject matter that is made broader and deeper (or narrower and shallower) by the com-plexity with which participators in the dis-course connect architectural phenomena (both built and theoretical entities) to the wider landscape of general human activi-ties. These may be the sciences, perform-ing arts, or driving cars and writing novels.

In Architecture and Visual Culture, Wil-liams identifies the building as a sign. This sign I see as being either as simple or complex as the person interacting with the building can make it. The Villa Savoye can be simple a house, with all that things connotations of bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms etc. Or it can be seen as a

physical reposte to the form and organ-isation of gothic and classical architecture, emphasising more modern philosophical ideas of the Euclidean spatial landscape and the love of the machine and industry.

These ideas and more are contained within this building, bestowed upon by the discourse of architecture. Layer-ing on this, is the idea that simultane-ously the architectural object is draw-ing ideas from the discourse to form its signs and symbols, and then feeding back this back into it, adding to and rein-terpreting the wider dynamic discursivity.

Relatively new to this discourse is the computation and computational design, creating forms, structures and organisa-tions from parameters and algorithms. This type of ‘parametric design’ has opened up new and exciting possibili-ties and the products of it represent the changing philosophies & cultures, and the evolving technologies of the humanity. With this has come the introduction of the ‘blob’ entity into architectural discourse. Existing already in the minds of the public through its representations in film, Greg

DISCOURSE: STATE 1Existing discourse of Informa-tion

ARCHITECTURAL CREATIONArchitecture created from information

DISCOURSE: STATE 2Resulting architecture becomes part of discourse, adding to and interact-ing with existing information.

F=ma

DIAGRAM OF THE WORKING OF DISCOURSE WITHIN ARCHITECTURE

1 2

BMW Welt (Bmw World)ARCHITECTS: Coop Himmelb(l)auLocation: Munich, germany2007

Lynn describes the absorption of it into architecture and morphology theory and the subsequent efforts to use isomorphic polysurfaces to create, describe and vi-sualise them. The blob is so vastly dif-ferent from discrete architectural ideas such as the column or wall, it exists si-multaneously as a singularity and a mul-tiplicity. It is too complex to utilise without computation, but with computation archi-tecture have already produced buildings that employ blob theory for the benefit of users and in the creation of form.

BMW Welt in Munich is a 21st Century building that has a few important discur-sive elements. This building is more than just a functional space for BMW to sell cars. Evidence of this is the German gov-ernment’s interest in having it completed in time for the 2006 world cup in Munich; this building is sending an important mes-sage about architecture to the world. I personally see it as like a signpost and ex-hibitor of the progress and changes of the architecture discourse, directly related to the wider interdiscursivity of life on earth.

This buildings form is interesting, and is modelled on the dynamically changing

form of a cloud through time. Algorithm form construction has been used, creating fractals, scale-invariance, very sophisti-cated notions of symmetry, self-similarity and complex hierarchy to create a form of great complexity but creative consistency.

Though these forms may seem at first polar with Guimard’s Art Nouveau work. The twisting iron flora motifs and BMW Welt cloud representation are both ex-amples of Biophilia. This is the “urge to affiliate with other forms of life”. Despite the vast changes in method and differ-ence in time, they both seem to con-nect to the architectural discourse of man and his relationship with nature.

I feel personally that these new forms are very exciting visually, just as the Art Nou-veau movements architectural examples would have been to the viewing public. This is very relevant and helpful to the Gateway projects need to make a “signif-icant impact”. Parametric design has the capabilities to produce, new, unfamiliar and powerful arresting forms, as seen in Coop Himmelblau’s BMW Welt Building.

The parametric has also developed and

5

made more sophisticated the problem solving area of Architecture. Bjarke Ingells Group are well known for their pragmatic approach to parametric design. 8Tallet a housing development, took information about required programme, sunlight, mo-bility and context within an urban fabric to shape and subtract from their bulk vol-ume. The result is an atypical housing block form that has employed algorithms to increase the building efficiency and effectiveness in delivering set outcomes.

The 8Tallet Building and BIG’s work in general provides and impressive and extensive catalogue of example from which a parametric design for the Gateway project can be justified. The use of computation would be very effective at optimising designs for budget considerations, structure, and complex (though easily fabricated) form .

