p a g e 1

Title page under maintenance.

p a g e2

p a g e 3

In the first days of my architecture course at Melbourne University I remember standing in the lobby of the old architec-ture building with a fellow student who was then part way through his second year. We were observing the plans of the new architecture building which was to replace the one we were currently standing in. I asked my friend “can you imagine designing this building your-self?” He told me that he could. Having barely started my course in architecture, and at that point not entirely sure that was what I wanted to do, I could not comprehend how one would go about designing a building so large, complex and attractive as this. The time and thought and number of hours that must go into planning such a thing, sorting out every little detail, providing as efficient a design as possible while not jeopardising the beauty of the thing. How does one deal with all of that? Where does one even start?

Now just having completed two years of this course I understand. Not to say that I myself could design a building such as the one currently under construction, buy that I can understand how it is done. I can discern the buildings parts, deter-mine what drove the architect to place this window here, that wall there, and I can begin to see the concept, the idea behind the building itself. In two short years I have come to a point where I have an understanding of architecture that I couldn’t imagine having two years before. But my goal was never to under-stand how it was done. My goal was to learn how to do it myself. And for that I still have a long and exciting journey ahead of me.

I like to see things built. I like to create an object myself. Conceptualise it, design it, and see made into a physical form, having an active hand in its construc-tion. I like to do this because I like the stage which comes next. When I get to stand back and look at the thing I have made and know that I have made it. To know that someone is going to use this thing, enjoy it, be thankful for its exist-ence, and that I was the person who gave it to them. To me this is the purpose of architecture; To create a solution to a problem and to do so in the most efficient and beautiful way possible. To physically create something according to a vision of the world which would see it made better than it currently is.

p a g e4

BeautyThe first sense

ArtThe first wordThen wonder

Then the inner realization of formThe sense of wholeness of inseperable elements

Design consults nature[1]

p a g e 5

MODULE A CONCEPTUALISATION-A.1 - DESIGN FUTURING 6

Luminescent Solar Concentrators 8 Jan Vorman - Dispatchwork 10David Benjamin - “Hy-Fi” 12

A.2 - DESIGN COMPUTATION 15Swarm Intelligence 16Messe Basel New Hall 18

A.3 - COMPOSITION/GENERATION 21Emergent Design 22Son-O-House 24

A.4 - CONCLUSION 27A.5 - PARAMETRIC DESIGN VS TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE 29A.6 - APPENDIX 37

Algorithmic Sketchbook 38

p a g e6

“It seems strange then that when called upon to signify sustainability and the importance there of, the banal solu-tion is reverting to imitations of nature to analogues of var-ious green biological icons generally thought of as pretty pictures of nature. There is no provocation in stuffing a building full of vegetables and stating that the green stuff contributes to the interior climate through absorbing CO2. It generates no public awareness, no excessive experi-ence, it is simply too comfortable. Speaking of comforta-ble and mundane, once you manage to brush the leaves and vines away, in search of the man made form, what you find is easily reduced to an ideal constructed in the 1920s: curtain walls and building masses that conform to the dated idea of modernity. The only innovation being that the roof garden has moved to the convenience of the interior.” [2]

- An unsustainable lack of edge

A . 1 D E S I G N F U T U R I N G

p a g e 7

In a society where the very things that ensure the continuation of our day to day life are slowly but surely bringing about our destruction, a change in perspective is needed steer us off a path with an increas-ingly limited opportunity for a future. The effects of the unsustainable world we have been working so hard to create are coming to the forefront, along with the realization of our short sightedness in our prior practice of design and technology. To move forward this new knowledge must also come with a change of thinking, and most im-portantly, a change in how we design. To avoid the continuation of this destructive construction, we must stop designing for the present, and begin designing for the future.

The counter to our unsustainable society is, of course, sustainable de-sign, which has long been growing in effectiveness and use. Howev-er, with the development of new sustainable technologies occurring independently to the development of design practice, sustainable design in architecture has become merely a feature which archi-tects can add to their buildings, often appearing somewhat as an afterthought. Furthermore it has become a fashion statement within the building industry. The promise of a green building being used as a selling point to those with a heightened environmental awareness. Or perhaps to those looking for a quick fix to satisfy their social obli-gation to “save the planet”. Design, and architecture in particular, needs to begin taking steps away from using sustainable technolo-gies as an add on to building design, an economic or social bonus, and start properly integrating it in to the way we think about design-ing space.

‘Design futuring’ and ‘design intelligence’ are two terms outlined by Tony Fry in his book “Design Futuring”[3]. They basically outline a need to alter the way we think about design. In effect redesigning design. Currently, and in the past, design has been centred on the needs of the present, without much thought going towards the future. The development of technologies which generate power from unsustain-able and damaging sources, such as fossil fuels and crude oils, are a prime example of this. To move in to a future of design which will enable the future of our society, we must start incorporating a design intelligence which takes in to account the effects a design will have on the future, and begin moving away from the technologies which are robbing us of one.

A . 1 D E S I G N F U T U R I N G

p a g e8Fig. A.1.01

p a g e 9

Effectively executing the same job as a standard photovoltaic solar panel, the Luminescent Solar Concentrator features a number of advantages

which allow it to be used more subtely and aesthe-cially than its solar powered counterpart.

Comprising of a thin sheet of material, typically a polymer, doped with luminescent species such as

organic dyes, quantum dots or rare earth complex-es, [1] the Solar Concentrator is able to trap solar en-ergy over a large area and direct it out the edges of the sheet. The device will only absorb a certain wavelength of light, determined by the colour of dye that is used, and this colour light will be con-

centrated and emitted out the edges of the sheet with a luminescent glow. The devices which actu-ally collects the energy are the solar cells placed

along the edges of the sheets, absorbing the con-centrated light and converting it in to electricity.

The Luminescent Solar Concentrator offers some significant advantages to solar panels, and some disadvantages. The technology is relatively new and is still being developed, working examples offering 7% efficiency compared to a potential

40% for silicon photovoltaics. (Though very recent prototypes are producing up to 20% efficiency.)

However the concentrator system gives the LSC’s a significant advantage in collecting solar radiatioin,

being effective in both direct and diffuse light. This give the LSC’s greater effectiveness in overcast

conditioins and potential for use in northern Europe-an countries.

The biggest advantage for this technology lies in its appearance. Each Solar Concentrator sheet will absorb one wave length of light, emmitting it

out the edges and allowing all other wavelengths to pass through, leaving the sheet itself complete-

ly transparent. This effectively means that Lumi-nescent Solar Concentrators are a type of glass

which produces electricity. The potential uses for this product are endless, given that a stable and efficient prototype can be created. Just having

these LSC’s replace glass windows or skylights could produce enourmous amounts of energy with literal-ly no hindrance, aesthetically or obstructively, other

than a little extra cost.

Beyond the technologies potential ability to blend straight in to our current practices of building de-

sign, it provides opportunities through the very tech-nology which makes it work. Each sheet absorbs one wavelength of light and emits it through the edges with a vibrant, luminescent glow. An aes-thetic feature which could be put to use in archi-tecture and art, and a technology which seems

perfectly suited to the Land Art Genrator Initiative.

“The luminescent species absorbs and re-emits inci-dent solar radiation, which is guided to the edges of

the plastic sheet by total internally reflection. Thin strips of photovoltaic material at the edge of these sheets

convert the concentrated light into electricity” [4]

L u m i n e s c e n t Solar Concentrators

p a g e10

Old buildings become ragged and run down. Holes begin to appear, jeopardising structural integrity

and appearance. Sometimes holes are replaced with mortar and brick, not always of the same style or colour as pre existing bricks, but often they are

left open. This is where Jan Vorman comes in.

