1

2

3

4 Introduction

Part A Conceptualisation

8 A1 Design Futuring

12 A2 Design Computation

16 A3 Composition/Generation

20 A4 Conclusion

21 A5 Learning Outcome

22 A6 Algorithmic Sketches

23 References

Contents

4

My name is Joe Chapman and I am currently in my third year at the University of Melbourne, majoring in architecture. My interest in and love for architecture was stirred at a relatively young age as I scoured through my parent’s large collec-tion of architecture magazines. My desire to become an architect was cemented through a primary school project on modern archi-tecture. My other interests also revolve around similarly creative fields, particularly art and design of all kinds.

I have always been drawn to sim-plicity, emerging from my ideas that architecture should be about creating rational, functional and in-viting spaces for people to inhabit. As a result, prior to commencing this subject and the research for this journal, I was hesitant about

the use of computational design processes. I therefore came into the subject with little knowledge or understanding of digital design theory.

In terms of practical experience with digital design tools, my knowl-edge is even more limited. I have virtually no experience with any modelling programs and have managed to get through my stu-dios with the use of reasonably skilful hand drawing and a limited understanding of Adobe programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator. Consequently I have viewed Studio Air as a relatively daunting pros-pect. However, I am keen to take this opportunity to learn as much as I can and develop my skills in what I now see as a crucial part of the design process into the future.

Introduction

Fig 1

5

6

Part A.

7

Conceptualisation

8

A.1. Design Futuring

It is almost impossible to predict what the future will hold for the environment, technology or popu-lation, however what we can do is become aware of, and understand, our current situation and speculate and plan for a desirable future. De-sign futuring refers to the practice that aims to make time for human existence by negating the factors that take time away. Firstly we must recognise that our actions and habits up until this point have left the earth in a precarious state. Once we accept this fact, we consider more

sustainable alternatives. These begin with our own “values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours” 1, and extend to a harnessing of design to plan against the state of unsustain-ability we have heaped upon our-selves2. The approach to achieve this that this journal will focus on is

1 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby (2013). Speculative Everything: De-sign Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press), p.1 2 Tony Fry (2008). Design Fu-turing: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp.1–16

9

10

Archigram was a group of six radical architects based in London in the 1960s who were able to impact and shake up the world of architecture without actually building any physical structures. Instead, they pro-duced paper architecture and a magazine that successfully conveyed their concepts and interests in subjects ranging from pop culture, expendability, mass production and megastructures1. These ideas are succinctly dis-played in both Plug-In-City and The Walking City. These highly 1 Mallgrave and Contand-riopoulos, Architectural Theory, p.209

avant-garde designs addressed issues of space and social poli-cy, and advanced their idea that architecture must promote ‘living’ and ‘being’ rather than creating fixed, mass volumes2. These designs sustained ideas about technological modernism and mass production in architecture3. inspiring the later High Tech movement as well as impacting

2 Simon Sadler (2005). Archi-gram: Architecture Without Architec-ture (The MIT Press), p.53 Mallgrave and Contand-riopoulos, Architectural Theory, p.209

Council House 2 was a project completed in 2006 by DesignInc for the City of Melbourne. The goal of this building was for it to become a working example for how to reduce energy and water consumption in commer-cial buildings in Melbourne, and in turn contribute to the City of Melbourne’s target of zero emissions by 20201. It could be considered revolutionary for its type as it was the first new commercial office building in the country to exceed the 6 star Green Building Council rating system. Council House 2 has contributed significantly to sus-1 DesignInc (2006). CH2 Mel-bourne City Council House 2. http://www.designinc.com.au/projects/ch2-melbourne-city-council-house-2

tainable thinking not just within Melbourne but globally. Radical environmental features include the provision of 100 per cent fresh air to all spaces through the use of changing ventilation patterns on the façade, chilled ceiling panels to circulate water, evaporative cooling towers, high thermal mass materials and a computer controlled night purge of excess heat in summer, wind turbines, solar hot water, pho-tovoltaic’s, shower towers and numerous other features. These features are all long lasting and have created an environment that improves the patterns of living and well being of all its oc-cupants, creating a connection between them and the building,

Archigram: Plug-In-City (1964), The Walking City (1964)

DesignInc: Council House 2 (2006)

11

Fig 2

Fig 4

Fig 3

12

A.2. Design Computation

When analysing the importance of design computation, it is important to first clarify the meaning of the term, as it is often incorrectly interchanged with computerisation. Comput-erisation refers to the process of translating an analogue idea into a computer system and manipulating or developing it digitally1 whereas computation refers to the use of these systems themselves as the design formulators.