8 Tallet housingARCHITECTS: bjarke ingells group Location: copenhagen, denmark2009

7

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

Lynn, Greg (1998) “Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy”, in Fold, Bodies and Blobs: Col-lected Essays ed. by Greg Lynn (Bruxelles: La Lettre volée), pp. 169-182.

William J.R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900, Ch 10, “Le corbusier’s quest for ideal form”, pp 163-182.

Definition of “algorithm” in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil eds(1999) in The Mit Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (London: The MIT Press) pp.11-12

Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1984. Print.

“8 House / BIG” 20 Oct 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Mar 2013. <http://www.archdaily.com/83307>

Big.dk (2012) BIG | Bjarke Ingels Group. [online] Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-lego [Ac-cessed: 14 Mar 2013].

“BMW Welt / Coop Himmelb(l)au” 22 Jul 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Mar 2013. <http://www.arch-daily.com/29664>

Comperisation &Computation

Design, I believe, can be usefully depicted and discussed in within the concept of Design Space Exploration. Within this design space exist design representa-tions, intentional entities that inform on the intended architectural entity. De-sign space exploration, being the act of exploring design alternatives within a framework that see alternatives as con-nected along patch with a meaningful sense of possibility and connectivity, discussed by Woodbury & Burrow in their article “Whither design space?” (2006), is applicable and useful to this age of computational design in architecture. Pro-ceeding from this ‘base’ idea, the issue of creativity in computational design will be discussed and the authenticity of this creativity evaluated. In a fast developing, synergetic system of human and com-puter design efforts, challenges exist in how to work creatively in computational design and information systems. These challenges are namely the problem of balancing realist and relativist design ideas in a computational framework, as well as the management of human ex-pectations (Hoffman et al 2005). However, I am highly optimistic as to the potential of computational design to deliver even-

tually, an excellent synthesis of human and computational creative efforts that amplifies the traditional design ability of a human to exciting, powerful and refined levels. Computation of the design space has been a significant and powerful step-for-ward for computational design. The de-sign space throw up many opportunities and challenges for designers. Conceptu-ally the design space is vast, containing an enormous amount of design alterna-tives for any given design brief. The task of researchers like Woodbury and Bur-row has been to make the design space more accessible through computation. Even the simple “undo” feature in any AutoCAD, ArchiCAD or Sketch Up pro-gram is a powerful tool for retracing back through progressively older design ‘al-ternatives’. Replay, the idea of retrieving and reusing a past design idea has found computational expression in “copy & paste”, and a more complicated compu-tational operation “copy and apply path”. The latter uses algorithms to retrieve, copy and the apply a set of “rule applica-tions”, with the resulting design represen-tation being an exploration of those rules

ordos Museum ARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: ordos, inner mongolia, china2005

11

from a different starting state (Woodbury and Burrow 2006). This can be concep-tualised as copying the specific design patch that led to the production of Le Corbusier’s Villa La Roche and ‘applying’ it to a different starting point, for example the early beginnings of Frank Gehry’s Mu-seum of Bilbao. In reality designers would find the task of translating the design ‘path’ taken by Le Corbusier into a com-puter’s grammar, such that it could create the new design representation. Even then there is the trouble of adapting the ‘path’s’ algorithms to a new context such that the subtleties of each rule are not corrupted within its new design space. What I think this demonstrates, is that even only touching briefly on computa-tional efforts to create, track and retrace design spaces, its ability to “amplify” the design work of a designer is great. This, obviously, was made possible by the de-sign of algorithm, and it has other impor-tant uses. Algorithms are currently uti-lised regularly in a more pure calculation sense. With algorithms, computers can rapidly calculate forces within a structure, angles of sunlight penetration, material heat transmutability, building costs, and the list could go on. The logic of these computational operations is quite similar to the mathematics that would be em-ployed by a human to calculate these things. In this case the “amplification” (Woodbury & Burrow 2006) of design ability is that of speed. The computational technique of repre-senting design states through render and 3D modelling is another important com-putational technique, and probably the