Literally walking around the city armed with a bag full of lego blocks[5], Jan Vorman looks for any kind

of hole, crevice or missing brick where he can perform his art. The rules are simple, find the blocks,

whatever the shape or colour, and fill the hole[6]. Bring the structure back to its complete form, but enhanced with something that could only come out of its destruction. A playful beauty that seems to come straight from the imagination of a child.

Where most would walk past a crumbling wall and curse the deteriorating state of their city, blaming

some other person for the eyesore that has crossed their path, Jan Vorman sees a canvas. And why shouldn’t he. Old and deteriorating architecture

is found all over the world, as we move on to new and improved technologies but cant bring our-selves to forget the beauty of an older style. But these buildings deteriorate none nonetheless,

Jan Vorman -Fig. A.1.02

Fig. A.1.03

p a g e11

often not much is done about it. This is art with a purpose. To make the most out of a wreckage. To bring the broken back to life by making features of its faults. To fill an empty, unused and unwant-ed hole with something more special than what

originally lay there. And its message: pure childish beauty. It pays no mind whatsoever to style. It does not attempt to create any form of order. Or to be

attractive. Or to become anything other than itself. It simply is.

The art is called Dispatchwork, and it has taken off around the world[7]. Led by Vorman and a small team, the work has spread out of Europe and is

now invading cracks in pavements and loose bricks everywhere. An online database tracks where

around the world the art has popped up as new people send in photos of their ‘patches’. This is art on a global scale, spreading beyond its creator and being accessed by anyone who wishes to

partake. A public art not only for display, but one which anyone can immerse themselves in. The rules are simple: find a crack in a building and fill it with lego. Then watch the smiles of those who discover

it.

D i s p a t c h w o r k

Fig. A.1.04

Fig. A.1.05

p a g e12

David BenjaminThe winning project of this years MoMA Young Ar-chitects Program is an installation that gives ‘organ-ic architecture’ and entirely new meaning[8]. The Young Architects Program (YAP) gives emerging architects the opportunity to design and present innovative projects, asking architects to design a temporary, outdoor installation which provides shade, seating and water while also addressing environmental issues. David Benjamin, founder of “The Living”, has definitely accomplished that with his installation he proposes to literally ‘grow’ from the ground up.

The winning project of this years MoMA Young Architects Program is an installation that gives ‘or-ganic architecture’ and entirely new meaning. The Young Architects Program (YAP) gives emerging architects the opportunity to design and present innovative projects, asking architects to design a temporary, outdoor installation which provides shade, seating and water while also addressing

environmental issues. David Benjamin, founder of “The Living”, has definitely accomplished that with his installation he proposes to literally ‘grow’ from the ground up.

While sustainable architecture has become an in-tegral part of any new building design, it is often still added in almost as an afterthought. The building is designed and then the architect thinks of how he can insert some sustainable elements in, rather than designing the building with sustainability in mind from the beginning. In this regard Hy-Fi is different, it is entirely constructed from sustainable design and technology. Being more of an installation than a building Hy-Fi does not have to respond to the problems faced when designing more permanent structures. However it represents the direction ar-chitecture has been heading in for some time and clearly outlines a next step for the profession: the full integration of sustainable technologies into the design process.

“ H y - F i ”-Fig. A.1.06

p a g e13

Fig. A.1.07

Fig. A.1.09 Fig. A.1.08

p a g e14

“The first Crystal Palaces and Eiffel Towers of the Information Age have just been built over the past few years”[9]

- Branko Kolarevic

A . 2 DESIGN COMPUTATION

p a g e15

Architectural design as a practice is transforming from a pen and pa-per medium to the digital realm. Computer aided drawing systems are becoming a major tool in both the designing and presentation of projects, and with this comes completely new methods and ways of thinking about design.

Computerization of design has already seen a massive change in the forms produced in architectural practice. Projects such as Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum radically change our ideas of what architec-ture is and can be, leading us away from any previous knowledge of the craft into completely new territories.

But design computerization is just the beginning of architectures evo-lution in the Information Age. Computerization being the use of CAD programs to assist in the formation of concept and design, while still relying on the explicit creation of an overall form and layout. Gener-ally this manifests as the integration of parametric design to an ele-ment of the building, such as a facade, or the use of computational models to create a form upon which functional aspects are explicitly placed.

Emerging from CAD technologies, however, is a completely new way of thinking about design: computation. Closer to designing a set of rules for design than an actual design itself, design compu-tation relies completely on parameters to produce a form. Using parameters and algorithms allows us to create extremely complex, responsive and even intelligent forms. In many ways it is a more basic and pure way to design. True design computation takes the project out of the creators hands, breaks away from any desires, ideas or prejudices he has and creates a form which responds specifically to context and the guidelines set.

The question is, however, will these new ways of thinking about de-sign give us the tools we need to combat the unsustainable mindset our society has adopted?

A . 2 DESIGN COMPUTATION

p a g e16

Individually each ant in a colony does not possess any significant level of intelligence, yet the colony as a whole is capable of performing some extremely complex tasks. Instead of indi-vidual intelligence the ants possess swarm intel-ligence, which involves making decisions based on interactions between individual ants rather than from a colony head. When one ant comes across another they exchange information on a local level which in turn determines how each ant continues to behave. This method of inform-ing and responding only at a local level spreads throughout the colony from ant to ant to create a collective intelligence in which all parties have an individual function.[10]

In a form of biomimicry, swarm intelligence is beginning to find a place in architecture and ur-ban planning. In an architectural setting a form is generated from a starting point from which it grows. As the form expands each element responds to its immediate surroundings, taking information from both the surrounding context and the form of which it is a part, and moves forward in a response to these factors. Adapting to context at a local level rather than overall, the form created will be far more organic and responsive to context. It could see architecture

Fig. A.2.02

Fig. A.2.03

p a g e17

Swarm Intelligence

and urban design moved away from the idea that a building is a form in itself and can be placed an-ywhere, to a thinking that involves the surrounding context very intimately in the design.

The project shown was produced by Kokkugia,[11]

the collaboration between Roland Snooks and Robert Stuart-Smith, and involves the gradual refor-mation of a facade. Starting with a smooth surface at one end, an algorithm is made which involves the surface reacting to itself and to the changes that those reactions make. The swarm intelligence used almost creates a form of moving architecture as we can trace the reshaping of the facade from start to finish, observing the reactions grow more and more out of control. A clear representation of swarm intelligence in action.

Swarm intelligence is an ongoing research topic of Kokkugia in the fields of architecture and urban design. Projects involve architectural forms as well as urban planning proposals. However at this stage in the development of swarm intelligence as a form of parametric design for architecture, many of the projects seem to have a much stronger sculptural aspect than a functional one.

F a c a d e R e f o r m a t i o n s

K o k k u g i a

Fig. A.2.01

p a g e18

p a g e19

Creating both functional exhibition halls and new public spaces, the new Messe Basel Exhi-

bition Hall is very site and context specific, as all Herzog & De Mueron buildings are. Replacing two out of date exhibition halls with a modern three storey extension, it boasts large and un-

interrupted halls on the second and third level, elevated off the ground to provide new public spaces for the city[12]. The idea of a penetrable design blurring the lines between exterior and

interior and blending in to the surrounding envi-ronment is not a new idea for the Swiss design

practice, and is apparent here not only through the plan and layout, but also through some of its

external features.

