Parametric Design 1
Parametric Design: Towards A Future Architecture
submitted by Karol Mac Gairbheith
for the BSc (Honours) Architectural Technology
London South Bank University
Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment
Department of Property, Surveying & Construction
2009
COPYRIGHT
“Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this dissertation rests with South Bank University. This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the University and no
information derived from it may be published without the prior, written consent of the University.”
“I declare that the dissertation is my own unaided work except where specifically referenced to the works of others.”
_____________________________________
Parametric Design 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Stephen Crawford and Michael McCune for making the Architectural Association experience an unforgettable
one. I found working with both of them as a team to be inspirational.
I also want to thank Maria Flodin from Bentley for obtaining the permission that I needed to be able to show ‘screen shots’ of the
Generative Components platform within this research.
I would like to thank BAM Design – a subsidiary of the Royal BAM Group – for giving me a great deal of support during my time at
university, as well as the occasional light-hearted diversion to the pub.
I want to thank Jeff Carter, not only for providing a fascinating insight into the days of ‘Rapidographs’ and ‘Double Elephant’ drawing
boards, but also for giving the consent to include that interview in this research.
I am deeply thankful to Carlos Gonzalez for giving me an incredible learning experience at South Bank University. His tuition taught
me the importance of challenging taxing aspects of design and technology. Also I’d like to thank Carlos for introducing me to my
mentor for this research.
And so my most sincere gratitude goes to Lilly Kudic for all the encouragement and continued support throughout this project. I am
highly privileged to have had the opportunity to learn and develop under Lilly’s intellectual direction. Thank you so much for teaching
me the importance of expressing language, poetry and art in architecture, with substance.
Parametric Design 3
Abstract
An Exploration of the Architectural Opportunities Afforded by the New Concepts And Strategies of Parametric Design,
acknowledging the importance of retaining architecture as a craft.
Parametric Design 4
Table of ContentsList of Figures...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
The New Paradigm shift ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6Design Research and Methodologies............................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Literature Search ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8Personal Interview.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8Computational Experimentation ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8Events ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Literature Review...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10Dystopian Vision of Future Architecture...................................................................................................................................................................................................................10A Period of Late Style?.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10The Death of Drawing ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11The New Wave of Parametric Design...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................12Emergent Design Paradigm ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Findings.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15The Digitisation of Physical Models ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15Agency Scripting: The Search for an Optimal Pattern.........................................................................................................................................................................................16An Evolutionary Design Process ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18Computational Design Platform for Architecture .................................................................................................................................................................................................19An Exercise in Parametric Translation........................................................................................................................................................................................................................21A Culture of Crossbreeding the Tools of Platforms ..............................................................................................................................................................................................21Visualisation, Animation and Advanced Simulations in Digital Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................22Digital Fabrication and Rethinking Conventions ................................................................................................................................................................................................22Craftsmanship........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23A Change in Practice and New Meaning in Collaboration ................................................................................................................................................................................23Jeff Carter In Conversation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
Parametric Design 5
List of Figures
Fig. 1 3D Print of DLA Chandelier (early iteration) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 by project team1
Fig. 2 DLA Chandelier Project …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 by project team1
Fig. 3 Interchange Project (Generative Components) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20 by author2
Fig. 4 Oratory Chapel, St Peter The Apostle High School, Clydebank, Scotland …………………………………………………………………………...28 by BAM Design3
Notes 1 Diffusion Limited Aggregation Chandelier: by Michael McCune, Steven Crawford & Karol Mac Gairbheith; Unit 3, AA Summer dLab, London, 2008
2 Karol Mac Gairbheith, Interchange Project, Smart Geometry Workshop, San Francisco, 2009
2 Oratory Photos/Renders/Drawings: courtesy of BAM Design, St Albans, 2009
Parametric Design 6
Introduction
The New Paradigm shift The architectural profession has to date had a well chronicled life. This is particularly evident from the middle of the nineteenth
century when the Victorians set about a wholesale documentation of the histories and theories of architecture in an effort to reassure
themselves of their own place and significance in the previous four millennia. And correspondingly the same is true of its primal
medium for communicating ideas, concepts and minutiae. Architectural draughtsmanship. It has been acting as the architect’s delegate
on site ever since the days when the profession became distinguished from that of a stonemason. Yet drawing as a fundamental
architectural process has become industrialised. Not only by the introduction of computer-aided design (CAD) but also by the
subletting of drawing work to the paraprofessionals who propose to build aspects of the works. In practice the emphasis has moved
from architectural drawing as a craft in itself, to a reduction of detailing, following through to architectural modelling.
The past decade has witnessed the emergence of a new generation of architects, the offspring of the advanced digital and information
age we now find ourselves in. The resultant paradigm shift in architecture is assigned to an aggressive exploration of new processes and
media through experimentation with digital computational tools, architectural prototyping, and most significantly, live building
projects. With so much built and many currently under execution this shift continues to develop at a swift momentum. Individual
schools such as the Architectural Association, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Pratt Institute, along with large
architectural and engineering firms such as Foster + Partners, Grimshaw Architects, Zaha Hadid Architects, Gehry Partners LLP, Arup
and Buro Happold to name a few, have all, helped pave the way for this new shift. The academic setting has long been an active partner
in this process. Particularly motivated by the influence of their leaders desires to realise great visions and push the boundaries of both
architectural and engineering technologies beyond their limits, some modern teams have not only defined new conceptual tools and
methodologies, but also brought about a reformation of architectural design practice. A lucrative revolution in studio-based networks
bear a sense of shared authorship of the design projects they embrace. Although the potentialities of the well-matured virtual realms of
design greatly exceed the construction industry’s ability to realise them, current advances in digital fabrication are dramatically turning
this conception on its head. Ocean, a design research network, are one of many research collectives exploring the form/fabrication
rubric and the resolution of this emergent design paradigm. And these research networks are driven by shared interests, and an eagerness
to harness the possibilities, that is to be able to detain and resolve every single detail within any design process. The ultimate effect is a
fuelling of architectural ambition. What began with the obsession of exploring the possibilities of complex surface modelling that
CAD afforded has now become an interrogation of the complex volumetric components to be proliferated onto such forms.
This transformation comes at a time much in need of rapid change due to the ever-diminishing role the architect has to play within the
formulation of the built environment. It is a time where the distinction between architecture and quite truthfully, just plain building,
has become unclear. Such concerns calls for a serious discussion, one that will attempt to narrate a documentary insight into some of
the critical developments that has and shall help shape and preserve the future of architecture. It is a sparse subject area, which at a
Parametric Design 7
prolonged glance appears to span a seemingly infinite horizon. Theoretical frameworks that overlap and dissipate amongst disciplines
are both adjacent to and quite far removed from the field of architecture, some are syncretic in their very natures.
This research strives to explore new concepts and strategies for parametric design as non-linear dynamic systems, and to delineate the
pertaining architectural prospects, whilst acknowledging the importance of retaining the field of architecture and its artefact as a craft.
It sets out to narrate a documentary history and evaluate some of the key theoretical frameworks surrounding it.
Parametric Design 8
Design Research and Methodologies
Schumacher (2008), while delivering a presentation at the 2008 Venice Architectural Biennale, declared that ‘parametricism’ is “the
great new style after modernism”. It is of course crucial to understand that parametric design is by no means a style. For the proposes of
this research, parametric design will be discussed in light of what it is, distinct to the dictum of “style” proposed by some practitioners.
