The competition brief required us to upgrade a specific site of our choosing. We selected an industrial site, CET Grozavesti, which we judged to be redundant in the current urban context – the power plants there ended up being in the middle of a booming area, with numerous developments engaging diverse cultural and economical actors.

The proposal takes the shape of an intelligent urban master plan which enforces different eco-friendly morphologies which actively collaborate with and extend the nearby botanical garden. Furthermore, the proposed developments would act as a filter/gradient between the botanical garden and the surrounding city. The proposed functions aim to make the area a catalyst between corporate entities and the academic world  through research, thus promoting innovation and actively employ the nearby academic resources (Natural Sciences faculty, and the Technical University) as well as engage students residing in nearby campuses.

The circulation was devised through an algorithm that self-normalizes the optimum paths between all the attractors and centers of interest (present and future). More on this in a later post. Meanwhile, you can check out a video of how this is working here.

The resulting urban fabric was revised and refined by taking into account shading and isolation values as well as the results of space syntax analysis (integration, visibility). A preemptive facade study was elaborated so as to accommodate the intelligent shading guidelines.

The urban cell subdivision algorithm takes into account different aspects of the cell geometry and provides a further layer of porosity to the urban fabric. It is also the basis upon which the cell geometries were later developed (so as to provide natural sunlight in the center of the island, while maintaining certain density levels proper to the function found there.

collaboration with: Dragos Mila, Dan Balinisteanu, Alexandra Ion.

Initial explorations: Culture Cracking.

Bucharest never had a coherent image in any point in history. Its only true comon denominator would be the highly despised disorder generated by the struggle between
western rigor and local chaotic impulses. It is one city where conflict is strikingly out in the open, little existing in maters of interface between old and new, poor and rich, highrise and low-rise. This project taps into these conflicting energies, drawing strength and geometry from them while at the same time exposing them and becoming an icon of their formative power.

Does what it says on the tin.

What’s nice is that there are a lot of embedded parametrics inside: the canopy structural system, terrain modding (site), shape cracking of the canopy. Sometime ago there even was a def for controlling room sizes in respect with planar geometries.

Floor plan:

Second and third floor plans:

UPDATE:

Here are some pictures of the final model i built:

Hope you’ll like and love.

We parametrically explored possible future configurations for the study area (450ha large, at the intersection of two main planned road-infrastructure extensions) and tried to push for a solution that would maximize performance (density, height, shading, access to natural elements and connectivity) of the whole region while leaving ample potential that allows for unplanned emergent evolution.

Our goal was to envision an urban tissue that could flexibly respond to all local input factors as well as accommodate desired (planned) goals. An universal 130m by 130m grid was proposed and then deformed to differentiate and create a unique lattice that allows for surprise and yet is easily mapped due to its inner space-partitioning algorithm.

We iteratively cycled through several circulation analysis (using Depthmap) and continuously changed the main axial map of the area to maximize integration.

The text on the boards is in romanian, sorry about that – hopefully the explanations given around the post should be enough. Here are the final boards, reduced:

It was great to work on this project, and also great to find recognition for an approach that is considered risky by our faculty’s standards   We used Rhino and its parametric plugin Grasshopper for the main work and Depthmap for the integration analysis.

Project teachers: Tiberiu Florescu, Sebastian Guta.

Jury was composed of:

prof. arh. Dorin Stefan (DSBA)

arh. Bruno Andresoiu (igloomedia)

Anne-Line Citrene (DuPont France)

Gabi Rottes (DuPont Germany)

Some pictures from the exhibition, which can be seen at the University Underground Passage until the 7th of December (09):

Here’s the outcome: judge it lightly since the overall design was conceived with a specific public in mind during a brief four hour period, including plotting.

Man, this post is definitively sarcastic. I’m working on improving that (as in downplaying the sarcastic note).

My vision concentrated on issues relating to the poor visibility/readability of the overall area (and the necessity of a landmark) and the lack of “free” public urban space. The functional program was mainly derived from the observation that most historic centers (Lipscani being a prime example in this) loose their initial cultural and traditional economic value in favor of the over-dominant bar/cafe. This leads to a certain repetition of fluxes (economic, cultural, pedestrian) which harms the respective area.

Geometry-wise, my proposal respects local aspects of the area, namely its porosity and the way the urban tissue coagulated around narrow winding streets and small interior courtyards in a constantly surprising lattice.

