Nick Bergin Journal (Mid Sem Submission)

University of Melbourne | 2012Nicholas Sigi Bergin | 327088

AIR.ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO

AIR | CONTENTSPART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

1.1 | The Case for Architecture 1.1.0. | Who? | Intro | Past-work 1.1.A. | Architecture as Discourse 1.1.B. | Computing in Architecture 1.1.C. | Parametric Modelling

1.2 | Method Proposal | Structure 1.2.0. |DigitalArchitecture-Reflection 1.2.A. | Group Argument | Structure 1.2.B. | Cut Case Study 1.0 1.2.C. | Cut Case Study 2.0 1.2.D. | Summary of Precedents 1.2.E. | Design Development 1.2.F. | Prototyping 1.2.G. | Feedback & Response 1.2.H. | Where to from here?

| i |

AIR | CONTENTS

| ii |

PART 2.0 | Project Proposal

2.1 | Design Development

PART 1.0| EXPRESSION OF INTEREST |

| 01 |

1.0

1.1 | THE CASE FOR ARCHITECTURE

| 02 |

PART 1.0 | Expression of Interest

NAME | Nicholas Sigi Bergin3RD YEAR | BEnvs

ABOUT | Prior to enrolling in the Bachelor of Environments, I was a commerce student. I chose to finish, however itwas clear where my passion lied, with Architecture, so it’s a relief to finally bedoing something I’m passionate about and interested in. I’m currently into my finalyearoftheBachelorofEnvironmentsand majoring in architecture. My design focused subjects have been the two studios I undertook as breadth whilst still in commerce and Virtual Environments last semester.

| 03 |

DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE | WHERE I’M AT? |

I’ve traditionally been a bit skeptical of digital architecture, sure the heroic renders look sexy, but is that all? Is the computer just a cleaner tool for those who can’t draw? As someone who tended to hand-draw all of my projects, often purely out of stubborness, I tended to steer clear of the computer unless absolutely necessary. But now I’ve cracked. I began the year open to being ‘seduced’ by this ‘digital architecture’ and want to see for myself. It’s slow progress but I feel I’m coming around.

In semester 1 2012 I undertook Virtual Environments which was my firstexperience with digital design. It took me a while to get going and get my head around it. I was impressed by the results and the ‘wow’ factor of many of the other students presentations except I have one problem. I felt all of the projects looked much the same. It begs the question; is digital design constrained by the tools at our disposal? I could answer my own question here as I recognise that once upon a time architects were constrained by their materials, such as stone and wood.....until the invention of cast iron. But I still think it is a valid point. Nevertheless, the potential of design through this medium is very exciting to me and I’m hoping to really progress

and push myself in this studio, after my ‘warm-up’ in Virtual Environments. I am starting to become more aware of the presence of digital architecture however I would say my knowledge of the theoretical aspect of the field isquite limited. That being said, it is a reletively new design phenomenon, so I’ll excuse myself. So really, I’m 6 months into my digital architecture experiment. Obviously I can’t claim to be an expert so I won’t make any sweeping statements, as I just don’t know yet. I also feel these skills are a necessary development for decent employment. So this gives me added incentives to do as best as I can and jumo into this studio.

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS | SEM 1 | 2012PROJECT BRIEF |

Design a lamp based on a natural pro-cess and develop it in Rhino software into a fully functional 3D model using pa-per. The natural process that was cho-sen was of a snake shedding it’s skin. Using the three design drivers; growth, pattern and peeling to underpin the de-sign. After initial form modelling in clay, Rhino softwarewas used to refine theform, panel the surfaces and prepare the design for fabrication. Fabrication was implemented by unfolding and la-ser-cutting card to create a scaled 3D model.

1.1.0. | WHO? | INTRO | PAST WORK

1.1.0. | Who? | Intro | Past-work |

| 04 |

DISCOURSE |

Digital architecture as a discourse is the focus of this studio. My best un-derstanding of a discourse is like a ‘zeit-geist,’ or ‘spirit of the times.’ Whether or not this merely becomes a trend or a fad remains to be seen, however this studio is an opportunity to discover the digital design medium for myself. What is clear about digital technologies and computa-tion methods is that they are opening up new possibilities in terms of the form of structures, however, is that all that digital architecture can offer? More inventive forms and a new aesthetic? If so, then this is nothing new, and I feel this type of architecture won’t last, and hence my skepticism at this stage. The Baroque period, characterised by curvilinear forms has been and gone. Digital archi-tecture needs more substance to be-comereallyusefulandfulfilthepotentialof architecture and its ability to contribute to the public realm. It seems as though digital architecture certainly can enhance the visual and aesthetic aspect of archi-tecture, but what else can it achieve? It is an exciting prospect to consider. I feel it is an area that I must challenge both


1.1.A. | ARCHITECTURE AS DISCOURSE

in a theoretical and hands-on manner to decide for myself. To begin with, one must question the nature of architecture itself to question the validity of digital ar-chitecture.

When we talk of architecture itself and thediscoursethatsurroundsit.Myfirstreaction is to think of architecture as a form of art. However I believe it is not just purely an artform as Williams (2005, p.103) agrees, contending it is as much a ‘philosophical, social and professional realm as a material one’. The downfall I believe of viewing architecture as purely an art is that this view neglects the so-cial, and functional aspects of architec-tural design, and turns it into simply as aesthetic challenge, which I believe is only one small portion of architecture as a whole. Architecture has more poten-tial than just aesthetic, and as such is thebestmediumwithwhichtofulfillthebrief of this project. The aesthetical as-pects of architecture are the most visu-ally obvious, however are not necessar-ily the most important. Therefore when discussing architecture as a discourse, I think it is important that the emphasis isn’t purely on form. Hence, a more ho-

listic approach that incorporates the so-cial and functional is important.A balance between the visual, the struc-tural, functional and the social aspects of the building is in my view important and should always remain the focus of the discourse amongst architecture.

Architecture functions on a social level as it elicts emotions from the observer and the user. It can also convey an im-age. It is a spatial experience to the user and to the passer-by. The human scale of architecture allows it greater poten-tial over other art-forms. This, perhaps more subliminal effect that architecture can have, is nevertheless very impor-tant. Willaims (2005) offers architecture as either a sign, or an urban and social experience. He contends that either perspective is valid as they present ar-chitecture as something we are recep-tive to.

