Tube Fabrication Assignment

Interior Rendering

DAP Presentation Slides: Coop Himmelblau

VIENNA ATTIC CONVERSION


BMW WELT


AKRON ART MUSEUM

Assignment4: Interior Cube Transformations

Reading #4: Blob Tectonics, or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy, Greg Lynn

In this article, Greg Lynn discusses “the blob” which is the type of form that digital software enables architects to make now. Because there are infinite variations on the “blob” form, since it is inherently neither singular nor multiple, general or specific, it introduces a multitude of challenges to the tectonics of actually making the form, and making it structurally sound.

 

Because blob forms have no definite shape or resting point, they imply movement and change, and their specific geometries are not defined by the kind of properties that make spheres, prisms, or any of the “conventional” polysurfaces. Rather, blob properties are dependent on its relationship to other objects or conditions. This means that there are many components that dictate the form of any given “blob” so the forms are complex and not necessarily stable. Blobs can move through both space and time, defined by their environment and their movement.

 

Lynn also describes blobs in terms of their properties in horror films. They can absorb other objects, incorporate them into their own mass, and make them part of the greater whole. This quality, Lynn says, is what makes them so disturbing in films like “The Thing”. They do not absorb or eat their victims in a human way, by injesting them into an internal cavity, but rather swallow them and make them part of the blob.

 

But how to construct these blob forms? Contemporary ideas of construction dictate that perpendicular loads and upright structures are the only way to construct real forms, but in reality, there are other methods of thought than the Cartesian method of gravity that would allow blob forms to be constructed in different ways. Instead of Cartesian volumes, topological surfaces could be organized to construct these forms. This kind of construction is still in very early stages of development, so blob construction is still highly criticized especially in regard to the roof condition. Because no effective method has been developed to enclose buildings with a continuous surface that becomes a roof, traditional methods are still being used to top blob forms. Currently, the most successful architectural explorations of this problem have been conducted by Shoei Yoh. His recent work tends to have all parts of the program organized under a continuous roof form that utilizes repetitious fabrication but still adjusts to the specific needs of each area of the building.

 

Though the technology is not quite advanced enough to seamlessly construct blob architecture en masse, I am sure that soon methods will be developed to allow it. However, is that in fact the direction that we want architecture to move in? Just because we can construct a landscape of blob buildings, does that mean we should?  Will cities of skyscrapers and towers and traditional, orthogonal buildings eventually be replaced by urban gel? These are the questions that we must ask ourselves critically before we, as architects of the future, must ask critically before proceeding with the technology that will enable this to happen.

Assignment 3: 3D Transformations

Reading #3 from "Abstract Space" by Theresa Tierney

Design, architectural or otherwise, is the an involved process that integrates social and environmental conditions, as well as the designer’s subjective preferences into a set of rules or parameters that guide the formal qualities of the product. Whether or not the design is processed digitally, it is always subordinate to this set of rules, but the recent developments in digital design have allowed these rules to be more than simple problem-solving decisions. If successfully executed, architect’s digital parameters can now theoretically generate spatial experiences and intangible qualities that architecture strives to achieve.

 

It is important to note that digital software is intended to be used not to design but to help expand the tools architects can use to design. It is also not appropriate for all aspects or kinds of design. In this reading, Therese Tierney focuses only on the generation of form. In digital design, the element that helps generate form is called the solution field, a set of parametric equations that mathematically alter and manipulate form at the will of the designer. The results of these manipulations are most significant when parameters overlap and intersect, producing random occurrences that thereby generate even more parameters, forcing the form to evolve. This process is therefore referred to as evolutionary design.

 

In evolutionary design, software helps the designer see how parametric manipulations effect form, but first the architect must choose how parameters are set. The tasks that go into this process include defining problems that must be solved architecturally, determining the criteria of how solutions are chosen, and defining rules/parameters regarding form generation. Then, using the software, designers can develop and evaluate models that are produced virtually. The next step using digital technology is to take the 3d forms and animate them across time using 4d modeling.

 

With regard to designing both form and temporal architecture, Therese Tierney argues that architectural design is inherently virtual, and computer technologies have illustrated that condition. Virtuality is that which is created by actuality, but it also has real existence by the fact that it creates affects. Even before the modern idea of the virtual existed, virtuality always existed in the desire to design experience that is expressive which is what makes architectural design greater than the sum of its parts. Before the Renaissance, the virtual was conceptualized as varied and complex phenomena and cognitive perceptions of space/time. Later on, Einstein’s relativity again raised the question of what was not yet known as the virtual, by claiming that space/time is relative and manipulatible based on the individual and his experience in it relative to its actuality. In 2002, Brian Massumi supposed a new understanding of organic systems that are linked in a kind of virtual matrix. Virtuality as a parametric guide of architecture exists as its own parameter, but also generates new ones in an evolutionary manner.