most immediately striking. A product of a hard representation, the 3D model makes algorithmic inferences about the referent architectural object, and then translates these into a visually communicable im-age (Woodbury & Burrow 2006). This is a powerful tool for communicating de-sign to designers and too others such as clients. Once created these modelled and rendered representations form a ‘state’ within the design space, which is stored and organised so that it may be utilised later on. Though these design activities existed prior to computation, it is the new speed and accuracy afforded by compu-tation that has increased the mobility of designers through design space. Though people would disagree, I feel that creativity exists within CAD Architecture. Quite simply, I think that though the pres-ence of creativity within computational design is the subject of research and de-bate, CAD creativity is evidenced by the multitude of architectural works created with computation as a supplement or as the sole design tool. The work of MAD Office Beijing, for example, demonstrates the results of form-finding through com-putational parametric design. Using a def-inition of creativity as the production of something novel and useful (Musta’amal, Norman, Hodgson 2009), the Denmark Pavilion in Kobenhavn (see below) cer-tainly does not seem unoriginal and useless. Even an accusation that design using algorithm is uncreative in the sense of being unresponsive to design problems and arbitrary, I am of the opinion that the re-application of algorithms that produce lines, curves, surfaces and fractals is a creative and imaginative process, even if

Denmark Pavilion ARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: copenhagen, denmark2006

sinosteel international plaza ARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: tianjin, china2006-12

13

the utility of the practice is questioned.

The aforementioned research into cre-ativity with CAD has yielded results that support my belief in creative computa-tional design. Behaviour “associated with creativity” can be observed and recorded when CAD is being used by designers. Computer Aided Design is itself an activ-ity associated with creativity, and also supports creative activity outside of it (Musta’amal et al 2009). Acknowledging the existent of creativ-ity is not the end of the debate on CAD’s role in design. It has been suggested the creativity in CAD is “Fake” and that is is conspiring against true creativity (Law-son 1999). This dividing of legitimate and illegitimate creativity has something to say about design in the CAD era, though is maybe just a symptom of a lag be-tween the progress of technology within architecture and the academic and social attitudes towards it. New forms are chal-lenging the existence of current aesthetic frameworks. Equally new design practice that relies in upon the advancement of mathematics, computation and science for progression are odds with the more traditional sources of design progression and evaluation. I think it may be possible that the rapid advancement in architec-tural design practice has created a lacu-na stretching between past architectural philosophies and a new one, nascent and constantly forming in response to the increasing discourse of computational ar-chitecture. Therefore, any suggestion that computational design possesses ‘fake’

creativity, may be a product of a lack of theoretical understanding of a new kind of creativity, that has yet to be gifted aca-demic legitimacy. An installation by Aranda/Lasch: They acknowledge that their forms derive from “elaborate mistakes” (Phaidon 2009), which are then instilled with meaning and attributed function. This can be interpret-ed as a creative weakness, or a strong and different creative activity. On the other hand, if architecture is a collection of signs with meaning and implication (Williams 2005), a hole opens up in computational creativity. The com-putational landscape, containing highly complex mathematical and scientific con-cepts, happens to be rather user friendly. In my brief research into the theory of fractal geometry, a common but recent phenomena of architectural form-finding, I was quickly lost in an uncommunicable mathematical language. My point is that there may be an issue, from a creative standpoint of a designer employing com-putational techniques they do not under-stand. The grasshopper plug-in for rhino lets me create a 3D Voronoi diagram for application in my design work, and I have no idea how it works. In my opinion a lack of understanding of something reduces your ability to be creative with it. If we are ascribing meaning to these new complex computed forms, should we understand how they work? If we don’t understand what we are using in design, maybe we are being creative but in a way that is shallow and “fake” (Lawson 1999).

Denmark Pavilion ARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: copenhagen, denmark2006

vertu pavilionARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: milan, Italy2011

15

However, proceeding from the conten-tion that computational architecture can and is creative, there is still a discon-nect between creativity that takes place within computed information systems and the human mind. Put simply, in order for a computational information system to best enable creativity, it has to be able to change from realist and relativist view-points (Hoffman et al 2005). Currently the representational qualities of CAD pro-grams are on the side of being too realist and literal. Information systems design for creative design encounter a program-matic pitfall where design states a formed as computed concrete entities, losing the relativist subtlety and nuance indescrib-able in the information systems (such as AutoCAD’s) grammar (Woodbury and Burrow 2006). Despite current debate on CAD’s creative quality or the limitations of current design programs in aiding us in the exploration of design space or the straddling of the realist/relativist creative dichotomy, I am excited about computational architecture, envisioning huge potential for these new methods. I see no strong enough barri-ers, given time, to the perfect synthesis of design relationship between human & computer. Kalay (2004) saw a symbiotic relationship where human contributed the total creative input, though I don’t see this as necessary or beneficial. Contribu-tion of creativity from computers could potentiate new and better design, without displacing the human creative effort. After all, computer programming is currently a human effort, and therefore all computer creativity would still indirectly be human. Within the symbiotic system, human ca-

pabilities would be amplified by comput-ers in the areas described by Woodbury and Burrow (2006). The facilities of speed, recall, codification and replay, being supplemented heavily by computation frees the designer to push new boundar-ies. Computation is not a cage around the creative; it is constantly opening new doors and creating the novel (and useful).