Richard Williams, ‘Architecture and Visual Culture’, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102 - 16.

| 05 |

1.1.A. | Architecture as Discourse

| 06 |


| 07 |

01 | http://beinglatino.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/flat_iron_building.jpg

01 0202 | Image Taken by author


ARCHITECTURAL FAVOURITES |FLATIRON BUILDING NY

DANIEL BURNHAM 1902 | MANHATTAN, NEW YORK |

WHY I LIKE IT? | I’ve chosen a classic building seemingly at odds with this digital architecture studio, but it remains a beautiful building to me. In this case and I like it for how it responds to the site. It doesn’t contain any crazy form-making or cut-ting edge technology, (although it was at the time with the reletive newness of steel structures). It has stood the test of time and still commands more interest than many of the so-called ‘modern’ buildings around it. Having been there earlier this year I found it incredible to look at and was amazed at how it’s lines attract the eye and commands attention, almost as though all roads lead to this building, the centrepoint of the area of New York. As part of the intial stages of the modern movement, the Flatiron showcased the latest design technology in terms of steel construction and was at the time one of the tallest buildings in the world. I think this building re-iterates the need to use the best technology available at our disposal and is a good inspiration for this studio in that sense. The architectural discourse at the time was beginning to embrace new methods of steel construction which enabled new use of form, as well as the pursuit of heights that were previously unfathomable. The Flatiron added to the discourse around the turn of the century in it’s unusual geometry and it’s ability to respond (even if somewhat literally) to the context of the site. Although in the design itself it wasn’t exactly modern and was slammed by critics at the time, it still re-sponds to context even if it did hark back to Baroque tendancies with it’s ornamentation. |

| 08 |

0303 | Image Taken by author


| 09 |

01 | http://skww.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/img_6206.jpg

01 0202 | http://architypesource.com/img/uploaded/projects/508/wh663-41.jpg


ZAHA HADID | INNESBRUCK, AUSTRIA |

WHY I LIKE IT? |

Contrasting to my previous favourite example, this de-sign is reletively new, a deliberate choice, which illus-trates my unwillingness to associate with a particular ‘camp.’ This design captures a certain malleability of architecture that excites me. I like the fact that at any one time it appears to be both in the process of move-ment, yet static at the same time. It gives the structure a sense of dynamism, as if it is somewhat about to slide away. I also like the fact that no two parts of the structure appear to be the same, every angle offers something new.

Almost as though it is in the process of melting, like the ice caps on the mountain peaks in the distance. The designs are tweaked slightly over four stations to adapt tothespecificconditionsofthesite,allwhilstmaintain-ing their cohenence. This is an exciting part of digital and parametric architecture, the ability to tweak and change designs ever so slightly, to tailor the designs to the site allows the design to respond more appropri-ately to context. The linkage that is created between each station is seamless and this project really repre-sents the advantages of digital architecture.

Zaha Hadid’s designs are probably the most recogniz-able of the current generation of digital architects and thereforefitsperfectlyasaprecedentwhenconsider-ing the possibilities of digital design in the current dis-course. Although much of her other projects (which I don’t really like) seem very repetitive I think this one in particular responds to its cotextual obligations and while exploring the limits of form, is not just form-mak-ing for the sake of it, which I despise. It is good to see her projects actually being built to prove that forms such as this can be realised in real-life which pushes the upper limits materiality in architecture. Zaha’s de-signs such as this are contributing in a strong way to the architectural discourse through their seamless and flowingdigitalformsthatarebecomingmoreandmoreattainable through digital mediums. |

| 10 |

ARCHITECTURAL FAVOURITES |NORDPARK CABLE RAILWAY AUSTRIA

0303 | http://www.architypereview.com/img/uploaded/projects/508/zha-nordpark-cable-railway-hb-4_rpg.jpg

COMPUTING |

My initial understanding of computing and architecture was that of a tool, a time-saver to architects. I believe this role is changing, as new developments in parametric architecture are increasing the computers capacity to actually be a valuable part of the design process.

The status quo function of computers in architecture has been one of ‘computer-ization,’ in that it automates and speeds up a process, rather than changing the way we design. Essentially the same designs could be achieved with paper and a drawing board, only it would take substantially longer. Computers are advatgeous in being able to calculate complexity, however architects have traditionally not really used computers to their advantage in this regard. Basic calculations such as length, area and volume are easilly achieved by com-puters but I believe we have only really scratched the surface in unlocking a computers potential for design.

What interests me is the relational as-pects of architecture. The ability to create associative geometries that re-spond to the needs of the client. Such patterns of behaviour are not easilly quantifiable by the humanbrain. Thisis where computers offer a distinct ad-vantage. As Kalay (2004) suggests,


1.1.B. | COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE

computers by nature excel analytically, however they need humans as they ‘lack any creative abilities or intuition.’ A symbiosis between humans and com-puters is therefore needed to bridge this gap.

Therefore it is not computerization, but computation, that is of interest. The ability of a computer to aid the design, rather than simply aiding the documen-tation and fabrication process. Theo-retically, parametric architecture i.e. designing the system and setting the parameters, then letting the computer do the designing would facillitate this aim. This ‘bottom-up’ approach is at odds to traditional ‘top-down’ method-ologies but perhaps holds the key to future architectural practice.

Simulation of the effects of real life pa-rameters, is therefore the greatest ad-vantage of computational methods of design. The ability to design systems to respond to live and unpredictable parameters such as heat, wind, loads, social interaction, workplace synergies etc. is a worthwhile pursuit, which will enhance the value of architecture to the general public, the users of our de-signed buildings.

Another advantage of computation is the digital continuum that is being de-veloped linking design and construction

and the synergies that are appearing. As suggested by Branko Kolarevic in “Architecture in the Digital Age,” the contemporary digital architectures findtheir legitimizations in the exploitation of the latest technological advances, as well as new digital means of concep-tion and construction and production. Previously unatttainable forms have emerged from this modelling software which would have once been consid-ered too hard. New topological ge-ometries centred around relations and interconnections within a spatial context are being created. Sptial relations over spatial distinctions.