 

Because the virtual is an abstract and not a concrete quality, designing in the virtual affords even more opportunity for manipulation than more concretely-defined parameters. It refers to but is not limited to generation of form. Instead, designing within virtual parameters is a way of kind of closing the gap between subjective design decisions and the systematic rules that guide design otherwise.

Larry Sass: Home Delivery

Larry Sass, an assistant professor in the architecture department of MIT, is investigating and teaching digital fabrication, delivery, and fabrication of architecture in a way that he hopes will revolutionize and rebuild our concept of prefabricated homes. His vision for the digital fabrication industry is one in which local rather than factory production is dominant all communications can be wireless and paperless, and all parts can be cut digitally rather than by hand to eliminate error, and thereby wasted materials, time, and money. In his lecture, he particularly stressed this point, saying that all major home prefabricators have gone out of business in the past because of their inability to adapt to new technologies and techniques and, especially, because imprecision and error create costs that add up and are never redeemed.

 

In Sass’s digital fabrication method, error will ideally be eliminated because each piece of an architectural form will be measured and cut with technology that is not subordinate to human error. He had the opportunity to present this method for the MOMA’s competition in Summer 2008 for a new prototype for a modern dwelling. Using the New Orleans shotgun house as a model for the ideal final product, he and his students began by digitally constructing this final form, and then investigated the smaller parts that together make up that whole. In what he called the most difficult part of the process, they broke down the house form into a kind of network jigsaw puzzle pieces that can digitally cut and then assembled into the whole, using almost only friction to hold together an extremely strong house. He called this whole process “Materialization”. His idea for this reconstructed shotgun was that the owner could then customize it by designing his or her own façade to be applied along with the “snap-on” sheathing system that he designed, since the shotgun facades are what make them so unique. This is how, according to Sass, a prefab model can become custom.

 

Listening to Sass detail his methods and ideals, I can’t help but be impressed by his desire to redesign the whole notion of how buildings are constructed, as well as the progress he has already made. If successful, his methods would certainly cut down on error and costs (only 2 of the 5000 pieces for his house were cut wrong), which could in turn contribute greatly to ideas of sustainability and eliminating wastefulness. I am a firm believer in the idea that in order to move architecture forward, we will eventually need to rethink whole ideas of construction and methods. However, I believe that Sass’s methods, though well thought of in a technological sense, lack consideration of those qualities of architecture that are intangible. He said, himself that he was searching for the overlap between Architectural Theory and Technology, because a computer can do many things but it will never be able to generate feelings evoked from abstract spatial qualities. I do not think that his “printed house” idea has yet achieved this balance; while he claims that the people for whom the houses will be built can customize them with unique facades, a “paste-on” façade does not make unique architecture. I see this as not much more than the various color options available to those who chose to live in the prefab McMansions that were recently so popular to many now-bankrupt Americans. This issue, however could be rectified somewhere down the line if this new building method becomes commonplace, whereas there is one other issue that I find fundamentally wrong with this method.

I concede that Larry Sass’s “Materialization” construction method, if well-executed could be revolutionary to the construction and architecture industry. Whereas structure of buildings has been based on principles of loading and support either by post-and-beam or masonry/massive support systems for thousands of years, a friction-based “jigsaw puzzle” of support could make each piece of structure completely efficient and load-bearing, and, as he said, withstand the kinds of forces created by many natural and human-based disasters. Therefore, I am forced to ask why Sass would use such an unprecedented and revolutionary system to create a house that has been built with traditional methods for hundreds of years The shotgun house is one of the oldest American housing typologies, so why simply reconstruct a shell of this type with such technology? If, indeed the idea behind Materialization is to help architects “start anew”, as Sass said, he should have pushed it to its formal limits, demonstrating what new possibilities exist for houses constructed in this way, not simply replicate a type that has existed under old methods for so long. Perhaps that is what the future of this construction method holds, but architects will never adopt it so long as they are limited in its uses by past precedents.

Reading #2: Techniques and Technology, Ali Rahim

Technological innovations have transformed not only architecture but the quality of human life innumerable times in our history. There is a constant “chicken-egg” relationship between cultural events and technological developments that, when innovated and improved upon by architects, inventors, and developers is referred to as the “feedback loop”. While cultural and architectural transformations and movements drive the development of technology, new technological developments simultaneously provide opportunities for cultural innovations. One example of this feedback relationship is the development of the skyscraper as a result of the implementation of steel in architecture, in conjecture with the invention of the elevator; The skyscraper would not be possible to build and use without an elevator, but there would never have been a need for an elevator if there were not these buildings of such great heights.