Zaera-Polo and Moussavi (2003, p.7) of Foreign Office Architects comment that a “style” is unable “to provide internal consistency to
the work under any circumstances: very often the traits of a style become irreconcilable with the material inconsistencies of the
environment.” Thus opposed to being branded a movement, parametrics is an intricate computational process that allows the
generation of relational models, which simultaneously controls the overall physical configuration and opens up the possibility of
performance-based assessments and scenario testing. The focus is now on the reorganisation of process as opposed to the confined
formality of the end product.
Literature Search Purist and experimental research methodologies are to be implemented to undertake this thesis (body of research). Since the research
topic is of an advanced nature, all focus will be directed towards finding recent publications. Journals and articles fresh off the shelves
will be checked for relevant information and the Internet will be considered as a breeding ground for new information and software
tutorials. The goal is to find crucial texts, journals and articles that document the rapid change in the state of the art and capture in
essence the diametrically opposed perspectives and indeed perceptions held both by participants and mere observers.
Personal Interview The qualitative research on this topic is by means of a ‘semi-structured interview.’ The purpose of the interview is to get an insight into
an era when the drawing board was still widely used in architectural practice. And the chosen respondent is Jeff Carter, an associate at
BAM Design. By exploring the views and opinions of a professional architect, this in turn validates the gathered information. The
advantages of a semi-structured interview are that the focus stays on the questions set (interview topics), although the order is
determined by the flow of the discussion. Compared to structured interviews, semi-structured interviews have the added advantage of
flexibility and the potential addition of extra information by the interviewee. It creates a natural discussion that enables the interviewee
to talk around the subject area, and potentially leads to a formative inclusion of broader implications beyond the scope set out by the
interview topics. It should be understood that Jeff Carter’s consent to use the transcript of the interview featuring his overview of
building production information has been obtained.
Computational Experimentation It is felt that in order to appreciate the true nature of parametric design, one must participate within the heart of the action, and reflect
and test by experimentation those concepts, strategies and tools within the arena of computational modelling. To test and experiment
Parametric Design 9
with various platforms. A project procured during an intensive twelve-day programme in advanced digital design - at the Architectural
Association School of Architecture (04 – 15 August 2008) – will be examined to illustrate the anatomy of agency scripting. It is felt
that it is vital to do so, as scripting is a very important aspect of computational design and it is a difficult concept to grasp. This will be
followed by a four-day project carried out at a Smart Geometry workshop in San Francisco (27 - 30 March 2009). Crucially, it will shed
light on setting up a parametric component and the use of an associative computational platform.
Events Attendance at the Smart Geometry Alumni Summit and Conference in San Francisco (31 March – 01 April 2009) will add great depth
to the research as it presents the most up-to-date report on the progression of parametrics. However attendance at various lectures and
exhibitions in London will also have something to add.
Analysis A combination of issues discussed during the literature review and the research results found will be used to relay a formidable
discussion on the key debate of whether or not parametric design has a role to play in the future of architecture.
Parametric Design 10
Literature Review
Dystopian Vision of Future Architecture A reminiscence of the critical events of 2008 unveils an unforgiving compulsion for the architectural profession to muddle through this
shift in circumstances. The sheer threat of irrevocable climate change, aggravated by prolonged misuse of the planets resources, became
a common global understanding. Concurrently the British government has made carbon emissions reduction a flagship policy, but the
country still trails behind Europe in implementation. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) demonstrated an ardent interest
in positively dealing with issues of sustainable design, but even so, found themselves under scrutiny by their members as to the relevance
of their duties to the profession. On another note, the global economic downturn has resulted in noticeable changes to both the US and
British construction markets. A latent meltdown has hit hard on work linked to commercial and residential sectors. Large architectural
and construction firms have collapsed whilst others have been taken over with resultant job loss and cuts, as students of the affected
disciplines struggle to attain internships. Most significantly, critics’ reviews of the Venice Biennale entitled “Out There: Architecture
Beyond Building” rendered a bleak portrait of the field’s future, amidst reports of a desire to return to traditionalism. Does this dreary
perception suggest that the stale smell of selling out is beginning to emanate from the present state of architecture?
The Biennale’s objective was to encourage an investigation of how the profession could tame technological systems to make people feel
“more at home in the modern world.” Instead it showcased an instantaneously recognisable ‘space-age rhetoric’ with dominating
themes such as rigid game logic, dark domesticity, and ideas of infinity (Hunter, 2008). Hunter’s (2008) own interpretation of the
exhibition depicts incapacity to “shape the merging of virtual and real worlds in a positive way,” and failing “to place architecture firmly,
materially, and imperatively on this territory.” In an article addressing the very purpose of the Venice Biennale, Baillieu (2008) cunningly
drew a divergent parallel between the scientific “big bang experiment” and the state that architecture was in at the time, arguing that it
was “short of a big idea” that could “change how we think about the world.” In light of this evidence it is apparent that today’s “ideas are
too frequently so tentative, so ungrounded in reality, as to offer little insight” as to what the future should hold (Hunter, 2008).
A Period of Late Style? Architecture … used to deal in ideas, and it was able to speculate on its future direction. It took risks and it wasn’t afraid of
failure. People were open-mouthed at some of its experiments and its audacity to attempt the impossible, and were moved by
its beauty (Baillieu 2008).
Modern architecture is now a century old tradition. The great transformation in the nineteenth century, during the rise of the industrial
megalopolis, brought intense social and technological changes, hugely influencing the birth of the Modern Movement. Everything was
about building a new and better world. Subsequently, the Second World War left many countries physically exhausted, financially
cleaned out and suffering from a substantial housing crisis. In spite of this, western civilization was overcome by a remarkable sense of
optimism, opening the doors to acceptance of modernist architects in a bid for ambitious solutions to chronic problems.
Retrospectively Alison and Peter Smithson understood there were problems associated with the modernist movement during the post-
Parametric Design 11
war years. The disjunction caused by the war meant that modernism needed to be reorganised and that enough had been proposed and
built to be able to establish a comprehensive critique. Robert Venturi later argued for a more inclusive, contextual approach to design,
and his theoretical and built work that followed heralded the post-modern era in the late twentieth century. The movement
deliberately mixed artistic styles and media, suspicious of illustrious theories, and in an awkward relationship with art this to a large
extent still resides today. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, architecture was without doubt hand-made, with each unique piece an
attestation to its creator. According to Jodidio (2004 p.8.9) “the cost-driven logic of machines made it necessary to abandon the unique
in favour of the identical, of the standardised unit of production,” originally one of the main traits associated with modernism.
“We are in a period of late style,” claims architect and theorist Peter Eisenman in the deliverance of his highly contentious “Six Point
Plan” at the RIAS Convention 20081. Lateness construed by Eisenman was “a moment in time when there are no new paradigms or
ideological, cultural, political conditions that cause significant change.” No novel substrate could articulate the kind of change
experienced in the late nineteen hundreds. The remaining points extended far beyond this to proclaim the weakness of architecture as a
medium, with today’s buildings lacking in meaning or reference, a warning of students “passivity” and concerns about the qualitative
issues that computers have on design. Yet, diametrically opposed to such views, Lars Hesselgren, co-director of the Smart Geometry
Group, feels that they “merit serious debate” (Freisen et al, 2008).