The parametrically designed facade serves a number of purposes for the overall building. Con-

sisting of strips of undulating aluminium stacked on top of one another, the facade gives the

building a texture and appearance which becomes its identity, and exhibition in itself[13]. Firstly it aims to differ from standard practice

in exhibition hall design, which is largely deter-mined by the layout of the halls themselves and

is expressed in more of a functional manner than aesthetic. The variations in the orientation of the

aluminium strips also serves to aid the buildings integration into its context, with the pattern be-coming more ‘open’ above building entrances

and specified locations in its immediate sur-roundings.

This is a good example of a building which uses computerization as a tool to aid its design. Dif-fering for design computation in that the over-

all form and layout and building features are planned explicitly through more direct methods, the project employs digital techniques as an aid and alternative form of representation. It also re-lies on the technologies to create some aspects which would be hard to conceive of otherwise.

However the power of this computerization becomes abundantly clear in designs such as

this, where its use on the facade is the buildings iconic feature.

M e s s e B a s e l

Exhibition HallHerzog & De Mueron

http://www.dexign.co/architecture/messe-basel-new-hall/

http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/223351-Herzog-de-Meuron-Messe-Basel-New-Hall-/im-ages/3882831

Fig. A.2.04

Fig. A.2.05

Fig. A.2.06

p a g e20

“Empowered by advances in scripting interfaces and knkowledge of computer programming, these designers are actively creating their own design software. While these small offices have not yet built many projects, they are, for their size, very relevant to architectural practice as a whole.”[ 1 4 ]

- B r a d y P e t e r s

p a g e21

As design computation as a practice evolves, CAD technologies develop, and skill sets are maintained by those at the forefront, par-ametric design begins to move out of the drawing room and into the physical realm. This brings with it and endless stream of both exciting new possibilities and technical difficulties to overcome.

This shift from composition to generation has manifested in two main areas: in conjunction with pre-existing notions of architectural design, and as a new and holistic method of designing. While projects form-ing from a purely algorithmic basis still appear largely as art installa-tions or merely developed concepts, the ideas of parametric design are propelled forward by its use in conjunction with formal ideas, as it is adopted by pre-existing architecture firms adapting to new tech-nologies and opportunities. The later being generally seen largely as computerization rather than computation, pioneers of algorithmic design would see architectural design taken further out of the de-signers hands and into a realm where context and the rule set plays a greater role.

While high profile buildings see to its introduction to the general pub-lic, and parametric art installations reveal its developments to the architecture community, the driving force behind design computa-tions transition from composition to generation lies in its programmers.

Constructing the scripts and algorithms which make parametric design accessible on a large scale, programmers are in effect re-in-venting the way we design. Each upgrade to the programs we use to design means a multitude of new design opportunities, as well as quicker and more efficient designing. And beyond the programs which help us create a form, there are now a number of methods which help to move these designs in to the real world.

With scripts to calculate anything from structural integrity to methods of fabrications like tessellation or stripping, design computation is moving from the screen and into the physical realm.

C O M P O S I T I O N /G E N E R A T I O NA . 3

p a g e22

Working with a process similar to swarm intelligence, emergent architecture is the generation

of space from local interactions within a complex system.[15] Rather

than designing as a whole, this process proposes designing in

small parts which respond to thier local environment. Taking in to

account the surrounding context, contours, architecture or objects, as well as its own form, the design

grows from its landscape as an integrated part, rather than an

addition.

Forming around the parameters of assisting the existing qualities of the site, a recreational park,

and fulfilling the brief requirements in terms of spatial qualities, this

pavillion attempts to integrates itself into its environment. Using

emergence as a design tool the project examines the extensive

layout of the park, viewing it as a singular

system, an open and permeable form is produced, flowing in to its surroundings and negating the usual segregation between site and build-ing.[16]

Emergent design is being used to build with the site, whether natural or man-made, rather than viewing it as a blank slate to be altered at will. This takes the design out of the pre-influenced mind of the architect and gives it wholly to the context. Site specific and site sensitive architecture has been attempted time and time again, with varying results, but this method of design is a definitive step towards truly working with site and context, and with nature, to produce a more sustainable architecture.

Emergent Design

SigmundFreudPavillion

Christaph Hermann

Fig. A.3.01

Fig. A.3.02

p a g e23

p a g e24

Fig. A.3.03

Fig. A.3.04

Fig. A.3.06

p a g e25

While it is more challenging to create a properly functioning building using parametric design, it is quite possible to produce art installations or pavilions, having less formality and simpler struc-tural requirements. Designed from an analysis of typical movements of the human body, the Son-O-House is an example of design computa-tion which has come to life. Information about ‘action-landscapes’ throughout a house on a large and small scale become the parameters which determine the shape of the design, which is constructed using a structural skeleton of steel beams clad in a skin.

Not only consisting of a parametrically design form, this pavilion also features a sort of para-metric function. Equipped with twenty speakers, twenty three sensors and a set of rules for the

generation of sound, the space creates a sound environment which is dictated by the movements of its users. Altering and updating the composition with movement within the structure, the system stores pre-viously played sound for re-use, meaning the song is ever changing and evolving.

With the ever upgrading technologies, it is only a mat-ter of time before parametric design moves beyond the installation and is capable of forming more com-plex structures.

S o n - O - H o u s eN O X a r c h i t e c t u r eE d w i n v a n d e r H e i d e

p a g e26

A . 4 C O N C L U S I O N

p a g e27

Throughout the part 1 of the Design Studio Air course I have found myself faced with a completely new set of design tools and ideas. The introduction of parametric design is a large step away from my usual ‘think up a form in my head and then try to reproduce it’ approach. When starting to use Grasshopper as a modelling tool I had to get used to the idea of ‘letting go’ of my designs. I always have an idea of how I want a design to turn out, but trying to repro-duce this with Grasshopper proved largely unsuccessful. Adapting to parametric design rather than explicit is something that takes a little getting used to, but with the continued use of the programs it be-comes easier and easier.

Within parametric design itself I have become interested in a num-ber of certain fields. The foremost of these are the ideas of ‘swarm intelligence’ and ‘emergence’. Architects have long tried to find ways to make a structure more contextually sensitive; blend in to the landscape, have a minimum footprint on the environment and still function efficiently for its desired purpose. Designing in terms of emer-gence, from the landscape up and with context constantly in mind, seems like a good step towards these desires.

Computational architecture has an enourmous amount of promise in a large number of areas, but it is still lacking it an ability to fit in to a real world context, at least as far as large scale and functional buildings go. However the technologies are noticably developing fast and with each new script or algorithm created unlimited oppor-tunities are unlocked.

A . 4 C O N C L U S I O N

p a g e28

p a g e29

Ways of thinking within the parametric design community differs greatly from the ideas of those

who practice traditional methods of architec-ture. Most notably is the difference in views

towards their own designs. While the traditional architect will feel a certain protective possession over his design, a computational architect wish-

es only to share what he has created. This comes from one fundamental difference.

The traditional architect explicitly and holistically designed everything in that building. He placed each wall specifically, determined its shape and

form, layout and materials, from the depth of the footings to the material of the roof cover. It is completely his creation, and any experience the

buildings occupants gain from that was entirely his doing. Having spent some time working in

construction, and on the rare occasion having been able to have a hand in the design, and always a hand in the construction, I know this

feeling well. In fact it is the driving force behind my desire to be an architect.