Ali Rahim’s “Techniques and Technology” explains the difference between a technological advance and a technical refinement: The example he uses is that, while the internet is a technological advance, since its invention has had a qualitative effect on the lives of those who use it (today almost all of the industrialized world), while the fact that modems today are much faster than those of 10 years ago is an example of a technical refinement. While much technological development relies on scientists and engineers, architects also perpetuate technical innovation by pursuing creative means of applying existing technologies and improving upon them until they have been exhausted to the point of developing a whole new set of technology. Architects rework existing methods, but also integrate technologies that are used across many technical fields ranging from film production (Maya) to aerospace and automobile design (CATIA). The design practices that Rahim calls “technological practices” not only use and improve upon but generate new technology, not merely for the sake of efficiency but to explore new methods and approaches to designing.

An example of this kind of innovation undertaken by “technological practice” is the integration of a fourth, temporal (time) dimension into how building forms are generated. While conventional practices see time as mechanical, a “neutral container for events”, and even, theoretically reversible, “technological practices” hold a thermodynamic concept of time, in which processes that occur in time are irreversible, because events produce not only numerical changes but qualitative changes. The “temporal techniques” employed by these firms are defined by three common characteristics: First, contrary to the conventional practice of building “top-down” architecture, that is based on a partie and strives to uphold it throughout development, temporal techniques work in a bottom-up approach, developing simultaneously the many parts of a building within many parameters. Second, temporal techniques are nonlinear, meaning that architectural decisions are not mere 1:1 cause/effect relationships but constant and generative, so that ideally, the end product as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Third, temporal techniques include both numerical factors that are controlled and generated by the architect and virtual, sometimes uncontrollable components.

Two types of temporal techniques that Rahim discusses are generative and transformational. Generative techniques, which rely on automotive and film software that have been developed for architectural purposes, were used to create Greg Lynn’s Hydrogen House by defining several environmental and internal parameters that were subject to change over time (S(t)) to generate forms that responded to the parameters to degrees manipulated by Lynn. These parameters rather than physical partie informed the spaces and forms of the Hydrogen House. Transformational techniques were used by the Kol/Mac studio in the project Housings. This technique applies irreversible shape manipulations to surfaces and forms at points so that not only those points but the entire surface is effected in unpredictable ways. By this technique, architecture evolves and takes on a life of its own that is arrived at in the very end. It is the extreme of bottom-up design.

We cannot begin to predict what technologies will evolve out of the 4d software that are already being used by digital practices, but if history is any indicator, time will not be the extend of dimensional exploration for architects.

READING 1: “DIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS” FROM “ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGNING AND MANUFACTURING” BY BRANKO KOLAREVI

In the history of human civilization, each era of technological innovation has brought about changes in the way we build and the products we produce. The industrial revolution brought about steel, and with steel, skyscrapers that could reach unprecedented heights, as well as buildings like the Crystal Palace, which could be fabricated off site and quickly assembled, with a temporary quality that was new to the world of architecture. The era we are living in can be classified as the Digital Information age, and the buildings that have so far arisen out of it can be characterized as complex, nonorthogonal forms, or, as Kolarevi refers to them, “blob” architectures. The reason for this influence of digital technology over new architectural forms is obvious: Whereas before the innovation of CAD and CAM softwares, the kind of complex forms that are typified by, for example, Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum and Preston Scott Cohen’s Torus house would have been nearly impossible to conceptualize, model, and construct, not to mention astronomically expensive to build, 3D modeling software now affords the opportunity for architects to easily experiment with forms virtually. However, it is not the physical forms themselves that have been most revolutionized by digital practices in architecture, but rather the means of arriving these forms which will most greatly benefit the architecture of the future.

 

Although digital modeling, a remarkably recent tool for architects, has led to much experimentation with complex forms, these forms are not mere arbitrary manifestations of architect’s most outlandish spatial fantasies: The real revolution has occurred in the approach that leads to these forms. The information embedded in digital models allows architects to set up rigorous mathematical geometries and formulas that are used to generate forms.

 

Architects have always operated by setting themselves rules and orders to design within, but with digital media, they can now make these rules infinite and complex in order to generate the “blob like” forms that have gained such popularity. Instead of designing the forms themselves, architects in the future will design the formulas and parameters that can digitally generate forms, and the manipulations applied to these formulas will give architects infinite variations of forms to choose from. In this way, architectural form is layered with information and rules that inform spaces.

 

The information layered onto structures by formulas can be looked at as a kind of fourth dimension of modeling. Although we refer to software like rhino as 3D modeling software, programs like Maya allow architects to create animated “performances” of architecture that not only generate 3D models, but time-sequenced construction, and the formal manipulations that lead to the final product. This dimension is important not only to help demonstrate how complex forms can be constructed physically, but it helps to explain the seemingly random  shapes that have arisen out of these technologies, and show how logical, albeit complex steps and formulas led the architects to “choose” each form.