In relation to architecture, design computation has brought a level of continuity previously not possible in the field. From the earliest stages of design and form generation through to final production, a continuous relationship has been established. Digital design is therefore allowing performance simulation and testing of forms, materials and systems to be integrated into programs from the very beginning. The scripting of al-gorithms is augmenting the analysis between architecture and engineer-ing, creating “digitally integrated performative design environments in which form is driven by perfor-mance” 2. This contrasts with Louis 1 Terzidis, Kostas (2006). Algorith-mic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier), p.xi2 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Ox-

Sullivan’s ‘form ever follows func-tion’, which was an important con-cept for much of the 20th century. While form still occupies a second-ary position, through design com-putation it is the performance, as well as the formation process itself, which guides the end result3. Com-putation, and particularly parametric design, the development and logic of algorithmic systems, has created a wider and more easily accessible variety of design outcomes in real time through the altering of param-eters and constraints, rather than having to develop complete new systems for each different iteration or solution. The ability to link these systems or algorithms and alter their inputs and constraints has created the possibility for computation to produce differentiation4 and varia-tion within its results, creating forms and geometries that would not have been possible without computation. The paradox that is created is that with the increasing use of computers in the designing process, we are

man, eds (2014). Theories of the Digi-tal in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), p.43 Oxman and Oxman, Theories of the Digital, p.34 Oxman and Oxman, Theories of the Digital, p.3

13

14

The Kerf Pavilion is the result of research and development of both digital design and digital fabrication techniques. While kerfing, the cutting of wood to aid bending, is a well known technique, using computation-al design techniques allowed the designers to input this logic along with the tolerances of the material used, into flexible para-metric modelling algorithms 1,

1 Brian Hoffer, Gabriel Kahan, Tyler Crain and Dave Miranowski (2012). ‘Project: Kerf Pavilion’, Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology Architecture and Planning. https://ar-chitecture.mit.edu/architectural-de-sign/project/kerf-pavilion

giving them the ability to alter and test the structure through digital design. As well as de-sign, the fabrication process was also then controlled via the parametric model, as unrolled parts could be sent to a CNC router and precisely milled to allow physical testing, with the plywood shapes gaining strength through bending into a spatial form (Crain, in Jenny Xie, 2012).

Bloom is a responsive computa-tional structure that explores the effects of temperature on bime-tallic metals (Shing, 2013 ). Its 14,000 pieces curl or flatten depending on the temperature to which they are subjected. Rath-er than being pre-programmed with actions, Bloom is able to provide shade, as well as natu-ral ventilation when necessary,

as a result of the computational algorithms used to map and test the geometry of the panels, both individually and as a group (Shing, 2013 ). As the struc-ture has been computationally designed it is able to adapt to the environment without further input, allowing different spatial experiences to users.

The Kerf Pavilion: MIT Architecture Students (2012)

Bloom: DOSU Studio (2012)

15Fig 7

Fig 5

Fig 6

16

A.3. Composition/Generation

Generation in design is the product of a shift form the traditional com-positional process of design, often arbitrary and lacking in reasoning, to a process driven by computation, with computation itself becoming the process. From the external, some might consider generation to be the formulation of chance, how-ever generation and computation are guided by algorithms which in their nature are definite and com-prised of a set of rules (Wilson and Frank, p.11). Rather than simply being tools to aid the designer in their process, computational soft-wares have become integral to the formation of the designs themselves. Independent design concepts and intent are present as they always must be, however it is the computa-tional process which generates the actual physical forms. The designer creates the algorithms or script that the process feeds off, but it is these scripts which interact and formulate a result. They create based on the parameters input into them and so have shifted architectural focus and the designing process away from a strictly visual or aesthetic pursuit, or even an idealised functional ambi-tion, to an architecture that is firmly based in performance logic. It is this concept that impacted upon the writ-ing and thinking of many architects. They saw the opportunity to analyse performance aspects of designs continuously throughout all phases

of conception through to produc-tion and use, generating changes and variations with ease ( , p.13). There became a focus on algorith-mic thinking, that is the interpretation and modification of generative code to produce a multitude of results (Pe-ters, p.10), and this led to changes in the structures of certain architec-tural companies. Firms, particularly those focusing on large projects, increasingly employed individuals or even teams dedicated to these computational technologies and the development of scripts, and this is a trend that continues today.

One issue with the use of genera-tion in architecture is the potential loss of some level of control over the physical outcome of the process. While parameters are input, the way the programs reacts to these can at times produce unexpected results, and if changes are made to the model rather than the algorithm, then these will be lost with any further regeneration of the model (Margari-da, Fernandes, p.32). However the opportunities computation provides to parametrically experiment with designs far outweighs the possible negative outcomes. The oppor-tunity to gain information about a design once in use, for the design to analyse and react to this, and then improve itself is generation in a com-pletely practical sense.

17

18

This ongoing project by rvtr involves the development of ‘environment responsive inte-rior envelope systems’. The systems are computationally designed and input with vari-ous environmental performance requirements creating structures which respond directly to their surroundings. The algorithms used allow continual information exchange between the systems,

users and environment, cre-ating a generative design that changes when it senses energy, movement, temperature change, light and even carbon dioxide. The sensors embedded within the system then create reactions such as the extraction or supply of air, cooling fans, added light or the physical alteration of the system’s shape due to a user’s presence.