The computational architect, on the other hand, did not explicitly design his building. Yes he

produced it, but in a second hand way. Com-putational architecture works on the general

idea of a concept and the input of a set rules to produce a series of outcomes. While the archi-

tect tells the program how to design, it is not he himself who does the designing. It seems to me

that this could be likened to a head of an ar-chitecture firm with a team of designers working under him. The man in charge receives the brief

and hands it over to his team, perhaps with a few guidelines towards the

design computation vs

traditional architectureprojects outcome. He may have taught his design team everything they now, he may be an influential boss leading by example, but he has no more inter-action with the project until his team hand him the final product. And though his name may appear on the design, was he really the designer, or was he just a middle man?

In my research I have come across a number of ex-citing and amazing methods of design computation. One such method was emergent design. This involves the input of a set of data and rules relating to the con-text of the site, the buildings structural and functional requirements and running them through an algorithm which designs each part of the building at a local level in response to all these factors, as well as its own form. This technology is amazing, there is absolutely no doubt about that. It has the ability to produce an efficient, beautiful and sustainable design, directly responding to each site specifically. And best of all it is the first potential urban design master plan that doesn’t involve a thousand of the same building sitting in a row.

But where is it going from here? Can and will compu-tational design get to the point where it involves the input of every bit of data about the buildings context and function to a program which than calculates the most efficient form?

Where, then, is the need for the architect?

Design computation is taking the design out of the ar-chitects hands, but is this the future of architecture? Or its end?

A . 5

p a g e30

p a g e31

And is it selfish of me to ask that question?

Or is it just my duty, along with other architects, to let go of my desires in favour of a better design?

p a g e32

A . 6 A P P E N D I X

p a g e33

Algor i thmic sketchbookA . 6 A P P E N D I X

p a g e34

p a g e35

p a g e36

p a g e37

PB

PB

MODULE B C R I T E R I A D E S I G N-B.1 - BIOMIMICRY 41

Water From Fresh Air 42 The Sahara Forest Project 44

B.2 - BIOMIMICRY AND FORM 47

B.3 - EMERGENCE 56

VoltaDom 48Case Study 1.0 50

B.4 - EXPLORATIONS 64

B.5 - PROTOTYPING 81B.6 - PROPOSAL 89

Technique Development 66An Opportunity For Structure 71Facade Formation 76

B.7 - CONCLUSION 94

Kokkugia Studio 58Supermanouvre - Fibre Fields 60Case Study 2.0 62

B.8 - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES 97

PB

“We live in a competent universe. We are part of a bril-liant planet. We are surrounded by genius.”(1)

- Janine Benyus

PB

Biomimicry is the process of discerning a design concept from the observations of nature. It goes beyond merely replicating a natural form with the use of unnatural materials; in its most ingenious and inspirational form it seeks to replicate a natural process. Considering the vastness of the natural world and all its endless variations, this can lead to innovations in an equally vast number of fields. Speak-ing architecturally biomimicry has lead towards improved structural forms and capabilities, innovative technologies to improve building systems, the production of new materials with greater performance capabilities. In these areas, among many others, biomimicry has lead to the overall improvement of the building industry and its practice.

B . 1 B I O M I M I C R Y

PB

The Namib ian Fog Bask ing Beet lea n d i t s

fig B.1.01

Subsequent Genius

PB

The Namib ian Fog Bask ing Beet lea n d i t s

The Namibian Desert, on the Southwest Coast of Africa, is severely lacking in one vital resource; wa-ter. For humans who live here this means going to great lengths to gather enough clean water need-ed to survive. However a beetle lives here which has developed a method of gathering water from sea fogs, which are far more abundant than ac-tual rainfall. Each morning the fog basking beetle takes up a position facing the oncoming sea fog, where the unique formation of its back allows it to materialise water droplets effectively out of thin air. The beetles back consists of microscopic bumps with water attracting tips, surrounded by water repelling tips, which will gather water and send it sliding down into the beetles mouth. This amazing phenomenon of natural evolution has now been studied and adapted into a device which allows the collection of water on a much larger scale.(2)

The Warka Water Tower consists of a 9 metre tall, parametrically designed, bamboo or juncus frame holding up a plastic mesh net. Working in much the same way as the fog basking beetle, the tower will collect water on the mesh as the temperature falls during the night, which will eventually drip down in to a reservoir at the bottom. Given ideal conditions this structure can supposedly harvest up to 100 litres in a night, potentially freeing the need to spend the days gathering water and relieving locals of water-borne disease.

This design enters into an environment where signif-icant time and money has been spent attempting to relieve the ongoing water crisis, with very limited success. The carefully thought out design of the structure and the delicate use of biomimicry to de-velop the technology has potentially produced a small scale solution to a large scale problem, and all from the influence of an even smaller beetle.

Subsequent Genius

PB

The Sahara Forest project is an example of biomimicry and sustainability put on a large scale. The project is based around a small number of key sustainable processes which work together in a closed loop to produce a large number of outputs, even resulting in a generative effect on the surrounding environment.(3)

The first process the project uses is one very similar to that displayed by the fog basking beetle and the Warka water tower. To acheive this Grimshaw archi-tects employed the help of Charlie Paton, the inventor of the Seawater Greenhouse (pictured right)(4). The Seawater greenhouse is essentially a wall of evapo-rator grills, through which wind blows, picking up the moisture from the ocean and cooling the greenhouse. At the back of the structure the water is condensed and collected for use within the greenhouse. Upon completion of the first Seawater Greenhouse it was found that more water was produced than was needed within the greenhouse itself, which left water to be spread over the surrounding desert landscape. This lead to the growth of plants in the area, taking the project beyond sustainable design and into restorative design.(5)

The Seawater Greenhouse is biomimicry taken up in scale to produce a more sustainable system, but Grimshaw architects proposed to enhance this ef-fect even more, by creating a symbiotic relationship between two sustainable technologies. Concentrated Solar Power is a solar energy source which is well suit-ed to the hot, dry climates

R e s t o r a t i v e A r c h i t e c t u r eThe Sahara Forest project

the greenhouses function in, and can make use of the de-mineralised fresh water it produces. It also produces a significant amount of waste heat which can be used to enhance restora-tive effects on the surrounding desert. As well as this the combination of technologies creates a broad number of opportunities to harvest other materials which can be sold as commodity or used within the system, such as building blocks produced from leftover salts, or minerals gath-ered from seawater.

Firstly consulting nature for inspiration behind individual technologies, and secondly consult-ing nature again for ways of combining these technologies, the Sahara Forest project(6) creates a closed system which is not only self sustainable, but produces and energy and restores the envi-ronment from desertification. Nature as a blue-print is an extremely powerful resource, and one vitally essential for the future of design. As I have heard from just about every paper and video upon researching this topic, but what is undoubt-edly the crux of the issue; We live in a world that has adapted to produce efficient systems over millions of years, and achieved a massive variety of ways to live in harmony with it. To do the same we must consult these systems and learn from them.

fig B.1.02 fig B.1.03

PB

fig B.1.03

fig B.1.04

PB

B . 2 B I O M I M I C R YA N D F O R M

PB

Looking to biomimicry to inspire form is not exactly a new practice, but it is one which is finding more use through parametric design.

Nature holds a bounty of variations in form and examples of structur-al systems which can be translated into the built world. In the realms of parametric design, biomimicry often manifests as a variation or exploitation of natural patterns. A system is observed, its behaviour identified, patterns and rules recorded and moulded with materiality and function to produce a form.