the morning line ARCHITECTS: aranda\laschLocation: sevilla, spain & london, uk2006-8

17

Hoffmann, O., Cropley, D. H., Cropley A. J., Nguyen, L. and Swatman, P. (2005), ‘Creativity, Requirements and Perspec-tives’, Australasian Journal of Informa-tion Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, September 2005. pp. 159-175.

Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Me-dia : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 – 25

Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘real’ creativity using computer Aided design: Some Lessons from herman hertz-berger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Con-ference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by ernest edmonds and Linda candy (new York: Acm press), pp. 174-179terzidis, Kostas (2006). Algorithmic Archi-tecture (Boston, mA: elsevier), p. xi

MUSTA’AMAL, A.H., NORMAN, E.W.L. and HODGSON, T., 2009. Gathering empirical evidence concerning links between computer aided design (CAD) and creativity. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, 14 (2), pp. 53-66

(2009). 10 x 10 / 3: 100 architects, 10 crit-ics. London, Phaidon.

Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Vi-sual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 116.

Woodbury, Robert F. and Andrew L. Burrow (2006). ‘Whither design space?’ Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20 , 2, pp. 63-82

sinosteelinternational plaza ARCHITECTS: mad officeLocation: tianjin, china2006-12

Aranda\Lasch Architecture produces parametric architecture with ‘code’ (or script), code being something that can convert information into representation.1 Their architecture is parametric when it works within system of parameters, taken to mean a constraining variable which when organised within algorithms (which make up code) produces a para-metric/algorithmic model that represents something.2 Aranda\Lasch ‘s parametric architecture is itself focused on the use of code to produce complex form, chal-lenging conventional design theory and practice.3 More generally their work can be positioned within Parametricism. A vague and unclear concept, Parametri-cism will for the purposes of discussion and critique be understood as a para-digm of architecture that redefines the theoretical research and practical pro-cesses undertaken in architecture.4 This research and process, more specifically engages and encompasses the ideas of code, scripting, computation, parameter and algorithm.This discussion will explore the current state of Parametricism in architecture, returning to Arana\Lasch’s work to ground discussion in real world practice.

Parametricism’s relationship with script-ing will be explained, and then further, Parametricism and its entailed architec-tural theories and practices will then be critiqued to reveal issues with its legiti-macy as an ideological and philosophi-cal movement, and the merit and utility of the architecture parametric design practice tends to produce. Determined to not simply attack Parametricism, I will discuss what is required of Parametri-cism, and argue that these requirements will be fulfilled. Then, hopefully with Parametricism resting on a solid base, I can assert the effectiveness with which a parametric design could fulfil the brief requirements of the Gateway Project.

Aranda\Lasch Architecture’s creations are produced through the generation of code/script.5 Code is a major part of parametric design and Parametricism. However it script does not encompass parametric design. Code is in fact, some-times not even necessary for parametric design, as a skilful architect can respond to parameters and shape form, orga-nise programme etc. without the use of a computer and its code.6 A further distinction between code (and the act

ParametricismCoding, Programming and Parameters

the morning line ARCHITECTS: aranda\laschLocation: sevilla, spain & london, uk2006-8

21

of ‘coding’ or ‘scripting’) and parametric design is that architects and designers can use tools founded on code without ever engaging with it personally. In this situation the architect places all his trust in the ability of the computer program-mer to produce code for programs like AutoCAD that effectively achieves his/her parametric design aims.7 If coding is not synonymous with Parametricism but Parametricism can encompass coding, then Parametricism must contain some-thing more to it.On top of this inconsistency with coding, Parametricism has many more concep-tual and semantic issues. When Aranda\Lasch design something like the Grotto Pavilion, they are doing much more than blindly and arbitrarily building algorithms to produce its modular boulder form. They are employing scientific concepts like the quasi-crystal8 , traditional form-finding techniques (“small parts, larger wholes”9 ), an understanding of “a grot-to”, and an idea of an intentional end. Parametricism currently seems to have trouble identifying which activities, ideas, purposes, processes and results should be considered Parametric, especially when these things may contradict each