The Death of Drawing The architecture of the Gothic period is regarded collectively as being the most momentous manifestations of human culture. The
work of initially small groups of masons and master builders established the medieval paradigm shifts of geometry, full scale drawing,
and the technology of large scale framed construction. These innovations propelled the adoption of Gothic architecture as the
medieval architecture serving faith, and marking place in the evolving urban centres in Europe. The Gothic master builders stimulated
“by the scientific and technical behaviour of materials,” utilised their numerous expertises and enveloped a coherent means of operation
that ultimately defied the limitations imposed by the reality of that time (Wiscombe, 2006). The most notorious of examples attesting
this truth is the advance of a skeletal structure supported by flying buttresses, a feat that marked a pinnacle in the history of technology.
The physical craft was now more complex and grander. Except, building empirically happened to be the only method of testing
innovative new ideas. Construction works that resulted in disappointment (and sometimes collapse) necessitated reconstruction of the
areas concerned. Fortunately there was a procedure in place that made this practice, to an extent, bearable. Each step in the building
process was systematically recorded. Those records facilitated a reaction and the proceeding systematic analysis created a feedback
loop that informed improvised adaptation, sometimes adulterating the desired effect. And further documentation of the lessons
learned provided a stimulus of proactive measures that would permit prolific future successes. In spite of this, the occurrence of a
critical moment would add a new dimension to that scenario, defining the initiation of architectural design practice. In devising a
planning process that strived to resolve every detail in advance, the Gothic master builder became the Gothic architect, making
architectural drawings an indispensable catalyst for construction. And this planning process presides now over all forms of building
projects that have been realised to this present day. The development of modern architecture would have been impossible without the
Parametric Design 12
colossal influence of those medieval drawings. Yet whilst the very constructs of modernity were excitedly being embodied during the
second half of the nineteenth century, a sleeping leviathan quietly awakened, one that would become known as the autocratic impetus
that brought about the industrialisation of architectural drawing and building production.
The generation of Computer Aided Design (CAD) “software for personal desktop computers” induced an “almost universal
application in all areas of construction” (Raj, no date). According to Raj (no date) the origins of its initial development can be traced
back to the nineteen sixties, a time when the designers of the “aircraft and automotive industries” began to base their calculations on the
use of primitive computers. Nonetheless, major developments in computing within the fields of science and engineering enabled
numerous forward-looking large architectural firms to embrace CAD in its nascent form to help eliminate repetitive tasks and attempt
to increase productivity. From this transformation in practice, a market began to emerge, despite the steep learning curve with its
imposed time and cost implications. Its potential had begun to be realised. Resultantly, the software evolved to become more
sophisticated, useable - and workforces gradually downsized. Phil Bernstein (2009), vice president and industry strategy relations for
Autodesk AEC, categorises CAD into three successive generations. The first being conventional CAD drawing essentially no different
from hand-drafted drawings, the second, a smart object orientated drawing - where the user is not required to draw every element - and
the third, the recent advent of Building Information Modelling (BIM). A BIM model is in essence “a digital prototype of the building to
be built,” a well equipped three-dimensional digital tool (Bernstein, 2009). Computation technology’s recent advance in both software
and hardware has finally enabled the utilisation of theoretical constructs that have in theory been around for approximately thirty years.
The New Wave of Parametric Design In parametric design a set of independent parameters are chosen and systematically varied according to defined criteria in order
to arrive at not just one object but a series of variations. Usually, the parameters are given a geometrical interpretation
(Jormakka, 2008).
For most, the more familiar term for parameters is variables; features that are changeable, particularly in a numerical fashion.
Parametric design in architecture can be traced back in part to Antoni Gaudi’s creation of the renowned hanging model. It was a
parametric device reflecting Gaudi’s mathematical training and instinctive sense of structural order. So in some sense, parametric
modelling has been around for a long time, although it “is only now beginning to be harnessed through algorithmic techniques” (Friesen
et al 2008). Designers are capable of assembling a logical rule-based geometry, once the rules that describe the connections between
elements have been specified. The key is to introduce parametric logic into both the design process and the computational model. And
this requires the designer to initiate by setting up rules and relationships that define the overall schema of the project with the
additional benefit of having more control over some of the irregularities that occur as the project evolves. Critically, parametric
modelling can rapidly respond to change. Most current 3D modelling packages have either built-in or plug-in scripting engines that
enable this advanced form of computational design. But to do this with parametric software, one must first learn to abandon the
reliance on the simple act of drawing that traditional CAD platforms offer, their own inherent algorithms, programmed by the
numerous software developers, form those lines drawn with ease in CAD. The current shift is for architects to programme their own
Parametric Design 13
custom made computational tools to allow the freedom to design, and an ability to handle any contradictions that may arise. And this is
a far cry from the all too common jurisdiction of permitting compromise. According to Friesen et al (2008) “algorithmic design,
emergence behaviour and generative form” has changed the way we construct and see contemporary architecture. It is an intricate
computational process that allows the generation of relational models, simultaneously controls the overall physical configuration and
opens up the possibility of performance-based assessments and scenario testing. These parametric simulations are possible due to the
great degree of knowledge – and power - embedded within the models. However, this paradigm shift is more than just a new mindset
for design and practice, it is also a by-product of new digital tools that have appeared on the horizon.
Decision making within an architectural process is defined and predicated by innumerable factors and constraints. The role of
the architect is to process the complexities of a problem and provide a way forward (not a solution) that will accommodate,
embrace or negate the constraints presented (Hook 2004, p.90).
Emergent Design Paradigm One of the most important sources of literature for undertaking this research is that of “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains,
Cities and Software” by Stephen Johnson. The book documents the naturally occurring phenomena of emergence which can be loosely
framed as change that occurs from the bottom up. To concisely define this broad issue is a difficult task. According to Johnson (2002,
p.64), any “paradigm shift” theory is insufficient. As a subset of the “histories of intellectual development – the origin and spread of new
ideas”, the “paradigm-shift model” in principle has a difficult time explaining how it has come into being (Johnson 2002, p.64).
Emergence, “a field of research that had been characterised by a handful of early-stage investigations blossomed overnight into a densely
populated and diverse landscape, transforming dozens of existing disciplines and inventing a handful of new ones” (Johnson 2002, p.65).
Based on the sciences of complexity and self-organisation, “the movement from low-level rules to higher-level sophistication is what we
call emergence, and … [investigates] a higher-level pattern arising out of parallel complex interactions between local agents” (Johnson
2002, p.19). It is a bottom-up system inherent in all natural forms, without the “pacemakers” we have built into our social organisations
which are structured in a top-down hierarchical fashion. To be truly considered emergent, a given system must be adaptive to its
environment and intrinsically behave with “a mix of order and anarchy” (Johnson 2002, p.38). The text is ideal for enquiring about
organized complexity which is paramount to resolving the problematic statement that has set the tone for this research.
Tom Wiscombe, senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and founder of “emergentarchitecture.com,” has
written two articles relevant as base knowledge for this research. Both “Emergent Processes” and “Emergent Models of Architectural
Practice” provide a comprehensive discussion of the more general aspects of this new design paradigm of emergence. Bottom-up
evolutionary processes place innovation – the creation of the new – within the spectrum of complexity theory. Wiscombe, within those
articles, attempts to discuss to a certain degree, its relation to contemporary architectural debate. In contrast to Eisenman’s position of
essences and the theoretical, Wiscombe argues instead for a relevance of this process to architectural debate, unconcerned by the role of
computing as a mediator. Ultimately a definition is given to the concept of emergence within contemporary architectural design as the
Parametric Design 14
“generation of collectives and coherent systems” (Wiscombe, 2005). Hence understanding that concept of the integrated whole, is a
fundamental requirement for succeeding in parametric design. According to Wiscombe:
We are all familiar with the way a building is generally produced: the architect defines a space plan and sometimes a
representative form; structural and mechanical engineers are invited in after the fact to add order and performance but often
have to resort to illogical or weak solutions to maintain the design intent. Construction documents are then produced which
are only analogous to what will actually be built; contractors are brought in to say how the conflicted contraption might
actually be fabricated and erected. There is often no feedback or feedforward, no learning, and certainly no coordination going
on at most of those coordination meetings. The question of evolution and complexity never enters the picture (Wiscombe
2005).