Digital architecture represents the op-potunity to synthesise all stages of the process of creating a building, from design, development, analysis, testing and manufacturing. As well as the abil-ity to easilly change and manipulate de-sign according to certain factors. |

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manu-facturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28

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

| 11 |

1.1.B. | Computing in Architecture

1.1.B. | PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE

PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE

Performative architecture has a wide variety of solutions. Perhaps why I am interested in it is because I cannot seem to untie myself from the idea that architecture must have a purpose other than that of being sculptural. To me, architecture is not, and never will be solely about form. It needs more rea-son, more logic behind it to differentiate it from other types of art- like sculpture or painting or whatever. This is why performative architecture appeals to me more than other forms of digital archi-tecture. It has a purpose. As Kalay (2004, p.5) agrees “design, accord-ingly, is a purposeful activity, aimed at achievingsomewelldefinedgoals.”

Kolorevic (2003) argues that per-formative architecture uses ‘building performance as a guiding principal.’ Therefore it places performance above form-making, which is personally reso-nates with me strongly. By utilizing the digital technologies of quantitave and qualitative performance based simu-lation, it offers a new, and I believe a worthwhile approach to design.

However it can be argued that perform-ative architecture can be interpreted andjustifiedinalargenumberofways,for buildings have a large array of pur-poses, any which of these can justify

a building as performative, for example financial, spatial, social, cultural, eco-logical and technical as mentioned by Kolarevic.

The idea of performative architecture therefore seems quite open to inter-pretation, at this stage, being new to the digital realm, I am happy to accept this. Of particular interest in terms of performative architecture is the idea of structural and energy use optimization in architecure. To me this seems like a worthwhile pursuit as it can be seen as sustainable in terms of the construc-tion, ensuring materials and energy are not wasted. Whilst this is not a new idea, the new software avaialble is of-fering the ability to achieve this aim to a greater extent.

The ability to analyse and respond to airflows,fluidflows,thetransferofheatmass, stress and deformation and the like is something that I think will take building design to the next level and something worthwhile, with tanglible re-sults for its occupants. I also think that by doing this, the role of an architect will become more important and more respected by the general public, as the results of good design suddenly be-come much more tangible to the users. It ensures that architectural discourse remains much more than just a study in form. |


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

| 12 |


| 13 |

01

02 03 04

02 | http://buildipedia.com/images/masterformat/Channels/Go_Green/2011.08.16_metropol_parasol/images_david_franck/parasol_aerial_credit_david_franck_03.jpg

01 | http://senseseville.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/view-from-metropol-

03 | http://www.yatzer.com/assets/Article/2577/images/Jurgen-Mayer-H-Seville-Spain-photo-Fernando-Alda-yatzer-6.jpg

04 | http://www.iantenseldam.com/Artists/30382/Images/1952011231623634_Metropol


1.1.B. PRECEDENTS | METROPOL PARASOL

J.H MAYER ARCHITECTS | SEVILLE, SPAIN |

PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE |

This design encompasses the idea that the form is the structure. Although this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, in fact it has been around for thousands of years, it nevertheless ex-plores certain possibilities to deal with form as a sturctural entity. The ability of the computer to cre-ate parts and pieces to assemble the structure in a sense is lending itself more to becoming like the manufacturing industry. This particular design can be characterised as performative in terms of it’s structure. The members that provide the structure also provide the shade, the fascade, and all of the functional requirements of the structure, whilst si-multaneously providing the emotive response to its observersthatwasintended.Sowhilstatfirstthismay be considered purely form-making, it isn’t, in that its form is everything else that it needs to be. Whilst I don’t profess to be a fan of the proliferated useofwaffle-likestructuresthatarenowcommon-place, this one has been done particularly well.Interesting to note also, of this project is the speed of construction. Parts were simply sent to and pro-duced by the manufacturer and then transported tothesitewiththeutmostaccuracy.Asignificantstep, I believe in abolishing the current norm of sim-ply using standard materials and construction siz-ing in projects. Customization of parts is becom-ing a reality with more performative structures like this requiting individually tailored pieces to be built. Synergies with engineering programs and manu-facturers,creatinga‘filetofactory’workflow,makesthis possible. The use of wood as a medium has been structurally optimized to make it the largest wooden structure in the world. Computer tech-nology has worked out the optimal structural form of this wooden structure, to allow it to stand the various forces with such a material as wood. As suggested by Kolarevic, the ‘digital based conver-gence of representation and production process-es, represents the most important opportunity for a profound transformation of the preofession and, by extension, of the entire building industry.’ |

| 14 |

0505 | http://www.iantenseldam.com/Artists/30382/Images/


1.1.B. PRECEDENTS | CITY HALL LONDON| 15 |

01 0201 | http://hdwallpapersdesktop.com/wallpapers/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/27/Desktop-tower-bridge-sunrise-city-hall-morning-england-london-uk.jpg

02 | http://garydidsbury.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/city-hall-interior-london-2.jpg


FOSTER + PARTNERS | LONDON, ENGLAND |

PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE |

This building appeals to me as a member of the new buildings of the current batch of computer generated architeture discourse. Less so for its look, but more for the drivers that produced the forms that is seen.

The building for the Greater London Authority (GLA) headquarters, underwent significant engineeringchanges after Arup analysed its thermal and acous-tic performance. The ‘pebble’ like form was a di-rect result of the energy performance of the building, which minmized the surface area exposed to direct sunlight/ As a result the deformed sphere form has a 25% smaller surface area than a cube of identical volume. This had obvious benefits in the form ofreduced solar heat gain and loss, and hence less of aneedtorelyonartificialheatingsourcesfromwithin(Kolarevic, 2010). The cladding was similarly devel-oped through analysis of sunlight patterns through-out the year and was optimized to such parameters (Kolarevic, 2010).To the south, (the sunny side) the building leans backonitselfsuchthatthefloorsaboveprovedtheshadingforthefloorsbelowThis building clearly demonstrates that the much maligned ‘blobby’ forms can be more than smiply an expression of aesthetics, that the forms are de-rived as a direct result of performance, i.e. emergent forms. Socially one oculd also argue that the build-ing is performative, the openness and transparency ofthebuildingisdesignedtoreflectthedemocraticprocessthatisconfinedinsidethewallsofthebuild-ing as it is used.