other. This stems from Parametricism as a concept and movement lacking philo-sophical coherency. The Modernist movement was part of an ideology and philosophy, Modern-ism.10 This ideology had central tenets, it directed things towards a purpose, venerated and denigrated ideas and acts, and was generally a pervasive way of thinking that penetrated not just architecture, but fashion, art, politics, literature and ethics (as did Post-modernism).11 When Aranda\Lasch say that they want to “surprise” and “frustrate you conception of what a thing should be like”12 they are communicating intentions, purposes and desires which contain within them valuable beliefs and ideas of their per-sonal design philosophy. At the moment however, there is no way to either place their philosophy within a wider philoso-phy of Parametricism, on the basis of which it can be credited or rejected. It is interesting when Aranda\Lasch express desire to “produce and infinite varia-tion”13 , but is this a Parametricist idea or not? If their work cannot be understood within its correct context or paradigm, then an accurate critique is impossible

grotto pavilion ARCHITECTS: aranda\laschLocation: sevilla, spain & london, uk2006-8

23

and opens what may be good work up to the ridicule of competing philosophies like modernism or minimalism.In the area of critical evaluation, Para-metricist design work has been labelled “egregious” in form, “anti-contextual”, superficial and stemming from a “fake creativity”.14 Aranda\Lasch personally have had their work described as being “ingenious execution tied to question-able motives”.15 The flashy parametric architecture bursting upwards out of the sand is seduction and wonderful, yet seems to compromise Parametri-cism’s strength in its critique of other architectural theories and methods, to the ascension of its own.16 When re-ferring to their Yeasayer Project even they admitted that they “don’t think it’s clear to [them] what the piece really is”.17 When parametric design displays a lack of understanding of its methods, a lack of exploration of its potentials and a lack of thinking on its purposes and uses, the paradigm of Parametricism is in troubled territory. However, rather than being a symptom of poor standards in the Parametric design practice, I think it is equally likely that criticism is coming from a place of

misunderstanding. The design phenom-ena are being encountered by people who are possibly still thinking within a different Architectural paradigm, placing it in older contexts and judging it on dif-ferent (read: inappropriate) criteria. Both the Parametricist and the Criticiser are a fault I think. The former has not estab-lished a clear philosophy and framework to understand their work, partly because they do not themselves understand it. The latter is yet to free/separate himself from an incompatible mode of thinking.

However, Aranda\Lasch have received praise from critics,18 and Parametricism is not a fatefully flawed architectural paradigm. With a coherent, acceptable philosophy, a network of skilled archi-tects pushing the limits of parametric design and time, Parametricism can be-come a significant, important and fulfill-ing venture of Architectural theory and practice .19

It is possible to identify philosophical te-nets of Parametricism. Although strictly, all design is produced within parameters, Parametricism is explicit in its response to them and makes effort to code these design parameters into parameters

yeasayer crystalline stage ARCHITECTS: aranda\laschLocation: -20012

25

communicable to computers, such that more complex relationships and interre-lations can be calculated. However, this prescription for correlation and inter-relation should not be at the expense of genuine meaning within systems con-nections. When Schumacher called for “differentiated” and “correlated” para-metric systems, he did so without pro-viding a purpose of differentiation and correlation to architecture. Parametri-cism must not assume, as Schumacher does, that it is superior to Modernism, Post-Modernism and Minimalism, there ought to be reasons.20 I think these reasons can be found in Parametricisms alignment with Science, Engineering and mathematics, through code.21 Computa-tion in Architecture provides opportunity to base design on the empirical, and to draw meaning from the scientific and the spirit of this contemporary scientific age. An architecture that seems to rest on the foundations of science, maths and engineering seems much stronger than an architecture that is founded on the thoughtless production of blob-form.22 This kind of approach to Parametricism provides a path for Architects to direct their learning along. The ultimate aim