This articulate account sites the conventional mode of architectural design firmly within today’s climate of disjunction. It forces the
question; what is the difference between conventional practice and an emergent practice of architecture? The answer lies within how
both design processes are organized. Conventionally, a hierarchical system operates by prioritizing form generation over the subsequent
design criteria, resultantly producing “top-down engineered solutions” with its tectonic elements (Menges 2009). It is totalitarian in its
linear disposition and inevitably incoherent. The emergent design paradigm on the other hand, is Therefore the emergent design
paradigm is the direct opposite of what we know as conventional practice, but with one major difference. It is a largely dynamic …
Complexity shouldn’t be sought for its own sake. The temptation to let the imagination run wild with the use of advanced tools… The
goal shouldn’t be the edge of chaos, instead it’s about finding the equilibrium. Instead work through multiple iterations and feed into
the design process (Menges 2009).
Invent the logics during the design stage to avoid the conventional practice of “retrofitting post design” (DeBiswas)1. Thus asserting the
entire process of gathering information during the design process as crucial.
Notes 1 Eisenman, P. (2008) Eisenman’s Six Point Plan, Building Design, May 2
Parametric Design 15
Findings
The Digitisation of Physical Models The tradition of architectural model making as a means of developing ideas has now been overtaken by a new technology. This process
has evolved from the palms of the human hands into digitally controlled machinery; the product is the automation of physical
modelmaking directly from the 3D design files generated from computer-aided design (CAD) software. This advance has been coined
as rapid-prototyping technology (RPT) and owes its innovative supremacy to laser technology sold by Russia to Germany. The
knowledge acquired from this exchange was incorporated in enhanced printing technology, eventually enabling the aeronautical,
automotive “and medical industries to create models of everything from hearing aids to the giant wings of the Airbus A380”
(Strongman, 2008, p.40). Although many large architectural practices have invested in this technology, the machines remain an
expensive purchase. The design teams can now submit an ‘stl’ or ‘vmrl’ file before 4.00pm and find the finished physical model on their
desk the following morning. Providentially a boom in “out-of-house service bureaus” has made the technology available to firms of all
sizes at affordable prices (Strongman, 2008, p.40). From as little as £50 per model, those bureaus offer a two to three day turn around.
The advantages of using RPT are abundant.
Various iterations of massing models at concept design stage can be rapidly prototyped by 3D printing, enabling one to put the best
product forward to close a deal. The ready availability of physical models can facilitate a faster approval from clients, and the reduction
Parametric Design 16
of model build time and cost can allow designers to focus on their intentions. There are several types of RPT machines and the means
by which they create models are the same, albeit the kind of materials and fixing agents deployed. It is a process of layering consecutive
cross-sections on top of one another from the bottom up. The 3D Printer in its simplest form was devised by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) and manufactured by the Z Corporation and has the ability to 3D print across numerous iterations and
achieve increased accuracy within the consequential models and really shows its true significance when applied to complex designs. The
Z Corp’s 3D printer can now print in colour – useful for the representation of simulated environmental data - and hybrid modelling
achieved by combining 3D print with laser cut parts. Nonetheless, Stereolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)
machines are far more advanced than the 3D printer. They have superior strength and can produce models of literally any size by joining
individual elements together. Strongman (2008, p.40) believes that rapid prototyping “could soon allow architects to create 1:1 models
of building components.”
Agency Scripting: The Search for an Optimal Pattern “Systemisation of vision” is the means by which one may build a vision according to Martha Tsigkari of the Specialist Modelling Group
at Foster and Partners. Martha believes that in the light of the emerging generation of architects one must be a scripter, a development
manager, and most importantly “a creator of an integral system”1. Steinfeld believes that “metrics” presents a sociological challenge to
the design team, proclaiming the need to move beyond the metaphor of “architect as tool-maker.” Instead by entering into a dialogue
that exceeds “the internal logics of tools” one may unearth a “holistic practice” of those tools. According to Steinfeld agency scripting
may be referred to as “a search for a formal design process” 2. And what mostly attracts designers to it is how the act of manipulating a
script can transform geometry and yield complex effects. There are opportunities to systematically layer complexity in an infinite way.
However it is crucial to realise when to stop. Getting close to equilibrium is valid goal, but if there is too much to build, it will never lead
to realisation. The trick is to learn the system from the bottom up, once it is understood it can be formalised. Woodbury declared that
patterns may be thought of as “tools for thought and action,” simply because they can be used to “link the basics of a system to a large
design”, and the origins of patterns can be traced back to major theorists such as Ruskin, Vitruvius, Christopher Alexander and Palladio.
“Finding code, copying it and modifying it” is the quickest way to learn how to script3. Yet this is a simple task in comparison to actually
managing the datasets created to inform the design process. One must establish workflows to deter from losing information about the
processes involved in generating the project, in every step along the way. This is made possible by writing ‘pseudo-code’ into the scripts
to describe each consecutive function. Yet the ‘pseudo-code’ has another purpose. Having each step described in advance, allows
different programmers to work on it, especially if the script contains bugs. In which case it needs to be ‘de-bugged’. Creating a flow
diagram of the thought process will help inform the parametric workflow. Not only will they serve as a visual guide through an
algorithmic process, but also diagrams can become more intricate to show instances of feedback loops as the process evolves in time. To
write search algorithms one must begin with learning a programming language. There are many of them, and the norm is to be multi-
lingual in that arena.
Parametric Design 18
An Evolutionary Design Process Last year, the Architectural Association School of Architecture held its third “AA Summer dLab” two-week study programme in
advanced digital design. In participating alongside Stephen Crawford and Michael McCune as a team of three (Group 1), a design
thesis was intensively developed and in effect, successfully tested the potentialities of linking digital computation directly to rapid
prototyping. The chosen studio (Unit 3) was led by Dave Pigram (Supermanoeuvre, Columbia GSAPP and Pratt Institute) and Ezio
Blasetti (Serge Studio, Columbia University and Pratt Institute), demanded the design and fabrication of a full-scale chandelier. Not
just any chandelier, or a design methodology for that affair, but a chandelier devised using a strictly generative and morphogenetic
design process, aided with the study of a group elected growth algorithm as a vehicle for producing the custom logics of formation.
After an initial three days of scripting workshops in Rhino (VbScript) and an introduction to a variety of growth algorithms, Group 1
selected Diffusion Limited Aggregation (DLA) to procure the basic form finding parameters, and posited the use of coral and ivy
growth as generative models. Patterns based on a DLA algorithm generates high populations with a small number of decisions i.e.
imitative of growth modes in both ivy and coral.
A desire to implement context-sensitive dynamics within the writing of the script motivated the design team to locate a room in which
to site the fabricated chandelier upon completion. Consecutively, a measured survey of that room was conducted to enable the creation
of a computer generated three-dimensional model. The model’s reflected ceiling plan was then rendered to produce an image that
captured the effects of natural illumination from the external windows. This image was imported into Rhino where a ‘heightfield’ tool
abstracted the light and dark pixels from the image, relative to the degree of tone, and ultimately presented a ‘b-spline’ surface of the
resultant topology, characterised by elevated light areas and lowered dark areas. The ‘heightfield’ surface played a vital role as an
interactive stimulus to the activities programmed within the first agency-script. However, other agents in the form of user defined
input parameters such as the number of particles, threshold distance scale factor, velocity scale factor etc., played an equally crucial part.
