For Assignment 2 I am interested in establishing a link between Material Based Modelling which considers material properties to generate form and Cradle to Cradle design which proposes effective design which has an awareness for the ecological systems that it coexists with. The point of intersection between these two concepts can be considered as important to both: material based modelling proposes to create design forms that are determined by material capability and cradle to cradle design can influence this design form by introducing external environmental considerations (i.e. solar access, ventilation as well as weather factors and heat retention) to allow for a designed building which, "like trees, produce more energy than they consume". Cradle to cradle design can also importantly influence material based modelling by making "design for reuse" an important consideration and factor for the design (i.e. a number of de-constructable predefined structural elements that are designed to effectively fit together to create a greater form- like the tiles on the Sydney Opera House).
The result would be buildings in which the supporting structure (i.e. reinforced concrete columns) are not separated from the façade strategy and the connection with the outside world. Within this structural façade considerations of solar access and effective ventilation as well as design for reuse/deconstruction are pushed to generate an architecture which uses material capabilities to not only create structural form but also one which is concious of external environmental considerations.
Sources
1. Neri Oxman, “Material-based Design Computation an Inquiry into Digital Simulation of Physical Material Properties as Design Generators”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 5, no 4 (2008): 27.
2. Neri Oxman, “Get Real Towards Performance-Driven Computational Geometry”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 5, no 4 (2008): 663.
3. Neri Oxman, “On Design Form”, Pop tech, https://vimeo.com/7806194 (accessed on 10/04/2012)
4. Neri Oxman, “Structuring Materiality: Design Fabrication of Heterogeneous Materials”, Architectural Design, 80, no 4 (2010): 78-85.
5. Ludwig Glaeser, The Work of Frei Otto (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1972).
6. Daniel Piker, “Architecture, based on physical laws”, Strelka Institute Lecture, https://vimeo.com/29201171 (accessed on 10/04/2012)
7. Rivka Oxman, “New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies”, Architectural Design, 80, no 4 (2010): 14-23.
8. Helmut Pottman, “Architectural Geometry as Design Knowledge”, Architectural Design, 80, no 4 (2010): 72-77.
9. John Chilton, “Heinz Isler's Infinite Spectrum: Form-Finding in Design”, Architectural Design, 80, no 4 (2010): 64–71.
10. Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Re-making the way we make things (London, Vintage Books, 2008).
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Final Poster
For this first project I became very interested in
Crystallography, the study of crystal forms. The nature by which crystals form
gives them a very specific aesthetic I was interested in replicating using
generative/variable methods within Grasshopper. Although true crystallography concerns
itself quite heavily with the chemical reasoning behind crystals forming the way
they do I was much more interested in replicating the final geometry. There are
very many different types of crystals which form under many different
conditions which result in many different forms and geometries. Creating a
single grasshopper file to reproduce the exact parameters of each of these
would be close to impossible. Crystal geometries form in many different ways
and it is important to acknowledge that although there are crystal types it is
very rare for a crystal formation not to have irregularities that differentiate
it from other crystal of the some type. No two crystals are alike. This
conclusion with an understanding of the basic crystal aesthetic and focus on
external geometry lead me to consider using subtractive means of carving away the desired form from the base geometry. The base geometry was
defined with a variable that allowed it to be changed from a triangular prism
to a rectangular prism easily. Three randomly selected points of this prism
were then used to define the rotational axis of the subtractive geometry which
was defined as a basic rectangular prism defined by four points and then
extruded. The dimensions of these prisms were also randomly defined. The
rotational variables of the subtractive geometry are the main variables of the
generated geometry. Randomly generating values for these variables were
experimented with but these did not prove to efficiently generate the desired
aesthetic (a much more complex system which understands the volume of subtraction
was required but a suitable one could not be developed.) Considering this I
choose to manually define these variables to develop the desired aesthetic by
hand. The points being subtracted are still defined randomly as too are the
dimension of the subtractive geometry. The rotation on the z axix, rotation on
the x axis, the extrusion amount and the z-value are meant to be adjusted
manually. For an example of these variable please click here.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)