of a quantitatively useful architecture, with empirical demonstrable value gives Architects a skyhook to pull themselves from the superficial construction of malleable, plastic and complex forms to a deep understanding of parametric design capabilities for materials, pro-gramme, structure and phenomenology, not necessarily form.A remedy to all this confusion in phi-losophy and unacceptability of design standards is time. The computer has developed so quickly, and brought with it a rapid increase in complexity in sci-ence, mathematics and engineers that has resulted in an architecture paradigm, Parametricism, that is perhaps the most difficult of all to understand and mas-ter.23 Time, I believe, will discard the superfluous theory and practice, draw-ing clarity from complexity and building great ‘Parametric Architects’ from the ones currently engaging in (valuable) “exploratory play” .24 This idea can be attributed to Aranda\Lasch quite directly. In the creation of The Morning Line they collaborated with an artists and the Arup Advanced Geometry Unit (Arup AGU) to produce an “open cellular structure” with “no final form”.25 Complex geom-

the morning line ARCHITECTS: aranda\laschLocation: sevilla, spain & london, uk2006-8

27

etries were produced from the most contemporary algorithms, yet the result was not an entirely functional pavilion. Designed for the performance of music, the open pavilion does display a level of functionalism, in that it is a “modular structure” capable of adapting to con-text and the type of performance. How-ever, one always gets the sense that what was most interesting and important were the abstract concepts of a “cos-mological theory” and of a structure “generating itself and falling apart”, and how these manifested in a new type of form-finding process.Parametricism has in the Gateway Project an opportunity. No design para-digm is secure in holding the interest of architects, clients and the public so it is important in this design to work closer towards a coherent architecture phi-losophy and closer towards Parametri-

cism’s potential to create a truly great work of architecture, one that engages with context, its users, is highly efficient and functional all the while expressing monumentally a certain telos driving the need to produce this kind of architecture. Finally, and although this may seem like pandering to the client’s desire for shock value, a parametric work can be of awe-inspiring physicality. The form of this work can embody all the ambition, excitement and possibility inherent in the burgeoning field of Parametricism, and these would not be a pointless emotion-ality. If the world is currently a place of plurality, subjectivity and uncertainty26 then I think this; a parametric design can respond contextually to this century’s zeitgeist with the aforementioned emo-tions, and being an antidote to it, and not at all contradict it.

“The wildest things that you can think of, just because they are not known to exist, doesn’t mean that they don’t,

or doesn’t mean that they can’t” –Chris Lasch

29

`

Burry, Mark, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, 1 edn (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), p. 10. Choi, Leeji, The Morning Line by Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup (2009) <http://www.designboom.com/art/the-morning-line-by-matthew-ritchie-with-aranda-lasch-and-arup/> [accessed 27 March 2013].Daniel, Patrik Schumacher- Parametricism (2010) <http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2010/09/25/patrik-schumacher-parametricism/> [accessed 27 March 2013].Fairs, Marcus, Design Miami Chat Shows: Aranda\Lasch (2013) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/01/14/design-miami-chat-shows-arandalasch/> [accessed 27 March 2013].Holmes, Kevin, Making the Mundane Cosmic: Meet Modular Designers Aranda\Lasch (2013) <http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/making-the-mundane-cosmic-meet-modular-designers-arandalasch> [accessed 27 March 2013].Lawson, Bryan, ‘’Fake’ and ‘real’ creativity using computer Aided design: Some Lessons from Her-man Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy(New York: ACM Press, 1999), p. 174-179Leach, Neil, The Anaesthetics of Architecture (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999), p. 78.Mayer, Adam, Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric’ Architecture (2010) <http://adamnathanielmayer.blogspot.com/2010/06/style and pretense of parametric.html (cached only)> [accessed 27 March 2013].McGuirk, Jason, Aranda\Lasch: Cracking architecture’s code (2008) <http://www.iconeye.com/read-previous-issues/icon-056-%7C-february-2008/aranda/-lasch-cracking-architectures-code> [accessed 27 March 2013].Petzold, Charles, Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software (Seattle: Micro-soft Press, 1999), p. 32.Phaidon Press, 10 X 10 \ 3 (New York: Phaidon Press Inc, 2009), p. 6.Woodbury, Robert, Elements of Parametric Design, 1 edn (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 39.