The building certainly shows the marked advantages of computational design with a performative focus, and is a direction that I am most interested in, as it has the ability to produce tangible, real-world results thatbenefitallofthestakeholders.|

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28

| 16 |

0302 | http://garydidsbury.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/city-hall-interior-london-2.jpg

03 | http://rockstararchitects.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DSC07732.JPG


1.1.C. | PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE

PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE |

As the name suggests, the idea of par-ametric architecture is that the structure responds to parameters. Parametric architecture is currentlly gathering mo-mentum in the architectural discourse. If I could be clear, I firmly believe thatparametricism is not a style, rather it is still just a design tool. So for proponents of parametric design such as Patrik Schumacher to declare it as a style I believe is wrong, it is nothing of the sort. It only offers a profound change in how we use computers to design, nothing more. The basic pretense of parametric architecutre is of a bottom-up approach to design, as opposed to top-down. Simply, this means that the important parameters set for the design create the form, rather than the form being de-clared, and then the parameters of the design being worked into it.

ADVANTAGES |Parametric architecture offers some sig-nificantadvantagesoverformerdesigntechniques. Equations can be used to define the relationships betweenobjects, therefore creating associative architecture (Kolarevic, 2010). A focus on the interdependenies of whatever parameters were used creates infinitepossibilities for functional design. With optimization of as many, or certain pa-rameters being the objective of a build-

ing. This is particularly helpful towards the current need for sustainable design, as it has the ability to prioritise certain factors that lead to a more sustainable outcome.

Parametric technology offers the ability for architects to focus on the relational aspects of the design. As suggested by Mark Burry (2011), “The ability to define,determineandreconfiguregeo-metrical relationships is of particular val-ue.” Parametric tools offer the chance to capture this complexity in built form.

As suggested by Kolarevic (2010), the parametric approach to design, if consistently applied from the concep-tualization phaze to it’s materialization, changes the entire nature of estab-lished hierarchies of the building indus-tries, and forces the designer into a role of definer, of boundary setter, ratherthan the designer of form.

Because parametric design is founded on thedefintionofasystem,changesand iterations are very easy to achieve. This streamlines the whole design pro-cess. Change an input to the system, and the rest of the systems automati-callyupdatesadjustingto theconfinesof specific parameters. This has theadvantage of becoming a great time saver, creating multiple iterations quick-ly, and shortening the design phaze of

the whole building. This obviously has great cost-saving potential as well.

DISADVANTAGES |As with any new technology in a mar-ket economy, parametric technology offers significant change that disruptsthe status-quo of current procedures, withflowoneffectstointerlinkedprofes-sional industries, such as the construc-tion and building industries. Changing production methods and cost-saving economies of scale from the current ‘way of doing things’ would be an obvi-ous barrier to parametric design being implemented as effectively as if could be.

Also, the designer/architect faces a role shift. What happens to them when all the designing is done by computer pro-grams. The designer becomes a de-finerofparameters,lettingthecomputerdo much of the work. Therefore is the designer losing ownership/autonomy over the design or gaining? |


Burry, Mark (2011). Scripting Cul-tures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 8 - 71.

| 17 |

1.1.C. | Parametric Architecture

“There are millions of natural objects and each has its own coherency...... It’s open minded. If you have geological layers shifted against each other, there are alway continuities. This is a form of natural computing if you want. The incident sits within the fieldofincidentswhichmakessense.Thewayvegetationrunsupamountainmakessense.Wearetryingtobringthislogic

into architecture. There is a sense of eloquent beauty and intuitive understanding that enters into the matter.”

Patrik Schumacher - Extract from Hadid (complete works, (1979-2009) |

Adecisivefactorforthesuccessofsuchstrategyisdefiningthecorrectselectioncriteriafordeterminingthebestindividualina population of this kind. The selection is the sole control mechanism.”

(Bollinger, Manfred and Tessmann, 1486) |

| 18 |


1.1.C. PRECEDENTS | AAMI PARK MELBOURNE | 19 |

01

02


AAMI PARK | COX ARCHITECTS, MELBOURNE |

As a building in my local city, I feel this is a tangible and great example to expel the virtues of parametric architecture and the way it has been used to ultimately de-sign a world class stadium. Unlike para-metric designs that purely design form for the sake of form, which to me, is not architecture, this structure uses the idea of “structural optimization” under para-metric framework to generate the form. The idea of structural optimization makes sense to me because at the end of the day, I don’t feel like parametricism itself is a new style as suggested by Patrik Schumacher in his Architectural Journal article “Let the style wars begin.”

I think parametric modelling is essentially still just a tool. Not a new style of ar-chitecture. As suggested by Meyer in his blog, “without broader social aims a movement is likely to fall out of fashion.” I don’t believe that there is a social need for parametricism, hence I can’t see it as a style. Rather, I see it as having the potential for massive labour saving and design and construction fabrication synergies. This is why I see the project of AAMI park in Melbourne as being a great advertisement for the advantages of parametric design.

Why was parametric used? |

According to Cox Architects, parametric modelling was used to define the roofstructure because of its ability to test al-ternative geometric configurations, andtoaccomodatethefinalpresetgeometryfor fabrication and construction purpos-es.

How was parametric used? |

Initial studies of the roof and shell geom-etries were undertaken with Cox Archi-tects and RMIT University’s Spatial Infor-mation Architecture Laboratory, using a

combination of Catia models and 3-D CAD.The parametric model was developed using Bentley’s “Generative Compo-nents” software after concept design, when basic geometries principals were agreed between Arup and Cox Architects.

Parametric modelling enabled revised geometry to be speedily generated and imported into structural analysis modeltostudystructuralefficiencies.The parametric modelling software created the wireframe models.

The steelwork shop drawings and detailling were then prepared from the parametric modelling software, dis-playing the design process synergies that parametric software can create.

Collaboration with engineers Arup and their software enabled each of the 4156 roof members to be opti-mizedforefficiency.

So where is the value? |

1. | Parametric modelling allowed variations in geometry to be tested quickly to provide the most structur-allyefficientform.2. | Structural optimization determined minimum steel tonnages for the roof geometry.3. | By combining parametric mod-elling and structural optimization, the engineering design team provided value in both steel tonnage savings and design time savings.(The finalstadium required50% lesssteel than typical stadium roofs of the same size.)