The running script began by placing a seed on the lowest point on the surface with the ceilings then populated by the number of
particles given. The particles instantaneously commenced to wander on the ceiling plane - below the ‘heightfield’ surface - in random
paths, frequently evaluating the extent of illumination respective to its proximity. It is this constant assessment that influences the
velocity and distance threshold of each particle. A particle halts the moment it enters the distance threshold of the seed a line is
immediately plotted between both, and the particle transformed into a new seed. This process continues to run until all of the particles
have expired by becoming seeds. The developed script interprets the light and dark regions of the ceiling plane from the ‘xyz’ values
obtained from the gradation points of the ‘heightfield’ surface above. It is a point’s relative position on the z-coordinate that indicates
the degree of light applied within the corresponding location on the plane. Notably, the light intensity areas have a significant purpose.
They enable the realisation of the original design concept that was to provide artificial light to the dark areas of the room. However
although the reflected ceiling plan was rendered under daytime lighting conditions, it seems to contradict that underlying concept. The
principle behind this was that the traditional method for luminaire design tends to create conditions in which artificial lighting is lost to
a degree as it reaches the perimeter of the room. The justification for the DLA chandelier is that it forges an almost inverted scenario.
Hence emitting light from the edges into the heart of the space, at its best the intention attempted to create a certain kind of
Parametric Design 19
atmospheric lighting. So when particles roam in high intensity zones they have increased momentum and an increased distance
threshold; the contrary applies in low intensity conditions. The overall scope of the effect is that low light intensity resulted in vast
populations of seeds with short connections in between, whereas the high light intensities ensured sparse inhabitants with distant
association, meeting the desired effect. The static seeds are assigned as the nodal setting out points for each composite LED light
source, whereas the connecting lines represent the members that bind the entire lighting system together. The finalisation of the
aggregated pattern marked the end of the procedures embedded within the first script.
The second script had to perform two major tasks; firstly, to generate the form of the chandelier and, secondly, to prepare its
constituent parts for digital fabrication. The programmed procedure commenced by reproducing two sets of the seed connection lines
at an offset from the ceiling plane (on the z-axis), and lofted surfaces between them to create the members linking each light node.
Their offset dimensions varied depending on the density of seeds surrounding the start and end points of each connection line. In
essence this differentiation created members that were deeper in section and suspended further from the ceiling where high density was
encountered. The light nodes were to be fabricated as 30mm diameter tubes with a height that conformed to the member depth found
at each node point. The next procedure was to unroll each member’s surface less a 15mm offset at either side to allow for node
placement and labelling each for assembly. Individual node heights were also labelled and presented. A RhinoNest plug-in was then
used to automatically create a cutting list for each sheet of material to be sent to the laser-cutting machine. Effectively, this nesting tool
saved file preparation time and prevented significant material waste.
Computational Design Platform for Architecture Most of the parametric modelling software currently used to investigate/harness the possibilities of advanced digital design in
architecture was originally created for the product design, film and animation industries among others. However, Bentley’s Generative
Components (GC), a subsidiary of Microstation, was developed specifically as a relational computational modelling tool for
architectural design. It is widely known for its ease of use and the premise that you don’t have to be an expert scripter to avail of the
powerful opportunities it can lend itself to. The beginning of parametric design is about setting out the parameters, thinking about how
they can be controlled, and how the design iterations are to be generated. Therefore it is crucial to study relationships. GC is a graph-
dependant software and it forces designers to establish hierarchies between their building components. The built-in ‘Symbolic
Diagram’ is a legible map of the entire computational model. It represents everything that has been defined within both the model and
scripting interfaces. Ultimately the symbolic graph can be used as a tool to map the design flow by mimicking the process of
construction as exactly what it is assumed to be in reality. This is possible by attempting to base the logic of the computational model
on actual construction processes or techniques. The ‘Graph Function’ tool provides a scripting interface that be used to write anything
from functions that plot between the lowest and highest points on a surface to simulate drainage analysis, to functions consisting of
conditional statements - contradiction handling machines. One of the highlights about GC is that you can create control systems
within the model that can be linked to certain elements of the building form, and by playing around with the parameters given to the
controls system one can watch the effects it has on the building form, or solar shading for example. A multi-threaded approach to
Parametric Design 21
control systems can achieve a great deal of variation within the design systems being played out within the computational model,
whether its for environmental modulation or simply reasons of aesthetics.
An Exercise in Parametric Translation Participation in the “Smart Geometry Workshop 2009” in San Francisco provided the opportunity to try out the potential of GC by
developing a personal project. In order to generate proposals for an integrated transport interchange where the movement of buses was
considered to be an overriding factor, the workshop was utilised to translate the behaviour of buses into a parametric device. The
intention was to parametrically define a complex spatial programme based on dynamic non-static bus paths to enable form
generation from a hierarchy that prioritises passenger infrastructural needs. A ‘Bus Component’ was created and arrayed on curvalinear
paths. When applied to tight radii, the component illustrated turning circles that slightly overcompensate, and so a safeguard was
constructed that insured against a compromised functionality. The bus component’s embedded point system enabled the creation of
‘b-spline’ curves that served as the underlying construct from which the interchanges' physical and structural form could be built. This
meant that the creation of the interchange’s geometry from those paths was in a position to react with the movement of the bus path
and update its configuration accordingly. The overall workshop experience proved to be an invaluable lesson on taking an aspect of
design and making it parametric.
A Culture of Crossbreeding the Tools of Platforms All parametric designers operate by using multiple computer software platforms. This is primarily due to the unique tools to be found
within each type. According to Ko “explicit solutions are rare for complex problems”4, and so searching in purist ways often necessitates
the use of a wide array of tools to effectively decompose a problem. GC is compatible with C Sharp (C#), which permits added
Parametric Design 22
flexibility within the writing and running of scripting functions. Processing software provides an environment where interactive effects
can be programmed, and it is commonly situated within the realms of interactive architecture (IA). However, Microsoft Excel happens
to be one of the most significant partners within the process of computational modelling. GC is set up to link directly to Excel.
Numerical values can be extracted form the model’s geometry and then exported to a spreadsheet database. For example, the design
team can use that spreadsheet as a daily basis changes schedule, and it can contain numerical values for almost anything - floor outlines,
sections, floor areas, apartment types or even nodal coordinates. Its purpose isn’t to keep track of changes, but rather to implement
them. The design team can change numerical values within the spreadsheet as needed and the direct link with GC facilitates an update
of the models geometry to reflect changes in values. That is the beauty of this system; the computational model constantly changes with
every update without the need for any remodelling.
Visualisation, Animation and Advanced Simulations in Digital Analysis Herein lies a major value of models: we can anticipate consequences without becoming involved in time-consuming, possibly
dangerous, overt actions. Even scale models … enable us to make measurements that would be awkward otherwise… models are
indispensable to careful experiment (Holland 2000, pp. 10-11).