ONLINE ARTICLES:Choi, Leeji, The Morning Line by Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup (2009) <http://www.designboom.com/art/the-morning-line-by-matthew-ritchie-with-aranda-lasch-and-arup/> [accessed 27 March 2013].Holmes, Kevin, Making The Mundane Cosmic: Meet Modular Designers Aranda\Lasch (2013) <http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/making-the-mundane-cosmic-meet-modular-designers-arandalasch> [accessed 27 March 2013].Fairs, Marcus, Design Miami Chat Shows: Aranda\Lasch (2013) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/01/14/design-miami-chat-shows-arandalasch/> [accessed 27 March 2013].Schumacher, Patrik, Patrik Schumacher on parametricism- ‘Let the style wars begin’ (2010) <http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/the-critics/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article> [accessed 27 March 2013].

ONLINE VIDEOS:‘Architecture Biennale - Aranda\Lasch with IPC (NOW Interviews)’, Biennale Channel, Youtube, 28 August 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg8X-pDaIq0>‘Building Awe-Inducing Crystalline Structures’, The Creators Project, Youtube, 14 March 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t6KoTNt2_WY#!>‘Design Miami Chat Shows: Aranda\Lasch’, Dezeen Magazine, Vimeo, 14 January 2009 <http://vimeo.com/11139114>‘Intensive Fields Lecture 3’, USC Architecture, Youtube, 23 March 2010 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvz0aepheY>

1 Petzold, Charles, Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software (Seattle: Microsoft Press, 1999), p. 32.

2 Woodbury, Robert, Elements of Parametric Design, 1 edn (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 39.

3 Phaidon Press, 10 X 10 \ 3 (New York: Phaidon Press Inc, 2009), p. 6.

4 Schumacher, Patrik, Patrik Schumacher on parametricism- ‘Let the style wars begin’ (2010) <http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/the-critics/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article> [accessed 27 March 2013].

5 Phaidon Press, 10 X 10 \3, 6

6 Daniel, Patrik Schumacher- Parametricism (2010) <http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2010/09/25/patrik-schumacher-parametricism/> [accessed 27 March 2013]., (Patrik Schumacher in the comments)

7 Burry, Mark, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming, 1 edn (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), p. 10.

8 ‘Design Miami Chat Shows: Aranda\Lasch’, Dezeen Magazine, Vimeo, 14 January 2009 <http://vimeo.com/11139114>

9 ‘Building Awe-Inducing Crystalline Structures’, The Creators Project, Youtube, 14 March 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t6KoTNt2_WY#!>

10 Mayer, Adam, Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric’ Architecture (2010) <http://adamnathan-ielmayer.blogspot.com/2010/06/style and pretense of parametric.html (cached only)> [accessed 27 March 2013]., 2

11 Mayer, Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric…”, pg. 4

12 Holmes, Kevin, Making the Mundane Cosmic: Meet Modular Designers Aranda\Lasch (2013) <http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/making-the-mundane-cosmic-meet-modular-designers-aranda-lasch> [accessed 27 March 2013].

13 The Creators Project, Vimeo

14 Mayer, Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric…”, pg. 3

15 McGuirk, Jason, Aranda\Lasch: Cracking architecture’s code (2008) <http://www.iconeye.com/read-previous-issues/icon-056-%7C-february-2008/aranda/-lasch-cracking-architectures-code> [ac-cessed 27 March 2013].

16 Leach, Neil, The Anaesthetics of Architecture (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999), p. 78.

17 The Creators Project, Vimeo

18 Phaidon, 10 X 10 \3, 6

19 Schumacher, Patrik Schumacher on Parametricism, pg 1

20 Ibid, pg. 1

21 McGuirk, Cracking Architecture’s Code

22 Lawson, Bryan, ‘’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, 1999), p. 174-179

23 Burry, Mark, Scripting Cultures, p. 19

24 Woodbury, Elements of Parametric Design, pg. 39

25 Choi, Leeji, The Morning Line by Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup (2009) <http://www.designboom.com/art/the-morning-line-by-matthew-ritchie-with-aranda-lasch-and-arup/> [ac-

cessed 27 March 2013].

26 Mayer, Style and the Pretense of ‘Parametric’ Architecture, pg. 4

Footnotes REFERENCES

Algorithmic ExplorationPersonal Efforts in Rhino 3d with Grass-

hopper plugin

34

This is a final render of what I called my Perforated Surface Curvature. I have included it because it is the first thing I created with Grasshopper. After following along with the tutorial and getting an introduction to the capabilities of the Grasshopper plug-in i wanted to create a sort of perforated facade surface for a structure. This surface was to follow one simple rule: the perforation would have their size related to the surfaces curvature.