(The Arup Journal, 3/200, p.13) |

References: (The Arup Journal, Is-sue 2, 2010)

| 20 |

03

04

05

06

07


1.1.C. PRECEDENTS | BEIJING WATER CUBE | 21 |

03

01 02

03 | http://travelchinawith.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/beijing-water-cube.jpg

01 | http://smilepanic.com/wp-content/uploads/WaterCube.jpg02 | http://www.bychinese.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/121755123715-clip


THE WATER CUBE | PTW ARCHITECTS, BEIJING |

A unique building which I became aware of through the 2008 Olympic Games, the water cube is a great example of performative architec-ture, albeit of a different kind AAMI park. The wa-ter cube works on the principal of the buildings layering acting as a skin. Therby it is performative in terms of controlling it’s internal temperature.The structure itself is tied into the natural forma-tion and emergent behaviour of soap bubbles, and the inherent strength they achieve when banded together. This fundamental mathemati-cal model, which has been documneted for over a century has been realized through the digital technology responsible for fabricating the materi-als used for this structure.

According to Walker (2009), the water cube confirmstheroleofthearchitectasaselectorofsystems. The architect was responsible for se-lecting the symbolic representation of water in the form of water bubbles, and all of the subsequent formal decisions, such as the number, shape, size, profile and materials used, were deter-mined largely by the engineers, whose purpose was to achieve optimal structural, electrical and mechanical engineering. Therfore, in answer to some of the questions posed earlier concerning the changing role of the architect, the answer lies in the fact that the computer does what the machine cannot, understand and create culture.

A criticism of the water cube given by Walker (2009) which I tend to agree with, lies in that it

exemplifiestheproblemoffocusingononlythefascade of a building. Perhaps highlighting the ability of parametric architecture to be used in an incomplete manner. The interior is stark, absent ofsymbolismthatdefinestheouterandreturnsto the practical standards that define standardmodern architecture. Thereby the parametric design is somewhat limited to the exterior of the building. A truely parametric design would inte-grate parametric aspects throughout the whole design. It is the ability to permeate the entireity of the structure that should be the ultimate goal of parametric design, rather than simply to affect the exterior fascade. This is one of the continual shortfalls of designers in general.

As suggested by Walker (2009) the water cube highlights the opportunity to overcome the overly rational dogmas of the Modern Movement and re-engage with the long-standing Ventruvian def-inition of architecture - the balanced interplay of structure, program and form.

Why was parametric used? |Parametric was used to mimic the Wearie-Phelan structural pattern of bubbles and create the structural framework out of this pattern for the fascade.

How was parametric used? |Parametric was not used to create the form, it was simply used to create the skin, so it was not a fully-integrated parametric project, but com-mendable nonetheless.

| 22 |


| 23 |

1.2 | METHOD PROPOSAL

| STRUCTURE |EOI

1.2.O | Digital Architecture Reflection

| 24 |

DIGITAL/PARAMETRIC THEORY:

REFLECTION / WHERE I’M AT NOW |

The research and exploration I have undertaken into digital and parametric architecture has been a worthwhile ex-perience. I feel that I have developed a balanced perspective of the subject due to a critical approach, and as such, I feel I am aware of the advantges and disadvantages of these theories. Be-ginning semester I was concerned that the basis of digital architecture was shallow or ‘skin-deep’, more concerned with form than purpose. However I have come to see that fully integrated digital architecture fullfils both purposes, per-haps in some cases better and more efficiently than ever before. HoweverI’m also aware of the pitfalls of a non-resolved digital project, and how easy it becomes (due to the time-saving func-tions of digital software) to gloss over important functional issues and hide mistakes by producing heroic forms. To me this is not good architecture, and is a lazy approach. It is something I would not like to see associated with the dis-course surrounding digital architecture,

but something I feel could easilly hap-pen, evidenced already with its com-mon moniker ‘blob’ architecture.

I feel the precedent research has helped metorefinemytasteindigitalarchitec-ture, and I feel this has been important. Prior to begininng this design studio, I saw all of digital architecture in the one group, I struggled to recognise the nu-ances between projects. All digital pro-jects were more or less the same to me. However I feel that I am now able to discern between digital projects better and classify them according to their pur-pose, e.g. structural optimization, pat-tern, performative. This, as opposed to the projects that are purely designed for form - or architectural self-indulgence. I found I have naturally gravitated towards projects that show genuine attempts to justify their form for a purpose such as AAMI park and London City Hall.

PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE |

In terms of parametric architecture, I have actually been surprised by the possibilities associated with designing in this way. From a big-picture per-spective, I’m very impressed with the

advantages that parametric architecture offers. Specifically the opportunity forthe convergence of the construction and manufacturing industries to allow the architect greater control over their designs. Agreeing with Beston (2012) who argues ‘mass customization, as opposed to mass production of the components of the building allows for specific, intentional bespoke architec-ture that moves away from standardiza-tion.’ I am also very much impressed with its ability to constantly tweak de-signs and I do think it has real time sav-ing benefits associatedwith it’s use inthe real world. Changes and updates are quick, not laborious and tedious, which appeals to me greatly. For these reasonsalonethefieldofparametricar-chitecture is worth pursuing.

I have been impressed with the capacity of parametric software to create forms that I previously couldn’t have imagined myself modelling

Beston (2012) Dossier: Manufac-turing Difference, Architecture Aus-tralia, Vol: 101, No. 5: Sept/Oct 2012

1.2.0. DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE | REFLECTION


| 25 |

1.2.A. GROUP ARGUMENT | STRUCTURE

CONTRIBUTINGGROUP MEMBERS:

Michael McLoughlinNick Bergin

Sophie Bardoel

ARGUMENT

STRUCTURALLY PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE

Why choose structure as a starting point for our parametric project?

As a group, Michael, Sophie and I have decided to focus on structural parametric design. We chose this area due to the current trend in digital architecture to focus on form making, neglecting structural, functional and performance considerations. As a group we are concerned with the marriage of struc-ture and ornament, as Louis Sullivan has suggested in Ornament in Architecture. Through this union, we intend to span the (false) dichotomy between architecture and engineering. Between sculptural art

and construction.

Moreover, we want to explore the unique position Wyndham has in the broader industrial, urban nd non-human environment. While exploring the broader geographies of the area, our intention is to create a beautiful, ornamental, sculptural piece of architecture that maximises scale and visual and experiential impact, whilst minimizing the size of the ‘kit of parts’ used to construct the structure. This approach will create a structure on a monumental scale, but will also minimize both material and con-

strcution costs.