In respect to this approach, i considered the lot as a solid volume on which forces are applied in respect with the openings and general director lines of the site. Performing a “structural” analysis on the site revealed the patterns by which these forces would naturally flow towards given points of rest (namely the designated openings of the courtyards).   Using topological optimization techniques these patterns were transformed into geometry which was later subtracted from the original body thus giving the overall shape of the building.

By following this design method I ensure an optimal circulation flow through the built site, encouraging interaction and furthering the development of the local urban tissue in a manner very close to its characteristics (gained by spontaneous evolution) thus fully integrating the new implant.

That’s wrapper of the last month, give or take.

Our solution proposed the creation of several interlinked interior and exterior courtyards that both encouraged interaction with the surrounding busy streets while at the same time offering an intimate place to retreat to. Various social and commercial functions requiring different visibility/exposure levels can occupy this space at ground floor level.

The space-partitioning algorithm we used (Voronoi), though a cliche, provided us with the ability to fill-out the space alloted for the project in a coherent, integrated manner without the urbanistic disruptions created by bar-type blocks (or modernist urbanism and its present refinements). Through the parametric approach used (see previous post) we were able to continualy search for the best solution (regarding geometry, overall&floor height/number of stories, surface areas, access at pedestrian level, acces towards the apartments) within a fluent design process. This allowed us to strictly respect the main given restrictions (POT, CUT, etc.) of the assignement while at the same time keeping and fostering the added benefits of continous and easy experimentation.

We are using the excellent space-partitioning properties of the Voronoi algorithm to create a lattice of interior and exterior courtyards that progressively make a transition from public space to semi-public, semi-private, and, in the end private space. This way we propose the creation of a coherent urban lattice encouraging interaction with the busy city outside while in the same time offering various degrees of protection/”cosiness”. We are not proposing a new type of urban tissue in itself, but merely adapting and reinterpreting some qualities of sponaneous developement and local tradition(“fundatura”) in a flexible (yet highly accurate) digital framework.

As I was saying at the begging of the post, this is just a technical showdown – everything you see rendered above is far from what the end product will probably be  (since also the way the assignement was formulated forms that evade from some general bar-variation are quite difficult to fit in the judging criteria). Yet it indeed demonstrates the versatility of parametric/generative architecture and the capabilities of the digital framework proposed to control and manipulate with accuracy all aspects of the project (from raw geometry and algorithm to technical: floor height, floor areas, built/unbuilt ratio, sun exposure and so on – the possibility to expand the definition to apartment level details is definitively there).

That above graphic  is a watered down version of the grasshopper definition (I will not release it under any license for now).

(board 1)

(board 2)

(board 3)

{input}

The project required us to design an archeological center consisting of one conference room (75 seats), three workshop spaces and a bar/buffet [+ reception and service spaces]. Adjacent we will have to design a small hotel/pension, so our projects will have to be able to scale up formally (and function-wise).

{output}

My project is based on the act of cutting open the ground and inviting people and light inside pays tribute to a defining part of archeology “per se”: excavating sites in order to recover cultural remains and other artifacts in order to better understand mankind.

The overall form of the building emerges in a subtle way from the surrounding landscape, inviting its discovery in a less violent manner. Not choosing to mark its presence in a classical/standard way was a decision taken so as to echo the fact that archeology has the task of surveying areas in order to find new sites – information is never out in the open and its artefacts are hidden – at the same time not disrupting the surrounding beautifully curved landscape. 

The space inside curves gently around three interior courtyards, following the natural terrain. Luminaries assist the inerior courtyards both formally (composition-wise) and functionally (in providing natural sunlight).

{model}

3D Print and cardboard:

——

3d printing done on a  nice ZCorp 510 at Spot Desing – thanks for the flexible payment option and patience!

Boards printed at duostudio (Y!: studio.plot) inside the English passage – thanks for the longlasting quality, 15% early bird price cut and friendly staff

Also thanks to our assistant teacher (andra panait) which happily provided help and counseling during her private (spare) time.

The assembly of roughly 486 ribs into an alien-looking 1/500 terrain model generated quite a nice social event…

We still owe the laser cutter guys some obscene amount of money, but we hope to repay our studio’s debt asap.

