MyJournalJulienBeauchamp.Melbourne.2012
JournalStructure
Part I. Expression of Interest
Part II. Project proposal
Part III. Learning objectives and outcomes : fi nal
I.1. Case for innovation
II.1. Project interpretation
III.1. Personal background and learning
II.2. Project delivery
III.2. Learning progress
II.3. Project presentation
III.3. Learning outcomes
II.4. Project proposal conclusion
III.4. Future work
I.2. Research project
I.3. Expression of Interest
I.4. Learning objectives and outcomes : interim
I.1.1. Architecture as a discourse
I.2.1. Scope of possibilities
I.2.2. Research project conclusion
I.1.2. Computing in architecture
I.2.1.1 Input/Association/Output Matrix
I.2.1.2 Reverse-engineered case-study
I.2.1.3 Material effects
I.2.1.4 Assembly methods
I.1.3. Parametric modelling
I.1.4. Case for innovation conclusion
"The project is one of the most visionary since modernism
and beyond. It pushes the limits of architecture, not just for-
mally but, more importantly, socially, culturally, and techno-
logically through the reinvention of the tall building.”
– Tina di Carlo, assistant curator of architecture and design
at the Museum for Modern Art (MoMA)
I.1.1 Architecture as a discourse
Power of Architecture.
Designers should question the way the world proceeds and
react in their proposal. Every intervention should have a
purpose, a meaning or an intention. Not necessarily clear. In
that sense, it is important for some practices to go forward
and innovate. Innovate in their way of thinking the world,
questioning his behaviour and designing his components. Try
to make their own mark with their approach to every project.
That makes architecture the ideal media communicate a
message, a vision and intention. This gives the architecture
the power of being iconic, to be a statement.
Many architects have provided to cities a strong identity
through their work. What is call now the Bilbao effect from the
famous museum of Frank Gehry is not a new phenomenon.
Sydney’s Opera House from Jørn Utzon has made a similar
effect on Australia. More recently, project like the 226 National
Stadium of Beijing from Herzog et DeMeuron, 2008 was the
prime fi gure of the 2008 Olympics Games in China.
CCTV, OMA, construction in procress... (right picture)
This tower isn’t yet fi nish to build and it’s already famous
and iconic. OMA pushed a bit further yet his high quality
architectural standard. They totally rethink the way to conceive
skyscraper. In a race to reach the higher level, the project
offers at the same time vertical and horizontal tower creating
a loop of function. It clashes with the usual skyline and fully
redefi nes the constantly changing Beijing’s silhouette. They
innovate in their design but also in their construction technique
to joint together these to vertical towers with the horizontal
part.
This innovative way of thinking the project make it famous
and iconic. Is itpossible to achieve a similar result with the
Wyndham gateway project ^
image : robertacucchiaro.wordpress.comquote : oma.eu
Maison du Psectacle Vivant
This is a personal project realized in a studio context
in 2011 at Laval University. This is a traditional creative
process that could have been done with parametric
modeling. The key concept of the design was to generate
the shape using all the constraints and limitation of the
site (i.e. maximum height, minimum recess, distance from
the overpass, distance from the columns etc.) After the
creation of this big bloc, the perforations in the skin follow
the needs of lighting of the interior functions depending of
the uses.
The museum (that could possibly be the MSV) will stay
at a conceptual phase, but the projected image of the big
bloc of cheese would have create a massive precedent in
Québec city. The architectural context of the province of
Quebec is very conservative and don’t allow creative and
funky construction especially in the old town of Québec.
The style of the building would have been criticize by many
people but would have had a huge impact on the culture
and the general perception on architecture by the public.
For the 1999 ArchiLab exhibition brief, Greg Lynn said :
“Animation is a term that differs from, but is often confused with, mo-
tion. While motion implies movement and action, animation implies
the evolution of a form and its shaping forces; it suggests animalism,
animism, growth, actuation, vitality and virtuality. In its manifold im-
plications, animation touches on many of architecture’s most deeply
embedded assumptions about its structure. What makes animation
so problematic for architects is that they have maintained an ethics of
statics in their discipline.”