 

Although the architecture that most famously demonstrates how the Digital Information age has revolutionized the practice has been mostly complex, “blob” structures, the characteristics of this age will not be in the physical structures that are designed but the methods and means by which they are arrived at. For now, the reason for the complex forms is simply that architects are trying to experiment with technology’s full potential, but just that architecture can now be layered with information not only about the form but about external influences that occur on site will help make better, “smarter” buildings that respond not only to a few but a myriad of conditions. In this way, digital technology could be the long-awaited solution to problems from human comfort within spaces to environmental crisis.

A1

DAP Abstract: Coop Himmelblau

Coop Himmelblau architectural firm was founded in 1968 by architects Wolf D. Prix, Helmut Swiczinsky and Rainer Michael Holzer. In its early days, the firm was based in Vienna, but moved to Los Angeles in the 1980’s. Their design philosophy is inextricably tied to the gradual privatization of public space in cities over time, due to decreasing availability of public funding for city architecture and increasing numbers of city projects funded by private investors. They believe that architects are equally designers and urban planners, and in taking on private urban projects must preserve the unity of the city, if not through an urban grid, by creating monumental architecture. Coop Himmelb(l)au usually renders their building in extreme detail, however chooses to barely represent the surrounding context of the site. This also shows that they really do believe that the background is set off by the architectural foreground.

On a smaller scale, however, their design theory retains that people define the space that they are in, instead of the space defining where the people should be. Their earlier work included a series of design experiments in which humans play key roles. These experiments included inflatable spaces that could fit into a suitcase and spaces that changed based upon heartbeats. These particular experiments were small enough that they were represented in full scale. However most of their earlier work was represented by large-scale models. Coop Himmelb(l)au paid attention to extreme detail, creating interior models, many times, at a scale of 1:10.

The name “Coop Himmelblau” is German for “Blue-Sky Cooperative” and reflects the firm’s design intent to make architecture that alludes to cloud-like and heavenly imagery through complex angular forms that create dynamic and airy spaces, as well as their extensive use of glass and steel in their projects. Some of Coop Himmelblau’s recent projects which best exemplify this design intention are the BMW welt in Munich, the Cinema Center in Busan, South Korea, and particularly the Akron Art Museum in Akron, Ohio, which was completed in 2007.

The Akron Art Museum selected Coop Himmelblau in 2001 through an international competition reflecting the museum’s longtime focus on introducing new artists to the region. The firm was chosen because of its leadership in contemporary architectural theory and thought-provoking approach to the reinvention of existing building resources. Coop Himmelblau’s design literally and metaphorically opens the museum to the City and to the public. In designing the museum, the architects of Coop Himmelblau wanted to create a cultural center that was not only an art display case but a monumental part of the urban fabric that functions as a landmark from the exterior and, when occupied, generates discourse among visitors and a flow of creative energy. The building is comprised of three main spaces called the Crystal, the Gallery Box, and, in keeping with the firms “heavenly” building aspirations, the Cloud. The steel framed and glass Crystal serves as an entrance hall to the museum and is also used to host cultural events. The vast amount of natural light allowed to pass into this space minimizes the need for artificial lighting, but the strategic massing of the other elements of the building protect the Crystal’s occupants from harsh southern light.  In stark contrast to the Crystal, the Gallery Box is aluminum-clad with very little natural light allowed in, so that the experience of the exhibits can be carefully controlled.  There is very little interior structure in this space, which makes it flexible and accommodating for exhibits to come. The steel and glass roof cloud hovers over the two other spaces, and serves to unify the three elements as one structure, provide shade for the Crystal, and denote the museum as a landmark in the city.

To optimize the efficiency of the heating and cooling systems in the building, the Crystal uses the concept of microclimate zones that are determined by which areas of the building are most frequently and heavily occupied. This way, only specific areas of the building, and not the entire enclosed space are climate-controlled. Temperature is also controlled from within the poured concrete floors: water pipes transport hot and cold water throughout the building in a system called radiant cooling and heating.

Coop Himmelblau designs each project based on a series of intense discussions, which eventually lead to the emergence of a sketch. This sketch, in turn, leads to a fully formed model. The team rarely alters the design from the initial sketch phase. Instead, they transfer it virtually line for line into a working drawing. The team attempts to generate asymmetrical structures that strive for freedom from the constrained formalism of a given style. They create "open-planned, open-minded, open-ended" designs, made up of complex, undefined spaces

Akron Art Museum Images:

BMW Welt, Munich, Germany:

Busan Cinema Center, South Korea:

Small Scale Early Project (Soul Flipper):

Video Links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJe4MrrD_-c 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVwyAf9zv04 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAslXtlr8qM