Compared to using biomimicry to produce a technology, finding form is a more direct path. However that makes it no less powerful or inspirational.

B . 2 B I O M I M I C R YA N D F O R M

PB

Having its form derived from a cell group that will multiply and grow, the VoltaDom structure looks like a series of Gothic vaults. Created as an instal-lation at MIT for the 150th anniversary celebration, the form spans a hallway between two buildings, encased by glass and visible from outside. It com-pletely transforms the hallway from a connection between buildings in to an experiential passage, and almost seeming like an exhibition from the outside.

VoltaDom attempts to challenge the way we think about panelled surfaces by creating an extreme-ly complext form which is still easy to construct. Designed through computation, each panel was machine cut to fit into its specific place, creating a self supporting arch structure. It hints at a future of designing through a parametric model, describing and increased complexity of form, an enriched experience and heightened contextual sensitivity all with a similar level of constructibility. (7)

V O L T A D O M

PB

V O L T A D O M

fig B.2.01

PB

C a s e S t u d y 1 . 0

Basic planar configuration. Fa-miliarisation with definition.

Altering cone orientation using point attrac-tors.

Creating VoltDom like iterations using arched surface and line attractor

Cones oriented outwards from central point attractor

PB

Cones oriented outwards from central point attractor Cones positioned using a basic 3D walker on Python, orientation via line attractor

PB

The most interesting iterations developed were those forming a sphere like structure with cones reaching out-wards from a central point. Aside from altering the overall shape of the outcomes I also played with the size of cones and where they would sit, randomizing things as much as possible. The definition involves trimming cones according to neighbours and a defined maximum and minimum domain, by randomizing these domains I was able to produce some very interesting forms.

Generate conesSet radius and heightRandomize maximum and minimum domain

PB

Base geometry

Generate points

Vectors from central point charge

The most interesting iterations developed were those forming a sphere like structure with cones reaching out-wards from a central point. Aside from altering the overall shape of the outcomes I also played with the size of cones and where they would sit, randomizing things as much as possible. The definition involves trimming cones according to neighbours and a defined maximum and minimum domain, by randomizing these domains I was able to produce some very interesting forms.

Generate conesSet radius and heightRandomize maximum and minimum domain

PB

10 steps

20 steps

50 steps

Draw field line through points

Vectors from filed line

PB

PythonBasic 3D Walker

As a way of developing a more complex array of cones we employed a simple walker created through Python. The walker is set up to create a point at (0,0,0), take a step in a random direc-tion, draw another point and then take another step. This will continue for as many steps as we desire and can easily generate an interesting array of points to work with. Simply changing the seed value also gives us endless variations on the algorithm.

With each new point being determined by the point before it, the python 3D walker is a very basic form of emergence, taking us into a field of computation we are much more interested in.

Randomize cone minimum and maximum domain

PB

B . 3 E M E R G E N C E

PB

B . 3 E M E R G E N C EAgent based design

Rather than creating forms based on observations of nature, I de-cided to look further in to how these patterns or forms may have came to be themselves. Emergent design is based on simple rules performed by agents at a local level to create a complex system as a whole. The concept stems from observations of groups of organisms which are not very intelligent individually but create an incredibly adept and intelligent collective. The single bird reacting solely to the movements of its neighbour, collectively creates a flock able to take direction, change form and avoid predators. The individuals rules are simple, the overall outcome is complex.

PB

K o k k u g i aUrban Agency

Urban agency is an experiment into ways of forming architecture through emergent design

in an urban setting. Its process involves intelligent agents drifting through a cityscape, interacting with their surroundings, exchanging information

and using this information to control its move-ments. The agents then seek to create an archi-tectural response to site specific issues within the

city.

Swarm intelligence in this example is not only given a set of simple rules to follow, but the ability

to update information, gain knowledge and react accordingly. This will lead to the creation of

extremely dynamic and widely useful structure.

Seemingly manifesting as a series of points from which to work, the definition develops a series of voronoi’s which create the overall form. A skin is applied to this ranging from solid to transparent

to porous depending on its position within the structure and its environment.(8)

fig B.3.01

fig B.3.02

fig B.3.03

fig B.3.04

PB

K o k k u g i aLittle collins street baths

Based on a system of agency designed to cre-ate flow throughout the structure, both physically and visually, the Little Collins Street baths at-tempts to create a series of different sized spac-es for private bathing.

The self organising agents generate a series of pathways, to which isosurfacing is applied to generate the buildings form. By locating desired open pathways and views through the process of self organisation, isosurfacing succeeds in enclosing these spaces while leaving them open and accessible. This is an efficient method of cre-ating an extremely interesting form which serves some function simultaneously. (9)

fig B.3.05

fig B.3.06

fig B.3.07

fig B.3.08

PB

Supermanouvre - F i b r e F i e l d s

fig B.3.09

PB

Supermanouvre - F i b r e F i e l d sSupermanouvre’s Fibre Fields is an agent based self organising fibre network which seeks to bind groups of fibres together in an efficient manner. Beginning with a series of lines reaching across a geometry, the project works by determining con-trol points of the lines and then having them seek out and move towards other control points closest to them. This process is performed incrementally and repeated to achieve a more accurate bun-dling outcome. The closest point to any specific point could change at any step due to the fact that all points move simultaneously.

The outcome of this fibre bundling is a series of interconnect lines which join up in very interesting ways. Moving from a set of random straight lines they develop a kind of identity that will never be repeated in different iterations. It is a very effective and useful form of basic emergence and a good tool for finding ways to work with emergent out-comes.

While each iteration has a very specified appear-ance, the outcome is simultaneously wide open as far as further development goes. The output of the process is a series of lines and points which can be used in a huge variety of ways, but which will al-ways produce something which holds the identity of that specific iteration. When this is applied to a site, the forms produced should hold to the spe-cific identity of that site. Essentially it can be seen as method of producing a contextually conscious form, but one which is still infinitely adaptable. The fibre fields produce a base plate for design, rather than a design itself. (10)

PB

Randomly populate boundary surfaces

Group surface points using shortest list (avoids having connected lines)

Draw polyline between all surface points

Random-ly reduce polylines

Divide lines (10)

Create point clouds (all points from other lines)

Find closest point

Create vec-tor to every closest point

Set vector amplitude for incrimental steps

Case Study 2.0 - Reverse EngineeringF i b r e F i e l d s

PB

Case Study 2.0 - Reverse Engineering

Move points Interpolate between new points

Using the same points loop with hoopsnake

Continue loop until points meet and stop moving

PB

B . 4 E X P L O R A T I O N S

PB

B . 4 E X P L O R A T I O N S

PB

Rectongular base geometry

Square base geometry

X - 4Y - 6Lines - 10

X - 6Y - 6Lines - 12

X - 8Y - 8Lines - 16

X - 6Y - 4Lines - 10

X - 10Y - 10Adjacent - 12Lines - 32

X - 4Y - 4Adjacent - 4Lines - 16

Technique Development

PB

Technique Development

PB

Patch Surface

Trim with bounding box

Voronoi mid poitns

PB

PB

PB

The fibre fields definition can be used to pro-duce an endless array of design outcomes. Sim-ple elements such as surfaces or voronoi’s can be added to the curves and immediately pro-duce interesting iterations. Upon the realization of this definition I had immediate plans to apply a minimal surface element to the curves, creat-ing something like the Green Void but perhaps more wild. However this seems to just fit straight in to a pre-defined view of parametric design, where each project produced is just some kind of smooth, curvy surface doing its best to ignore gravity.