I.1.2 Computing in architecture
Digital architecture has the capacity (with the help of the
computer) to generate an multitude of possible solutions
(thinked or not by the designers) in a given frame of rules
(decided by the designers). The designers have now the power
of choosing the rules of the games and let the game play. After
all, if not satisfi ed by the multiples results, he can change the
rules and play again until you satisfi ed all your criteria or at
less most of them. This new process of using the computer
makes the architects closer to innovations, because they are
able to get results that they are not able to conceive without the
help of the computer.
This technique can be useful for the gateway project to give the
idea of dynamism and growth of the Wyndham city. It could be
possible to build a whole discourse around the fast growth.
The project of Greg Lynn was for a Port terminal project in
New York which makes this competition entry more relevant
because of its context : High fl ow of circulation / traffi c of its
surrounding and the gateway symbolic or signifi cance related
to the competition.
How can it be possible to represent in the Wyndham gateway
project ?
To take some of Greg Lynn terms, what kind of forces drive the
site and possibly drive the future gateway ?
Competition entry that was the fi rst architectural project
in history to use animation software for form generation.
A series of ‘forces’ representing traffi c and pedestrian
fl ow were modeled using “Wavefront” software. Points, or
particles, rendered here as spheres were then modeled
with velocity and their changing paths were an index of site
‘forces’.
Greg Lynn Form
images : glform.comquotes : glform.com, archilab.org
Open Source Architecture (O-S-A) is an international architectural fi rm
dedicated to the development of pioneering design research. Located in
Montreal, Los Angeles, and Tel Aviv, O-S-A’s international nature is refl ected
in its business profi le, integrating technologies and industries from
partners around the world for the sake of architectural innovation.
- Open Source Architecture R&D
“Once I received approximate measurements of the gallery space, I
experimented with dozens of parameters that af ected the shape of
the curves and the boundary locations where they were tethered. […] For
me, it was a unique moment: physically entering a world that beforehand
had only been virtually constructed through mathematical
modeling and computer simulation.“
- Mosteig E., (2010), in The Newsmagazine of the Mathematical Association of America,
I.1.3 Parametric modelling
Create a dynamic perception of movement with simple
elements (in this case wire) could be a very nice approach
to the gateway project due to the limited budget and its
big effect. The project engages with the scripting cultures
by using many fi eld of expertise to complete the project.
Mathematicians, Architects and scripters worked together
from all around the world (Los Angeles, Québec, and Tel
Aviv). Their “multi-cities” technique of work can be inspiring
for the team work, because timetables are not always easy
to coordinate.
N-Nature project is based on Riemann Zeta mathematical
function which allows an absolute level of precision. The
realization of the project wouldn’t be possible without the
assistance of digital fabrications technique such as drilling
with CNC machines. Engaging with the reality of the XXI
century of communication Open Source Architecture based
his practice on the huge amount of information generates
by the surrounding environment.
images and quote : o-s-a.com
I.2.1. Scope of possibilities
Input/Association/Output Matrix
This is the step of my grasshopper exploration. I had no
real goal in mind, it was just exploration. The fi rst theme
that I’ve chosen was folding in architecture. I’ve also
tried to fold and image with the face a Stanislav with a
defi nition that I’ve found on a forum.
Then, I’ve tried in a straight forward way to fold a surface
to reproduce the effect of a cube. In the between of this
phase I found some strange layout of fl ipped surfaces.
It looks nice, but still not really relevant to folding. After
some experimentation, I changed to try to loft surfaces
together exploring the fold in a little bit less linear way of
application (green try).
The white circles at the bottom right of the next page are
a bit more concluding. It is the arbitrary points defi nition
where I’ve added a move component. And to spice up the
defi nition I tried to make the circles rotate. It looks nice for
me and it is also capturing a moment in time. It is a frozen
movement. You can feel in the last one the intention of
every coin to fl ip in the air.
Input/Association/Output Matrix (part II)
This week I’ve tried to create my own defi nition from
scratch. The main goal was to generate some kind of
Gaudian columns (or at least look alike) following different
mathematical functions. Different shapes located on
different height and linked to a sin function lofted together
(for example). The outcomes were surface so I divided them
into nurbs curves for an easier graphic representation.
Some of the outputs are a little too amplifi ed for me. Some
of them are nice (8,9 and 17,18) because you can really
feel the torsion in the fi nal result of the column. Number
12 looks like dropping liquid or blowing gas. The general
impression of the image is interesting but I’ve struggled a
bit to turn them into a realistic application of it.