The placement of this intervention near a highway is a call to arms for a monumentalization of move-ment and allows an expression of the deep relationship Wyndham and the highway share with urban-ism, industry and nature. Railway stations and airports have often been the subject of architectural intervention: spaces for the monumentalization of high-speed movement in the digital age. The high-way is an oft-neglected space for architectural monumentalization and we intend to remedy that. This approach is apt for the Wyndham city Gateway project because through the optimization of structure with a holistic integration of ornament, we will be able to create an exciting, eye-catching monumental structure that will act as a beacon for the city of Wyndham that is sensitive to, and sits at ease with,

the surrounding geographies.

1.2.A | GROUP | Research + Argument

| 26 |

1.2.A | STATEMENT OF INTENT

INTENT

“Our interest lies in bridging the gap between engineering and art through the marriage of structure and ornament in digital architecture. To unify structure and

ornament, both must be considered in equal measure at the beginnings of a design. Digital architectures allow us to work with both, holisitically, throughout the

design process.”

“Expressed through the monumentalization of structure, the design translates contrasting ideals of the compressive notion of urban industrialised space and the expansiveness of suburbia as one oscillates through this continuum along

Geelong road.”


01

02 | http://s3.amazonaws.com/everystockphoto/fspid30/31/65/27/9/studio-gang-02

| 27 |

01 |http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4800357687_50230924f1_o.jpg

1.2.A. | Precedents

NATURE BOARDWALK AT LINCOLN PARK ZOO STUDIO GANG |

This small scale project was of particular relevence to us due to its use of structure as ornament. As a structure to be experienced through movement it has strong parallels with our design intentions. It highlights the fact that structure can be beautiful and structural at the same time, in this case through the use of a curved grid shell structure. The inten-tion of this design, to be traversed ‘through’ on foot has important impli-cations for our own ‘Gateway,’ project for the city of Wyndham. Whilst the means of movement may be different, the sensation is the same. In a construction sense, the use of single repetitive unit would ensure ease and speed of assembly, proof that a simple concept can be beautiful, yet hold enough complexity to warrant no more ornamentation than the structure itself.

Important features | 1. | Ornamental structure in the landscape to be experienced through movement.

2. | Single repeating unit.

3. | Curved diagrid.

SOUTH POND1.2.A | FURTHER PRECEDENTS

| 28 |


| 29 |

BRITISH MUSEUM GREAT COURT FOSTER + PARTNERS |

The Great Court at the British Museum uses structure to create the sense of grand. A radiated grid shell struc-ture has been used to achieve the design intentions. A structure that monumentalises the space it encloses. As with South Pond, the experiential phase of this building comes by walking through it. Although this time in a

0101 |http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/British_Museum_1120002_1120026.jpg

more circular manner as opposed to the straight line. Stucture fullfills theduelaimsofenhancingnatural lightin the space, whilst adding to the sense of circularity of movement that is intended by the room.Furthermore the structure of the roof creates inherent ornamentation due to it’s level of detail that attracts the attention of occupants.Therfore the obvious parallels with the intended direction of the Wyndham Gateway are present.

1.2.A. | Precedents

BRITISH MUSEUM1.2.A | FURTHER PRECEDENTS

| 30 |

Important Features |

1. | Flexibility of radiating grid shell for creating internal spaces.

2. | Allows light into an internal space.

3. | Creates a space for circulation.


| 31 |

30 ST MARY AXE, LONDON,ENGLANDFOSTER + PARTNERS |

30 St Mary Axe, affectionately known as ‘the Gherkin’ is a good example of structurally performative architecture. The triangulated exterior of the structure supports entirely the weight and external loads placed on the buildings.As summarized by the architect the radial plan resolves walls and roof into a continu-ous triangulatedskin,allowingcolumn freefloorspace, lightandviews.,whilstbeingoptimized for wind and air circulation. I think the architect has achieved this aim spec-tacularly.

HOW WAS PARAMETRIC USED? |

Thebuilding is a perfect example of the benefits of parametricmodelling. Currentsciculating around the structure create large whirlwinds at the base, makie it uncomfort-able for occupants. Based on the mathematical properties of turbulence, the cylindrical form chosen responds optimally to the air currents compared to a square building and minimizes ground level wind, whilst also reducing the lateral loads that the structure has to endure.Onaninteriorlevel,thestructurewasoptimisedforcoolingeffiiciency.Hence,theformwas one that maximised natural air ventilation. This combined with aerodynamic model-ling that created a spiral effect of air up the interior of the structure created a state of the art self-regulating cooling and heating system that uses a quarter of the energy of comparably sized buildings.

01 02

03

01 |http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Canary_Wharf_and_Gherkin.jpg

02 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/30_St_Mary_Axe.jpg

03 | http://plus.maths.org/content/perfect-buildings-maths-modern-architecture

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

STEPS TAKEN: 1. | Created elevated circles as a start-ing point to represent the reletively cy-clindrical form. Used the move function with a z-vector.2. | Resized the circles using the scale function to represent the form. 3. | Lofted the circles

4. | I struggled a bit at this point but found a solution by creating a polygonal spine along the building from the end points of each circle and then lofting them.5. | Rotated the one spine using a slider6. | I then rotated the loft giving it an interval range of 0-360 degrees. This

duplicated each spine around the cir-cumference of the building.7. | I then realized the fascade rotated anti-clockwise and clockwise, so I mir-rored the effect I had already produced, which resulted in the latticed structure desired. Although it looks wrong, this is becuse you can see through the build-ing so the front and back is showing.

1.2.B. | Cut | Case Study 1.0

| 32 |

1.2.B. CUT | C.S 1.0 ‘THE GHERKIN’


| 33 |

1.2.C. | C.S 2.0 ‘KINGS CROSS’

0101 | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/King’s_Cross_Western_Concourse_-_central_position.jpg

1.2.C | Cut | Case Study 2.0

| 34 |

KING’S CROSS WESTERN CONCOURSE

JOHN McASLAN+ PARTNERS |

The Western Concourse roof epitomises the monu-mentality of spaces associated with movement that we are trying to replicate. As a circulation space within a train station, the grid shell structure creates a vast ex-periential space to move within. Again, parallels with our design intentions for the ‘Gate-way’ are evident.


1. | Flexible use of the grid shell structure.

2. | Monumentallises internal space.