I am generalising of course, parametrically designed projects are as infinitely interesting as they are varied. But does the use of the pro-grams demand striving for the most complex form possible?

An opportun i ty fo r s t ructureIn field lines I see the potential for a designin itself, rather than just a starting point for form gen-eration. The definition involves control points of a se-ries of curves coming together into a finite series of locations. Or rather, it sees a specific series of con-nections between a set of curves. If these lines were to be anchored at the start and end point and then put through this sequence of connections, I would guess that they would be able to hold themselves in place. If this was to be built using a bounding box, some elastic string and series of rings joining strings together, the outcome may just hold some strength. With very minimal solid connections, this process has the potential to be a relatively strong, self support-ing structure. And depending on materials used for construction, it could be quite flexible aswell.

PB

Running the field lines definition results in a series of internal control points, or connections between curves. This suggests that there must be something

physically sitting at each of these points, and therefore that something must be designed to sit

at these points. A connecting object that the lines run through would be preferable as it could still

allow movement within the system.

I have explored the use of some basic geome-try at the control points as well as the option of having lines flow around some geometry sitting

there. In terms of fabrication prototypes I will use a basic connection system, rings or beads, to get

an idea of how the system will perform in a real life scenario.

Control Points

PB

The current definitions being used, and more than likely every definition I will use, requires some form of structural support system to be considered a realistic opportunity. Currently I am working with a box system, which would involve four walls being built upon the site. If one driving factor behind the design is to have minimal structure, then placing four large walls on the site would not be ideal.

Considering that the whole design is based around a process of emergence, a certain lev-el of relationship between site and structure is required. At this point in time I am imagining this manifesting as a structure gradually rising up out of the ground from the entrances heading in to the site. This leaves me with two main options for supports; centralized or decentralized.

A centralized structure would involve having one structural system rising above ground on the site, and the rest of the structure stemming from ground level. This would likely be a wall of some sort of wall towards which the entire design would reach. This would allow me to focus the design in on one point.

A decentralized structure would involve a number of different structural points throughout the site. This would mean the design is more malleable in an overall perspective.

Structural Support System

PB

Ground to wall field lines

Field line types with kangaroo physics applied

PB

Field line types with kangaroo physics applied

Before After

Rectangle

Square

Small arc

Large arc

PB

Generate random lines

Self organise lines

Specify internal control points

Generate voronoi

Contour

Draw lines around contours

Offset

Loft between lines to create strips

Forming tightly around one edge of the field lines, this facade could function both as a platform for energy genera-tion and as a structural wall.

The facade is moulded to fit around the field lines in a way that the lines seem to push at the facade and give it its form. Both the facade and the lines could be supported by the same structural element.

The facade itself is made of strips, which in some iterations bend and twist to cre-ate openings. The idea is to place wind turbines behind the openings for ener-gy generation, and have the facade itself facing in to the wind. In this way the lines will be leading directly into the wind and towards the energy genera-tion on the site.

F a c a d e F o r m a t i o n

PB

F a c a d e F o r m a t i o n

PB

PB

PB

PB

B . 5 P R O T O T Y P I N G

PB

To truly test out the function of the field lines it was essential to create a prototype. Taking the testing off the computer helped to fully understand the system and its strengths and limitations.

Using a field line simulation that I had run, and indeed one that I had used as the base for many additions to the definition, I created a bounding box to be fabri-cated. None of my actual functioning model was sent to the fab lab, as the bounding box wouldn’t be con-sidered part of the design at this stage. However, to create the model I needed a kind of template. And so the box was fabricated, as porous as possible while maintaining strength, with holes labelled for each strings start and end point.

Before fabrication I also had to map out the path of each string. This involved firstly numbering each of the connection points, then looking at each

line individually to determine which connec-tion points they passed through. This is the most essential part of the fabrication process, as the whole concept relies on the interconnectedness of the strings. Accurate mapping was para-mount.

The actual field lines were made from an elastic string, and the connection points small metal rings. Elastic string was used because I wanted the prototype to be malleable after construc-tion, and also because I wasn’t sure how the prototype would actually turn out and the elas-tic allows for variations.

Even having mapped out all the connection points, construction proved difficult, as they physical connections themselves weren’t la-belled. I believe I got most of the connections correct but I do not think that all were in the right place.

PB

PB

PB

It is recognizably the same iterations, but the phys-ical model did not quite turn out like the comput-erized one. Nor should I have expected it to. The computerized model finds the closest points and moves toward them directly, stopping when they connect. This means that connections are creat-ing lines with angles of up to 90 degrees, some-thing which cannot be achieved with a physical model.

The physical model seems to just be and aver-aged out version of the computer model. All of the points and lines become much more linear and the height variations are minimalised. How-ever it still does hold somewhat of the interesting shape it did as a computer model. It also has a considerable amount of strength, given its con-struction materials. The elastic strings are all held in tension, and their interconnected nature means they wish to resist movement.

Some connection points are held very firmly in place, while others are able to be slid along the strings, changing the form of the structure. This gives the model a level of interactiveness and engagement which cannot be achieved through a more solid structure. It is not merely a thing to be observed, but a thing to be experienced, moved and altered. I am unsure at this stage whether these qualities would transfer to a larger scale structure, but my hope is that it too would have some level of engagement.

Overall the prototype has performed well, for a prototype. It did not do everything I wanted it to do, but it gave me an understanding of how this system might work. More prototypes are neces-sary in different shapes, to see if a larger spread of strings will improve their layout. I also want to try holding some strings in their original position with additional elements. Pieces of wood or perspex could be position between the strings, sitting in compression and holding the strings in place, while simultaneously being supported by the net-work structure.

PB

F u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t sIn terms of my grasshopper definitions, I am trying to further refine them to produce better outcomes, while simultaneously trying to find new ways to solve some of the problems which arose during the prototyping. The images to the left are a new idea I have as a way of forcing the lines into place. It involves putting a bracing componenent of a specified length between the lines. Aside from potentially spreading out the strings a little more it also is a quite attractive design feature and one that could be used as a method of developing spaces or allowing for interactions within the structure.

I also have two new models to be fabricated, both simulating field lines again, on in a cube shape and one spanning from the ground to a horizontal rectangle. The hope is that these will teach me more about how the strings perfom in different situations.

PB

F u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t s

PB

B . 6 P R O P O S A L

PB

B . 6 P R O P O S A L

PB

S i t e a n d d e s i g n g u i d l i n e sThe competition site is essentially a large, irregular rec-tangle shaped piece of land which could effectively be described as “bare”. A flat grassy field ringed by concrete edging, the site is a blank slate upon which to design, which is in a way both good and bad. Coming from a starting point of emergent design, I am looking to produce a very site specific project. However the lack of distinguishing characteristics on the site make this somewhat more difficult. But that just means I have to change what I’m looking for.

A desired outcome of basing the LAGI competition at this site is to draw people, encourage them to interact with a place they previously had no reason to visit, and to move through and around it. Within the sites boundaries, the design placed there has complete reign over flow and direction of users, but it must also sit within a larger surrounds, some of which must be passed through to attend the site. Due to this fact the design must be responsive and contextually conscious to the surrounding environment. A thorough knowl-edge of the area needs to be developed to deter-mine where people may wish to go, be coming from, or be viewing the site from, now and in the future. Using this information, frequented pathways can be mapped and incorporated in to the design.