Kasik declared that the boundless means to walk through in observation, to “validate an object, what surrounds it,” and examine the
dynamics, is the most constructive benefit of visualisation. More significantly, there is much to be intensely gained by understanding
elements that are in motion, especially “in the context of the entire model”5. Structural analysis software such as Strand7, Ansys and
Robot has helped make it possible to realise complex structures in architecture. Their tools facilitate simulations that show the effects
of dynamic loads, identify areas that that have stressed or rotational issues. It communicates its results in two ways: visualisations and
tabular datasets. They can be used to optimise the structural model and even exported to Excel in order to inform the associative
geometry in GC. Running real-time animation of the structural analysis optimised the roof structure of the British Museum’s Great
Courtyard6. Coenders who has an interest in artificial and collective intelligence predicted that a digital means of modelling the
behaviour of people will be developed to analyse the functionality of designed spaces, determined by the paths they might take7.
Information based on this kind of intelligence could be combined with structural simulations to predict the loading requirements on
challenging structures like bridges. However, Autodesk’s Ecotect software has captured the imagination of all parametric designers, as
building performance design becomes an important area of focus.
Digital Fabrication and Rethinking Conventions The digital revolution has made new forms and methods of digital fabrication possible. It marks a departure from the culture of mass-
production brought about by the industrial revolution, into a new world of mass-customisation. By informing the machine to gain
higher complexity through mass-customisation, computation can yield a richness of material. To develop a craft, when it is not
understood how a material behaves, involves relentlessly testing by experimental trials until the materials’ behaviour is understood.
Hence it is crucial to understand material behaviour. Digital fabrication is now taught in many schools of architecture. Marty Doscher,
Architectural Technologist at Morphosis Architects, feels that this is of great benefit. “Because, if the designer learns to pick up digital
Parametric Design 23
fabrication and execution as a part of their design process. It won’t be this other thing that all of a sudden they have to figure out how to
balance with what they normally thought of as the [concept design] sketch”8.
Wiscombe (2006) believes that the recent re-integration of architects and builders is resultant of “the establishment of linkages
between methods of designing and methods of production.” This unity will finally enable architects to regain the influence on project
delivery that was lost in the nineteen seventies to the advent of the construction manager.
Craftsmanship Doscher stated that not only must designers behave like human computers so as to manage design projects between numerous
computational platforms, but also must enter the “field to discover the link between” their “design or sketch, and the building being
executed.” Interestingly enough, he advises that delegating some aspects of fabrication to craftspeople can significantly reduce
expenditure. For example, a costly CNC process could be substituted for “design based on the plaster craft.” Many “artists” would
relish the opportunity to craft beyond the realms of regular cornices and finishing drywall8.
A Change in Practice and New Meaning in Collaboration Sanderson believes that technology could deepen the value of collaboration. The simple change of a parameter in a parametric model
during a meeting with a structural engineer has the potential to induce a creative dialogue capable of richly informing the design
process9. Kara (2009) of Adams Kara Taylor (AKT) identified quality of work and innovation as the key drivers for building a practice.
AKT have used those drivers as differentiators throughout their collaborative projects. AKT’s mission statement is to “create
preconditions that give rise to strategy and innovation” (Kara 2009). Have to be able to monitor all the relationships between
architecture, structural engineering and construction, and try to foresee the problems that may arise.
Jeff Carter In Conversation with author (KMG)
KMG What was the general teaching ethos at the time of your education (beliefs and aspirations)?
JC When I started my studies in 84, so it’s not the middle ages, the teaching was based on the history of architecture and a review of
the architects and buildings of that era. Beliefs and aspirations related to the fashion of the time, what was in vogue.
KMG Post-modernism was well underway at that time?
JC It was, but it also depended on tastes and interests. The students who were cutting edge wanted to get involved with that.
Others preferred the historics and followed a retro style. During critiques there were those who would’ve spent a lot of time on
air-brushed drawings, especially the part-timers, because they were used to churning them out. And there was always that full-
time guy with the ideas, and on one sheet. Everybody else had ten. But this one had a bit of a splodge on it and with that he
Parametric Design 24
would describe what he was trying to get at. The ethos did vary, and it’s quite interesting how people came up with ten different
solutions to the same brief.
KMG What were some of the commonly used keywords?
JC It’s difficult to remember the actual buzzwords used in the industry at that time. It’s probably easier to talk about the drawing
instruments and processes we were using in design, such as: Repedographs; Air-brushing; Artists’ views/perspectives; Tracing
paper (negatives); Dye-line printing; Letraset (transfer letters and numbers); Letratone (trasfer coloured film); Razor blades
and Erasers.
KMG What were the processes involved in producing architectural drawings?
JC We used ink pens called ‘Rapidographs’ - also known as ‘Rotrings’ – and ‘Air-brushing.’ Firms had ‘perspective artists’ because
they didn’t have computer-generated images available to them. Drawings on ‘tracing paper’ were ‘negatives’ for a ‘Dye-line’
printing machine. The sheet had to be fed through rollers and an internal UV lamp bleached the yellow out of the ‘Dye-line’
sheet, leaving behind a white sheet with the drawn lines in black. The ‘Dyeline’ machine needed a watery Ammonia based print
solution that we had to mix ourselves. The fumes were quite strong and I don’t think that it would meet today’s COSH
requirements. Eventually great big Zerox machines replaced them. There were many grades of tracing paper and the only way
you could correct a drawing on tracing paper was to scratch it out with a razor blade. As a starter, if you weren’t used to it, you
could easily put a hole in it. That was a nightmare, because you’d have to patch it somehow. You can imagine producing an A0
drawing for a real major job, you could spend ages producing a work of art, with fantastic lines that construct and draw cavity
walls and al sorts of things, then you’d sort of make a blob over here, you literally had to cut out a piece of tracing paper and put
in a new bit with clear magic tape. After putting it through a Dye-line machine it would come out as a big patch. A nightmare,
especially if those drawings were to be used for presentation. Stencilling was used for presentation drawings. Title blocks for
example. Each individual letter had to be stencilled onto the sheet. Letrasets were used for big presentations. The construction
lines had to be drawn before the letters were to be transferred by lining them up and rubbing them off. Letratone, a coloured
film, were used to add colour fill to the drawings. The required shape had to be cut out of the letratone with a scalpel and then
lined up on the drawing for a transfer. And it was quite difficult procedure on A0 sheets when used with drawn brickwork. It
was like a work of art, not like computers, where there’s a line at x centres, adjust that piece and the fill automatically appears.
We had to draw a bloody line. Letrasets and letratone seem a bit prehistoric, but it wasn’t that long ago, ‘84, over twenty years.
(Chuckle)
KMG Could you briefly illustrate what was it like at the beginning of your career?
Parametric Design 25
JC Initially I was practicing with a ‘ruling pen’, drawing on ‘linen cloth’ that had a browning colour to it. The weave to it was quite
close, didn’t look cellular, more like a consistent material. It was held in place by pins or sometimes with clamps onto the
drawing board. I practiced by drawing lines with a ruling pen at various thicknesses. The length of the drawn line depended on
its thickness, as the pen needed to be manually filled up with ink after every line. And that was a tedious process. I started as an
office junior in a traditional architectural practice and had to use a ‘Double Elephant’ drawing board, which was bigger than
‘A0,’ with a similar sized ‘T-square.’ At ‘A0’ they were quite large drawings.
KMG Why were the drawings so big?
JC You couldn’t reduce them. The architects in those days used to detail every nut and bolt on the drawings.
KMG Everything?
JC They didn’t want too many drawings, or because of the scales we were using, they wanted to draw as much on a particular
drawing as possible. When drawing by hand the scale needed to be slightly larger than that now drawn on computers, otherwise
it gets too intricate. Not only was everything being detailed, but also a lot of the details were full size. We used to draw all the
different timber mouldings when detailing windows.