3. | Monumenalises movement, both in circulation and through rail travel.

THE GRASSHOPPER PROCESS

1. | Lofted semi-circular guidelines to create a surface todivide.ThisisnotntirelyparametricandIhopetofindways to make the form of the structure parametric in the coming weeks rather than relying on lofting circles, as it is not truely parametric.

2. | Divided the surface in the x and y directions to pro-duce a grid structure from the surface.

3. | Manipulated data structures to connect points along the grid structure to one another. This was my firstattemptatmanipulationofdatastructuressoIhopeto gain greater control over this and create some more intricate structural systems with this knowledge as the base.


| 35 |

1.2.C. | C.S 2.0 ‘CARDBOARD PAVILLION’

0101 | http://kepler.njit.edu/ARCH163-000-F09/Pavilions/Ban%20Shigeru_Japonese%20Pavilion_pg_MA_91.jpg

0202 | http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2weabHoOO1r904b7o1_1280.jpg

1.2.C | Cut | Case Study 2.0

| 36|

CARDBOARD PAVILLION SHIGERU BAN |

We began to think of exactly how we would put together a structure similar to a diagrid, which often contains many 4-way or 6-way intersections or junctions. Shigeru Ban’s temporary cardboard pavillion offers a possible solution, whilst highlighting the inherent strength of the grid shell structure. The structure is made of only cardboard tubes tiedtogether.Thisemphasisestheflexibilityofmaterialsable to be used with the structure, owed to its internal strength. Creation and exploration of new forms was easilly achievable through this grid shell structure.


1. |Showsflexabilityofmaterialsinagridshellstructure

2. | Simple, lightweight repeating units.

3. | Quick assemply and dissassembly

Whilst this structure isn’t an exact replica, we feel we are moving closer to replicating the structure with increased knowledge of data structuring proving to be our stumbling block again this time.


| 37 |

0101 | http://www.ipig.biz/projects/Resources/chiddingstone02.jpeg

1.2.C. | PRECEDENT ANALYSIS |‘CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY’

CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY

PETER HULBERT ARCHITECTS |

Whilst investigating methods to help build our model for the midsemester presentation we were again plagued by the problem of how to connect a 4 overlapping members in a grid shell structure. Realizingthatsimplyflatteningthegridshellpatternonto a panel and laser cutting this out would de-feat the purpose of calling our project ‘sturctural,’ and render it simply an exercise in pattern, we looked for precedents to help us solve the issue.

Peter Hulbert’s design for the roof of the Chid-dingston orangery in England inspired us to en-gage with the structure on a more tectonic level. The idea of creating a universal joint or a small number of identical joints to support the members and tie them together at these intersections may well be a direction that we have to take to realise ouroutcomesforthefinalsubmission.

Whilst we were unable to really attempt this method as we discovered it after having made our models for the mid-semester crit, we believe it offers the group a way forward. This is a method that we may be able to employ with the use of the 3D printer, to create the necessary joints to fabricate our structure.


1. | Innovative way to construct a grid shell.

2. | Use of a simple repeating joint to join repeat-ing structural units.

3. | Ability to fabricate.

1.2.C | Precedent Analysis

| 38 |

0202 | http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4A0lKIgx9U4/Sf50Qhs94vI/AAAAAAAADC8/GiVnDXzVJgw/Node_close_up9_ready%5B4%5D.jpg


02 | KING’S CROSSJOHN McASLAN + PARTNERS

01 | AAMI PARK COXARCHITECTS

04 | SOUTH PONDSTUDIO GANG

05 | CARDBOARD PAVILLION

SHIGERU BAN

06 | ‘THE GHERKIN’ FOSTER + PARTNERS

OPTIMIZATION OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE REPRESENTING MOVEMENT

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

OPTIMIZATION OF MATERIALS

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

03 | BRITISH MUSEUMFOSTER + PARTNERS FLEXIBILITY OF

STRUCTURE

07|CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY

PETER HULBERT ARCHITECTSSTRUCTURE AS

ORNAMENT

STRUCTURE TO MOVE THROUGH

| 39 |

1.2.D. | Summary of Precedents

1.2.D. | SUMMARY OF PRECEDENTS

STRUCTURE

MOVEMENT

ORNAMENT

GRID SHELL

| 40 |


| 41 |

1.2.E. | Design Development

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT1.2.E. | PARAMETRIC DIAGRAM

| 42 |

Parametric Diagram | Unfortunately the clarity is an issue due to my screen’s resolution.

1. Changing the number of divisions

on the grid


| 43 |

2. Creating surface curvature

3. Changing the underlying geometry

1.

2.

3.


1.2.E. | DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

GROUP MATRIX | 44 |

GROUP MATRIX |

As a group it was decided to start with the grid shell structure to generate our forms. This method, or a closely related one, was prevalent in many of our precedents and case studies we analysed. It gives ustheflexibilitytoformanumberofdiffer-ent structural patterns with the manipula-tion of the parametric data structures. It was also decided that this structure lended itself to our key drivers of design; monumentalization and movement.

This matrix explores the manipulation of our parametric grasshopper model. We havecreatedaflexibledefinitionthatena-bles us to easilly manipulate the base ge-ometries, create duplicates, segment the structure and intensify or dilute the pat-tern.

The proliferation of a long ‘snake-like’ structure in this matrix is in part due to our wish to draw out the experience of the user (a driver travelling at 100kmph) and also partly due to our wish to use size to add to the sense of monumentality of the structure.

One would expect that through further knoledge of grasshopper techniques we can develop data structures that allow more curvature between the main grid-lines and hence enhance the overall aes-thetic qualities of the structure. This and other changes will hopefully come about through increased technical knowledge. But we are satisfied that this defintiongives us multiple options.

4. Segmenting the underlying geometry

and creating duplicates

5. Elongation in the y-direction and further

plasticizing form

4.

5.


| 45 |


| 46 |

CHOSEN DESIGN |

Thedesignchosen isbynomeansa reflectionofour intendedfinalform or structure. However we chose this one as we feel it best in-corporates the advantages of the parametric grid shell structure, whilst reflecting our design intents of movement, monumentalization andstructure at the same time.

The intent behind the design was to create a structure that was orna-mental and elicted the sensation of movement. The structural pattern helps to give directional movement as one passes through.