Following the brief also leads one to contem-plate the possibilities for energy generation. Copenhagen, Denmark, sits far north in Europe and experiences limited sunlight. However, as can be seen merely by looking at images of the site, wind power has great potential here. The chart below shows average wind speed aver-age wind speed in Denmark, indicating a strong favour towards south-westerly winds. However, observation of the design site tells us that south-west is the direction of Copenhagen city, and therefore large buildings. This could have an adverse effect on the amount of wind power this site has the potential to produce, given the height restrictions of the competition. A contex-tually conscious design must research and map wind patterns in the area to determine the best possible places to position a turbine for maxi-mum effectiveness.

Close attention must also be paid to the physi-cal and historical surroundings of the site. Most notable will be the visual properties of the design; how it blends to its surrounding environ-ment, how it is viewed from afar, and the views available from within. Equally important to note is the condition of the actual site that is to be built upon. A good portion of the site previously had buildings on it, and below the grass there could still be old footings. Another portion of the site is landfill, largely rubble from the buildings which sat there. Finding a suitable position for structural elements is important to avoid com-promising the designs outcome.

fig B.6.01fig B.6.02

PB

fig B.6.02

PB

My proposal involves using agent based design to respond to the specific guidelines set out by the site, the competition brief and my own criteria, to develop a network of curves which can be manipulated in a way similar to the fibre fields definition to produce a series of lines in tension which will act simultaneously as an interactive form and structure.

To accomplish this I need to map out a selection of information sets which will determine a set of rules to apply to the agents. The hope is that this mapping can be developed into a fairly simple set of rules which are capable of producing a relatively complex result.

Areas to map include, but are not necessarily limited to:

- Human movement, present and future - Wind direction and speeds - Sun paths and exposure locations and times - Physical surroundings including existing buildings, infrastructure and pathways - Site details including ground composi-tion and boundaries - Intended influences upon site

fig B.6.03

PB

The current method of approaching energy generation is as follows:

Integrated in to this form finding rule set will be the desire to search out the most efficient posi-tions for energy generation. The agents will move through the site, reacting to local information, and seek out the best locations and directions to place a wind turbine, and from this the facade wall and centralized structure will form.

An opportunity to make this design extremely inter-active arises with the use of field lines as a tension structure. Each line will have to be anchored at both ends and will sit in constant tension. If piezoelectric generators where attached to the ends of the lines to harness the change in tension of the line, enough energy could be generated to power small sets of lights. If lights were to be positioned along the actual lines themselves then whenever someone pulled on the structure, or if wind were to move it about, the lines would light up. This creates a direct connection between energy input and output, giving a clear message to the user about its generation while also providing engagement with the structure and enter-tainment.

PB

As with every design studio, I developed plans and ideas from the very beginning, constantly updating my own version of how this project should be done. The only difference here was that those ideas were subdued somewhat by the fact that there was an-other mind to consider. In a lot of ways collaboration has great advantages; completely new ideas come out of teamwork that the individual would never have thought of. And that definitely applies to my work with Shahn. But at the same time working in a team is frustrating; compromising in order to share the design can often take place of freedom of thought and the ability to share all ideas. Designing as a team is prob-ably something I could work on, but at the moment it is not something I am particularly good at or look forward to doing.

It seems I got my way though, four days before mid semester presentations. The absence of my only group mate lead to a radical change in the projects direction, as I was able to shift things in the direction that was in my head, rather than the collective mind. Not to say that the project as it stands is completely my doing, a lot of the ideas stemmed from working with Shanh and wouldn’t have happened without him. However I couldn’t keep taking things in the direction they were going as a team as I did not feel as involved in the project, and the more involved in a project I am the more successfully I can complete it. So as of four days before the interim presentation the project has come to this, and I cannot say that what I have presented is any longer exactly where I want the design to go. My design still needed a little time to mature, and likely still needs a little more, but I feel l am getting closer to a complete and final concept.

I felt that my mid semester presentation went over rel-atively well, with many of the comments made about the project being about things I had thought of and was able to comment on. I do have to note of course that what was presented

in the presentation and in this journal is not in any way my final design. I merely present a framework for how I will go about generating that design. And I understand that for its realiza-tion there is still much to be done.

In the week since the presentation I have drifted away from the idea of having a single centralized structure, seeing it as very limiting compared to many smaller structural members. My definition has also been updated to more closely resemble how my prototypes work. And with this I am now looking at straight members sitting in compression between two lines to form my main form. That essentially being two or more of the bundled curves divided into points and straight lines joining between them. When applied to the field line definition this actually produces some very interesting results. I am also looking at the possibility of these being either wind belts or luminescent solar concentrators to generate electricity. I have not yet ruled out the use of wind turbines.

Despite the sudden isolation of by design ef-forts I am enjoying this subject and am eager to get this journal over and done with so I can continue moving my project forward. Both using and researching methods of parametric design are radically changing my views towards archi-tecture. I have always tried to be contextually conscious in my studios, but I have never come so close to a method of design which can inte-grate context so completely. Although perhaps more research is necessary when developing definitions in grasshopper rather than spending a lot of time trying to figure things out myself. It has become apparent to me that many solu-tions are blindingly obvious if you have a good knowledge of individual components.

B . 7 C O N C L U S I O N

PB

p a g e96

B . 8 A P P E N D I X

p a g e97

Algor i thmic sketchbookB . 8 A P P E N D I X

p a g e98

p a g e99

PB

REFERENCES

1. Marco Frascari, ‘The Tell-The-Tale Detail’, The Tell-The-Tale Detail, (1981), p.7.\

2. ‘An unsustainable lack of edge’ 120 Hours, (2014) < http://www.120hours.no> [Accessed 17 February 2014]

3. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, English Ed. edn (United States: Bloomsburry Academic, 2008

4. ‘Luminescent Solar Concentrators’, Siser, (2014) < http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/Style-GuideV3_1. pdf> [accessed 1 April, 2014]

5. Vidar, ‘Lego - Lets color the world!’, Street Art Utopia (2011) < http://www.streetartutopia.com/?p=1279> [Accessed 1 April, 2014]

6. Jan Vorman, ‘Dispatchwork’, Jan Vorman < http://www.janvormann.com/testbild/dispatchwork/> [Accessed 1 April, 2014]

7. Map, Dispatchwork < http://www.dispatchwork.info/> [Accessed 1 April, 2014]

8. Avinash Rajagopal. “Behind “Hy-Fi”: The Organic, Compostable Tower That Won MoMA PS1′s Young Architects Program 2014” 17 Feb 2014. ArchDaily < http://www.archdaily.com/477912/behind-hy-fi-the-entirely-organic-composta-ble- tower-that-wo moma-ps1-young-architect-s-program-2014/> [Accessed 1 April, 2014]

9. Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), p.3.

10. Marco Dorigo and Mauro Birattari, ‘Swarm Intelligence’, Scholarpedia, (14 January 2014) < http://www.scholarpedia.org/ article/Swarm_intelligence> [Accessed 2 April 2104]

11. Roland Snooks, ‘Facade Reformations’, Kokkugia, (2011) < www.kokkugia.com/facade-reformations> [Accessed 2 April 2014]. 12. Herzog & De Meuron Basel, ‘213 Messe Basel - New Hall’, Herzog & De Meuron Projects, (2014) < http://www.herzogde-meu ron.com/index/projects/complete-works/201-225/213-messe-basel-new-hall.html> [Accessed 2 April 2014].