For someone of the author’s generation, the interview with Jeff Carter was exceptionally interesting. In the same way that parametric
protocols exclude those unfamiliar with their technology and terminology but seem routine to those using these, Jeff made strange and
exotic references that sketched the sense of another (past) world of design sensibility and method. That this world was the norm for
architects until very recently – and that the overlap between hand and machine drawing continues – is remarkable. The sheerly physical
nature of analogue drawing was communicated as literally and metaphorically worlds away from current industrialised practice, where
everything is drawn at full scale. In Jeff’s world, 1:1 mostly had relevance only to the rarefied world of shop fitters as a means to produce
bespoke joinery and anticipate every potential 3D problem. In contemporary Building Information Modelling programmes, it is the
total integration of all consultants’ inputs that potentially offers a perfected production information process. Jeff talked of tracing
paper, razor blades, and magic tape without hesitation; the drawing process (and most importantly, the correction of information) was
almost a textile process where the treatment and maintenance of the surface of the paper was critical to the drawing holding together as
both information and artefact. Revision of detail is now so swift that it barely feels like revision at all; it has become absorbed into a
seamless building production process that is less integrated than before and, in Jeff’s view, somewhat detached from design as a process
familiar to construction industry professionals for four millennia.
Parametric Design 26
Already from the information gathered it appears as though the parametric universe is in amazing contrast to the world of practice Jeff
started in. However one startling discovery was made in the interview. What happens to those who aren’t on the boat? In other words,
is there something about the digitisation of architecture and, in particular, parametric design that may separate practitioner from
practitioner? With fee levels shrinking year on year - and present architects’ fee income something like 40% of the levels of the 1960s
and 1970s - it is conceivable a two speed profession will develop, and only those who can use the comprehensive abilities of current
software will survive financially. However, this is not the only issue; parametric design has demonstrated remarkable formal power, yet
its future strength may be in resolving much more modest work and translating this into simple digitised fabrication, reducing costs and
rationalising subsequent construction. This is a true paradigm shift from Jeff’s early experiences in practice, and following the writer’s
experience of the Smart Geometry Conference confirms that the design processes of architectural design have shifted almost beyond
recognition.
Notes 1 Martha Tsigkari (SMG Foster + Partners) Information Architectonics, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
2 Kyle Steinfeld (lecturer at the Pratt Institute) Reflective Tool Craft, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
3 Robert Woodbury (SIAT, Simon Fraser University) Patterns for Parametric Design, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
4 Joy Ko (Brown, RISD) Mathematics in Design: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
5 David Kasik (Boeing) Massive Model Visualisation, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Conference, 2009
6 Chris Williams (Bath University) Parametric Design and Optimisation, A Historical Perspective, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Conference, 2009
7 Jeroen Coenders (Ove Arup and Partners) BIM++, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
8 Marty Doscher (Morphosis Architects) Digital Design and Tectonics for Buildings Made by Humans, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Conference, 2009
9 Steve Sanderson (CASE Inc.) Design Technologies for the Built Environment, San Francisco: Smart Geometry Alumni Summit, 2009
Parametric Design 27
Analysis
Lars Hesselgren, co-director of the Smart Geometry Group and research director of KPF Associates initiated the Smart Geometry
Conference 2009 Alumni Summit by declaring that we designers have departed from “an obsession with the tool, now turning to an
obsession with the product of the tool.” Conversely without insinuating any reference to a product of ‘poetic’ nature.
Volker Mueller, research director for computational design in Bentley’s Applied Research group, stated that prevalent designers
assumptions of how things work in design and construction technology are presently being substituted with a determinant
understanding of “actual scientific behaviour.”
Brett Steele, director of the Architectural Association School of Architecture and AA Publications in London, delivered one of the first
talks on the topic of “The Death of Expertise,” focusing on the “question of learning today in architecture and how that increasingly
becomes a project in and on itself.” Steele gave counsel to the pending danger of architecture becoming industrialised. Modern
architectural school must adapt itself to technology: most striking architectural form of obsolescence.
The methods and strategies for approaching design are plentiful. There are numerous design methodologies available to architects and
have been for many years. From methods that use nature and geometry as authorities, to music and mathematics as models, the
embracing of accident and the unconscious as sources, rationalist approaches, precedent, responses to site and context, and generative
processes all have substance and support (Jormakka, 2008). And multiple methods may typically be used in tandem, whereas some with
a more focused approach may be isolated. There is no strict rule that binds an architect within design execution.
Zaha Hadid Architects still produce physical models in their studios, as they appreciate that “creating a model by hand is an important
way of developing ideas” (Bekiroglu, cited in Strongman 2008, p.41). This hits a note with Eisenman’s comment on the importance of
drawing by hand …
“We define rules, encode problems, … need to keep talking and trying different things instead of just making slight changes or
adjustments to model” (Onur Yuce Gun – KPF)
J Parrish, head of Arup Sport - specialist sports venue design – and co-director of the Smart Geometry Group, in a discussion on “Seeing
Complexity” asked the questions “parametrics, is there a choice?” and “is it really the best way to do things?” In spite of that, in telling of
his collaboration with Herzog & de Meuron on the National Stadium (Birdnest) in Beijing, Parrish pronounced that the project
couldn’t have been realised without the use of “parametric tools, methods and platforms.”
Parametric Design 29
Conclusion
Despite a large amount of data assembled through primary experience (attendance at the Smart Geometry Conference, daily use of
programmes such as Generative Components etc.), material derived from secondary research (books, journals, magazines etc.), and what
sometimes felt like an uncharted route through rather opaque and very different sources it is very difficult to give any sense of how
conclusions can be drawn. However, given that the title of this dissertation refers to ‘a future architecture’ it might be worth
considering whether parametric design can deliver this. It is suggested that this assertion is incorrect in the following respects. Many
parametric designs are considered formally and hierarchically abstruse by a generation of older practitioners, and unlikely to subvert or
replace what are often characterised as acceptable traditional values of architectural organisation and aesthetic appearance. Skills in
parametricism are intellectually demanding to acquire, and may demand more devotion of time and effort than is practical for mid
career practitioners. There is a perception that parametricism is the domain of large practice and consultancy, and has little or no
relevance to the 80% of architecture professionals who operate either as sole practitioners or in practices of less than 5 people. The
definition and adaptation of design parameters is often considered to best suit large scale projects, thus excluding the majority of
schemes. Lastly, Parametricism has factored in neither the sustainability or community agendas, and thus avoids the social programmes
that helped propel the modernist paradigm shift of the late 19th century.
Conversely, parametricism may offer a genuine future for architecture for the following reasons. Parametric design has been adopted
by a significant number of major practices who have had the financial leverage to invest in the purchase of the programmes, and devote
dedicated staff to probing their possibilities. The result of this investment has been apparent in projects like Herzog de Meuron’s
Allianz stadium in Munich and the Beijing Olympic stadium, both developed through parametric design techniques, and now
immediately identifiable both by a cognate and non cognate public. The indeterminacy of structural calculation previously problematic
in complex large scale buildings has now been breached by parametric programmes that enable engineers to confidently assess
performance under load of almost any physical configuration. Also, the number of differs in fabrication no longer stalls projects, or
compromises their affordability. Again parametric design rationalises these issues by forewarning the consequences enabling cost
strategies to be devised that wipe out the anomaly before it can damage the final design.