This design problem was the first that I solved using computation and algorithm, and I don’ t think I could have been solved very effectively any other way. The circles were created along the surface and then had their radius related to the mean curvature of the surface.

I think that this peice of design has a meaningful form, in that the circle sizes are interrelated with the surface they are punching out. I also think that it is engaging with Bryan Lawson’s idea of ‘fake creativity’. Sure, the circles relate to the surface but if placed in context they would become superficial if this relation had not impact upon the surfaces function, structure in a way that demonstrated utility.

Striated Building Structurerender with shadows35

I was very happy, and even excited when I had successfuly created this form in grasshopper. The curves very made in Rhino 3D though from these I created lofts, curve divisions and then a desired form all with Grasshopper’s algorithm modules.

This design was important, because I was picturing a sort of futuristic tower made up of Tubes and structural floor plates that floated between them. This prior con-ception of my final form forced me to work through Grasshopper to create the desired outcome. Though this was ‘exploratory play’ in the sense that I didn’t know what algorithms would end up working and I would end up using, it felt like design in that it was directed towards a specific form.

Maybe what I was doing here was the computational version of sketching, trying to visually depict and solidify and mentally conceived form. Though the end result was 3 dimensionally representable and felt dynamic and powerful, something exciting.

Computational Architecture I think has a great tool distinct from traditional design methods in its ability to ‘sketch’ incredibly complicated forms, this Striated Building Strucutre hardly nearing these potentials for complexity.

Geodesic Grid mesh furniture Grid mesh ‘Trampoline’ in context

Geodesic Grid mesh furniture Grid mesh ‘Trampoline’ render

37

This week our design task was directed to have a performative and functional as-pect, namely to be a peice of furniture. The example we were shown was a lounge, and what I chose to produce was a trampoline kind of lounge peice.

The Geodesic curve was an interesting mathematical algorithm for discovering what could be called an ‘efficient curve’. It is used to form the mesh that forms the struc-ture of the design.

Learning about Data Trees also uncovered further complexity to parametricism, that I would have thought would be daunting, though it rather seems invigoratingly challenging. Woodbury said that Parametric design is accessible but very difficult to master. I think that if I can produce satisfying design like this Geodesic Grid Mesh Furniture along the path of learning It will be an enjoyable experience.

Geodesic Grid mesh furniture Grasshopper Plugin Screenshot:

visual representation of algorithms

CONCLUSION LEARNING OUTCOMES

If it seems like these discussions on the discourse of computational and comput-erised architecture have only scratched the surface, I hope this feeling bring excitement.

The difficulty in grasping the entirety of this ‘style’ or method of architecture is a feature of its complexity, youth and rapid development.

We don’t yet know eveything that a parametric computational architecture is, and what can be, though as to the Gate-way project, a few important things can be promised.

Utilizing advanced form-find techniques made possible only through compu-tation, the design will be striking and exciting. Echoing the metaphor of a gateway, the architectural installation is itself a peice of an evolving discourse on the parametric and computation. If the Gateway project is designed using the techniques argued for in this peice’s

discussions, it will be a door to new possibilities as well as a monument to acheivments of the architectural feild to date.

The computational design space con-tains within it new ways of conceiving space, relations between elements, structure and organisation.

Within it also, is the capacity for discov-ery of new meanings, and re-interpreta-tions of old sentiments, desires and am-bitions. This is not change for changes sake, but a directed effort (as chaotic as it is at times) to reimagine architecture within the spirit and philosophies of the contemporary era, with new alignments to the scientific and mathematical.

Learning about the contemporary Ar-chitectural discourse from the beginning of semester, the experience has been invigorating.

For all the accusations of it being su-perficial, hollow and shallow this area of Architecture seems to have the most energy.

I had a general idea of what compu-tational and parametric architecture entails, and had engaged with it sporadi-cally through AutoCAD, though the past weeks have revealed incredible com-

plexity and challenging new ideas.

It seems to me that the possibility of a re-seating of architecture within a com-putational framework it a massive event, even if it is a theoretical one.Not everyone is on board with the computational, and it is likely that being a student I am more receptive to new ideas and different framework (I current-ly have no stubborn architecture ‘meth-od’). However, it seems to me that an embrace of this new architectural theory and method could lead to a prosperous and meaningful career in Architecture.

41 42