13. “Messe Basel New Hall / Herzog & de Meuron”, ArchDaily, (14 Feb 2013) < www.archdaily.com/332188/messe-basel-new- hall-herzog-de-meuron/> [Accessed 2 April 2014].

14. Brady Peters, Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought, (2013) p.11.

15. Roland Snooks, ‘Emergent Field’ Kokkugia, (2003), <http://www.kokkugia.com/Emergent-field> [Accessed 3 April 2014]

16. Christoph Hermann, ‘Sigmund Freud Paviilion’, Portfolio by Chrishoph Hermann <http://www.christoph-hermann.com/para metric-architectures/parametric-architecture-pavilion/#> [Accessed 3 April 2014]

17. Edwin van der Heide, ‘Son-O-House’, Interactive sounding architecture < http://www.evdh.net/sonohouse/> [Accessed 4 April 2014]

Part A - Conceptualisation

PB

IMAGES

Figure A.1.01 - Luminescent Solar Concentrators, Available at <http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/07/mits-covalent-s.html>

Figure A.1.02 - Dispatchwork, Jan Vorman Available at <http://www.raiscuola.rai.it/gallery-refresh/restaurare-con-i-lego-il-genio-di-jan-vormann/98/2/default.aspx>

Figure A.1.03 - Dispatchwork, Jan Vorman Available at < http://www.streetartutopia.com/?p=1279>

Figure A.1.04 - Dispatchwork, Jan Vorman Available at < http://www.streetartutopia.com/?p=1279 >

Figure A.1.05 - Dispatchwork, Jan Vorman Available at < http://www.demaravillas.com/2010/03/dispatchwork/dispatchwork-10/ >

Figure A.1.06 - “Hy-Fi”, David Benjamin Available at <http://www.archdaily.com/473947/the-living-wins-p-s-1-with-compostable-brick-tower/>

Figure A.1.07 - “Hy-Fi”, David Benjamin Available at < http://thelivingnewyork.com/hy-fi.htm >

Figure A.1.08 - “Hy-Fi”, David Benjamin Available at <http://www.archdaily.com/473947/the-living-wins-p-s-1-with-compostable-brick-tower/>

Figure A.1.09 - “Hy-Fi”, David Benjamin Available at < http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7086 >

Figure A.2.01 - Facade Reformations, kokkugia Available at < http://www.kokkugia.com/facade-reformations>

Figure A.2.02 - Facade Reformations, kokkugia Available at < http://www.kokkugia.com/facade-reformations>

Figure A.2.03 - Facade Reformations, kokkugia Available at < http://www.kokkugia.com/facade-reformations>

Figure A.2.04 - Messe Basel Exhibition Hall, Herzog & De Meuron Available at <http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/223351-Herzog-de-Meuron-Messe-Basel-New-Hall-/images/3882831>

Figure A.2.05 - Messe Basel Exhibition Hall, Herzog & De Meuron Available at <http://www.dexign.co/architecture/messe-basel-new-hall/>

Figure A.2.06 - Messe Basel Exhibition Hall, Herzog & De Meuron Available at < http://afasiaarq.blogspot.com/2013/02/herzog-de-meuron_13.html >

Figure A.3.01 - Sigmund Freud Pavilion, Christaph Hermann Available at < http://www.christoph-hermann.com/parametric-architectures/parametric-architecture-pavilion/>

Figure A.3.02 - Sigmund Freud Pavilion, Christaph Hermann Available at < http://www.christoph-hermann.com/parametric-architectures/parametric-architecture-pavilion/>

Figure A.3.03 - Son-O-House, NOX Available at <http://unamaquinalectoradecontexto.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/nox-lars-spuybroek-3/>

Figure A.3.04 - Son-O-House, NOX Available at <http://unamaquinalectoradecontexto.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/nox-lars-spuybroek-3/>

Figure A.3.05 - Son-O-House, NOX Available at < http://nanjoo.tistory.com/entry/%EB%B8%94%EB%A1%9C%EA%B7%B8-%EC%98%A4%ED%94%88 >

Figure A.3.06 - Son-O-House, NOX Available at < http://www.projetoblog.com.br/2011/son-o-house-por-nox/ >

PB

REFERENCES

1. Janine Benyus, ‘Biomimicry In Action’, TED < http://www.ted.com/talks/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action#t-30340> [Ac cessed 5 May 2014]

2. Stephen Luntz, ‘Water From Fresh Air’, I Fucking Love Science <http://www.iflscience.com/technology/water-fresh-air> [Accessed 8 May 2014

3. Micheal Pawlyn, ‘Using nature in architecture’, Healthy Parks Healthy People < http://www.hphpcentral.com/article/mi chael-pawlyn-using-natures-genius-in-architecture> [Accessed 8 May 2014]

4. ‘Las Palmas water theatre’, Exploration < http://www.exploration-architecture.com/section.php?xSec=38&xPage=1> [Ac cessed 8 May 2014]

5. ‘Seawater Greenhouse’, Seawater Greenhouse < http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/tenerife.html> [Access 8 May 2014]

6. ‘The Sahara Forest Project’, Exploration < http://www.exploration-architecture.com/section.php?xSec=35> [Accessed 8 May 2014]

7. Luis Pina Lopes, ‘Voltadom by Skylar Tibbits’, Arch20 <http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/> [Accessed 9 May 2014]

8. Roland Snooks, ‘Urban Agency’, Kokkugia < http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY> [Accessed 9 May 2014]

9. Robert Stuart-Smith, ‘Lt Collins Street Baths’, Kokkugia < http://www.kokkugia.com/LT-COLLINS-ST-BATHS> [Accessed 9 May 2014]

10. ‘Fibre Fields’, Supermanouvre < http://supermanoeuvre.com/fibre-fields/> [Accessed 9 May 2014

11. John Cappelen and Bent Jørgensen, Observed Wind Speed and Direction in Denmark - with Climatological Standard Normals, 1961-90, (1999), p.1.

Part B - Criteria Design

PB

IMAGES Figure B.1.01 - Warka Water Tower Available at <http://www.iflscience.com/technology/water-fresh-air>

Figure B.1.02 - The Sahara Forest Project, Grimshaw Architects Available at <http://www.exploration-architecture.com/section.php?xSec=35>

Figure B.1.03 - Seawater Greenhouse Available at <http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/tenerife.html>

Figure B.1.04 - Seawater Greenhouse Available at <http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/tenerife.html>

Figure B.2.01 - VoltaDom, Skylar Tibbits Available at <http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/>

Figure B.3.01 - Urban Agency, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY>

Figure B.3.02 - Urban Agency, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY>

Figure B.3.03 - Urban Agency, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY>

Figure B.3.04 - Urban Agency, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/URBAN-AGENCY>

Figure B.3.05 - Lt Collins Street Baths, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/LT-COLLINS-ST-BATHS>

Figure B.3.06 - Lt Collins Street Baths, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/LT-COLLINS-ST-BATHS>

Figure B.3.07 - Lt Collins Street Baths, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/LT-COLLINS-ST-BATHS>

Figure B.3.08 - Lt Collins Street Baths, Kokkugia Available at <http://www.kokkugia.com/LT-COLLINS-ST-BATHS>

Figure B.3.09 - Fibre Fields, Supermanouvre Available at <http://supermanoeuvre.com/fibre-fields/>

Figure B.6.01 - Wind Map Available at <http://landartgenerator.org/designcomp/>

Figure B.6.02 - Site Image Available at <http://landartgenerator.org/designcomp/>

Figure B.6.03 - Site Image Available at <http://landartgenerator.org/designcomp/>