First run:

Advances in Architectural Geometry – Conference proceeding + Poster abstracts (PDF, 80mb).

Have fun!

Here’s the link to download the grasshopper .wrm file.

Thanks to Manuel, who took interest in the scripts posted earlier, we both put up some work and came up with a better result. 

English version.

Spanish version.

(they are the same)

The script works now with intersections in any direction (swithch from scale to extend line). Also handles somehow geometries that have holes inside and finnaly some little extra options added (you can choose to extend the split line or not, material thickness). 

Also, there is one think to keep in mind when using the scripts. You will sometimes get errors when using a too low absolute tolerance in Rhino. So go to Tools>Options>Units and set Absolute tolerance to 0.0000001 or something absurdly accurate.

Over time, a lot of my research into architecture and scripting/algorithms overlooked – due to the conditions present in my school and country- the ever-important fabrication side of things. It’s easy to get distracted, create nice shapes, and then completely forget that, hey, i have to build them!

As I’ve learned recently, the best approach (and, of course, the hardest) is to go both-ways. Material properties and construction tehniques inform the final product as much as algorithm, concept and anything else does. This is an emerging system, constantly exchanging information back and forth between each component of the design process.

I’m writing these banalities because i feel they need to be pushed up front a bit, especially in my school. Anyobdy can create blobs, what about being able to construct (not sculpt!) them, even at a 1:50 model scale? Thinking of fabrication expands your way of architectural creation not by adding a surplus of superficial constraints (like the over-empasis on concept and/or philosophy that’s highly praised here) but by adding real challanges that, as an architect, you will encounter not at a model 1:50 scale but at real-life 1:1 scale.

That’s why i’ve created a small tutorial-like presentation on how to laser-cut a surface.

• There’s a new nifty script to help you through all of this, which basically creates the joints for you.
  

  Download the rib script here.

• Also, i’m using an older script that would need some tweaking, but for the moment it does it what it’s supposed to : unrolling all given surfaces and numbering them in the process.
  

  Download the unroll script here.

• And then there’s the compiled .pdf with the baby steps.
  

  Download the .pdf here.

As always, if there’s any questions or curses, drop a line.

NOTE:

CutMyOwnRibs script updated.

boring random surface, as seen on the cover of this book.

Here’s the script:

Option Explicit
‘Script written by Dimitrie Stefanescu
‘Script version 11 August 2008 16:47:28

Call Main()
Sub Main()

Randomize

Dim surf : surf = Rhino.getObject(“Sel plane”)
Dim detL : detL = Rhino.GetReal(“Detail level”, 20)
‘Dim attPt : attPt = Rhino.GetPoint(“get att point”)

Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(False)

Dim uDom, vDom, uStep, vStep

uDom = Rhino.SurfaceDomain(surf,0)
uStep = (uDom(1)-uDom(0)) / detL

vDom = Rhino.SurfaceDomain(surf,1)
vStep = (vDom(1)-vDom(0)) / detL

Dim i, j, pt

Dim arrPnts : arrPnts = Array()
Dim k,m : k = -1 : m = -1
Dim ptN, arrCrv : arrCrv = Array()
Dim range, distance

For i = uDom(0) To uDom(1) + uStep Step uStep
m = m + 1
ReDim Preserve arrCrv(m)
For j = vDom(0) To vDom(1) – vStep Step vStep

‘Rhino.Print(j)

k = k + 1
pt = Rhino.EvaluateSurface(surf,Array(i,j))

‘distance = Rhino.distance(pt, attPt)
‘range = distance * distance  / ( distance /3)
range = 0.0001 + j

ptN = Array(pt(0) + RandomNumber(-range, range), pt(1) + RandomNumber(-range, range), pt(2) + RandomNumber(-range, range))

ReDim Preserve arrPnts(k)
arrPnts(k) = ptN
Next
k = -1
arrCrv(m) = Rhino.AddInterpCurve(arrPnts)
Next

Call rhino.AddLoftSrf(arrCrv)

Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(True)
End Sub

Function RandomNumber(nMin, nMax)
RandomNumber = Null
If Not IsNumeric(nMin) Then Exit Function
If Not IsNumeric(nMax) Then Exit Function
If nMin >= nMax Then Exit Function
Randomize
RandomNumber = ((nMax – nMin + 1) * Rnd + nMin) / 50
End Function