I’m generally satisfi ed of this week exploration, even if it is
not really a guided shape research.
Function 1.0
Function 1.1
Function 2.0
Function 2.1
Function 3.0
Function 3.1
REVERSE-ENGINEERED CASESTUDY
BANQ restaurant - NADAAA
The BANQ restaurant seams to match perfectly with our
want to generate a shape that feels gives an impression of
movement. The realization of this project is also very nice,
because it is made of multiples planar surface placed in
sequence to give the illusion of a solid mass suspended to the
ceiling.
The ‘’dripping like’’ wood panels create a warm atmosphere in
the restaurant. Perhaps it is not the exact same expression of
materiality that we would will to have for the gateway. Will still
try the exploration model in plywood because it a material that
Romy and I love a lot and it will turn into good looking pictures.
VISUAL PERCEPTION
As a team, we decided to change from folding to the general
theme of visual perception. It is so much more relevant in
the context of the gateway project. The localization next to
and highway gives us a audience moving at approximately
100km per hour. The installation will possibly be
experimental for the drivers and therefor will give a good
and strong impression of the Wyndham city.
Visual perception is large, we can explore it in many ways
like: dynamism, motion, illusion, false perspective, real
perspective, solid-void rhythm and much more.
Pushing the reverse-engineered project
This is where tensions begin to grow between Romy and I.
The shapes generate at the right are the result of a random
function, so it is impossible to have any king on control
on the outcome. Our only way of gaging which outputs to
choose is by deciding if we like or not the result based on
the curves layout.
We will continue with this defi nition because we are in an
advanced stage of the project and I really don’t want to deal
with the team overstressed attitude about the mi-semester
submission.
The fablab fi le must be done for Sunday to give them time
to cut it with the laser cutter. The assembly of the model will
For the full video and a lot more pictures type :
https://vimeo.com/40643796
First exploration model
The model in plywood was cut without any problem, but
we’ve also wanted to create a second model in polypropylene
translucid (1.9mm). The fablab made a mistake and give us too
thin (barely .9mm) sheet of polypropylene so we cannot put it
in the base so we just have 1 model. We also haven’t planned
so much burned trace on the back side of the plywood model.
We were expected the edge to be burn but not the back…
The model in itself has not been long to assembly. All the fi ns
were numbered and it was a question of a couple of minutes to
glue the base layer by layer. Funny fact, the base is the perfect
case to care around all the fi ns in a compact format.
The base has 3 different patterns at the ground to create
different effects but at the end the variation of density and
curvature between those patterns make no perceivable
difference. With this model we wanted to explore the possibly
offered by the technique. The frame by frame technique is just
a sequence of planar elements to give the impression at the
approach of a massive solid. We explore the model various
angle. We found nice effects through the pictures that we’ve
taken such as: perceived as a monolith, as a sequence, shade
and light, as a movement and through a movement. The media
of the video was useful to catch the movement of the light or
the movement of the model.
We will have to change the defi nition to get more control on
the form and to achieve the criteria (that we have to defi ne
soon…). The proportions of the model are not good. It gives us
good looking videos and pictures, but these are none-realistic
effects for an observer point of view driving at 100km/h.
The materiality of the model also has been criticized by
Stanislav (which I agree). The plywood with the burn edge
doesn’t refl ect our real intention of materiality. We haven’t
think of the materiality… maybe for next week.
I.3. Expression of Interest
Feedbacks
Jury’s feedbacks after the presentation
-Where to from here?
-How is it going to be on site?
-What drives the curves?
-What dictates where point attractors are?
-Site rules. What is it on the site that will affect point
attractors?
-Fantastic technique. But what are you trying to do with?
-Just look amazing?
-How does it engage with people + brief?
- What drives the design and how does it refl ect the city?
- Make a Wyndham Criteria.
- Find an application for the design.
I agree that (as a team) we have to adapt the EOI – fi rst phase
– model to the actual reality of the site of Wyndham city, but at
a certain point I don<t know if the shape justifi cation has to be
so deep.
We defi ne our criteria, we achieve must of them with the last
model. What’s drive the shape ? euh… our criteria !?! This is
design, irhgt? Have we a part of latitude where the public can
accept that, the designer fi nd the client’s project aesthetically
beautiful?
There are some explanations and discussions to have with the
tutors to guide the next phase…
WHAT’S NEXT ?
Top Related