Most interestingly, Patrick Schumacher has now made major theoretical claims for parametric design, advocating it as a kind of 21st
century modernism. Architecture has largely been subsumed by the necessity of processing commissions for the last decade and a half of
the UK and western bubble economies rather than developing a persuasive theoretical basis. It may thus be the establishment of a
powerful and integrated theoretical framework that elevates parametric design to what may be its true position of significance. With so
many traditional architectural virtues at its heart (geometry, structural innovation, and methodological rigour) parametric design is at a
developmental threshold. The final significance of parametric design may fall short of being a conceptual paradigm shift, but few would
deny the capability it has to fundamentally influence the way architecture (and architectural components) are produced.
Parametric Design 30
Adding ants to the overall system will generate more interactions between neighbours and will consequently enable the colony itself to
solve problems and regulate itself more effectively. Without neighbouring ants stumbling across one another, colonies would be just a
senseless assemblage of individual organisms – a swarm without logic (Johnson 2002, p.79).
Parametric Design 31
Bibliography
Books Aranda, B. and Lasch, C. (2006) Tooling. Pamphlet Architecture, Volume 27. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Barkow, F. (2009) Barkow Leibinger: An Atlas of Fabrication. London: AA Publications.
Benjamin, A. (ed.) (1995) Complexity: Art/Architecture. No. 6, June. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Gen.Shieck, A.F. and Hanna, S. (ed.) (2007) Embedded Embodied Adaptive: Architecture + Computation. London: Emergent Architecture Press.
Hanna, S. and Turner, A. (2006) Teaching Parametric Design in Code and Construction, in: Soza, P. Proceedings of Sigradi ’06: X Congreso Iberoamericano de Grafica Digital. Chile: University of Chile.
Hensel, M. Menges, A. and Weinstock, M. (ed.) (2004) Emergence: Morphogenetic Design Strategies. Architectural Design, Volume 74 No. 3, May/June. London
Hensel, M. Menges, A. and Weinstock, M. (ed.) (2006) Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design. Architectural Design, Volume 76 No. 2, March/April. London
Hensel, M. and Menges, A. (ed.) (2008) Versatility and Vicissitude. Architectural Design, Volume 78 No. 2, March/April. London.
Holland, J.H. (2000) Emergence – From Chaos to Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hook, M. (2004) freesearch (draft notes about choosing), in: Black, R. and Hook, M. Topography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Hwang, I. Sakamoto, T. Ferre, A. Kubo, M. Sadarangani, N. Tetas, A. Ballesteros, M. and Prat, R. (ed.) (2006) Natures. Verb, Volume 5. Barcelona: Actar.
Jodidio, P. (2004) Architecture Now! 3. Cologne: Taschen GMBH
Johnson, S. (2002) Emergence – The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software. London: Penguin Books.
Jormakka, K. (2008) Design Methods. Berlin: Birkhauser.
Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008) Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. Oxon: Routledge.
Zaera-Polo, A. and Moussavi, F. (2003) Phylogenesis: foa’s ark, in: Kubo, M. and Ferre, A. Phylogenesis: foa’s ark, foreign office architects. Barcelona: Actar.
Sakamoto, T. and Ferre, A. (ed.) (2007) From control To Design: Parametric/Algorithmic Architecture. Verb Monograph. Barcelona: Actar.
Spuybroek, L. (2004) NOX Machining Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Terzidis, K. (2006) Algorithmic Architecture 1st ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Ward, J. Johnson, T. and Davis, P. (1998) Peter Pran: An Architecture of Poetic Movement; Altered Perceptions. Winsor: Andreas Papadakis Publisher.
Verebes, T. Spyropoulos, T. Obuchi, Y. and Schumacher, P. (ed.) (2008) AADRL Documents 2, DRL Ten: A Design Research Compendium. London: AA Publications.
Parametric Design 32
Articles/Journals Baillieu, A. (2008) Leader: There’s No Big Bang at Venice, Building Design, September 12, p. 2.
Coates, N. and Sidor, N. (2008) Debate: Will The Downturn Be Good For Architectural Creativity?, Building Design, Date Unknown, p. Unknown.
Davies, H. (2008) Helpdesk: 2D or not 2D? Modelling packages offer you more, Building Design, July 18, p.19.
Eisenman, P. (2008) Eisenman’s Six Point Plan, Building Design, May 2, p. Unknown.
Eisenman, P. and Spiller, N. (2008) Debate: Have computers damaged architects’ design quality?, Building Design, May 16, p. Unknown.
Friesen, L. El-Ali, J. and Hesselgren, L. (2008) Generative Geometry: Should architects draw the line at parametrics?, Building Design, July 18, pp.22-23.
Hunter, W. (2008) Culture: Venice Biennale Future Imperfect, Building Design, September 19, pp.24-25.
Littlefield, D. (2004) Designs on Digital, Building Futures, pp.18-19.
Rattenbury, K. (2007) Culture: Reflections of a model citizen, Building Design, February 2, p. 16.
Schumacher, P. (2008) Practice: IT: The future is parametric, Building Design, September 19, p. 22.
Strongman, C. (2008) IT in Practice: Model Progression, Architects Journal, January 24 pp. 40-41.
Wiscombe, T. (2006) Architecture After All/After Practice: Emergent Models of Architectural Practice, Yale Perspecta, 38, pp.59-68.
Wiscombe, T. (2005) Emergent Processes, OZ, 27, (5 pages).
Websites Bernstein, P. (2009) Podcast: (Time Travelling with Autodesk). [Online] Available from: http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showonthemove [Accessed 16 January 2009]
Bierut, M. [2009] Preoccupations, Drawing Board to the Desktop: A Designers Path. [Online] Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/jobs/08pre.html [Accessed 8 February 2009]
Chalmers, M. [2007] The Death of Draughtsmanship. [Online] Available from: http://www.scottisharchitecture.com/blog/read/450 [Accessed 9 December 2008]
Holverstott, B. [2008] What can architecture learn from nature? [Online] Available from: http://greenerbuildings.com/column/2008/09/08/what-can-architecture-learn-from-nature [Accessed 9 September 2008]
Peters, T. [2008] Architecture Supermodels: Report from SmartGeometry Conference. [Online] Available from: http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature250.htm [Accessed 13 December 2008]
Raj, D. [no date] History of CAD. [Online] Available from: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/print_article.php?articleId=137428 [Accessed 9 December 2008]
Parametric Design 33
Sanderson, S. [2008] Realizing Performance-based Architecture. [Online] Available from: http://www.smartgeometry.org/book/export/html/62 [Accessed 12 December 2008]
The Emergence and Design Network (2006) Newsletter 01_01 Jan 06. London: EDN.
Exhibitions Royal Academy of Arts (2009) Andrea Palladio: His Life and Legacy (exhibition viewed 23 October 2004, Royal Academy of Arts, London)
Lectures Kara, H. (2009) Engineering, A Practice [lecture attended 04 February, AA Lecture Hall, London]
Menges, A. (2009) Integral Formation and Materialisation: Computational Form and Material Gestalt [lecture attended 26 February, LSBU Keyworth Centre, London]
Events Summer dLab: Advanced Digital Design. Architectural Association School of Architecture, London, August 2008
Smart Geometry Pre-Workshop Training. University of Westminster, Baker Street, London, January 2009
Smart Geometry Workshop. Palace Hotel, San Francisco, USA, March 2009
Smart Geometry Alumni Summit: Building Visions. Palace Hotel, San Francisco, USA, March 2009
Smart Geometry Conference: Vision Building. Palace Hotel, San Francisco, USA, April 2009
Interview Carter, J. (2009) Personal Interview (Analogue Building Production Information), 06 May.
Top Related