The aim of the Trip Pavilion was to create as open and usable a space as possible with minimal structure. As a result of this, performance became the key determinant for the development of the design. The main param-eters for the project were the six defined points where the struc-ture could touch the ground, as well as the use of triangles for the base geometry due to their structural qualities as a shape.

A generative process was then used, creating a varied triangu-lated pattern. The pattern densi-fies the closer the structure is to the ground to allow more mate-rial to spread load, whereas the opposite is the case for areas further from the ground where triangles are enlarged and the structure lightened. The over-all arc form of the pavilion is an emergent form due to its struc-tural logic.

The Stratus Project: rtvr (2010-Ongoing)

Trip Pavilion: LEAD (2012)

19

Fig 9

Fig 8

Fig 10

20

A.4. Conclusion

What is clear from the research un-dertaken in Part A is that as humans, we have reached a point where our actions within the environment are not sustainable in the long-term, and consequently responsibility falls on us to rectify these issues. This jour-nal argues that the method to do that is through innovative and effective design. Part A1 utilises past and present examples of design to repre-sent the proposition that a change in approach and thinking is required. It formulates the concept that through design we can negate the process of defuturing and states that design is about defining system rules rath-er than outcomes. Part A2 and A3 then turn the focus onto the specific

methods we can use to make these changes, namely computational and generative design. These processes bring continuity to the design, fabri-cation and occupancy stages of any project, allowing specific parameters to be input and tested, driving the formation of the design. Creating algorithms based on performance and continual analysis, and in turn creating systems that are capable of generating their own changes is an innovative concept that can be utilised to answer the questions of sustainability. In developing my designs this semester I will further explore these concepts and aim to achieve a more creative approach to sustainable architecture.

21

A.5. Learning Outcomes

I came into this subject with very little knowledge, but a number of misconceptions as to the possi-bilities and use of computational design. From the first lecture my concepts were challenged though the comparison between computeri-sation and computation, a distinction I had either not realised existed, or at the least had never given much thought. Initially I saw the use of these digital technologies as a purely aesthetic tool and was hesi-tant about their effect on diminishing an element of the design process. However, through the actions of research and experimentation I am now conscious that the opposite is in fact true, and that the opportunities both in terms of design performance

as well as complexity of design are increased immeasurably. The use of algorithms and parameters to create solutions to architectural problems has been clarified as a concept and its effectiveness is obvious. In Stu-dio Earth I developed a design for a series of public spaces that aimed to respond to the steep topography of the site. Through the use of a computational design program such as Grasshopper I could have input topological data into the algorithm and let this drive or generate a result that was more intricately linked and responsive to the site. Numerous iterations could have been tested in a time efficient and ultimately effec-tive manner.

22

A.6. Algorithmic Sketches

23

24

References

Furuto. Alison (2012). ‘Bloom / DO|-SU Studio Architecture’, ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/215280/bloom-dosu-studio-architecture/

DesignInc (2006). CH2 Melbourne City Council House 2. http://www.designinc.com.au/projects/ch2-mel-bourne-city-council-house-2

Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona (2013). Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press) pp. 1-9, 33-45

Fernandes, Rita Margarida Serra (2013). Generative Design: a new stage in the design process (Tecni-co Lisboa). https://fenix.tecnico.ulis-boa.pt/downloadFile/395145541718/Generative%20Design%20a%20new%20stage%20in%20the%20de-sign%20process%20-%20Rita%20Fernandes-%20nº%2058759.pdf

Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Prac-tice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1–16

Hoffer, Brian, Kahan, Gabriel, Crain, Tyler and Miranowski, Dave (2012). ‘Project: Kerf Pavilion’, Massachu-setts Institute of Technology Archi-tecture and Planning. https://archi-tecture.mit.edu/architectural-design/project/kerf-pavilion

Laboratory for Explorative Architec-ture and Design, The Pavilion.http://www.l-e-a-d.pro/projects/trip-pavilion-2012-competition-en-

try/2812

Mallgrave, Henry Francis and Con-tandriopoulos, Christina, eds (2008). Architectural Theory: Volume 2 – An Anthology from 1871 to 2005 (Mal-don MA: Blackwell Publishing).

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10

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

rvtr, The Stratus Project, http://www.rvtr.com/research/research-b/

Sadler, Simon (2005). Archigram: Ar-chitecture Without Architecture (The MIT Press).

Terzidis, Kostas (2006). Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier), p. xi

Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’, The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cogni-tive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12

Xie, Jenny (October 2012). ‘Archi-tecture@MIT: More than objects’, The Tech Online Edition, 132. http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N46/kerf.html

25

26

27

28

29

30