Further, we intend to explore the relationship between the compressive notion of urban industrialised space and the expansiveness of subur-bia, which one experiences moving along Geelong road. The form dictates this intent through the compressive and more open spaces along the structure. We also intend to explore these notions through materiality to add multiple layers to the meaning.

This design demonstates a starting point, a parametric model that al-lows for ease of manipulation and the potential to grow with our ex-panding collective knowledge base in grasshopper.


Method 1 | Double skin - Inner & Outer

Method 3 | Grid Shell Structure Flattened

| 47 |

Weinitiallyattemptedthismethodbecausetheflattenedgridstructure wasn’t strong or maleable enough to stand by itself. This exposed the inherent problem of using the laser cutter to fabricate-itneedstobeflattenedtobeprintedsoitbecomesa planar surface, rather than a collection of individual elements. This method requires thick members to support itself. As a result of its inability to hold its form we decided to use a wire mesh underneath to support the grid shell structure. Obvi-

ously this method is not optimal so we don’t want to use this method. But I think it showed us that we will need to look atamethodthatisnotaplanarsurface.Byflatteningtoasurface, it defeats the purpose of our argument because our method is structure, and hence should be self-supporting, not simply a patterned surface imitating a structural system.

This was another attempt at laser cutting, with thicker card-board and a simplified structure. Although it visibly lookedhow it should have, It required steel wire to keep the model in proportion,duetothefactithadbeenflattenedtocutinthemachine. Also, we had to simplify the overall form to a more linear tube-like form, which was not what we desired.

1.2.F. | Prototyping

1.2.F. | PROTOTYPING

Method 2 | Reinforced Mould

| 48 |

Taking inspiration from reinforced concrete and the strength and maleability it posesses, we decided to use ‘pinkysil’ embeddedwithwiretocreateaflexibleandstablemodel,which could easilly bend in all directions. This was an inter-esting experiment that showed how adaptable our grid shell structure could be.

SUMMARY |

Theinabilityofourdesigntobesimplyflattenedontoaplanarsurfacemeantthatwehadtoexploreouroptionsinthefab-rication stage. We decided at this stage to test out as many options as possible (within the time constraints) to see what we could come up with. As structure is our method, we feel the need to not ‘cheat’ the end result by simplifying the model because the laser cutter can only work in singular planes. We also don’t see the point of 3D printing the whole structure as this is just not feasible in real-life. Ultimately we are looking to the example of the Chiddingston Orangery to hopefully design a universal joint that can permeate the whole structure. This would allow us to really explore the tectonic relationship between members and also make the assembly quite simple, and repeatable in the real-world.

However aesthetically it wasn’t the cleanest result. The best thing about this model however, was that it was a structural system, rather than a ‘dumbed’ down version of what we wanted to achieve.

| 49 |


1.2.G. | FEEDBACK & RESPONSE

FEEDBACK DISCUSSION |

We felt that perhaps we shot ourselves in the foot a bit in the presentation. The ideas were there, but I don’t feel as though we got it all out. We agreed that we probably got ourselves hung-up on the idea of achieving ‘optimization’ with our structure for too long, and didn’t fully engage with the idea of movement. As a result we didn’t prioritize this in our presentation, and only really mentioned this when pressed in question time. This was disappointing, however it was also encouraging in that now we feel we have a solid theoretical base from which to launch our design in the coming month. We know what we have to do, we have a solid theoretical backing for the design decisions we make, and feel that we can pull this off. The crit did highlight the fact that we need to be more critical of our work, and question every minute decision - is it backed by our design intent? If not, change it.

Itwasalsosuggestedthatwefindsomemorecontemporaryprecedentsforstructuralbased parametric architecture. This is something we will consider, and a bit of an eye-opener (I thought we were looking at reletively new works, apparently not!). This may enable us to explore different fabrication methods as well.

We were also corrected on the name we had been using for our structural system, calling it the ‘diagrid’ rather than the ‘grid shell’, this has been noted and ammended in this journal.

PARAMETRIC EXPERIENCE | Learningparametricarchitectureongrasshopperismostdefintitelyachallengingexpe-rience, having spent many nights feeling as though I was not getting anywhere it was great to make a breakthrough with Michael a few weeks ago. The combination of his knowledge and mine were able to solve two problems that we were having, with our knowledge complementing each other. This is the advantage of working in a team on new software such as this. We are trying to make our model totally parametric so we have complete control over the structure, which is the idea behind parametric archi-tecture. We are seeing results, but I feel we needed to overcome our small theoretical hitch as the basis to push our design to the next level. I feel we have done this, with a new emphasis on monumentality and movement that was uncovered during the feedback section of our mid-semester crit.

1.2.H. | WHERE TO FROM HERE? | 50 |

1.2.G. | Prototyping

DIRECTION |

MODELLING & FABRICATION METHODS |Initially I was concerned about our lack of a polished, presentable physical model, however I think we are in a position where we need to take the time to develop a con-struction system rather than take the easy way out and laser cut the structure. We are looking at possibly 3D printing the inverse of a universal joint, and then using it as a mould to create multiple joints for a model. However we need to address concerns over materiality to have a reasonable understading of how these joints will work.The idea obviously, is to create a proposal that is structural, not some fake imitation of structure, and this may take time.

Currently we are working on creating a site model in the break to alleviate the need to worry about this later. This will enable us to prototype models at scale and give us a better idea as to the design’s sensibilities to the site.

TEAM DYNAMICS | Ifeeltheunitywithintheteamisworkingverywell.Weareallbeginningtofindeachothers stengths and weaknesses and are now progressing accordingly. Everyone seems to be on the same page theoretically so we all understand the principals un-derpinning our design.

THE SITE |This is now the time to start analysing the site and exploring the contextual issue of the area. The urban-geographical relationship of Wyndham and it’s surrounds becomes thefocusofthenextstageofdesign.Thegrasshopperdefintionisaworkinprogressas we look to try to incorporate the ideals of monumentality and movement into the structure. Our ideas have become clearer with the constructive feeback and we are looking to really push the design in accordance with these developed parameters.

PAGE INSTRUCTIONS

This spread should be a “splash” page for the case for innovation section of the journal

PART 2.0| DESIGN PROPOSAL |

| 53 |

2.0

| 54 |

Documents

Nick Bergin Journal (Mid Sem Submission)